Let's tax tobacco and alcohol?

[Relander]

It can be argued as regular smoking of tobacco and drinking of alcohol cause increased expenses for the society, for example in the form of sick days from work, lower productivity and health care costs, placing increased taxation on them is a good thing to compensate the expenses and reduce the negative consequences.

Or is it just interfering on individual's way of life, even "health fascism" by the government? What's your take on the issue?

[Pethegreat]

Many of the people who are on government health programs smoke and drink regularly. The long term effects of drinking and smoking show up when a person reaches the age when they can get government health insurance. The people who screw up their health through smoking and drinking are paying for their own medical care. This is the best way to do it. You place the burden on those who will cost the government the most.

[Jeffro]

I say in addition to taxing tobacco and alcohol, we need to tax the obese. For too long they have been leeching off the health system with their type-2 diabetes, gastrointestinal surgery, and buffet discounts.

[Mr. Matt]

Originally Posted by Relander

Or is it just interfering on individual's way of life, even "health fascism" by the government? What's your take on the issue?

Yes, it is.

That, and I pay taxes towards the health service just like everybody else. Factor in the immense extra taxation which already exists on alcohol and tobacco and I pay significantly more taxes than most non-smokers and non-drinkers in my salary bracket. I haven't had a sick day in over a year, as my immune system is so good it even zaps people who try to touch me, and my healthcare expenses are limited to accidents - which weren't my fault to begin with. If I want lung cancer when I'm 50, that's up to me and I've bloody well spent enough on tax to earn it.

It's my choice to screw up my body. I'm well aware of the risks, I pay taxes towards the universal healthcare system (note the highlighted 'universal'), and it's entirely my choice whether I smoke or drink, and it should be my choice to engage in a whole host of other things which are already illegal.

If you want to go down the road of 'increased expenses for the society', you'd have to be focussing on the habitually unemployed too, who drain the healthcare system and the social welfare programs. But then, that wouldn't be fair would it? At least smokers and drinkers cover their expenses. I would say that the existing punitive tax measures on alcohol and tobacco are at the limit; any more would become ridiculous (and would actually damage the economy, as public houses in Britain are finding out now), any less would be unfair on the rest. And if you abolished universal healthcare entirely, it wouldn't really matter.

I'd say, keep it where it is now.

[Anlushac11]

Originally Posted by Jeffro

I say in addition to taxing tobacco and alcohol, we need to tax the obese. For too long they have been leeching off the health system with their type-2 diabetes, gastrointestinal surgery, and buffet discounts.

My apologies for seeming offended but thats crap.

Diabetes is a genetic disorder. You dont have to be fat to get it but your chances go up greatly if you are over 40 and overweight. Diabetes has now moved up to one of the top killers and medical problems in the USA.

My mom is not fat and has Type 2 diabetes and has had her left leg amputated above the knee due to diabetes.

My Uncle Ronnie died from Diabetes when he was 16 years old.

My brother has type 1 and is treatable with a diabetic diet.

A ex G/F's sister was small and skinny at about 105lbs and 5'3" and she wears a insulin pump and has to check her toes daily due to numbness brought on by diabetes causing advanced neural degeneration.

Some people are predisposed to being fat or skinny. It depends on your genetic makeup and the switches that control the bodies makeup of adipose cells. People with lower adipose count have fewer places to store fat so it gets passed out of the system.

Heart Disease is also a leading killer and its not all related to fat people.

Scientists have ID'd the genetic markers linked to diabetes and obesity and even aggressiveness so there is a possibility of a treatment.

And besides most HMO's and life insurance companies wont touch you if you have diabetes, are overweight, smoke, have a family history of heart problems, etc.

I dont smoke and I drink very occasionally so I dont care if there is a significant raise in taxes on alcohol and tobacco.

IMHO want people to be less fat then quit bombarding us with food commercials 30-40 times in one hour. Also let us go to a restaurant and order a healthy salad that costs less than 5.00 which is 3x more than a 750 calorie cheeseburger from McDonalds which is cooked in its own fat.

There is a reason that Subways sandwich shops are so popular, because you can get healthy food there and it doesnt cost an arm and a leg.

I think a large part of our health problems are due to all the additives and chemicals they add to our food.

[Pethegreat]

I say in addition to taxing tobacco and alcohol, we need to tax the obese. For too long they have been leeching off the health system with their type-2 diabetes, gastrointestinal surgery, and buffet discounts.

Hey, i like my buffet discounts. You are discriminating against people who are weight challenged.

I know where I live any food bought in a restaurant is taxed just like many consumer goods. Food bought in grocery stores is not taxed. So if I buy a pizza from pizza hut I will get hit with the %6 sales tax. If I buy the ingredients to make one at home I don't get taxed on the food. The tax does not do much to stop people from eating out, but the government gets some money from your 750 calorie burger.

I think a large part of our health problems are due to all the additives and chemicals they add to our food.

I look at the additives as a necessary evil. Without the additives and chemicals would 300 million people be able to have access to cheap plentiful food? The chemicals may harm us, but no food will harm us even more.

