If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS Atlanta)   Tripling the tobacco tax could save 200 million lives from smokers not affording cigarettes, losing desire to continue, no longer being assaulted by militant non-smokers   (atlanta.cbslocal.com) divider line 56
    More: Interesting, cigarette tax, smoking rates  
•       •       •

568 clicks; posted to Business » on 04 Jan 2014 at 9:35 AM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-04 08:53:35 AM
Is the UNLIKELY tag out sucking dick for cigarettes?
 
2014-01-04 09:59:49 AM
Right, you can simply price somebody out of their addiction.
 
2014-01-04 10:08:49 AM
And how do you propose we make up for the lost tax revenue now that nobody can afford to pay cigarette taxes anymore?
 
2014-01-04 10:11:43 AM

spman: And how do you propose we make up for the lost tax revenue now that nobody can afford to pay cigarette taxes anymore?


Make up for it in reduced health care costs?
 
2014-01-04 10:15:08 AM
What could possibly go wrong?
 
2014-01-04 10:25:38 AM
imgs.xkcd.com

Also: Researchers claim in a new review published in the New England Journal of Medicine that tripling cigarette taxes worldwide would save 200 million lives generate a shiatload of money to fund more researchers to investigate why tripling the cigarette tax reduced smoking deaths by only 11% while dramatically increasing criminal activity related to cigarette smuggling.

FTFTA
 
2014-01-04 10:50:56 AM
They try to do this in Ontario and in turn bootleg smokes smuggled into the province (usually from native reserves along the border) are super popular.
 
2014-01-04 10:53:28 AM
Woo Hoo!! Let's begin the tobacco smuggling.
 
2014-01-04 10:54:43 AM
You know what's worse than militant non-smokers? Militant Ex-smokers.
 
2014-01-04 10:57:03 AM
Hasn't it been proven time and time again that price has no correlation with addiction?
 
2014-01-04 11:00:35 AM

techgeek07: Hasn't it been proven time and time again that price has no correlation with addiction?


the econ term you are looking for is:
Price elasticity of demand
 
2014-01-04 11:02:39 AM
I guess the most optimistic reasoning would be that it would make more people turn to e-cigs, which I don't know why smokers don't do that anyway.

But more likely it'll wind up causing an increase in infant death as all the baby mommas choose cigs over baby food.
 
2014-01-04 11:10:33 AM
Oh, these idiots. Just raise the smoking age one year for every year that passes. Within five years, it will be obvious if someone underage is smoking. In ten years we will have adjusted to the change in tax revenues. In twenty years, well, all the smokers will be dead, and the problem solved.
 
2014-01-04 11:16:48 AM
No taxation without representation!
 
2014-01-04 11:25:06 AM

mechgreg: They try to do this in Ontario and in turn bootleg smokes smuggled into the province (usually from native reserves along the border) are super popular.


Then more organized crime and it becomes more violent. Then people enforcing the law either get in on the action or start getting killed over illegal smokes.

Those reserves are heavily armed.
 
2014-01-04 11:28:55 AM

jasonvatch: Oh, these idiots. Just raise the smoking age one year for every year that passes. Within five years, it will be obvious if someone underage is smoking. In ten years we will have adjusted to the change in tax revenues. In twenty years, well, all the smokers will be dead, and the problem solved.


I know you're joking but I can't imagine that there are any smokers who start smoking over the age of 15. They would have to be morons, right?
 
2014-01-04 11:32:35 AM

Mugato: jasonvatch: Oh, these idiots. Just raise the smoking age one year for every year that passes. Within five years, it will be obvious if someone underage is smoking. In ten years we will have adjusted to the change in tax revenues. In twenty years, well, all the smokers will be dead, and the problem solved.

I know you're joking but I can't imagine that there are any smokers who start smoking over the age of 15. They would have to be morons, right?


I keep planning on starting to smoke, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.
 
2014-01-04 11:48:52 AM

Mugato: I guess the most optimistic reasoning would be that it would make more people turn to e-cigs, which I don't know why smokers don't do that anyway.

But more likely it'll wind up causing an increase in infant death as all the baby mommas choose cigs over baby food.


Then they'll jack up the price on ecigs because bad bad bad.
 
2014-01-04 11:50:57 AM

Mugato: jasonvatch: Oh, these idiots. Just raise the smoking age one year for every year that passes. Within five years, it will be obvious if someone underage is smoking. In ten years we will have adjusted to the change in tax revenues. In twenty years, well, all the smokers will be dead, and the problem solved.

I know you're joking but I can't imagine that there are any smokers who start smoking over the age of 15. They would have to be morons, right?


I started in college.  Being a smoker worked out great for me.  I get why people do it and I get why people don't - but I'm not sure why people want to make it personal.  Different people, when faced with the same options, will choose differently.  It doesn't make them morons, it makes them people.  I enjoyed smoking.
 
2014-01-04 12:06:20 PM
I'll be the first to admit that smoking isn't healthy for you.
To modify a legal social behavior by government over taxation of a service or product is wrong.
To stop obesity should the overtax hamburgers ?
 
2014-01-04 12:12:20 PM

Chalji: spman: And how do you propose we make up for the lost tax revenue now that nobody can afford to pay cigarette taxes anymore?

Make up for it in reduced health care costs?


That only makes sense if the government was providing the health care.  Making cigarette taxes extremely high will do nothing but funnel money from the government to the healthcare industry in yet another example of corporate welfare.

/flaw in premise 1: Health insurers rape you for premiums if you are a tobacco user
/flaw in premise 2: Smokers don't live as long, so they pay into Social Security while being less likely to get anything back from it
/flaw in premise 3: The longer you live, the more you rack up healthcare expenses, especially in your later years when you're living on a diet of medication cocktails that need frequent adjustments
 
2014-01-04 12:17:03 PM

abhorrent1: You know what's worse than militant non-smokers? Militant Ex-smokers.


This is true, but I can see their perspective.  Exposure to irritants makes you more sensitive to later exposures.  After you quit smoking, the smell of lingering tobacco smoke on someone's clothes is nauseating, and the smell of it in the air is much, much worse.

Militant non-smokers are one thing, but the ex-smokers at least have violently negative physical responses behind their attitude.
 
2014-01-04 12:17:08 PM

Mister Peejay: Chalji: spman: And how do you propose we make up for the lost tax revenue now that nobody can afford to pay cigarette taxes anymore?

Make up for it in reduced health care costs?

That only makes sense if the government was providing the health care.  Making cigarette taxes extremely high will do nothing but funnel money from the government to the healthcare industry in yet another example of corporate welfare.

/flaw in premise 1: Health insurers rape you for premiums if you are a tobacco user
/flaw in premise 2: Smokers don't live as long, so they pay into Social Security while being less likely to get anything back from it
/flaw in premise 3: The longer you live, the more you rack up healthcare expenses, especially in your later years when you're living on a diet of medication cocktails that need frequent adjustments


^^^^^this

If someone has evidence to the contrary I'd like to know about it; but the studies I've seen show, clearly, that smokers and obese people cost the healthcare system less.  Healthy, non-smokers cost more by a significant margin.  Adding a tax on tobacco makes no rational sense.  People say it is to pay for additional healthcare, but that doesn't make any sense.  It's just a case of 'You want to do something I don't like, so I'm going to be a dick'.
 
2014-01-04 12:24:42 PM
Fark_Guy_Rob:

If someone has evidence to the contrary I'd like to know about it; but the studies I've seen show, clearly, that smokers and obese people cost the healthcare system less.  Healthy, non-smokers cost more by a significant margin.  Adding a tax on tobacco makes no rational sense.  People say it is to pay for additional healthcare, but that doesn't make any sense.  It's just a case of 'You want to do something I don't like, so I'm going to be a dick'.


Yah, if saving money were the goal, then cigarettes would be 50 cents a pack.  Drop dead of a heart attack or lung disease at 50, make way in the workforce for the next generation, and there's plenty of SS money in the coffers to care for the ones who make it past 65 so our elders don't need to live in drafty shacks in shiathole neighborhoods eating cat food on crackers.

/i had a point somewhere, but i got on a roll and went with it
 
2014-01-04 12:32:36 PM

Skunkwolf: mechgreg: They try to do this in Ontario and in turn bootleg smokes smuggled into the province (usually from native reserves along the border) are super popular.

Then more organized crime and it becomes more violent. Then people enforcing the law either get in on the action or start getting killed over illegal smokes.

Those reserves are heavily armed.


When they cut cigarette prices in Ontario it did cut the smuggling down and has since been ramped up to over what it was before.

Problem is this is being suggested in the states, ergo no smuggling. If they want it to work, they tax the tobacco manufacturers and let the costs roll to the consumer.
 
2014-01-04 12:43:58 PM

Mister Peejay: Chalji: spman: And how do you propose we make up for the lost tax revenue now that nobody can afford to pay cigarette taxes anymore?

Make up for it in reduced health care costs?

That only makes sense if the government was providing the health care.  Making cigarette taxes extremely high will do nothing but funnel money from the government to the healthcare industry in yet another example of corporate welfare.

/flaw in premise 1: Health insurers rape you for premiums if you are a tobacco user
/flaw in premise 2: Smokers don't live as long, so they pay into Social Security while being less likely to get anything back from it
/flaw in premise 3: The longer you live, the more you rack up healthcare expenses, especially in your later years when you're living on a diet of medication cocktails that need frequent adjustments


The government (or the people) are often passed on the costs of smokers that can't afford the care they are given. What percentage of smokers pay their entire health bill before their dirt nap?
 
