If smoking cigarettes were made illegal, would you agree to paying higher taxes?

[artist]

There are a number of taxes on cigarettes. If smoking were made illegal, would you whine then if other taxes went up? (ie: property taxes, income taxes, state/federal taxes, gas taxes, liquor taxes, etc.?)

Just curious.

If you wish there were anti-smoking laws, do you also wish there were anti-drinking laws? Like what?

How is drinking any better than smoking?

[MLA]

I believe in banning smoking from public places because another person's right to smoke should not infringe on the rights of everyone else who is in their vicinity.

That said, smoking should not be outlawed. People should be able to make these choices on their own. Personally, I think that illegal drugs (not all, but many) should be legalized and taxed.

So, it's hard for me to answer your question. Honestly, I don't think I'd complain about higher taxes if the money was being used to fund important social services. The US has the lowest income taxes in the western world. But I don't think smoking should be outlawed.

See why it's hard for me to answer?

ETA: Drinking is different because social drinking (I'm not talking about excessive drinking where people drive drunk, etc) doesn't infringe on my right to health. Social smoking does. I speak from experience. My entire family smokes. I grew up with smokers, and I think it's a disgusting habit. It's completely wrong that my health was compromised because of other people's addictions to nicotine.

[artist]

I
So, it's hard for me to answer your question. Honestly, I don't think I'd complain about higher taxes if the money was being used to fund important social services. The US has the lowest income taxes in the western world. But I don't think smoking should be outlawed.


Coming from you, that doesn't surprise me.

Actually, as someone who personally groans about taxes yet obviously agrees with the idea of them for the sake of things like social services, I was rather annoyed to read in the paper that my mayor is planning to raise property taxes AND cut funding/programs! Now THAT is not fair! Either raise taxes to keep programs or cut programs to keep taxes low, but don't raise taxes AND cut programs!

[isign]

I think we as a society are placing too many laws and restrictions on people's freedoms. If you want to smoke, fine smoke, but just don't do it around me.

I think there are far other things to try to fight than something that is already legal. I would not want to pay higher taxes.

[MLA]

I was rather annoyed to read in the paper that my mayor is planning to raise property taxes AND cut funding/programs! Now THAT is not fair! Either raise taxes to keep programs or cut programs to keep taxes low, but don't raise taxes AND cut programs!

What? What's his/her reasoning for raising property taxes if s/he's also cutting programs? Is you city in terrible financial straits or something?

[boilermaker]

Well, I personally don't whine about anything, so whether or not I agreed with it, I would at least act like an adult in conveying my opinion.

I'm not a fan of cigarettes and smoking and wouldn't be too upset if they were banned because of the harm they cause on innocent bystanders. Drinking a beer does not in any way infringe upon the rights of the person next to me, smoking does. That being said, I wouldn't vote in favor of outlawing smoking as a whole because I feel people should be able to make their own decisions about it.

As for the taxes, justifablly, you could argue that by outlawing smoking, the national incurrance of debt for smoking related charges (medical costs, legal costs, regulating the industry, etc) should also decrease. I am not educated enough on what percentage of the cigarette tax goes towards these type of expenses vs what goes to funding other government programs. I'm not opposed to more taxes if they are justified.

[boilermaker]

Actually, as someone who personally groans about taxes yet obviously agrees with the idea of them for the sake of things like social services, I was rather annoyed to read in the paper that my mayor is planning to raise property taxes AND cut funding/programs! Now THAT is not fair! Either raise taxes to keep programs or cut programs to keep taxes low, but don't raise taxes AND cut programs!

See, I don't understand this mentality. Obviously I don't have the information I am assuming you have, but say the city is underbudgeted by $1 million. They raise taxes to cover $500k and cut programs to handle the other $500k. So that would make sense. But again, without that information, how can you make a rational arguement against it?

[artist]

What? What's his/her reasoning for raising property taxes if s/he's also cutting programs? Is you city in terrible financial straits or something?


I just read this last night, so I am not sure of all the details yet. I imagine (R) Gov. Pawlenty might be part of the problem as well as perhaps things being affected by Bush. I am not necessarily opposed to the taxes, but I feel it is just a big waste of my precious money if all that will happen is that programs will get cut anyway. In case you were curious, my mayor is a Democrat. The previous mayor was a wishy washy Democrat who voted for Bush. (And Norm Coleman, now a Republican, former mayor of St. Paul WAS a Democrat and then switched parties.) Due to the fact that the last mayor, although running as a Dem, endorsed Bush, he lost bigtime to the current mayor. Here I had hope. I guess I am disappointed.

[artist]

See, I don't understand this mentality. Obviously I don't have the information I am assuming you have, but say the city is underbudgeted by $1 million. They raise taxes to cover $500k and cut programs to handle the other $500k. So that would make sense. But again, without that information, how can you make a rational arguement against it?

I'm not close personal friends with the mayor, so I am not yet aware of the specifics involved in his decision, nor do I know yet what will be affected. I do know that it's possible for example that library hours will be cut and that the park & rec board's funding will be decreased. The problem is, by cutting funding to the parks and rec. centers, there will need to be more police officers to deal with youths that have nowhere to go and not much to do. Problem is, the mayor only added 12 officers this year, about half of what the last mayor added. How can I make a general argument against it? I can because I am a property owner who lives in that city, who is affected by budget cuts and possible problems as a result of that, and as a voter who happened to vote for the mayor making these decisions.

[kris97]

I'd pay higher taxes, definitely.

