BTW what were we saying about a slippery slope?

Introducing a new tax candidate:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencean...rs-father.html

Ah yes, the English love of taxing everything. Isnt that why we threw them out and founded this great nation? I wish somebody would dump Obama's Socialism in to the bay of Boston the way we did with English tea over 225 years ago.

You do realize that the colonials were only upset that they couldn't argue about the taxes, and not the taxes themselves. Britain itself had more taxes than the 13 colonies.

"Taxation without representation" was the catch phrase, but truth be told the last thing we would have wanted was representation in Parliament because we'd be small and easily ignored voting block.

I wasn't speaking broadly. I was talking about the specific choice of taxing cigarettes or taxing the general populace to pay for the health care of smokers. I don't see any other choice being seriously considered. Do you?While this is good Constitutional theory (one could argue that "permit" and "not allow to be infringed upon" are the same thing), this doesn't really address my argument that smokers shouldn't be allowed to pass their enormous healthcare costs to the general taxpayer.That's very broad. Specifically, what harm do you see?The difference that we're having is that you see this as unconstitutional. I don't, because the Constitution specifically permits this. In fact, I submit that this type of tax is SPECIFICALLY what the Founding Fathers was referring to when they used the language of the excise tax. What I DO see as unconstitutional is allowing smokers to impose their very specific and very large healthcare burden on the rest of us.No one is surrendering any freedoms. Especially since this is an indirect tax is one that each citizen can choose ... which is why it is Constitutional.

Well, thank God that's in the UK...

I still don't believe in the "slippery slope" argument, ever. The problem is that the argument could be used against damned near anything, and it allows the person making the argument to just skate by without actually having to discuss the issue at hand.

For instance, let's use Undersea's belief in futhering the power of the individual states (something I *PARTLY* agree with). The slippery slope there is that I'd like to avoid having the liberal nutjob state of America, California, legislate for the rest of us. Think about it: if they decided to make, say, incredibly expensive high-fuel efficiency vehicles the law, do you really think car companies will make one type of car for California and another for the rest of us?

There's always a slippery slope. The problematic ones are typically avoided by focusing on the issues themselves.

Nor would you want the conservative "nutjob" states to govern for the rest of us, right?:up:

Of course. Except that there isn't a conservative nutjob state with the influence of California.

Besides, by definition conservatives don't propose tightened restrictions that would force businesses to adapt nationwide.

Heh, and have you noticed California's economy lately?

Yup. Double digit unemployment out there...

No, I don't see any other choice being considered and in my mind that is a greater threat than addressing the healthcare costs of smokers. I've been trying to explain why, but evidently you do not agree with my assessments. However, please allow me one more chance to discuss it with you in this reply.

Au contraire, it does apply. I know you are not a fan of the slippery slope argument but the evidence for it is already all around us. The whole reason that people paying for smokers' healthcare costs is even an issue is because of unconstitutional federal programs like medicare, medicaid, and social security. Those programs were all legislated into exsistence with the idea that they would ease the burden on the taxpayer(via distribution of healthcare costs) and also on the nation. Since those programs have failed to be cost-effective or even sustainable, more legislation and taxes have been needed to prop them up. All the while the deficits created or worsened because of these programs has been eroding the strength of the dollar as well. In the end, the general populace ended up footing the bill anyway, only instead of it being millions or billions of dollars per year the cost now runs into the tens of trillions.
Now we're on another threshold, this time in the name of universal healthcare, something this legislation supports. You already know what rampant federal spending has done to the economy and the nation, and what it will do to it. Can you imagine the damage that could be done if we refuse to pull in the opposite direction? If we just shrug and say, "Well, it is socialist, but we're headed that way anyway so, oh well."? What do you think that is going to do to the general taxpayer? As it is now, social aid will bankrupt the country within half a century. Supporting this bill, and the intent behind it, will only bring that collapse down on us sooner.

I'm a little surprised to see you ask this. I guess I was a very broad in my statement because the harms are so broad.
Let's start with increased federal spending and debt, despite the additional revenue from this legislation. Need I point to a federal initiative or thirty that have hade that effect? Or perhaps some that had that effect and yet still failed to do what they were supposed to do and are still around?
Of course, federal debt is undesireable because it inflates the currency, drives taxes up (discouraging spending and investment) and hampers the ability of the economy to recover and function normally when it outpaces average annual GDP growth. If this legislation were just a tax on tobacco it might not be so bad, but it is a tax on tobacco to support a universal healthcare initiative. We already know how much similar initiatives have cost and how thoroughly they have failed.
And the harms go on and on; stagflation, potential harm to a multi-billion dollar industry and the employeess thereof, contribution to a mounting debt that will collapse the dollar, etc..etc..


It can't be unconstitutional for smokers to impose costs on others because the Constitution does not regulate the citizenry, only the state. But I'm nitpicking, really.
The excise tax is constitutional, true enough, but an excise tax for the appropriation of funds for an unconstitutional expenditure is, well, unconstitutional.
If you'd like to see a tax on cigarrettes to support federal funding for post roads or defense or something, that's ok. (I'd still disagree with it, but it would be constitutional and I'd willingly abide in the event of passage) Even if you'd like to see it in a particular state to fund healthcare, it's ok. But it is not ok for the federal government to do this.


This statement alone could be another debate entirely, so I'll refrain from challenging it for now. However, the tax remains unconstitutional because it supports an unconstitutional expenditure.

I've pretty much spoken my piece, but I will consider any reply you make, should you choose to do so.