poll
by | Allow smokers to be firehosed | |
| Increase penalty for smoking publicly or around children | |
| Outlaw tobacco completely | |
| Increase taxes on smoking | |
| Further remove smokers from public areas | |
| No solution needed | |
| Existing restrictions should be eased/removed | |
| Block it with first hand smoke (i.e., get everyone to start smoking) |
Add a Comment (12)
Email This
Message Author
I am not a smoker. There was a period of two months where (for whatever reason) I smoked a tobacco pipe whenever I got in the car. And I smoked a hand rolled cigarette after most meals. The only thing I ever found habit forming was the act of having something to do when I got in the car or something to do after a meal. I never found tobacco itself habit forming. One day I lost my pipe (an antique wooden one at that) and, conceding that smoking is also unhealthy, decided I should stop.
Now that I have that caveat out of the way...
I was recently discussing tobacco taxes with a co-worker of mine…as he stood outside smoking. He is a smoker and has been for decades. He is also very well off. He lives in the mountains, shops on Rodeo Dr. and likes his BMWs with fewer miles on them than his shoe size. He has a B.A. in communications from UCLA. As you will see below, he is statistically rare.
"I don't care if cigarettes get to be $10/pack. I'm still going to smoke. I know it's probably bad for me, but I like smoking." But he poses what I think is a good question: what about the proverbial lower-middle class wage earner living paycheck to paycheck who is just as addicted, but makes $30K and has to support kids or pay bills AND purchase cigarettes to make it through his day?
Keep that in mind and let's look at the SCHIP Bill that was recently passed by the House and Senate, but vetoed by President Bush. Go ahead and skim down to the end of the fourth paragraph in that NPR story to find where and how the money was going to come from to fund SCHIP..........did you see it?
A $0.61/per pack tax on CIGARETTES!!!
Now let's look at who smokes in the U.S.
According to the CDC, 56.9% of smokers live at or below the poverty line. Presumably, most of these receive Medicaid. So Congress wants to tax those people to pay for lower-middle class children to have healthcare? I can not see how this is justified. Is there nowhere else (ahem..the quagmire) from which to pull out funds? And why is Congress burdening citizens who wait tables, change oil or dig ditches for a living with this tax?
I would totally agree with Congress if they could show that people in this demographic are sneaking into middle-class households at night, breathing smoke on innocent, sleeping children. Where is the correlation between people who smoke cigarettes and children who need healthcare? In other words, a gasoline tax to pay for roads makes sense. The structure of the proposed SCHIP plan does not.
By comparison, just 18% of people with a college degree smoke. The presumption I am making here is that people with a college degree are more likely to obtain employment that either a) offers benefits, b) pays a wage significant enough to purchase their own healthcare.
(Or if SCHIP had passed, c) enroll their child in SCHIP)
Furthermore, taxing tobacco is a total cop out for legislators because they know they can always fund any "goodwill" project on the backs of smokers because no one wants to be seen as soft on smokers or as a friend of the Tobaacco Industry. Tobacco is one of America’s demons that it wrestles with. Congress could always cut the DoD budget by 1% (this results in $30 billion over 5 years) and use that money to fund healthcare for children who live just above, at and below the poverty line. But no, they want to tax (predominantly) poor, uneducated people.
Besides, no one wants to appear soft on defense.
Perhaps when legislative bodies (Federal and/or State) pass higher taxes on cigarettes, they apply the theory that people will feel the economic pinch and it will influence smokers to quit. But this hypothesis can not hold water when applied to motorists and the rise in cost of gasoline. Despite the increase in gasoline prices, are Americans driving any less? I tried to look for statistics on this, but got impatient. My first reaction (again, not founded on any statistics) is that American driving patterns remain largely unchanged...if not increased. And gasoline prices have risen at least 61 cents per gallon over the past two years…which is still less than a pack of cigarettes.
The same is true with smoking. Taxes don't stop people from smoking. Just like with losing weight or going to rehab for drinking, quitting smoking is a behavior change that relies on a person making a decision for him or her self and sticking to it. In my opinion, and from my personal experience, external sources can not successfully precipitate a lifestyle change. (With the exception of cigarettes being completely illegal...then in the absence of mass manufacture and distribution, I think the amount of smokers would decline dramatically, but still never hit zero.)
I do not see second hand smoke as problematic in relation to other hazards faced in the day to day. I think taxing trans fats or high fructose corn syrup is a much better way to go if Congress wishes to levy a tax on anything in return for the service of healthcare. I have no hard numbers, but when it comes to second hand smoke vs. trans fats, I am going to take a wild guess that more people come into contact with trans fats more often than second hand smoke. The same for HFCS.
Presumably, most of these receive Medicaid.
Emphasis on presumably as I must admit I have no idea how Medicaid works. I can only assume it helps those in poverty receive medical attention at reduced or no cost.
Congress could always cut the DoD budget by 1% (this results in $30 billion over 5 years)
btw...the NPR article quotes the price tag of SCHIP as $35 Billion over 5 years. So maybe we could tax oil and utility companies for spewing toxins in the air. Or perhaps Congress could strike an 11th hour compromise with the lobbyists and get a cool $1 billion from oil and utility companies combined per year for 5 years to make up the difference? I mean, surely huge oil companies pulling down $39.5 bil net can get together and toss a little bit of money back at the American people whose children and environment live with the carcinogenic additives.
Where have I been?
Apparently, the SCHIP bill passed!
I guess this gaffe of mine reveals two things: the extent to which I researched this topic and b) how up I am on current events.
