http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v253r...eature=related

Good luck over there. Our doom here is seald anyway.

In his speeches, I see frightening parallels with Hitlers speeches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVnRz...eature=related

Just came across this clip here, coincidentally I started suspecting him just to be the same. Couldn't said it better myself.

And don't you understand how our country is drained by the cost of keeping smokers and those they affect healthy? How much do we spend on Medicare for smoking-related diseases? How many hours of productivity does our country lose from diseases or deaths caused by smoking?

I don't know the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if the economic drain caused by smoking is bigger than its contribution to the economy.

That said, I agree with those who say that this won't reduce the number of smokers. It will simply make them pay more, which will enable children of low-income families to get health care. I don't see what's wrong with healthy kids.

As for the black market, if Obama was banning cigarettes, I'd agree with you. It would be Prohibition all over again. But I don't think increasing the price will create an Al Capone of cigarettes. There might be a small increase in black market activity, but I don't think most consumers will go through the effort of getting something on the black market every day that they can get legally. The black market is fine for one-time purchases (like a fake Gucci bag), but using it for something you buy every few days is too much of a hassle for most consumers.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Yeah, so-called "sin taxes" have been around for years and years, and I agree with them.

This is NOT socialism nor is it redistributionism. This is a tax on an item that one can choose to either partake or not partake in. I know this first hand - I smoked for 25 years.

But more importantly, as someone pointed out it is typically the lower-income folks that indulge in this habit. It is also typically lower-income folks who are uninsured. So now we run into ACTUAL socialism and redistribution of wealth as someone must pay for the inevitable medical care these people will require.

Also, doesn't anyone see the irony that certain lower-income individuals who'd have the most to gain by keeping in good health also be the riskiest with their health? Or, that they would spend sizable portions of their already limited income simply on cigarettes?

Think about that.

The problem with all of this is reduced smoking is possible and that reduces cost for smoking related illness goes hand and had but, it also reduces the tax revenue for the child healthcare. It would seem people want it both ways. For health issues for things people do, how about a tax on fatty foods and other unhealthy eating habits many partake? A lot focus on smoking and the healthcare costs but not much is addressed in the poor eating habits of people and the healthcare associated with bad eating habits.

But again, this is not socialism or anything new. Tobacco has been taxed for years. Nothing new here.

I agree with what you say here 100%. The sin tax covers a wide variety of people. Some do all and some do a few. All use gas for their cars. Everyone is getting taxed in one form or another concerning the sin taxes.

Now it's cigarettes and alcohol but in actuality just about any human activity short of those things absolutely necessary to maintain life could be considered "sins" to be taxed.

You like to ski?, well skiers tend to have more broken legs than non skiers. Pay a sin tax. Like to ride a motorcycle? Ohh that's dangerous! Pay a sin tax. Swim in lakes or the ocean? You recklessly expose yourself anything from a shark bite to swimmers ear. Pay a sin tax. Like to go out nightclubbing, where you might get into a fight? Pay a sin tax.

If you don't think it can happen think again. Already they are talking about fatty foods, what's next?

Well, skiing or riding a motorcycle is not something everyone does. It is not addictive in the same sense like a drug is (alcohol, nicotine). You cover a majority of the people by taxing alcohol, tobacco and gasoline. Everyone uses at least one of these. As far as fatty foods, lets take a look at it. Smokers get beat to death for smoking. Taxed and frowned at. Told to go smoke outside basically feeling like a leper yet we want your taxed cigarette money because of healthcare costs. Ok, fine. Let's take a looks at fat burger city with a gallon of coke to wash it down along with his french fries. You can feel your arteries clogging right now...no? Well, this causes health problems with continuing to eat like this. Tit for tat....why not tax fatty with ribeye smothered in onions, mushrooms and a few pints of gravy on top. After all, should you or I pay for the bypass surgery? COME ON AUGUST..THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU!

That's a good point, but there is a huge distinction. The PUBLIC cost for treating sports-related injuries is significantly lower than smoking. Furthermore, most athletes tend to be covered by insurance. But finally, one could argue that the benefits of an athletic, active lifestyle far outweighs the risk.

What I don't get is how certain ideologies are in favor of one kind of socialism (supporting the healthcare of smokers) but are opposed to others.

As far as fatty foods goes, its STILL different than smoking as the foods do possess some nutritional value. Smoking does not.

