Taxes, Cancer, Health and Women

Forum Index > Smoke-friendly Resources > Taxes, Cancer, Health and Women > Post a New Reply

Share/Bookmark this Topic:

Message

Author

by AngrySmoker on Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:46 pm

Health seems to be the fallacy most commonly used by Anti-Smoking forces to rationalize smoking bans and smoking sin taxes. "We tax them to save them," is the hollow chant of state Attorney Gernerals throughout the country.

In reality, politicians don't care about us. Nobody is burdening smokers with such hardship causing sin taxes to save them from cancer. Smokers are being taxed to balance the faultering, badly run state governments. Simply said, "They need the money."

Nobody really cares if a smoker gets cancer or not. The issue is money and the logic justifying the sin tax is false. Taxing a smoker to alter his/her behavioral decisions, is a total violation of that smoker's civil liberties. It is not the governments job to determine what is or is not a correct life style. The government is going beyond its role and it is lying to people.

Health is not the issue. It is about money!

For Example...

Should gays be give an AIDS tax because anal sex has a higher risk of passing the HIV virus? Should extreme sport enthusiasts be taxed for the obvious health risk to the participants. Should women who have children at a later age be taxed to cover the increased rate of ovarian cancer?

Should there be bad eating taxes, loud music taxes, late night with no sleep taxes, more than one glass of wine at dinner taxes? All of these taxes would save the health care systems money. Our health would improve if we were good little communists, ate three meals a day with plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables, exercised regularly, went to bed at 8 PM and gave up all of our nasty, naughty vices.

Health would prevail. But what a shitty place to live. America - Land of the healthy, self-righteous, burger-munching fat-asses.

Take the Case of Women.

Let's take the rationale for taxing smokers and apply it to women who don't get pregnant before the age of 30. Would anyone really agree with this?

-----------

It is generally believed that women who have children before the age of 30 are less likely to get cancer. Therefore, it could be argued, women who choose not to have children before 30 are purposely choosing a dangerous lifestyle and putting the common good at risk. America does not have a health care system. Many of these women will get cancer without private insurance. Tax payers will end up paying the bill for these careless acts.

In order to compensate for this wanton act of refusing to get pregnant at the appropriate age, women who do not have children before the age of 30 should be taxed heavily.

By creating this non-pregnancy tax, more women will get pregnant before the age of 30 and their risk of cancer will decrease. We have the moral authority to take these steps, because they may die of cancer if we don't. Cancer is a horrible death. We are therefore taxing them to save them from their own stupidity.

We can also use this tax money, to shore up state budget deficits. We can also use this money to clean polluted waterways and to initiate city improvement programs.

-----------

That's insane. That's a total violation of the rights of women. And it is the exact same thinking that is being used against smokers.

Non-Smokers Wake Up

Don't be fooled. The smoking issue is just the beginning. After it is impossible to be free to smoke and it has been banned out of existance, the money generated by cigarettes will need to be found somewhere.

Another issue will be found with the same, illogical, emotional rationale - health. Who will be next? Will it be an excessive weight tax? An alcohol tax? A no baby before 30 tax?

I am not sure. The only thing I am sure about is that it will be non-smokers who pay then. There won't be any smokers left to pay the bill for you.

AngrySmoker Smoker

Smoker Joined: Sep 08, 2005 Posts: 122 Location: Palm Springs, California

by Zippy on Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:21 pm

Angry:

You are sooooo full-o-crap!

Don't you UNDERSTAND ANYTHING.

Dang, all this is being done for OUR OWN GOOD.

In the future YOU WILL THANK THEM.

Obesity Taxes.

Alternative lifestyle taxes.

Virginity Taxes.

All will be thanks to the anti's.

When all the bars close. When all the Farmers go broke because Red Meat causes heart problems. When Pregnant women can't be hired because they require more bathroom breaks then non-pregnant men, Again, we will thank the anti's.

THINK ABOUT IT MAN!

We could have the perfect world if you people...........

