Comments on: FIRST, THEY CAME FOR THE SMOKERS

By: Pam

Pam — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 02:03:09 +0000

There are people who don’t want to be seen as “busybody” or “nanny-ish”, so they justify their villification of smokers with the health-care argument. (Like the apparently perpetually pissed-off lionheart, who might want to consider a smooth Scotch and a cigar.)

My problem with this attitude in general is that it puts everybody in some kind of pseudo-karmic debit column.

How do I know all of the effects a person will wield in their life? Net positive? Net negative? For me, or someone else? How can I possibly know this?

I can tell you this. If some lefty, pissed-off, chain-smoking person happened to be near by and, by the vagaries of chance, did something like save my kid’s life, what would I do? Bitch about his/her politics? Crab about their smoking? I think, rather, I’d be kissing that person’s feet.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:10:16 +0000

As a pipe smoker, I applaud your blog here. Strangely enough, my tobacco is not taxed that much (I get mine as special blends for as little as $2.50/oz with much fewer chemicals which I enjoy immensely on weekends). My tobaccos are aromatic so people *actually* complement the smoke who would otherwise kick me to the curb with a cigarette or cigar (which I also enjoy at times). Other smokers’ reactions/analysis welcome.

By: parisdawg

parisdawg — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 03:10:29 +0000

I don’t smoke but I don’t like the growing trend toward taxation. I’m not too concerned about it being a tax on the poor since for the most part they pay little,if any, Fed and State income taxes anyway, except for consumption taxes.
Shouldn’t we promote smoking to keep the tax revenue up. So many programs are now dependent on the tobacco tax that we can’t afford to lose it. In this crazy scheme smokers should be applauded, not scolded.

By: USpace

USpace — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:47:08 +0000

.
The governments imposing these tobacco taxes are actually committing racist acts since most smokers are lower income, and many of them are minorities. Obama committed a racist act with this tax increase. Completely regressive. Why don’t they tax cigs $1,000 a carton?

They don’t want all people to quit, just enough to toot their horns to justify their tyranny. They will still be able to rely on all those taxes continually coming in from the hardcore addicts, which at the increasingly obscene rates will easily make up the taxes lost from the small percentage of quitters.
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
raise taxes on the poor

tax cigs 300 percent
hurt poor smokers the most

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
create racist outcomes

raise some taxes on the poor
hurt minorities the most
.

By: Jack Diederich

Jack Diederich — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:26:36 +0000

Have you read Jacob Sullum’s (of Reason mag) “For Your Own Good: The anti-smoking crusade and the tyranny of public health”? Ten years later it is still spot-on.

By: MAS1916

MAS1916 — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:41:59 +0000

As they discovered in Oregon.. tax policy does in fact impact behavior. Taxing gasoline, encouraging use of hybrid cars and encouraging use of mass transit drove revenues from gas taxes down - leaving Oregon lefties looking for another way to get their people’s money. Now they are looking at a ‘mileage tax’ to keep the dollars coming in.

Wonder what Obama will do here. He has to find another vice to tax. Perhaps he can tax use of the word ‘inherited.’

By: lionheart

lionheart — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:37:10 +0000

You would be hard-pressed to somebody that is more in favor of individual liberties than me. However, here is my problem with smokers:

1. A larger percentage of poor people smoke than affluent people. When these people get sick, Joe Taxpayer is stuck with the medical bill, and that pisses me off.
2. Few people would wad up a McDonalds wrapper and throw it out the window while driving- most people are appalled at such behavior. But many smokers act like cigarette butts are not litter (based on personal experience of following cars with smokers at night- its easy them fling them out the window). Not only does that introduce litter, it has been responsible for many, many wildfires, and probably lives lost. That pisses me off.
3. Finally, while you honor other people’s wishes to not smoke in their presence, many smokers (also based on personal experience), act as if their personal liberty trumps my personal liberty- and that pisses me off.

So, while I am very sympathetic to any encroachment on your liberties, I understand people’s reluctance to support your position, based on (as a minimum) those 3 items above.

By: Farmer Don

Farmer Don — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 03:36:21 +0000

Rick,
You and your government agree that banks have to be saved.
That costs money.
Taxes are going up.
Get used to it.

By: JTK

JTK — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 01:43:18 +0000

Has the tax on alcohol been raised as well ? It destroys more lives, marriages etc. And when was the last time someone smokinh while driven killed a car load full of folks because he smoked too much.

By: Surabaya Stew

Surabaya Stew — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 23:26:54 +0000

The (Anti)Anti-Smokers are fighting a losing demographic battle. As the current smokers die off, fewer young smokers are replacing them. I fully expect cigarette smoking to be 99% restricted to teenagers and 20-somethings in their “rebelling against stuff for a few years phase” by the time retirement rolls around for me. Perhaps cigars and pipes will have better luck holding out against the inevitable, but its not likely with tobacco taxes on the rise.