now for the bad news...
cig prices are set to go up again in another month or two
only rich people can smoke now...
This topic is locked from further discussion.
how dare you pollute my air... dude wtf is your problem?
how dare you pollute my air... dude wtf is your problem?
bigblunt537
I don't need a certificate. I own it and its that simple.
[QUOTE="bigblunt537"][QUOTE="bigblunt537"]
how dare you pollute my air... dude wtf is your problem?
PlaWeird
I don't need a certificate. I own it and its that simple.
Oh right. If I bow before you everytime before I smoke, can I pollute your air then? :oas long as you save me some clean air then your good to go ;)
All seriousness though why doo you choose to smoke? I have tried cigarettes several times and argh it just makes me want to throw up. Plus I know I don't need to say this because you already know. It kills you.
as long as you save me some clean air then your good to go ;)Good that we made a deal :P oh, seriously? Erm, it calms my nerves if I get nervous. I don't smoke too often, really. Just sometimes :?All seriousness though why doo you choose to smoke? I have tried cigarettes several times and argh it just makes me want to throw up. Plus I know I don't need to say this because you already know. It kills you.bigblunt537
Essentially smokers are the most persecuted minority in the United States. They pay high taxes on cigarettes, have to pay more for health insurance. There is more penalties in society for being a smoker than being gay.
Well I'm not proposing throwing people in jail for smoking any more than I think that prisons should be filled with potheads. However, we don't usually throw people in jail for speeding, but it is still illegal. In my mind the ideal thing to do if the government wanted to ban it would be to simply FINE people for smoking it. For the smoker, this would be EXACTLY the same incentive to quit smoking as if it were just taxed heavily...that being that smoking would cost a lot of money.
Whenever the legal process is involved in any way, money is involved. Officers must investigate and enforce the law, and yet another black market commodity will need to be monitored. Unlike less common substances, you'd likely also need to deal with massive protests, as all those who favor smoking will be mightily ticked off that they can no longer profit from their product, or that they can't get their daily 'fix.' Declaring a substance illegal IS the best way to minimize its use, but you pay for that. Tax, by contrast, is a passive means of dissuasion. It's the government's way of exerting influence with minimal direct involvement, and financially, it usually makes the most sense to do it that way, unless the behaviour is dangerous enough to warrant more aggressive control in the interests of public safety.
Another thing to consider is that costs are not the only thing determining if people stop buying a particular product. Another major factor is AVAILABILITY. Not that banning tobacco would ELIMINATE its availability. But it would DRASTICALLY cut down on its availability. If you take all of the big tobacco growers and simply put them right out of business, and pull tobacco off of store shelves, I'm sure there'd STILL be a black market for it. However, the black market would l almost certainly NOT be able to meet the massive demand for tobacco, and as a result of this you'd both see prices skyrocket due to the demand exceeding the quantity available. Furthermore, lots of people willing to keep smoking would be forced to quit not because of increased prices, but because of a simple lack of availability. If the goal is to get people to stop smoking, then outright banning it ought to be MORE effective than a simple tax increase, shouldn't it?
Most certainly it should cut down on easy availability. But even though it's banned, people seem to have awfully easy access to marijuana. You'd discourage the casual smokers with a ban, but the people who would benefit the most from cutting down or quitting would likely find a way to get their smokes. I suppose it depends on how easily tobacco can be grown. And that leads to another point to consider - is it fair to tell people who are gravely addicted to this substance that they are suddenly no longer allowed to use it? Just like that?
I agree with you that the best way to get rid of tobacco is to take a hardline approach. But if that happens there's going to be a great deal of dissent. People, especially in the States, are extremely sensitive to government control in their lives, regardless of whether that control is in their best interests or not. They maintain that an individual should be able to choose to pursue dangerous activities, so long as no one else is endangered. Unfortunately, they usually fail to understand that the damage an activity causes to society is not always direct and obvious. And that's one of the practical reasons that it makes more sense to take a more passive approach to correcting a problem when it is not a significant threat to public safety. Smokers hurt their society unintentionally and indirectly, not directly, and so I really don't think it would go over well if the government simply decided one day to villainize them over something they've been doing for decades of their lives.
With the tax strategy, people can still choose to smoke. They'll have good incentive to not smoke, but they can still smoke if they really want to. And theoretically, the extra money they pay in tax will help offset the cost of for their medical care. It would be much better if the money was not spent on entirely preventable medical expenses... but we don't live in a perfect world. Few smokers are so destitute that paying an extra few dollars on a pack of cigarettes will make it impossible to smoke at all. If anything, they may simply have to cut back. There are a few who may be essentially forced to quit. But if smoking was so incredibly important to them, they could work more to support their habit, or start spending less in other areas of their lives.
