Here's an example:
"Funds for the expansion would come from higher tobacco taxes, including a 61-cent increase on a pack of cigarettes."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_children_s_health
2007-10-03 13:33:14 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Whether you smoke or not....think it is a nasty habit or not....I don't see how any intelligent person could say they are not being discriminated against...
It only we could force additional taxes on ALL adults in America with "unhealthy" habits...then we would have no national debt.
Would that be fair....didn't think so.
2007-10-03 13:41:06 · answer #1 · answered by Lilliput1212 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't live in the US, but Cigarette Smokers are being discriminated against, the issue is not even relevant to smoking, fair enough if the extra taxes were being used to provide better cancer and heart disease facilities.
I don't disagree that tobacco should be made illegal, but no govt in their right mind are going to do that. The revenue provided by cigarette taxes is to good to turn there back on. They would have to tax something else, and I bet non-smokers wouldn't be happy about that!!! Yes I think its discrimination
2007-10-03 13:47:39 · answer #2 · answered by D Man 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's the reason the Democrats didn't want to ban cigarettes. It's so unhealthy they want to tax it to the point that people quit smoking. The problem is, when all the smokers don't want to pay the taxes on smokes, and cigarettes go back to the black market, where will the money come from to pay for the entitlements that cigarette taxes fund? Tobacco is the only truly dangerous product that the government refuses to ban because of the money it generates for the government.
2007-10-03 13:40:07 · answer #3 · answered by madd texan 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Discrimination is not about choice, it's about singling out a group of individuals for whatever reason and then denying them the same basic rights as you would deny another group of individuals. This is discrimination in the purest form. What is next, a super tax on a big mac to prevent obesity, or how about a super tax on coca-cola, and Pepsi because of caffeine. There are a lot of unhealthy habits that people engage in, and taxing one group is discrimination, but because so many people disagree with the habit, they will overlook the discrimination this time, but when it gets to their unhealthy habit, then they will cry foul. I hate cigarettes, everything about them but smokers are being singled out.
2007-10-04 00:28:26 · answer #4 · answered by libsticker 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's ironic isn't it. The government wants to ban smoking altogether and frowns upon smoking. The Clinton's attacked the tobacco industry with frivolous lawsuits and now they want smokers to pay for health care. Whats next....cigarette ads like the Marlboro Man and Joe Cool make a big comeback to promote cigarette sales.
2007-10-03 13:39:35 · answer #5 · answered by Enigma 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think the whole thing is to reduce its appeal to young peoples, not really to old smokers... So I guess you better put the money you put in cigarettes into lottery tickets, in this way, you have better chances to win over time... Tobacco, is more harmfull to peoples that doesn't smoke, than to the real smokers, so they make them pay for the others...
2007-10-03 16:33:27 · answer #6 · answered by Jedi squirrels 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, not really. I am a smoker and keep hoping they will tax cigs out of existence. My only objection is when they say these taxes are for health care then vote a pay raise into the same tax hike. The tax hikes they vote in are thinly disguised and the diverted into something unrelated.
2007-10-03 13:40:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yahoo has it wrong the tax is 61 cents and would raised to a dollar and no I don't considering the amount of healthcare costs they generate and I know my Grandmother died of COPD and she cost a bundle to the others in her insurance pool before she passed and since S Chip is for kids and most kids health programs have don't start smoking as part of the preventative package we're actually going to come out ahead
2007-10-03 13:40:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes i sure do. Without Tobacco (ask Gore) the Government would hurt for lack of taxes.
2007-10-03 13:43:08 · answer #9 · answered by ♥ Mel 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, i don't think it's discrimination. You can choose not to buy cigarettes. Luxury items are often taxed over necessities.
The people who do choose to smoke raise insurance rates for the general public with lung cancer and emphysema.
2007-10-03 13:39:38 · answer #10 · answered by scoop 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