#32 wrote:86 was insane. Even when you disregard the fact that the hospitals are trying to con a buck, the whole idea is sick.

"Let's tax these poor bastards that are addicted to something!"

Nobody expected that smokers would suddenly "stop smoking" because of the tax; the government was just trying to take advantage of people who break into hives when they go without a smoke. If someone starts shaking from a lack of nicotine, they need help... not a ridiculous tax that would exploit them.

Think what you want about smoking and the dangers of it, but I find it morally wrong to tax people for something they are dependent on. It's just not right, in my opinion... and I'm not a chronic smoker, either.

Yeah, I agree here.

#32 wrote:86 was insane. Even when you disregard the fact that the hospitals are trying to con a buck, the whole idea is sick.

"Let's tax these poor bastards that are addicted to something!"

Nobody expected that smokers would suddenly "stop smoking" because of the tax; the government was just trying to take advantage of people who break into hives when they go without a smoke. If someone starts shaking from a lack of nicotine, they need help... not a ridiculous tax that would exploit them.

Think what you want about smoking and the dangers of it, but I find it morally wrong to tax people for something they are dependent on. It's just not right, in my opinion... and I'm not a chronic smoker, either.

Yeah, I agree here.

Agreed. And Clinton got majorly paid on 87.

Big B wrote:The country could learn something from the city of Santa Cruz.

Santa Cruz just passed measure K which makes arresting pot smokers their lowest priority. Way to go!

This was actually the case in Berkeley growing up. Hell, you could smoke pot in front of the police station and they wouldn’t even bother. I’m not sure if this is still the case, but Broe might know.

Yeah, a new day, now that the dems have taken the senate as well...smirky's gonna start wielding the veto pen

I think W could use a joint, right about now...

TMC wrote:I now feel like adding something to this thread... (attention, migya, this one's for you)

Same to all of them

coltraning wrote:I think W could use a joint, right about now...

Here's better than a joint:

Yeah, 86 was silly. No need to exploit people who are addicted to something that is promoted and sold by some of the biggest and most politically tied-in corporation in the world. The fact that the money from the tax would not go directly to cigarette related stuff made it even less understandable.

#32 wrote:

Think what you want about smoking and the dangers of it, but I find it morally wrong to tax people for something they are dependent on. It's just not right, in my opinion... and I'm not a chronic smoker, either.

Not quite sure I agree with this logic, though. I mean, just beacuse someone's dependent on something, doesn't mean it should be exempt from taxation. People are much more dependent on things like food, gas, or property than cigarettes, and those are all taxed to varying degrees in different states. I actually think that luxuries like cigarettes and alchohol in some ways have more of a right to be taxed than basic necessities. But the 86 on the whole was a pretty shameless ($2.50 extra for each pack!) exploitation.

As for 87, it was financed mainly by this millionaire dude in LA who's real connected and involved with California energy programs. That's pretty much the same as a corporation, I suppose. But prop 87 seemed to be pretty well-intentioned to me.

I favored both 86 and 87...86 because the cost of paying for health problems for smokers is the single biggest preventible medical cost in this country, 87 because...well, inconvenient truth says it better than anything I could - either we find alternative sources or we'll all be under water in 50 years...

I was for 87 for the same reasons as you, coltraning. But for 86, the revenues that would have been rasied from the taxes were to go to all sorts of medical stuff that had nothing to do with smoking. Not that hospitals and medical researchers don't need more money, but I'm not so sure it should come from smokers. I also question how much smokers really cost everyone else with the money it takes to treat them. The tax should have been placed on the cigarette companies for every pack produced with a provision that it would not affect pack prices. But there so many reasons why that would never happen. There also seems to be a bigger pandemic in this country, and that's obesity - bad eating habits, no exercise, etc. That coupled with smoking does a lot of harm. If you look at European countries, people smoke there like it's nobody's business, they seem healthier than Americans, and they can still easily manage to have fully socialized health care systems.

baytobrooklyn wrote:If you look at European countries, people smoke there like it's nobody's business, they seem healthier than Americans, and they can still easily manage to have fully socialized health care systems.

Not here. Smoking is as forbidden as in America... although it ain't the same in the Netherlands...

About the health system... we're having a bit of a problem, as our health system covers, well, almost everything... which means lots of europeans come here during their holidays just to take advantage of the health system (there's a European Union directive that allows EU citizens to use the health system of any member). That's a big problem, 'cos only us have to pay for it...

Oh, well, if you want socialized health systems, you'll always have Canada (or so I've heard).

I man can only be U.S. president two times so Bush has to go. Unles that's changed?

I think that taxing smokers is a good thing to do because it discourages the new smoking trend in Los Angeles that's risen up over the last couple of years. People are replacing anorexia with cigarettes to lose weight (since it makes you less hungry). This tax won't stop people who are already addicts, but it will help prevent new people from becoming addicted.

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:I think that taxing smokers is a good thing to do because it discourages the new smoking trend in Los Angeles that's risen up over the last couple of years. People are replacing anorexia with cigarettes to lose weight (since it makes you less hungry). This tax won't stop people who are already addicts, but it will help prevent new people from becoming addicted.

Yes, but what about the people that are already addicted?

They're being exploited by 86. We already have enough cash shoveled into various anti-smoking organizations. We don't need to take a bigger cut outta some 60-year old lady's wellfare check.

If moronic 17-year old girls start sucking cancer sticks to lose a few vanity pounds, than screw them. That's just plain ignorant. But I don't feel it necessary to tax a steel mill worker off a 12-hour shift that needs to relax.

The college students that become addicts? Idiotic. They've been told ALL their life not to smoke. I'm a college student who smokes cigars every could of weeks, but I'm far from addicted. Anybody out of my generation whose become addicted to ciggarettes is a flat out moron. No questions, no excuses, no BS. You're a moron. Your life is NOT that hard.

baytobrooklyn wrote:I was for 87 for the same reasons as you, coltraning. But for 86, the revenues that would have been rasied from the taxes were to go to all sorts of medical stuff that had nothing to do with smoking. Not that hospitals and medical researchers don't need more money, but I'm not so sure it should come from smokers. I also question how much smokers really cost everyone else with the money it takes to treat them. The tax should have been placed on the cigarette companies for every pack produced with a provision that it would not affect pack prices. But there so many reasons why that would never happen. There also seems to be a bigger pandemic in this country, and that's obesity - bad eating habits, no exercise, etc. That coupled with smoking does a lot of harm. If you look at European countries, people smoke there like it's nobody's business, they seem healthier than Americans, and they can still easily manage to have fully socialized health care systems.

in so many ways, the euros are ahead of us on health care. It is incontrovertible that smoking has been the biggest cause of premature death and disease in our country, with estimates of 400,000-500,000 premature deaths each year...we pick a lot of that up through increased health care costs in medicare, medicaid and hmos...I do also agree that obesity and diabetes are epidemic. The big difference is that when someone eats a big mac, I don't get second-hand diabetes, whereas when someone smokes, I stand a real good chance of getting second hand cancer. I was in Europe a couple of summers ago, and the outdoor cafes were like a gas factory. BTW, did you know cigs are more addictive than heroin? If we go to a nationalized health care system, it seems rational to promote healthier living, and how we all feel if our tax dollars are going to the 3-pack a day fuming, big mac chomping, grossly overweight fool? Obviously there needs to be a balance...