WOULD GIVE UP YOUR FREE WILL AND OBEY STANTON GLANTZ AND HIS CULT!

Zippy

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Apr 20, 2005 Posts: 681

by AngrySmoker on Thu Oct 20, 2005 10:53 pm

No Zippy. That isn't true. It is being sold as being for our own good. That's the selling point. It is clean and easy to defend. If it were about health, all those other lifestyles that burden the public health system would be attacked too. Therefore, it can't be.

That's my point. The number one killer in the country is heart disease related to being over weight. It is a major burden on the entire health system. If the argument from the Anti's was really about health, those issues would be more pressing.

The issue is not, however, health. The tax collectors don't give a damn about your health or what hardship you endure. All they want is your tax money.

By using the false argument of increasing taxes and banning public smoking as a measure to improve health, the eventual result will be the end of smoking. When that happens, who will pay?

I don't know. Somebody will. Probably alcohol. It won't really be childless woman over 30. That was sarcasm.

We already have alternative lifestyle taxes. What do you thinking the cigarette taxes are? The taxes are being sold to the public as an attempt modify a person's alternative behavior. Normal behavior, to them, is not smoking. We are the alternative. Saying it is for our health is like saying it is for are own good. These taxes are supposed to be an incentive to change our behavior.

Everyone is so used to cigarettes being brutally taxed, it seems normal. If you remove cigarette smoking (which is a lifestyle) from the equation and replace it with some other lifestyle like the fast-food driven culture of being too fat, it shows how ridiculous the logic behind the taxing-cigarettes-to-improve-health idea really is.

The truth is - it is not a health issue. It is purely and absolutely a money issue. The health aspect is a fallacy, a subterfuge.

All of the anti-rhetoric is meant to hide one basic fact.

They just want our money.

Peace

(I do admit my sarcasm is a little bit over the top. I especially like mixing the traditional groups of discrimination, women, gays, etc.. in with smoking. The only difference between discrimination against those groups and discrimination against smokers is that it is still politically correct and approved to attack smokers.)

AngrySmoker Smoker

Smoker Joined: Sep 08, 2005 Posts: 122 Location: Palm Springs, California

by Zippy on Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:26 pm

Angry:

What you say, of course, is all true. The saddest part of all of this is that WE are allowing our own problems to exist.

We refuse to come together in common cause.

I don't care how much money RWJF has, if 22% of the adult population would come together, the political power of the group would be over powering.

But look at the recent posts over a banner on this site!

Just read the posts. It appears that most are more interested in finding a cheap pack of smokes then they are in overturning the unjust taxation that created the problem in the first place.

Then they want an answer to "the letter" they receive.

Can you imagine what would happen if we got together and backed a political cause? Those "letters" would be collectables from a past gone era on an eBay auction and the nannies would look like a bunch of crying little babies.

My rant for the day.

Have a great weekend and keep up the fight.

Zippy

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Apr 20, 2005 Posts: 681

by AngrySmoker on Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:06 am

Thanks for understanding, Zippy. Sorry, this post is so long. I spent a lot of time thinking about this topic over the weekend.

You are absolutely right with what you say about the letters.

Zippy wrote:

But look at the recent posts over a banner on this site!

Just read the posts. It appears that most are more interested in finding a cheap pack of smokes then they are in overturning the unjust taxation that created the problem in the first place.

Then they want an answer to "the letter" they receive.

Can you imagine what would happen if we got together and backed a political cause? Those "letters" would be collectables from a past gone era on an eBay auction and the nannies would look like a bunch of crying little babies.

What you say is true.

Everyone is just concerned about these little private issues. I doubt that the Smoking Lobby was started to help people cheat the law, but rather to find out why such laws exist and how we can fight against them. We need some justice more than we need a cheap pack of smokes. As single individuals, we are lost. (If a person has cheated on their taxes and gotten caught, there is no help. That person has to pay. It is illegal to avoid paying taxes. To even play around with the idea of not paying is absolutely stupid. Except it and move on.)