And yeah, you compared this to prohibition of alcohol. I think there is a big difference though. Alcohol is something that ANYONE can produce. People can even produce their own booze in PRISON, so one of the likely flaws of alcohol probition is likely that it is so hard to enforce. It's a lot easier to brew a huge vat of whiskey in your basement than it is to grow an acre of illegal tobacco on your property.
People seem to have awfully easy access to all manner of illicit materials. Even teens can easily get their hands on some marijuana. I'm personally not familiar with tobacco cultivation. Would it be as easy to grow as marijuana is?
And you'd surely counter that people could still grow tobacco illegally the same way that they grow marijuana illegally. But if the price of LEGAL tobacco were to go high enough, wouldn't that STILL open the door for an illegal black market that COEXISTS with the legal market? Take guns, for example. There is a big black market for guns, even though guns are legal. If the price of tobacco goes high enough due to excessive taxation, then even if tobacco remains legal wouldn't that open the door for a black market that can provide inexpensive tobacco simply by illegally avoiding the TAXES? If enough of a product's costs are just TAXES, then doesn't taxing that product too much STILL open the door for a troublesome black market simply due to the fact that the black market AVOIDS the taxes by virtue of being illegal?
Haha... you read my mind. It's possible, of course. In fact, I don't doubt that there's already a black market of sorts for cheaper-than-retail cigarettes. Like you said, a black market is going to exist one way or another. If you steal a carton of cigarettes, you can sell it for less than a legal vendor does and profit. Having a product that costs you nothing at all will obviously give you a competitive advantage. But buying through the black market is more difficult and risky. It's like pirated computer software. If this software can be acquired illegally for free, why does ANYONE aside from corporations that fear large lawsuits pay for it, let alone the majority? Simple. It's more convenient to obtain the product legally. I think it would take a pretty massive price hike to convince the majority of people to risk acquiring their cigarettes through the black market instead of through legal retailers.
Now granted, this depends on a lot of SPECIFIC details which I do not know about. Exactly how much DOES it cost to grow tobacco, HOW easy is it to meet demand without getting caught, and exactly how much are people actually WILLING to pay for tobacco? How much of it is imported, how much of it is produced domestically on large legal farms? CAN a black market produce affordable tobacco domestically? If the black market were to import all of their product illegally, would they be ABLE to make tobacco cheap enough for people to buy it? How much would banning tobacco affect its availability? To what extent will taxing it too much have pretty much the same extent on demand? HOW MUCH would tobacco even need to be taxed before the taxes EFFECTIVELY become a ban for those who like to smoke?
Unfortunately, I can't be of any assistance. It's not a topic I've researched extensively either. And there's one more rather cynical question that needs to be answered here, too - does the government want to eliminate a source of revenue in the form of cigarette taxation? Only a naive person would believe that public interest is the only thing the government has in mind when it raises taxes on tobacco. The effect is, in this case, positive, as people really would benefit from not smoking, and our medical resources could be directed elsewhere. But when you get right down to it, I'm sure that the financial aspect of this issue is one of the chief considerations of the people who direct cigarette-related policy. So there's another figure I'd like to see - how much revenue cigarette taxation generates, and how that figure compares to the government's medical expenses incurred as a result of tobacco use.
I don't know. That seems to be the sort of stuff that could only be predicted by very careful study and analysis. And I like to think that all of this stuff was worked out to a high degree of precision before the government said "hey, let's get people to stop smoking by taxing it!" But on the other hand, you know how the government acts a lot of the time. For all I know, they didn't think about ANY of the real consequences of this, and are just trying to make themselves look good. Time will tell, I suppose.
You and I both. I'm sure that some study has been devoted to the issue. The government can't do anything at all without devoting a few million dollars of study to it, whether or not the study amounts to anything useful. And I'm sure that public opinion plays a role in the decision, too. The government likes to do what's popular. So they strike a compromise - they appease the non-smokers by discouraging people from smoking, and they appease the smokers and tobacco industry by allowing them to continue using the product.