I distinguish smoking from drinking for the same reasons MLA does. I also strongly disagree with people who couch the restriction of smoking in terms of "freedoms." Smoking is not constitutionally protected: it's not a form of speech or way to redress the government, nor is it an intensely private medical decision or a form of religious expression (in most cases! I'll grant there may be exceptions but they are a very small subset). Because it's not granted specific Constitutional protection, the Government only needs a rational basis to regulate it, and I think even the most rabid pro-smoker would have to admit that promoting the health of smokers and non-smokers alike is a rational reason for regulating tobacco. That said, I'm generally opposed to an outright ban because - given the example of Prohibition - I don't think it would work. I support continuing the efforts currently in place - education/higher taxes/banning in public places - because they have proven successful in lowering the rates of people who smoke.

[greenbunny]

How is drinking any better than smoking?

Cigarettes are harmful when used exactly as intended. Whether you smoke one or twenty, you are still setting fire to something and sucking in the chemicals created by the burning. Drinking is not harmful for people in average health if done in moderation, and can even be beneficial in some cases.

I don't think either should be banned because I think people should have the right to decide what to do with their bodies, even though harm to others can be an outcome of poor decisions.

If smoking were banned and taxes went up, I'd question what the money was being used for. So many anti-smoking campaigns/commercials claim how much money would be saved on health care/missed work/etc. if no one smoked, and often it seems implied that that money that would be saved would be enough to make up the difference. I'd like to know if that's at all accurate before considering automatically raising taxes.

[artist]

If smoking were banned, even though you claim it could decrease overall healthcare costs, it would actually probably cost a lot of money to put people in jail for smoking cigs, growing tobacco, selling it illegally, importing it illegally, etc.

[lawyerlee]

Nope, I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. I'm generally opposed to so-called "sin taxes" anyway.

[lawyerlee]

If smoking were banned, even though you claim it could decrease overall healthcare costs, it would actually probably cost a lot of money to put people in jail for smoking cigs, growing tobacco, selling it illegally, importing it illegally, etc.
Suggesting that we would put people in jail for smoking seems awfully presumptive to me. I would favor a fine, personally, which might even offset the lost tax revenue.

[Dally]

MLA said it so well, I just have to quote her. This is what I think, too:I believe in banning smoking from public places because another person's right to smoke should not infringe on the rights of everyone else who is in their vicinity.

That said, smoking should not be outlawed. People should be able to make these choices on their own. Personally, I think that illegal drugs (not all, but many) should be legalized and taxed.


If smoking rates drop and we need extra tax money to make up for the loss in tax revenue from cigarettes, then I'll be happy to pay more taxes.

That said, I'm also not a big fan of sin taxes, although I see why they are used (so much easier to get it passed).

[kam]

Yup, especially since it would probably have meant a few extra years with some loved ones. Worth it, IMO.

[zayt]

To answer the original question - I would be happy to pay increased taxes to offset the decreaed revenue from cigarette sales. But, as others have said, the shortfall would most likely be covered by decreased healthcare costs and implementation of fines for smokers.

[Asha]

i always here we have lower taxes than other western countries, but i don't know about that. yes, our federal taxes are lower, but then if you add state and city income taxes it raises. plus, there are high property an sales tax here too.

my dh and i pay nearly 50% of our income to federal, state, and city income taxes. isn't that about what they pay in western europe? plus, we don't have the social service programs they have like nationalized health care plans. that's not even including the property and sales tax, either.

perhaps, they should add a high sales tax too junk food to offset the cigarrette tax. a higher tax for candy bars and soda.

[zayt]

perhaps, they should add a high sales tax too junk food to offset the cigarrette tax. a higher tax for candy bars and soda.

Ooh, this is a slippery slope right here. Do we also tax red meat because there have been studies linking it to bowel cancer?

[Asha]

ok, red meat has much more nutritional value to it than soda.

[MLA]

i always here we have lower taxes than other western countries, but i don't know about that. yes, our federal taxes are lower, but then if you add state and city income taxes it raises. plus, there are high property an sales tax here too.

my dh and i pay nearly 50% of our income to federal, state, and city income taxes. isn't that about what they pay in western europe?

That's a good point, Asha. When you look at the whole picture, I suppose our taxes are probably on par with the rest of the Western world. Now I'm really pissed that we don't have as many services. :mad:

[Asha]

Now I'm really pissed that we don't have as many services.

me too! by the looks of the current state of affairs in the middle east, we're not going to be getting any of those services any time soon.

[zayt]

You could argue that any nutrition you get from red meat you can get from other sources with less potential risk...
I actually agree with you Asha, I just think that once we start taxing specific foods it gets a bit complicated.

[Asha]

once we start taxing specific foods it gets a bit complicated.

i believe they already tax specific foods in my area. junk foods are not exempt from sales tax like regular groceries. i am just saying they should add a higher tax on them. also, the same goes for people using food stamps. they can get certain foods for free, but other food isn't covered.

[mili04]

I don't support an all out ban on cigarettes, but completely agree with banning them in restaurants, bars, etc. Drinking is different because somebody else having a few drinks does not infringe on other people's right to a healthy environment, but smoking does. However, if banning smoking in these public places leads to fewer cigarettes sold and a need for revenue from other places, I would pay the increased taxes.

[amew]

I would pay the higher taxes. I have a "no whining" policy with regard to taxes in general, and I certainly wouldn't whine about any taxes that were funding social programs or saving lives.

Ultimately, I am not sure I could support a total ban on smoking, but I would certainly consider it. There is a lot more old-school paternalistic Democrat in me than there is Libertarian.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I have to pretty much parrot what a number of people have already said.

I wouldn't support an all-out ban on smoking, because I think people should be able to do it in their own homes, if they so choose.

I would be fine with paying higher taxes, but:

I sincerely doubt that a ban on cigarettes would result in a need for higher taxes.