I disagree with the seemingly prevalent assertion that this is not a socialist measure. It is indirect nationalization of private industry through unconstitutional tax sanctions.

As for what it costs the U.S. healthcare system, perhaps the main problem is that we have socialized forms of healthcare. First liberals want nationalized healthcare and then they want to regulate/influence people's activities because they provide their healthcare? That's a slippery slope to socialism and significant violations of individual rights.

Everything about this and similar legislation reeks of socialism. It's just a sneaky way of doing it.

One more thing;
There is some truth in this. However, the black market is still a market and functions as one. As soon as the desired goods become too scarce or expensive, the black market begins to function like a normal market.
It would be incorrect to assume that purchases of frequently-used products are not common on the black market. The pervasive influence of the illegal drug industry should be evidence enough, but many other examples exsist.

You know alot of you make sense. In fact lets expand this whonderfull idea!! Fat people are unhealthy and run higher risks of heart disease as well as a whole host of other medical issues. They are a burden on our healthcare system! We need a Fat tax! First we will tax the people per pound then we will add tax's to their cheesburgers and chicken nuggets from McDonalds. Think of the benifits! People will lose weight! And the government can pay for all of the poor families to have homes, and transportation and medical care. Forgett the fact that we just removed all motivation to better onself, Let the government take care off you! Eh Comerade?:nope:

I somewhat see your point, but I don't believe that such a tax is unconstitutional.

For the sake of argument, though, let's say that it is socialist. Also, there is no doubt that the public having to pay for related healthcare is socialist. So, unless we're willing to cease all public money for tobacco-related healthcare (my first choice), SOMEONE should have to pay for it.

I believe that such a responsibility should fall upon the smokers themselves. Hence, the tax. Although, in my opinion, using a Pigovian tax such as a tax on cigarettes is perfectly in tune with the principles of capitalism. Sure, it penalizes an industry. However, capitalism is NOT intended to permit an industry to penalize the public in order to support it's profit margins. If an industry is a burden on, say, the public healthcare system, than that industry is accountable to that system.

Just like the shipping industry is a burden on our transportation system, and they pay a large amount of transportation-related taxes.

Not every argument can be simplified into the "it's bad because of the slippery slope" idea.

If there were a "fat tax" or a tax on fatty foods, I'd argue against it. Why? Because the priciple is different. People NEED to eat. People do NOT need to smoke. Taxing the personal choices of something that people NEED to do is quite different than doing so on something people do NOT need to do.

The public cost of smoking is way less than that of drinking but that didn't stop them from going after smoking now did it? Now fatty foods are next on the hit list but guaranteed there will be something after that, maybe video games, maybe skydiving or skiing, what it will be I can't say, but it will be something.

Any activity that incurs some cost to the government will eventually be taxed and regulated. It is the nature of the beast.

All they need is for their target to be a small enough minority that it won't have enough political power to stop it so don't think that just because there is too much opposition to an taxing an activity today that will always be the case.

For example, there was a time when overtaxing smoking, say post WW2, would have resulted in protests large enough to make pols worry about their chances for reelection if they signed off on it. No more. I remember the arguments when they first started considering banning smoking in the workplace. Few people thought it would ever be enacted, given the percentage of smokers to non smokers but things change and they will continue to do so.

Yes, but people do not need a 3 pound steak and a pound of mashed potatoes smothered in butter for nutrition either. Eating is a need, yes. Eating food more nutritious than others is a choice as is smoking. You will find that the government has already attacked the transfats in restaurants. They are looking at a snack tax here in MD because people buy more snack foods(cookies, tastykakes) than fruits. NY is working on a soft drink tax. These are the items consumed in tons daily. This is adding to the sin tax. They are getting clever and cover it under the guise of being concerned for your health.

Just remember Mike, people don't NEED to eat fatty foods either. There are plenty of non fatty foods to take care of the sustenance requirement.

The 'pole' tax

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03112009...are_158991.htm

There is August but my wife will tell you, eating nutritiously is costly. If she were to get the foods that were on the top of the list for the best healthiest eating, she would spend an additional $100.00 to $150.00 a week. You see, the rush to being healthy comes at a price much like anything else that becomes popular or the rage. But you now, you can still get that happy meal at Mac D's for $3.15. :up:

Exactly.

Damn it...a $1.00 lap dance is now $1.20 including the tax:damn: :down: