If the addiction is to strong to overcome(which is truth for some) and they were able to become addicts as children, Then is it fair to tax thier drug until the day they die? Would we do the same to anyone else that needs a drug to function normally?
2006-10-11 20:24:44 · 6 answers · asked by not coming back 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The truth of the matter is if they WANT to quit there are ways to stop smoking. What difference does it make when they started smoking? They tax prescription medications today and some people need those to function normally. What about alcohol? Maybe we shouldn't tax that since some people are addicted to it and need it to function normally.Or food... Nope, I don't agree with the taxation, but sorry, either everyone or no one gets taxed.
2006-10-11 20:30:59 · answer #1 · answered by msfyrebyrd 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Taxing tobacco products (why not include cigars smokers and dip users?) is fair and reasonable. The taxes were in place back in the 70's. Too bad the taxes went up.
The people addicted to smoking became addicted by choosing to smoke or chew tobacco. I can't think of many cases where Phillip Morris kidnapped children, locked them in rooms with a carton of cigs, and refused to release them until the carton was gone. Either the smoker chose to smoke on their own or they chose to give in to the peer pressure of smoking with their friends.
Think about it this way, my tax dollars are going to pay for the hospitalization of some of these smokers when they become cancer patients. The smokers will die faster than I will, therefor I will pay more taxes than they will over our lifetimes. At least when they pay the sin taxes on their tobacco, it helps balance things out.
As for other drugs, patients are not addicted to drugs which make them able to function. I am a diabetic and I use insulin. I am not addicted to insulin, but I would die in a few days without insulin. Tobacco users are addicted-they do not need to have tobacco to function as others do. They want it, but they can live without it too.
2006-10-12 03:57:07 · answer #2 · answered by Kevin k 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The information *was* available in the 70's. The surgeon general's report came out in 1964. But that doesn't mean people didn't know it wasn't a great idea beforehand. in 1795, the link between smoking and lip cancer was first noted. In 1912, the link between smoking and lung cancer.
You don't need a warning on the pack to tell you it's a bad idea; the statistics do that all on their own. It's not the government's fault that people can't take responsibility for doing a few simple sums before lighting up the first time.
2006-10-12 10:49:07 · answer #3 · answered by lizzit 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Tax on drugs is imposed to discourage its use by our yongesters. Smoking can be quitted by will. Smoking is a very bad addiction. It is most harmful and injurious to health. To tax such addiction is not bad. It is a good decision in the long run. Smoking must be quitted for the better future of our generation.
2006-10-12 03:34:41 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is that your view? Even the military have stopped selling cigarettes at tax-free prices overseas. The point is that low prices encourage overconsumption and cost the Government money in health care.
Only the cynical point out that it reduces their social security pension expense.
Children are less likely to be able to afford expensive cigarettes, and -- one hopes -- less likely to start smoking.
For the rest: taxes aren't designed to be fair. They are designed to raise money and to respond to political convenience.
2006-10-12 03:30:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Look up sin tax...you wouldn't put one on insulin for diabetics...medication for illnesses and diseases aren't addictions...they're necessities.
2006-10-12 03:30:13 · answer #6 · answered by stowchick01 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