Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 17 to 24 of 39

Thread: Cigarette company openly soliciting political action.

  1. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Posts
    3,516

    Post Re: Cigarette company openly soliciting political action.

    Quote Originally Posted by big easy View Post
    this is a discussion about taxation not regulation.. if they want to regulate it in regards to making it against the law to sell to minors, putting the warning labels and keeping people from smoking in certain indoor areas, that's cool... studying the harmful effects and what have you fine...

    cigarettes are taxed to death..the taxes are increasing the costs..not the tobacco companies.... and when you support draconian taxation you ARE tipping into the pockets of smokers and it serves no useful purpose for society.. there's no moral or logical reason for it other than just hating cigarettes and wanting to punish those who smoke...period...nuclear weapons?...gimme a break
    Smokers (myself included) choose to smoke even knowing that at some point smoking can become an addiction and it may control their lives in regards as to making sure they have smokes, lighter, get the nicotine level up. I can take it or leave it....often don't smoke for days or weeks at a time.

    Smoking may be legal, but the cost to taxpayer's who don't smoke and who still pay a part for health care premiums for others who do and are covered under their insurance or Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

  2. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    89

    Post Taxation IS a means of regulation. And smoking is bad....

    Hi BE,

    Quote Originally Posted by big easy View Post
    this is a discussion about taxation not regulation..
    Taxation is both a means for generating revenue and also a common means for regulating (as in "throttling" or moderating the flow or use or directing the flow or use). Capital gains taxes are an example; to encourage long-term investment over short-term. The so-called "energy credits" are another. The "gas guzzler" tax is another. Trade tarifs are a type of regulation by taxation that we allremember from 5th grade.

    Quote Originally Posted by big easy View Post
    ...cigarettes are taxed to death..
    That wasn't supposed to be funny, I hope.

    Quote Originally Posted by big easy View Post
    ...the taxes are increasing the costs..not the tobacco companies....
    Yes; now you're getting it. That is the point. The tax, unfortunately, has to do what the tobacco companies have not stepped up to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by big easy View Post
    ...it serves no useful purpose for society.. there's no moral or logical reason for it other than just hating cigarettes and wanting to punish those who smoke...
    Ah; there you are clearly mistaken. Higher taxes are specifically meant to help society by encouraging smokers to quit and discouraging new smokers from starting down the road to perdition.

    It does work; see Canada for a long-term example of how it helps. See most of nothern Europe for further examples. The USA is sort of in the middle of the scale. For examples on the other end, look in places where smoking is not regulated. (Click here for a sample article.)

    Good luck with that cough, dude.

  3. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: Cigarette company openly soliciting political action.

    Quote Originally Posted by big easy View Post
    this is a discussion about taxation not regulation.. if they want to regulate it in regards to making it against the law to sell to minors, putting the warning labels and keeping people from smoking in certain indoor areas, that's cool... studying the harmful effects and what have you fine...

    cigarettes are taxed to death..the taxes are increasing the costs..not the tobacco companies.... and when you support draconian taxation you ARE tipping into the pockets of smokers and it serves no useful purpose for society.. there's no moral or logical reason for it other than just hating cigarettes and wanting to punish those who smoke...period...nuclear weapons?...gimme a break
    But taxation IS a form of regulation, bigeasy......and is particularly easy to do in the case of cigarettes because, well, the ADDICTION factor! And there are ways to get around those taxes- folks around here buy their cigarettes on the Indian reservation just to avoid paying taxes.
    But seriously, you don't really think there is some nefarious cabal of immoral and cruel folks passing tax after tax on cigarettes just because they hate them and want to persecute you? Talk about embracing victimhood! You shouldn't take this personal bigeasy...........it's much more about money than it is about anything else.

  4. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    1,404

    Question Re: There in is to who to believe. Company research or otherwise.

    Nobody anywhere believes that secondhand smoke is healthy. The main point of that article was that the unhealthy aspects of it may be exagerated somewhat. Smoking, of couse, is an unhealty habit. But is it the role of the government to change those habits.?Shouldn't personal property rights have some say in whether or not an establishment chooses to allow smoking on its premisis? Nobody is forcing you to enter that bar/restaurant. You make that choice just as employees make the choice whether or not to work there.

    If we let the free market decide, smoking will probably become less and less common all the time. More and more eating establishments are going smoke-free by their own choice. I know Applebee's has. I went there a few months ago with a friend who smokes and she had to leave her cigarettes in her purse. One of the major hotel chains, Marriot, I think, is changing to a totaly smoke free environment. They must have decided what they would lose by not having smokers as guests would be more than made up in reduced cleaning costs and having happier guests who do chose to stay.

    The whole attitde towards smoking has changed so much in the past twenty to thirty years. I remember when I was a kid in the '50's and the '60's it seemed as if everybody I knew had parents who smoked. Smoking was so commonplace it went on everywhere and nobody thought anything about it. Now, with a minority of the population smoking attitudes are quite different. More and more people want to eat out at places that don't allow smoking. That number is getting bigger all the time. Establisments will become non-smoking as a matter of ecconomic survival. We don't need laws to make it happen it will happen on its own. And if the changes happens naturally through market forces there will be a lot less anger and resentment than when it is done through the force of Big Brother,

  5. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,781

    Re: Cigarette company openly soliciting political action.

    good post Katy...and Dr Mike I understand that we would all be better off without tobacco... smokers already pay more for life and health insurance and since they die earlier, that reduces costs associated with them in many other ways..