Zippy, you also wrote of a need for a political movement. That's really true and what is needed. If the founding fathers knew that taxes would someday be used to take away civil liberties, there would be a clause in the Bill of Rights protecting us. Something like, "a person has the right to choice a lifestyle, as they see fit, without being unfairly taxed as a way to influence that decision".

I love what you wrote about walking around with a cigarette in your mouth. That's such a simple way to protest. We could easily do that. Make a "Fridays are unlit cigarette days". The antis want to have a smoke free world day. We should do something too. All smokers should keep an unlit cigarette in their mouth all day on Fridays. At work, on the subway, in the movies, everywhere. That would be political self-expression that would really get noticed. I wonder what the effect would be?

I can imagine a new type of unity. As you walk through the street on Friday and see someone with an unlit cigarette in their mouth, you would know that they are fighting for the same cause - freedom (not just the freedom to smoke) and feel some sort of common bond. (Like in "Fight Club". Maybe that's why the anti's target that film.)

The problem is that we are all scared. We've been hammered down. Smoking is like some perverted habit that has to be hidden. Who cares what the morality-police think, is what I say. Nobody is perfect. People are addicted to coffee, to chocolate, to sugar, to alcohol, to everything. So what. Who is to judge who is better or who is right.

The only things that non-smokers have anything to complain about, I can correct myself. I keep my butts in my pocket ashtray and I don't blow smoke in their smurking faces. Fine, I can live with it. Everything else is none of their damn business. I don't look in their closet, they should stay out of mine.

The whole tax letter issue doesn't interest me. Buy in cash or buy from Russia (I retract my thoughts about Russian tobacco and pesticides that I wrote previously. The thought occured to me that the tobacco probably isn't even grown in Russia. Russia has a cold climate. They are just sold in Russia, but made somewhere else. Though I am not telling anyone to break the law. Research before you buy.) Some states allow certain amounts of cigarettes to be imported. California allows 400 cigarettes (2 cartons). If a person is ordering 40 cartons a pop, then they are selling them. That's illegal and doesn't help the issue. If you are in California, order 2 cartons to a PO Box with a money order and you aren't breaking the law. The PO Box is just a safety measure. The taxing agencies don't have seem to have a lot of respect for the law and enforce their own.)

I spent a lot of time thinking about the issue between health -vs- taxes. That's what is important to me. What is really happening is what I am trying to find out.

This isn't directed at any single person only those who would like to discuss why we are being taxed. I don't mind having my arguments torn apart. I don't claim any inside knowledge and I would rather have my thoughts improved.

I claim that - it is a money issue, not a health issue.

I didn't clearly identify the forces involved and who I meant as to be concerned with money over health. There are two forces.

I'll list them.

A) Those concerned with health -

Health Organizations

This is made up mostly of organizations like the American Cancer Association, World Health Organization and American Lung Association to name just a few. These groups really are concerned with health. They are more concerned with a person's welfare than a person's civil liberties, i.e. the right to choose a lifestyle that may be dangerous (like smoking) is not as important as saving life.

Do these organizations have enough political weight in government to cause the massive increase in cigarette taxes that have occured in the last ten years? Do they regulate policy. No they do not.

B) Those concerned with money -

State Politicians -

These individuals are concerned with running their governments. They are not concerned with health first. They do not sit in meetings and lament over the health of their constituants. Only the naive really believe that their state's government's first concern is protecting their citizens. The main interest besides re-election is budget. How will state programs be funded. When a funding issue comes up and somebody say, "How do we pay for it?" Somebody else says, "We can raise cigarette taxes." The health of the smoker is never brought up. The needs of the budget dictates the taxes applied to cigarettes.

Seriously, cigarette taxes do not come from a state government saying, "Our citizens are dying. How do we save them?" All cigarette taxes come from the need to increase the state governments coffers. (Interestingly enough, coffer comes from the German word, "Koffer", which means "suitcase". I always tend to visualize the politicains sitting around discussing how to spend suitcases full of freshly collected cigarette taxes. The image is not one filled with caring, health-concerned faces.)