[Darth Desaevio]

DISAGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE (if it includes weed )

[Killer Kyle]

You know, it's funny that we allow something that is potentially more addictive than marijuana to be out on the streets, Yes, I'm talking about tobacco, which is killing my family slowly via directly or with second-hand smoke. The only benefit of living with a heavily-smoking parent is that I've developed an extreme hate for cigarettes and will never smoke them.

I know banning cigarettes wouldn't do any good, and heavily taking them would piss people off, so we hate to see an addicting substance ruin lives. We banned all but one drug that has no medical benefits whatsoever, and it is a very dangerous one.

Maybe we should take the Libertarian view and legalize marijuana and see what happens. Marijuana smoke smell thousands of times better than cigarette smoke.

Tobacco is a very hard problem, and really we can't formulate a solution due to economic and social impacts. Yet, a lot of us are tired of seeing loved ones die of something caused smoking a very addicting plant. What do we do?

As far as alcohol, I'm ok with that. Alcohol has no chemicals in it that would cause dependence. Basically, anyone that gets addicted to it is an idiot (especially violently addictive).

[MrFancypants]

Having people poison the air with smoke and losing what little control they have over themselves because of intoxication is annoying enough (and certainly not covered by the weak excuse that they have the freedom to do that because it is their "lifestyle"), but having to pay for the consequences of all those excesses is too much for me.

The fair thing would be to exclude these people from social security and let them pay treatment themselves, but since that is not likely to happen taxes are probably the most realistic way to limit the damage.

[Jeffro]

Originally Posted by MrFancypants

Having people poison the air with smoke and losing what little control they have over themselves because of intoxication is annoying enough (and certainly not covered by the weak excuse that they have the freedom to do that because it is their "lifestyle"), but having to pay for the consequences of all those excesses is too much for me.

If only they taxed industry for polluting the air, taxed our car use for polluting the air, and taxed the power plants for polluting the air. What a pipe dream that is.

Makes cigarette smoke almost minuscule in comparison...

[Nemmerle]

I object to paying for the consequences of any person's lifestyle, but that is more an argument to end socialised health schemes than to tax people who smoke or drink an extra amount.

[Anlushac11]

Originally Posted by Jeffro

If only they taxed industry for polluting the air, taxed our car use for polluting the air, and taxed the power plants for polluting the air. What a pipe dream that is.

Makes cigarette smoke almost minuscule in comparison...

I agree with you 100%

But wait whats this? our good ol buddy GW repealed smog controls for many factories and powerplants so they could use the money savings to upgrade their pollution controls. Some emmisions were allowed to more than double.

Ironic then that over 17,000 plants are now polluting more and not less isnt it?

This is an old site. Bush has since passed the law IIRC Sept 2003.
What's At Stake: Stop the "Sweetheart Deal" for polluters!

I find it disgusting.

[Killer Kyle]

Again, we have a problem, but no solution that will have an extreme side effect. The only way we can deal with this problem is to choose the best option and deal with the consequences. We may be able to do something about the consequences and make the idea feasible.

Now, what's the best option to deal with smoking and alcoholism in my opinion? I do not know.

EDIT: You may like this Anlushac.

President Bush is officially now the worst president in US history. His approval rating is only 11%. I didn't care about him until he started a very unnecessary war, but this is off topic.

It's just funny that he's done so poorly that even his own country hates him.

Sorry to get off-topic.

[Octovon]

Its taxed already, almost half the cost of a pack of cigarettes these days is taxes. Alcohol is already marked up big time here in Ontario since the LCBO, the only place that sells wine/spirits and many types of beer, is a government owned/operated establishment. The only other place to get beer in Ontario is at the Beer Store (the brand/establishment's actual name), which is owned jointly by the 3 largest brewers/beer companies in Canada (I believe its 49% owned by InBev, 49% owned by Molson/Coors and the remaining 2% owned by Sleeman, which is now owned by a Japanese company). The Beer Store, which is supposed to be a place to purchase a wide variety of beers, is designed in such a way to showcase the most popular brands produced by the owning companies and attempting to snuff out competition from micro-breweries and other independents.

As a smoker and a drinker, I feel I pay enough in taxes to offset the health costs of my habits (though socialized health care helps a lot too). Taxing Tobacco and Alcohol anymore than they already are, is just plain greedy. Why not charge companies for selling unhealthy foods/drinks, that can be just as damaging to one's health as either drinking or smoking, better yet, lets just tax those awful polluters, oh wait, that would dry up a big chunk of the politician's fund-raising resources (who have yet again voted overwhelmingly in favour of increasing their salaries and annual vacation time).

Society has stigmatized smoking, and its really fucking annoying now. I've been verbally berated for smoking by an obese neighbour, whose family of 3 requires two large SUV's, daily drives to/from a school that's easily in walking distance for their kid (not to mention who's fat and gets picked up for lunch as well), puts out too many bags of garbage, and never recycles. Who's worse for society?

[Quetron]

But here is the deal, why exactly did any gov make tobacco and booze legal ?

allmost world wide