2014-01-04 12:51:13 PM
rikkards:

Problem is this is being suggested in the states, ergo no smuggling. If they want it to work, they tax the tobacco manufacturers and let the costs roll to the consumer.

Different states have different taxes and the packs have different tax stamps on them depending on which state it was sold in.

Supposedly, two unopened packs is considered personal use but more than that and you're smuggling.  It used to be a big deal before Ohio raised its tobacco tax to similar levels as Michigan.

/not sure about other surrounding states
 
2014-01-04 12:57:17 PM
All I get from this is "stop liking things I Dont like"
 
2014-01-04 01:01:59 PM

Chalji: Make up for it in reduced health care costs?


Smokers already pay more than they cost in taxes.
 
2014-01-04 01:11:59 PM

rikkards: Problem is this is being suggested in the states, ergo no smuggling


Of course, because there is no other country that borders the states, where shiat is even cheaper than the US, and where thousands of people cross (both legally and illegally) every day.
 
2014-01-04 01:18:33 PM

edmo: Right, you can simply price somebody out of their addiction.


Worked for me: I quit when it was clear that cigarettes were going to be $5.00/pack within a couple of years.

Also, for health reasons, but mostly cost.
 
2014-01-04 01:32:04 PM

cig-mkr: I'll be the first to admit that smoking isn't healthy for you.
To modify a legal social behavior by government over taxation of a service or product is wrong.
To stop obesity should the overtax hamburgers ?


Just as much, they should tax the fat ass Total Farkers for every minute of recreation computer or tv time they use. Go outside, you fat farks. Quit farking up my healthcare.
 
2014-01-04 01:33:27 PM
I vaguely remember there being something about the US government not being allowed to use taxation to specifically put someone out of business.  This comes from a "Law 101" course that I took in college 30 years ago, so don't quote me on it.  One of the Fark Lawyers can probably add some detail...
 
2014-01-04 01:46:37 PM

Nemo's Brother: cig-mkr: I'll be the first to admit that smoking isn't healthy for you.
To modify a legal social behavior by government over taxation of a service or product is wrong.
To stop obesity should the overtax hamburgers ?

Just as much, they should tax the fat ass Total Farkers for every minute of recreation computer or tv time they use. Go outside, you fat farks. Quit farking up my healthcare.


STOP.

OBESE PEOPLE DO NOT FARK UP YOUR HEALTHCARE
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-a nd -smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/

The lifetime costs were in Euros:
Healthy: 281,000
Obese: 250,000
Smokers: 220,000

You can hate obese people, if that's your thing.  Call them lazy, smelly, whatever.  But they are cheaper than healthy people.  If you want lower health care costs, you could encourage everyone to be obese.  If there is a tax, we should place it on gyms and fitness clubs.  THOSE people are screwing up your healthcare system.  Unless you know of a flaw in the study's methodology, this is like arguing that water isn't wet.
 
2014-01-04 02:11:48 PM

Mister Peejay: rikkards:

Problem is this is being suggested in the states, ergo no smuggling. If they want it to work, they tax the tobacco manufacturers and let the costs roll to the consumer.

Different states have different taxes and the packs have different tax stamps on them depending on which state it was sold in.

Supposedly, two unopened packs is considered personal use but more than that and you're smuggling.  It used to be a big deal before Ohio raised its tobacco tax to similar levels as Michigan.

/not sure about other surrounding states

Didn't know that but it still stands, if you basically tax the producers (aka the tobacco growers) it would still affect everyone downstream

mechgreg: rikkards: Problem is this is being suggested in the states, ergo no smuggling

Of course, because there is no other country that borders the states, where shiat is even cheaper than the US, and where thousands of people cross (both legally and illegally) every day.


Forgot about them. :D
 
2014-01-04 02:44:47 PM

foo monkey: Then they'll jack up the price on ecigs because bad bad bad.


The "they" that are the tobacco companies aren't the same "they" that are the e-cigarette companies.
 
2014-01-04 02:48:46 PM
Or smoking could be outlawed. This ticky tack try taking tobacco settlement money while getting revenues by taxing addicted smokers is shiatty. If smoking is so bad, just outlaw it.
 
2014-01-04 02:49:41 PM
Eleventy billion people die of fourth hand smoke in the U.S. every minute. So let's put a 10000% tax on things that look like cigarettes.

// It's really hard to parody an anti-smoking zealot.
 
2014-01-04 02:50:33 PM

skinink: Or smoking could be outlawed. This ticky tack try taking tobacco settlement money while getting revenues by taxing addicted smokers is shiatty. If smoking is so bad, just outlaw it.


What cartel do you work for?
 
2014-01-04 05:04:59 PM
Well there is an upside to death panels. "You smoked your entire life? I'm sorry, chemotherapy just isn't in the cards for you. Here's a bottle of non-narcotic painkillers. Have a good death."
 
2014-01-04 05:13:48 PM
Just outlaw them and grandfather in anyone who's already over 18 at the time. Starting Jan 1 of 2015 they're illegal to sell to anyone who was born after Jan 1 1997. 50 years down the road there will be no more smokers.
 
2014-01-04 05:17:09 PM

edmo: Right, you can simply price somebody out of their addiction.


They really aren't that addictive, so black markets notwithstanding you probably could.

And don't give me that 'as addictive as heroin' rubbish or the 'folks in prison suck dick for them'. The former is crap. The latter doesn't account for the fact that smokes are used as money - people will certainly suck dick for money.
 
2014-01-04 05:19:41 PM
Mister Peejay:
This is true, but I can see their perspective.  Exposure to irritants makes you more sensitive to later exposures.  After you quit smoking, the smell of lingering tobacco smoke on someone's clothes is nauseating, and the smell of it in the air is much, much worse.

Militant non-smokers are one thing, but the ex-smokers at least have violently negative physical responses behind their attitude.


As an ex-smoker, I agree on the nausea factor, but I try to not be a dick about it.  Whenever possible, I do avoid being around cigarette smoke, though.
 
2014-01-04 05:25:11 PM

Nightjars: Mister Peejay:
This is true, but I can see their perspective.  Exposure to irritants makes you more sensitive to later exposures.  After you quit smoking, the smell of lingering tobacco smoke on someone's clothes is nauseating, and the smell of it in the air is much, much worse.

Militant non-smokers are one thing, but the ex-smokers at least have violently negative physical responses behind their attitude.

As an ex-smoker, I agree on the nausea factor, but I try to not be a dick about it.  Whenever possible, I do avoid being around cigarette smoke, though.


Ex full time smoker. Now I smoke at parties and when drinking.

But after I first quit I went about a year without a cig and I never got hypersensitive in this manner. I kind of enjoy the smell tbh.
 
2014-01-04 06:57:18 PM

skinink: Or smoking could be outlawed. This ticky tack try taking tobacco settlement money while getting revenues by taxing addicted smokers is shiatty. If smoking is so bad, just outlaw it.


As a smoker, I actually want cigarettes to cost $20 a pack. It would price or most of the riff raff and then we can go back to the days when smoking nice cigarettes was cool and high class. I'd like that, I think.
 
2014-01-04 06:59:43 PM
Or they'll just do what they do here in Ontario. Head to the nearest Reservation and buy them (illegally) from the Natives tax free.
 
2014-01-04 08:34:10 PM
Or smoking could be outlawed. This ticky tack try taking tobacco settlement money while getting revenues by taxing addicted smokers is shiatty. If smoking is so bad, just outlaw it.

Because no one drank booze when it was illegal, and no one smokes pot in states where it's illegal.

You are a farking moron, and I'm an idiot for even acknowledging and responding to a child spewing uninformed garbage.

How do you live in a mind so small?
 
2014-01-04 09:13:13 PM

Lusiphur: skinink: Or smoking could be outlawed. This ticky tack try taking tobacco settlement money while getting revenues by taxing addicted smokers is shiatty. If smoking is so bad, just outlaw it.

As a smoker, I actually want cigarettes to cost $20 a pack. It would price or most of the riff raff and then we can go back to the days when smoking nice cigarettes was cool and high class. I'd like that, I think.


After 15 years of smoking I quit for a number of reasons, one of them being it was too expensive and after calculating what I spent on cigs in a year I decided I rather have the money for other things. Another reason is that toward the end of the time I smoked I refused to give a smoke to anyone who asked because I had people trying to bum one from me all the time. If I had given a cig to every person who asked, I would have given half my pack away all the time.There a few times where people actually threatened me when I said no, like because they asked I was obligated to give one. Fark that. I smoked in the first place to relax, not to have some jerks tell me what I can and can't do with my stuff.
 
2014-01-04 09:40:48 PM

Lusiphur: s a smoker, I actually want cigarettes to cost $20 a pack. It would price or most of the riff raff and then we can go back to the days when smoking nice cigarettes was cool and high class. I'd like that, I think.


As a smoker, WTF?:  LOL. Unless you're 15 and don't know any better, WTF? lol


/lol
 
2014-01-05 12:22:07 AM

If I were human I believe my response would be "go to hell."...


static2.wikia.nocookie.net


If I were human.

 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report