    My point as I said inititally, is that government has NO right to regulate the LEGAL habits of citizens based on individual freedoms outlined in the spirit of the Constitution... now I know cigs are not listed in the Constitution, but if you are familiar with it, and what the main emphasis of it was overall, you have to agree that we are simply using the document for toilet paper when legislation to this degree is exercised....

    if you agree that government has the right to tax a legal product in order to curtail the use, then you must also be willing to admit that in this particular area of Constitutional freedom, you could give a rat's behind....

    what's next...ribeyes?, butter?....lobster and shrimp have lots of cholesteral too..no? fast food?...how can you not justify excessive taxation on these products as well since reduced consumption of them would also make us a healthier society?

  6. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Re: Cigarette company openly soliciting political action.

    "My point as I said inititally, is that government has NO right to regulate the LEGAL habits of citizens based on individual freedoms outlined in the spirit of the Constitution..."

    That's just ridiculous, bigeasy- of course a government has the legal right to regulate potentially dangerous things- it's called living in a CIVILIZED society!

  7. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: There in is to who to believe. Company research or otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by justkathy View Post
    Nobody anywhere believes that secondhand smoke is healthy. The main point of that article was that the unhealthy aspects of it may be exagerated somewhat. Smoking, of couse, is an unhealty habit. But is it the role of the government to change those habits.?Shouldn't personal property rights have some say in whether or not an establishment chooses to allow smoking on its premisis? Nobody is forcing you to enter that bar/restaurant. You make that choice just as employees make the choice whether or not to work there.

    If we let the free market decide, smoking will probably become less and less common all the time. More and more eating establishments are going smoke-free by their own choice. I know Applebee's has. I went there a few months ago with a friend who smokes and she had to leave her cigarettes in her purse. One of the major hotel chains, Marriot, I think, is changing to a totaly smoke free environment. They must have decided what they would lose by not having smokers as guests would be more than made up in reduced cleaning costs and having happier guests who do chose to stay.

    The whole attitde towards smoking has changed so much in the past twenty to thirty years. I remember when I was a kid in the '50's and the '60's it seemed as if everybody I knew had parents who smoked. Smoking was so commonplace it went on everywhere and nobody thought anything about it. Now, with a minority of the population smoking attitudes are quite different. More and more people want to eat out at places that don't allow smoking. That number is getting bigger all the time. Establisments will become non-smoking as a matter of ecconomic survival. We don't need laws to make it happen it will happen on its own. And if the changes happens naturally through market forces there will be a lot less anger and resentment than when it is done through the force of Big Brother,
    May be exaggerated "somewhat"? Tell me, are the statistics of children having asthma in this country "exaggerated"? Are the numbers on lung cancer, emphysema and COPD "exaggerated"? It's a scientific fact that there are over 4,000 noxious and poisonous chemicals in cigarette smoke- you think that's "exaggerated"? Please.
    I just can't agree with your claim that market forces should determine all public policy- it's just not either practical or effective. People, including lots and lots of children, get hurt that way. When they don't have to.
    It would be wonderful to imagine that every corporation would automatically do the right and moral thing....and that personal individual actions have much more power and importance than corporate money and power.
    But it just ain't so. While the cigarette industry pours billions of dollars into trying to frame this as a civil rights issue, they are also using every tool at their disposal to hook children and teens into smoking...and to keep adults smoking. And if they hadn't been forced into stopping advertising on most of the media, they would be also be spending billions to convince the public that smoking is great for you. And, like it or not, that advertising and psychological warfare does work. Your average citizen just busy trying to get through the day, can't possibly fight the influence and collective power of all that money and advertising.
    I can remember when smoking was as casual and common as breathing also..........but we didn't know then what we know now. And we still wouldn't know any of that now if cigarrette companies had their way. This is a company that's actively KILLING it's donors.....and busy now trying to KILL gullible victims overseas.
    Collective society has a right to protect itself (especially its weakest and youngest members) from harm. The only effective way to reign in an industry like the cigarette one is through the power of government.
    You can't drink and drive in public. You see, hoping and wishing that every individual too drunk to drive wouldn't just didn't work out too well, did it? And you shouldn't be able to smoke in public.

  8. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,781

    Re: Cigarette company openly soliciting political action.

    the 2nd hand smoke "studies" were done in order to have the desired outcome..just like Kathy said..nobody is claiming that 2nd hand smoke is totally harm free... there is credible evidence that says that it is not as bad as what people have been led to believe....

    many people get emphysema without ever smoking...asthma was around before tobacco I'm sure....

    putting the warning labels on smokeis hardly saying they are good for you I would think..

    those who do it, or not being sold a false bill of good reines... you seem to want to blame the tobacco companies for everything and throw individual accountability out the window in your usual typical left winged fashion

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •