Health advocates say hike taxes on to...

Health advocates say hike taxes on tobacco products to cut use

There are 22 comments on the Cleveland.com story from Apr 10, 2012, titled Health advocates say hike taxes on tobacco products to cut use. In it, Cleveland.com reports that:

Health advocates want lawmakers to raise the taxes on snus, spit and other smokeless tobacco products to discourage the use.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Cleveland.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
ohio wrangler

Kent, OH

#1 Apr 10, 2012
Raise taxes on booze to prevent drunks while your at it. A lot of the people who buy booze are the ones who can least afford it. Drunks are just as harmful to society as second hand smoke!
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#2 Apr 10, 2012
Next the Nazi's will want to double the tax on fast food and steak places. Isn't amazing how some are born in a free society, and relish in it while others are born in a free society, and then want to control it?
Need A Light

Toronto, Canada

#3 Apr 10, 2012
Lots Depends on the occupation.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/columnists/ian_gi...
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#4 Apr 10, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
Next the Nazi's will want to double the tax on fast food and steak places. Isn't amazing how some are born in a free society, and relish in it while others are born in a free society, and then want to control it?
Absolutely. It is disgusting how those nicotine addicts think they should be allowed to force everyone else to breathe their foul effluvia anytime they go anywhere. They are nothing but control freaks, and the more discerning Americans have simply had enough of them. Don't worry, though, we are finally doing something about it.
Make Puffers Suffer

Winnipeg, Canada

#5 Apr 10, 2012
Hike em high. Rid us of the foul smelling luzers.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#6 Apr 10, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely. It is disgusting how those nicotine addicts think they should be allowed to force everyone else to breathe their foul effluvia anytime they go anywhere. They are nothing but control freaks, and the more discerning Americans have simply had enough of them. Don't worry, though, we are finally doing something about it.
You don't get it, do you? Perhaps look up the word "force" in the dictionary sometime. See, force is something another person compels you to do with no choice. Nobody forces you into a bar, a bowling alley, a restaurant, or a baseball game. That's called optional.

But of course, we should not "force" you into breathing in second hand smoke. While we are at it, maybe we should only install light bulbs on street lamps according to your delight. Or we can make a law where you don't have to wait more than ten minutes for a seat at your restaurant. Perhaps only selling car audio systems with a volume limit to what you think is comfortable for you.

See, with you and your ilk, it's all about you. That's all that matters. You don't care about the foundation this country was built upon. You could care less about the precedent you set by giving government yet even more power. You could care less about the businesses you close down. It's all about you.

Selfishness is what is destroying our country. That's why Wal-Mart is number one today. No consumer is worried about putting another American out of a job by purchasing cheap Chinese garbage. Men are not men anymore, instead, they cry like little girls when something doesn't go their way. It's a real shame what's happening to our country.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#7 Apr 10, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't get it, do you? Perhaps look up the word "force" in the dictionary sometime. See, force is something another person compels you to do with no choice. Nobody forces you into a bar, a bowling alley, a restaurant, or a baseball game. That's called optional.
You just don't get it, do you? Forcing people to AVOID going anywhere if they don't want to breathe your foul effluvium imposes limits on their freedom to choose. The FORCED involved in blowing that smoke out into the environment or flicking your BIC is, however slight, still FORCE. That act of FORCE--in a time when there WERE no laws to restrict smoking--made the effluvium impossible to avoid.

Your attack on efforts to limit smokers' freedom to choose WHERE they smoke by defending imposing limits on NONSMOKERS' freedom to choose where they GO is pretty ludicrous--particularly when the first is objectionable because it limits the immediacy of access to a fix for an addiction and the second limits the ability to avoid the #3 preventable cause of death in our country.

Seems like addiction just might be twisting your sense of proportion some.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#8 Apr 10, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't get it, do you? Perhaps look up the word "force" in the dictionary sometime. See, force is something another person compels you to do with no choice. Nobody forces you into a bar, a bowling alley, a restaurant, or a baseball game. That's called optional.
By your reasoning, the terrorists behind the sarin gas attack in a subway did nothing wrong because riding the subway was optional.
Lamer

Hopkins, MN

#9 Apr 11, 2012
besides alcohol and tobaco, can we also raise the price of PX drugs? You know, all those vicodens, and percosets, and oxys and all those drugs you could get "high" from.

Yes, all you legal users would also have to pay a higher price but i dont care about any of you. Even you uninsured ones.

Never mind the black market that will pop up once you try to "criminalize" smoking. We have a war on drugs that we waste trillions of dollars on so that will take care of any "blackmarket" problem. We are really good at dealing with those....