You also brought up another interesting point. When you stated that the poor (who are most likely to be heavy smokers) will STILL be able to afford cigarettes by cutting other costs, that brings up some dire implications. What if nobody even EXPECTS this to cut down that much on smoking? If the poor will mostly keep on smoking by cutting costs, WHERE is it predicted that the poor will cut costs in order to keep smoking tobacco? WHERE are people planning the poor to spend LESS money in order to support their habit? That'd be sort of important. And if somebody made an in-depth analysis on this, that we could tax the hell out of the poor and they'd still smoke by cutting costs, I'd like to see WHAT kinds of costs they were projected to cut in order to support their tobacco addictions. Phat rims on their cars? Stereo systems? Educational reading material and/or school supplies for their children? WHAT, exactly? If we can say "well, the poor can still afford to smoke, they'll just have to cut other costs", then WHAT other costs are we talking about here?
A very good question. One could certainly see this generating even bigger problems if parents decide to stop supporting their children in favour of smoking. In general, though, most people care about their kids. Despite all the cases we hear about where kids are abused or poorly supported, the majority of parents are willing to make small sacrifices for their children, at least when it comes to essentials. Again, we're probably not talking about stopping smoking. In most cases, a reduction in smoking would be the most likely outcome for those who really feel the squeeze financially. But that's all just my hunches. As you said earlier, time will tell what effect this has on smoking.
The one thing we do know is that smoking has been decreasing. People are becoming aware of its dangers, and it doesn't have the universal 'cool' appeal that it used to have. In fact, the pendulum seems to be swinging the other way. So at the very least, the educational component of this passive strategy seems to be having a positive effect if the goal is eliminating smoking-related costs to society.
MrGeezer
Essentially smokers are the most persecuted minority in the United States. They pay high taxes on cigarettes, have to pay more for health insurance. There is more penalties in society for being a smoker than being gay.
agturboninja
Duh. If you were a medical insurance firm, would you charge people the same flat rate, regardless of significant risk factors? Maybe you would, because if you get big enough, you can petition the government for bailout money when your business fails. But people who don't want their business to fail will realize that smokers SHOULD pay more than non-smokers for health insurance, because on average, they accrue greater medical expenses.
People choose to smoke. They don't choose to be homosexual. Second hand smoke is a potential health threat; second hand homosexuality is not. I'd like to hear how you'd justify a tax on a specific religion or sexual orientation...
Buy yr smokes on indian reservations dudes. Best idea.
Thanks, Pianist. I don't have any particular objections to any of your comments, nor do I even necessarily have the mere ability to either agree or disagree with all of them.
However, the biggest thing that your comments have confirmed for me is that this issue is probably a LOT more complicated than most people make it out to be.
You've brought up a lot of good counterpoints, none of which I can really refute. However, there are two main issues that I think are really relevant here. Is the goal of this legislation primarily to cut back on smoking, or is the goal primarily to simply rake in as much money as they can from people who are heavily addicted to an incredibly addicting drug? Or is there another level going on here, where there's a significant issue of merely APPEARING to take a hard stance against smoking while simultaneously not having the balls to alienate the massive numbers of voters who do smoke?
Answer? I don't know. But that's a question that awaits to be answered.
Secondly, as far as banning smoking being better or worse than simply taxing the hell out of smoking, that seems like it would LARGELY depend on what sort of hypothetical prices we're looking at for legal tobacco vs the ability of the black market to meet demand for smokers. I have no idea where this point lies, but at SOME point there must be a point at which it's actually in the average smoker's best interests to get their cigarettes illegally from the black market regardless of whether or not tobacco has been banned. I honestly have no idea where that point lies. But in any given situation, the smoker is really only considering one thing..."how much are these cigarettes worth to me"? If tobacco were to be outright banned and the penalties for buying it were lenient, then people might consider it worth the risk. Whereas if tobacco were banned and the penalties were pretty damn strict, the vast majority of smokers may just be forced to quit. At SOME point, taxing tobacco too much very well may make the smoker consider risking getting black market tobacco if the costs of being caught with black market tobacco are not high enough. Even if you keep it legal and simply tax the hell out of it, there must be SOME limit to HOW MUCH you can tax it before it is an effective ban and it's in the smoker's best interest to risk obtaining illegal cigararettes. Does THIS tax increase raise the price of legal tobacco above that critical point? I have no idea. Maybe people will still keep smoking, maybe not. Maybe the next one will. Maybe not. Where is the critical point at which the taxes become so much of an EFFECTIVE ban that the government might as well just ban it? I don't know. But there HAS to be some critical threshold here. Once the costs (not just monetary costs but overall costs) of buying LEGAL tobacco exceed the costs of buying black market tobacco, then all the consumer is considering is where he can get tobacc0o for the least cost.
But in any case, this issue seems a LOT more complex than almost everybody (including myself) tends to make it out to be.