Out of all these groups, only one has the power to tax - the government.

Group B is hiding behind Group A.

Though the state government's are using the language of group A, and it clearly is, they are not invoking these taxes to protect anyone from tobacco or harm. That is the subterfuge. They need the taxes.

Health and children are traditional means of attack when someone wants to enforce any issue. These are the two attacks against internet cigarette sales a) Kids can buy on-line and are being targetting by on-line retailers b) Cigarettes are cheaper, so people smoke more. Thus on-line sales hurt health.

Look in the internet. The anti's use these arguments everywhere. (ash.org/kids.html). It is a great tactic because it is impossible to argue against.

The state's have picked-up these type of arguments because people believe them. They are not doing it as a moral belief. They are doing it to get their much needed tax money.

It is purely a question of state budget and money.

I am not the only one that says that the states tax cigarettes for budget, not health. I am also not the only one that says that cigarette taxes are used to shore up budgets of one kind or another. All you have to do is google the terms "cigarette taxes" and "shore up" and you will get plenty of articles that use the same termonology.

The point is that it is political death to want to raise taxes in America. If you say you want to raise taxes, you lose the election. Period. Yet, taxes are needed. So to avoid direct taxation, all of these ways of increasing tax money without directly raising taxes have been initiated. Nobody is going to defend smokers, so we are the perfect target.

After these monies are collected, they are not used on health and education of the smoker. They are used to fund state projects of various sorts, including citry clean up projects like waterways and parks [Here's a quote from the nps.gov site, "Texas and Minnesota have dedicated portions of their cigarette taxes to support state and local recreation programs." I didn't make it up. (http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/history.html)]. That's just one example. There are dozens of different articles in the internet saying the same thing.

Therefore, the smokers are being unfairly taxed to pay for government projects that should be paid by all citizens of that particular state. We are being singled out as a minority to pay for projects that benefit everyone.

The real goal isn't our health. The real goal is paying for state government. For these extra taxes, we are not getting extra representation. We are being told to stand outside and constantly being harassed.

I say, if we are paying more, we should have more rights. The damned non-smokers should work outside if they want to be employed in government offices. Smokers are paying more for the government. We should have more rights.

If taxes are needed to shore up budgets, then the government should bite the damn bullet and say taxes are needed. Everyone should be taxed equally. Smokers should not be discriminated against and be forced to pay more than our share. Taxing a minority group to pay for everyone is simply not fair and not part of American way of life. We should be equal.

PS
I have some examples of why I believe the cigarette tax issue is just the beginning of a move toward ever expanding lifestyle taxes. I'll write those in a few days.

AngrySmoker Smoker

Smoker Joined: Sep 08, 2005 Posts: 122 Location: Palm Springs, California

by Smokinjoe on Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:32 am

Zippy wrote:

Why should I worry about the cooperation of others who lack determination?
By making my own the state is deprived of their life blood taxes that I am no longer paying and I don't need anyone elses help, I,m kicking their greedy asses all by myself and just laugh everytime they increase Cigarette taxes-LOL- Free, Free, Free at last!

What a great feeling casting off the shackles of taxation!
No whining here to deaf ears.
Less than $5 a CARTON for great home made smokes!
$12 for 1lb Tobacco, $1 a carton for tubes.
$$$$$$$$$$$$Almost a year of rolling and loving it!$$$$$$$$$$$

Smokinjoe

Smoker Joined: Dec 16, 2004 Posts: 178 Location: New Jersey

by Zippy on Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:50 pm

SmokingJoe:

This weekend, although it was extremely busy, I had more then enough time to stuff and package 2 cartons of smokes (1 1/2 hours total), at a total cost of $13.72 cents.

TWO CARTONS FOR $13.72.

In doing so, I paid almost ZILCH in tobacco excize tax, and ZIP to the MSA.

Starving them IS THE BEST WAY TO GET THEM OFF OUR BACKS.

(If anyone wonders who "them is", read my other postings, that should become obvious.)

Having said this, and in full agreement with you, you should know that MYO is only a small step in regaining control of this "cult driven" anti-smoking government.

I believe that Angrysmoker is also correct. Enough is enough. I, and my fellow smokers have the same right to "life, liberty AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS as the next Man.

Unfair taxation has unfairly restricted MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

For me to now, excersize my rights, I have to go into my basement and spend 1 1/2 hours away from my family.

Tell me that my rights are not being violated!

Lastly, It is my strong belief that MYO is the way around this unfair taxation, and is the best way to "stick it to the man", but it also has the side benifit of supporting the American Farmer.

Oh, and AngrySmoker, you might also be pleased to know that, 3 times a year I make a trip through a reservation and also buy a carton of smokes from them each time. I don't need too, but I do so to support the excellent work that this tribe has done in improving the lifes of their people. It has been an amazing thing to watch. If I can be even a small part of helping them, then all the better.

Zippy

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Apr 20, 2005 Posts: 681

by Tom on Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:35 pm

We all get around the unfair taxes. I haven't met anyone on this site who has not found a way asround them. What we need to do is spread the word around that there always is a legal way to get around the cigarette taxes so people won't stop smoking and becomming antis. Also, vote smoking. If you're from Jersey, that means Doug Forrester for governor. Tell all your friends to vote for Doug Forrester too. He's against a ban in Jersey, so I hope he wins so we'll be gauranteed to be a free state for 4 more years. I've been spreading the word.

Tom

Smokers Rights Activist Joined: Aug 24, 2003 Posts: 961 Location: The Kingdom of New Jersey

by msbobbie on Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:49 am

I am in Oklahoma. We had a huge tobacco tax go into effect a year ago and are facing a restaurant smoking ban the first of March. I am livid. I do not object nearly as much to the taxes as I do a NO SMOKING sign. Given that heart disease from being fat is the number one killer, I do not understand why there is not a specialized tax on snack foods without any nutrition value, and why these items can be purchased (tax free) with food stamps.

I have been noticing recentlly that all the people who are dying of cancer are "former smokers" and am of the opinion that smoking does not kill you, quitting will. I have also searched on line for the benefits of smoking and there are many.

I have smoked for 50 years and have no health problems. I ain't about to quit now.

msbobbie

Newbie Joined: Aug 07, 2005 Posts: 11 Location: Oklahoma

by NinjaCat on Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:00 pm

I totally agree. There NEEDS to be a fat-tax. Obesity is by far a much bigger killer, and causes more PERMANENT damage to people than sitting in a smokey bar. But at least half of the smoke-nazis could not bear to have a Micky-D's tax or a Little Debbie sin-tax.

I think it is great you are in wonderful health. My guy has been smoking more than 15 years now, and he is 20 times more active than me. Not an ounce of fat on him. He snowboards, he bikes into town 8 miles regularly...he looks 22 at 32! So...if smoking is so bad for him...why does he look so great, have so much more energy than me, is in better health than me, is more fit than me....Hmmm... I'm not saying it is a healthy habit, but I also feel that the smoking ban goes WAY TOO FAR. There are several bad habits out there, and i have yet to see a govt ban on unprotected sex, promiscuity, fatty foods, snack foods, extreme sports, etc., etc... The wildly exaggerated "health reports" on second hand smoke have been pretty much disproven, and if people don't like being exposed to airborne toxins, they need to live in bubbles. I mean the common cold can be airborne...if you want to avoid toxins and pathogens, etc, then you need to avoid all public places anyhow.

NinjaCat

Puffer Joined: Jan 17, 2006 Posts: 40 Location: hiding in your basement

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Page 1 of 1 Smoking Lobby Smokers Rights Forum Index ~ Smoke-friendly Resources

Smoking Lobby Forum for Smokers Rights