Oh well. At least I correted myself!
But no, they want to tax (predominantly) poor, uneducated people.
And
Taxes don't stop people from smoking.
My personal experience supports this. I knew many people in this circumstance. The three main priorities in their lives next to food and water were:
- Cigarettes
- Coffee
- Megabucks (Lottery)
(Which for some was a big improvement over their past of: Cigarettes, Alcohol and Alcohol.)
These were, as I witnessed, carefully budgeted each week with meticulous planning and foresight to make sure they were obtainable at almost any cost.
where and how the money was going to come from to fund SCHIP..........did you see it?
So by having a cigarette tax of 61 cents, the poor would essentially (as statistics show) be funding their own program?
(Which for some was a big improvement over their past of: Cigarettes, Alcohol and Alcohol.)
sad, but truly hilarious.
So by having a cigarette tax of 61 cents, the poor would essentially (as statistics show) be funding their own program?
As per wikipedia:
"Among the groups of people served by Medicaid are eligible low-income parents, children, seniors, and people with disabilities. Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with limited income."
And what SCHIP does is fund healthcare for children who belong to families who make too much for medicaid, but not enough to pay for their own healthcare.
Inevitably, yes. Some of the SCHIP-eligible are funding the program for their own use by purchasing cigarettes.
However, smokers already on Medicaid (who are on it because they live near the poverty line) would be paying for the children of middle-class families to obtain health care and services.
In Pennsylvania, every child is eligible for CHIP/SCHIP, regardless of income. Depending on income, however, parents may have to pay upward of $150/child per month.
Here are the gory details.
I understand your reasoning and agree the majority of those paying the tax on cigarettes are those who can least afford it. However, I don't think this qualifies the tax as being unjust, due to the fact that it is completely and totally voluntary. Ignorance or addiction are not excuses. Just like playing the lottery.
I don't think that really has anything to do with it.
Look at it from this perspective. The people who propose and vote for these taxes are elected government representatives. Their job is to represent the people of their district.
The choice to propose and approve a tax like this shows that the representative is perfectly willing to prey on the weaknesses of his constituency. That's hardly doing a proper job of representing them.
Saying, "tough - you can quit if you really want to" is beside the point. There will be many smokers, still.
There are lots of ignorant and addicted people out there, but they're still Americans, and they're still entitled to proper representation in their government. For the government to simply take advantage of their ignorance or addiction to increase revenues is pretty lousy morality.
Cheering it on isn't much better.
Their job is to represent the people of their district.
This is a little tangential, but I slightly disagree. I think they're elected to do what they think is right. I mean, it's not as if the representative process is in place just to keep from having to do a mass vote to decide every issue...
hows that the representative is perfectly willing to prey on the weaknesses of his constituency ... take advantage of their ignorance or addiction to increase revenues
I see what you're saying, but I'm not willing to buy into the ignorance/addiction excuse. If I get pulled over for speeding, I get fined - even if I'm not aware of the speed limit and if I'm racing to the store to buy some smokes. Is the law, then, unjust and are those who passed the law "taking advantage of me" to increase revenues? No. It's a law designed to keep the streets safer, and the fine is a penalty. Taxes on cigarettes are penalties for those who participate in something that makes society sicker and dirtier.
Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not saying I'm "pro" this sort of tax; I just don't think the "immoral" angle makes any sense.
Well, let's look at it another way. What if the government were to offer to collect no income tax for the year in exchange for doing some one-time dangerous activity - like cleaning up a toxic spill?
The motivation is structured so that it's people who are desperate that will take advantage of it. It's taking advantage of their situation to get something done that would otherwise cost much more.
I'd say that was a pretty predatory action.
I don't really see that it's any different to take advantage of the fact that someone's got a nicotine addiction and is willing to part with a fair amount of money to satisfy it.
The analogy you made with the speeding fine is a bad one. Speeding is illegal. Smoking is not.
Furthermore, I do consider it predatory for a rural police force to set up speed traps specifically to collect fines from tourists who are likely to find it more convenient to pay the fine than to contest it in a remote jurisdiction. It's a very similar situation to the one you mentioned, but it's a better analogy, because the victims (drivers) are not actually breaking a law (or at least, their actual circumstances are such that the justice system would likely have forgiven them).
Smokers are an easy target for this kind of predation. Many of them, today, wish they didn't smoke, but think they're unable to quit. Whether that's true or not is immaterial. Because the anti-smoking lobbies have been so successful in demonizing smokers and tobacco companies, it's easy to convince people that we should take advantage of these "bad" people in our midst. I think it's immoral.
RSS
Gives Firefighters a break from same old stuff! by smcbride :: NR6 :: on 18 December 2007
I think this move would really boost firefighter moral. We get tried of the same old stuff day in and day out. After a long day of structure fires, major vehicle accidents, heart attacks, shootings, stabbings, ob gyn crap, assisting invalids, helping injured, medical emergencies, fire hydrant maintenance, getting cat's out of trees and chasing women at the grocery store, this would bring great joy to a normally typical day in the big city, and bring the fire bubba's much joy!
If we are out on the air and see a smoker, normal protocol will be to hose them down. If we happen to be in the house and get a smoker run from main dispatch, Engine 34 multiple smoker's at the bus stop, corner of Ave. E and 5th street, use extreme caution, extra apparatus and chief will be sent.
If fire department can't handle the smoker emergency, there is always the police swat team, wonder what the police deadly force policy will be for those nasty smoker's?