@ Hugh Jass
Sorry but your analogy doesnt work as smokers are not terrorsts with an intent to do harm among other reasons.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#10 Apr 11, 2012
Lamer wrote:
besides alcohol and tobaco, can we also raise the price of PX drugs? You know, all those vicodens, and percosets, and oxys and all those drugs you could get "high" from.
Oh, you mean those things that are essentially solid medicinal products, often saving lives by reducing the impact of extreme pain on the systems of people who have just undergone surgery, for instance, but which have the POTENTIAL to cause harm if used in ways OTHER than intended by the manufacturer?

You mean THOSE should be targeted just as smoking is? Do you think commercial tobacco is ALSO intended as a life-saving product that can cause problems ONLY if used in some way OTHER than that intended by the manufacturer? Is THAT why you think they should be treated the same? Or is it just the bitter lashing out of an addict in the face of an inconveniencing of your fix?
Lamer wrote:
Yes, all you legal users would also have to pay a higher price but i dont care about any of you. Even you uninsured ones.
It is quite clear from the fact that you are upset at the idea of regulating smoking that you don't care about anyone else. Few smokers are quite so honest about that, though. Once again, I assume that is just an element of your addiction speaking.
Lamer wrote:
Never mind the black market that will pop up once you try to "criminalize" smoking. We have a war on drugs that we waste trillions of dollars on so that will take care of any "blackmarket" problem. We are really good at dealing with those...
Oh, yes. Because it is SO-O-O-O easy to spend three or four hours a day creating a cloud of smoke without anyone knowing that you are breaking that law. Nobody will notice the stink of tobacco smoke on the "criminals". And, of course, so MANY people will believe those things that there will be enough of a market to sustain a CLANDESTINE operation that involves billions of dollars a year when it is LEGAL.
Bubba, the sheer BULK of the amount of tobacco that would need to be distributed without anyone noticing in order to sustain that many addictions is not something that could stay hidden.
Your entire premise is ridiculous.

Yeah, I guess you are the one with a good grasp of analogies, aren't you?(psst! The answer is "NO". Trust me.)
HowzBoutDat

Frederick, MD

#12 Apr 11, 2012
frisky wrote:
<quoted text>you've got your shoe on the wrong foot . so tell me are you saying you were a rude nasty foul inconsiderate, selfish sneaking lowlife when you smoked.
He's certainly been that since he quit.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#13 Apr 11, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
You just don't get it, do you? Forcing people to AVOID going anywhere if they don't want to breathe your foul effluvium imposes limits on their freedom to choose. The FORCED involved in blowing that smoke out into the environment or flicking your BIC is, however slight, still FORCE. That act of FORCE--in a time when there WERE no laws to restrict smoking--made the effluvium impossible to avoid.
Your attack on efforts to limit smokers' freedom to choose WHERE they smoke by defending imposing limits on NONSMOKERS' freedom to choose where they GO is pretty ludicrous--particularly when the first is objectionable because it limits the immediacy of access to a fix for an addiction and the second limits the ability to avoid the #3 preventable cause of death in our country.
Seems like addiction just might be twisting your sense of proportion some.
Please...... do you know how many people I've met like you in my lifetime? How many "claim" they are worried about health effects where there really isn't any?

The one thing that always drove me nuts about guys like you is your dishonesty. You could care less about all these so-called side effects. That's not what bothers you. It's a straw man argument. You just don't like the smell of smoke.

I remember years ago when I worked for a company who got rid of smoking inside the building long before the Nazi law. One worker preached about how much better it is for non-smokers; how he was always concerned about what our smoking did to him. Then I brought up the fact that he "optionally" chose to work on the side as a bouncer in smoke filled bars. He sure as hell didn't know what to say then.

Smoking has possible long-term negative side effects, but so does stripping liberty away from people. Because it's you complainers that empowered the government to force us into seat belts, our children into government approved child restraint seats, no trans-fats to be served in restaurants, and even no salt in places like New York City, now we have this dictator that is trying to force us to purchase healthcare insurance if the Supreme Court doesn't stop him.

But again, you could care less. As long as government makes your world nice and rosy read just for you. And when they come to take away something you enjoyed or wanted, remember you only have yourself to blame.

There is no such thing as a free intolerant society. Intolerance and freedom are direct enemies of each other. You either have a free tolerant society, or a captive intolerant society, but you can't have both.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#14 Apr 11, 2012
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#15 Apr 11, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
By your reasoning, the terrorists behind the sarin gas attack in a subway did nothing wrong because riding the subway was optional.
Only if they made it widely known that they were going to use sarin gas, and the dopes still jumped on the subway anyway.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#17 Apr 11, 2012
frisky wrote:
<quoted text>you've got your shoe on the wrong foot . so tell me are you saying you were a rude nasty foul inconsiderate, selfish sneaking lowlife when you smoked.
Cute the way you get all those disparaging epithets from my calling them control freaks.
As noted numerous times, I was as much a victim of the addictive mindset as the general run of smokers is today. It was inconceivable to me that someone could walk into a house hours after I had smoked and know that someone had been smoking there. I actually believed that it was nothing more serious than not liking the smell when people complained. I didn't see how anyone could possibly object to my smoking in a car if at least one window had a significant gap opened.
Yeah, I suppose I was some of those things. I don't think I would plead guilty on all of them.

At the time, though, the tobacco industry's efforts to suppress knowledge of the harm smoking causes were working far better than they are now. Ignorance (even if deliberately fostered by a huge industry) may not be an excuse, but it IS a large part of the explanation.

Smokers today can't use that, however hard they try.
Truth Incorporated

Winnipeg, Canada

#18 Apr 12, 2012
Smokers are just puss filed scabs.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#19 Apr 12, 2012
A smoking opinion from professor and Doctor of economics, Dr. Walter E Williams:

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Public misunderstanding, ignorance and possibly contempt for liberty play into the hands of people who want to control our lives. Responses to my recent column "Compliant Americans" brought this home to me. In it, I argued that the anti-tobacco movement became the template and inspiration for other forms of government intrusion, such as bans on restaurants serving foie gras, McDonald's giving Happy Meals with toys, and confiscating a child's home-prepared lunch because it didn't meet Department of Agriculture guidelines. A few responses read like this: "Smoking is different because that actually affects other people. We should be living by the notion that you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt other people. Smoking hurts other people."

If we banned or restricted all activities that affect, harm or have the possibility of harming other people, it wouldn't be a very nice life. Let's look at what can affect or harm other people. Non-obese people are harmed by obesity, as they have to pay more for health care, through either higher taxes or higher insurance premiums. That harm could be reduced by a national version of a measure introduced in the Mississippi Legislature in 2008 by state Rep. W.T. Mayhall that in part read, "An act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the state Department of Health." The measure would have revoked licenses of food establishments that violated the provisions of the act. Fortunately, the measure never passed, but there's always a next time.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that in 2010, nearly 33,000 people were killed in auto crashes. That's a lot of harm that could be reduced by lowering the speed limit to 5 or 10 miles an hour. You say, "Williams, that's ridiculous!" What you really mean to say but don't have the courage to is that to save all of those lives by making the speed limit 5 or 10 miles per hour is not worth the inconvenience. Needless to say — or almost so — there are many activities we engage in that either cause harm to others or have the potential for doing so, but we don't ban all of these activities.

One of the least-understood functions of private property rights is that of determining who may harm whom in what ways. In a free society, it is presumed that the air in a person's house, restaurant, hotel, car or place of business is his property. That means that if you own a restaurant and don't want your air polluted by tobacco smoke, it is your right. Most would deem it tyranny if a bunch of smokers had the political power to get the city council to pass an ordinance forcing you to permit smoking. You'd probably deem it more respectful of liberty if those who wanted to smoke sought a restaurant owner who permitted smoking. The identical argument can be made about a restaurant owner who permits smoking in a city where nonsmokers have the political power. The issue is not whether smoking harms others. The issue is the rights associated with property ownership.

The emerging tragedy is our increased willingness to use the coercive powers of government, in the name of health or some other ruse, to forcibly impose our preferences upon others. In the whole scheme of things, the tobacco issue itself is trivial. Far more important is its template for massive government disrespect for private property.

John Adams said, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williamns04...
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#20 Apr 13, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
A smoking opinion from professor and Doctor of economics, Dr. Walter E Williams:
Ah, yes. Doesn't being an economist just make his opinion on public health issues definitive? Does it? I doubt it. There is a name for the specific underlying fallacy, though it eludes me just now. What comes to mind is "appeal to false authority" but I don't think that's quite right.

Strange that an economist has nothing to say about the impact a complete proscription on smoking (and he could add drinking if he wanted to be off-topic here) would have on the economy two decades down the road.

The immediate and direct impact would include 45,000,000 adult Americans with a significant jump in pocket money.

In a matter of a few years there should begin to be a significant impact on health care expenditures (not arguing where that money would/should have been coming from) or at least the expenditures would be fore treating people who are not getting treated with the current volume-driven strain on that system.

The expense (born by governments) of cleaning up public lands would drop dramatically.

The cost of enacting and subsequently litigating all the restrictions aimed at reducing the damage smokers do to others could be redirected to positive ends instead of to minimizing negative ones.

All the money currently being spent by the tobacco companies in their efforts to get around regulation and ensure the addiction of our children and the maintenance of the addiction of as many adults as possible would be forced into other channels. That's way into the billions of dollars a year doing constructive things in society.[According figures given in recent news, that is $27,000,000 EVERY DAY just for their ADVERTIZING in the US.]

These are elements that an economist is specifically qualified to address. The fact that this one, instead, seems to find it worthwhile to trot out the tired old tobacco industry party line, replete with dismissing efforts to control the #1 preventable cause of death as no different from trying to control any "activities we engage in that either cause harm to others or have the potential for doing so".
It is nothing but shameless propaganda.
Lamer

Norwalk, OH

#21 Apr 13, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, you mean those things that are essentially solid medicinal products, often saving lives by reducing the impact of extreme pain on the systems of people who have just undergone surgery, for instance, but which have the POTENTIAL to cause harm if used in ways OTHER than intended by the manufacturer?
You mean THOSE should be targeted just as smoking is? Do you think commercial tobacco is ALSO intended as a life-saving product that can cause problems ONLY if used in some way OTHER than that intended by the manufacturer? Is THAT why you think they should be treated the same? Or is it just the bitter lashing out of an addict in the face of an inconveniencing of your fix?
<quoted text>
It is quite clear from the fact that you are upset at the idea of regulating smoking that you don't care about anyone else. Few smokers are quite so honest about that, though. Once again, I assume that is just an element of your addiction speaking.
<quoted text>
Oh, yes. Because it is SO-O-O-O easy to spend three or four hours a day creating a cloud of smoke without anyone knowing that you are breaking that law. Nobody will notice the stink of tobacco smoke on the "criminals". And, of course, so MANY people will believe those things that there will be enough of a market to sustain a CLANDESTINE operation that involves billions of dollars a year when it is LEGAL.
Bubba, the sheer BULK of the amount of tobacco that would need to be distributed without anyone noticing in order to sustain that many addictions is not something that could stay hidden.
Your entire premise is ridiculous.
Yeah, I guess you are the one with a good grasp of analogies, aren't you?(psst! The answer is "NO". Trust me.)
I believe you have pointed out that absurdity of the original argument i address withe more absurdity. Congradulations for following along...
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#22 Apr 13, 2012
Lamer wrote:
I believe you have pointed out that absurdity of the original argument i address withe more absurdity. Congradulations for following along...
"Following" requires continuous motion. You jump all over the place.

I agree, though, that you address not only "the original argument" but pretty much EVERY argument "withe [sic] more absurdity".

Nice effort at deflection you have there, though.

Your comment (quoted below) implies that there is a direct analogy between clandestinely smoking tobacco (in an environment where there are NO common substances that can legally be smoked) and clandestinely indulging in pills or illegally smoking substances (in an environment where 20% of the adult population is legally smoking another).

If you could spare a moment from your "withering" repartee, perhaps you could take a shot at explaining just exactly why I or anyone else should ignore the massive disparities between these two situations.

Maybe, in light of your more recent comment (quoted above), you could even explain why you think I or anyone else should regard the idea that there is a significant difference between those situations as "absurdity".

Are you saying that the differences don't exist?

Are you saying that they are not significant to the feasibility of establishing and sustaining a thriving black market to serve smokers?
Lamer wrote:
Never mind the black market that will pop up once you try to "criminalize" smoking. We have a war on drugs that we waste trillions of dollars on so that will take care of any "blackmarket" problem. We are really good at dealing with those....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Cuyahoga County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Prosecutor, defense attorney spar over delays i... May '16 Gina 1
News Bill Clinton, Springsteen rally for Obama (Oct '12) Apr '16 Black Apalacha 6
News Cuyahoga County probation officer jailed for ac... Mar '16 Toddkranz88gmail 1
News Former Methodist Episcopal minister accused of ... (Jul '08) Jan '16 MATTHEW2424 371
News Cleveland rapper loses attempt to toss 2009 gui... Jan '16 Walkin Boss 1
News Cleveland NAACP votes to request release of Tam... Jan '16 Walkin Boss 1
News Ohio grand jury clears police in fatal shooting... (Dec '15) Jan '16 spud 78
More from around the web