Is it better to just ban tobacco rather than to keep on with this "passive aggressive" stance? I don't know. MAYBE. Perhaps I was wrong when I said that the government should just ban it.
Similarly, is it valid to say that anything that forces people to stop smoking is worth it? I don't know. MAYBE. Depends on the details of all of this.
All I can say right now is that the issue of how this is actually going to turn out is probably a lot more complicated than a lot of the people here make it out to be (myself included), and that we're probably just going to have to wait to see how this turns out.
Thanks, Pianist. I don't have any particular objections to any of your comments, nor do I even necessarily have the mere ability to either agree or disagree with all of them.
However, the biggest thing that your comments have confirmed for me is that this issue is probably a LOT more complicated than most people make it out to be.
You've brought up a lot of good counterpoints, none of which I can really refute. However, there are two main issues that I think are really relevant here. Is the goal of this legislation primarily to cut back on smoking, or is the goal primarily to simply rake in as much money as they can from people who are heavily addicted to an incredibly addicting drug? Or is there another level going on here, where there's a significant issue of merely APPEARING to take a hard stance against smoking while simultaneously not having the balls to alienate the massive numbers of voters who do smoke?
Answer? I don't know. But that's a question that awaits to be answered.
Secondly, as far as banning smoking being better or worse than simply taxing the hell out of smoking, that seems like it would LARGELY depend on what sort of hypothetical prices we're looking at for legal tobacco vs the ability of the black market to meet demand for smokers. I have no idea where this point lies, but at SOME point there must be a point at which it's actually in the average smoker's best interests to get their cigarettes illegally from the black market regardless of whether or not tobacco has been banned. I honestly have no idea where that point lies. But in any given situation, the smoker is really only considering one thing..."how much are these cigarettes worth to me"? If tobacco were to be outright banned and the penalties for buying it were lenient, then people might consider it worth the risk. Whereas if tobacco were banned and the penalties were pretty damn strict, the vast majority of smokers may just be forced to quit. At SOME point, taxing tobacco too much very well may make the smoker consider risking getting black market tobacco if the costs of being caught with black market tobacco are not high enough. Even if you keep it legal and simply tax the hell out of it, there must be SOME limit to HOW MUCH you can tax it before it is an effective ban and it's in the smoker's best interest to risk obtaining illegal cigararettes. Does THIS tax increase raise the price of legal tobacco above that critical point? I have no idea. Maybe people will still keep smoking, maybe not. Maybe the next one will. Maybe not. Where is the critical point at which the taxes become so much of an EFFECTIVE ban that the government might as well just ban it? I don't know. But there HAS to be some critical threshold here. Once the costs (not just monetary costs but overall costs) of buying LEGAL tobacco exceed the costs of buying black market tobacco, then all the consumer is considering is where he can get tobacc0o for the least cost.
But in any case, this issue seems a LOT more complex than almost everybody (including myself) tends to make it out to be.
Is it better to just ban tobacco rather than to keep on with this "passive aggressive" stance? I don't know. MAYBE. Perhaps I was wrong when I said that the government should just ban it.
Similarly, is it valid to say that anything that forces people to stop smoking is worth it? I don't know. MAYBE. Depends on the details of all of this.
All I can say right now is that the issue of how this is actually going to turn out is probably a lot more complicated than a lot of the people here make it out to be (myself included), and that we're probably just going to have to wait to see how this turns out.
MrGeezer
It's not really THAT complex, if you're a smoker at least. I'm part of a community of smokers who have all been affected by the taxes. The people who can afford it, keep smoking, those who can't, bum ciggarettes. Some of us even buy cartons out of state and sell them at a lower price on the "black market" (I suppose). As far as I'm concerned, you either smoke, or you don't, and it's not fair to keep taking more money out of essentially a large proportion of low-class ciggarette smokers.
Banning cigs would do absolutely NO good either. Ever seen Cold Turkey? It'll only piss a LOT of people off..not like prohibition pissed off, but still bad.
[QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]
Booze, I guess. That's the RESPECTABLE person's deadly addiction.
Kurt Vonnegut called cigarettes "the classy way to commit suicide."Cigarettes aren't classy any more, though. Booze has really taken tobacco's place as the deadly highly addicting drug that signifies class.
Hmm.... I'll go ahead and say you're wrong. I hope that's ok with you.Simple solution, quit.
It's not that easy. It was easy for me. I just decided I didn't want them anymore. I only had cravings for about a day. Then I was cured. Maybe I'm less inclined to become addicted to drugs than other personalitiy types, but still, in my eyes, people who can't quit smoking are weak. Or they just don't really want to quit.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment