NationStates Jolt Archive

Don't let the government get you down.

I am not complaining about smoking bans on enclosed areas. Those make sense.

What does not make sense is paying nearly $10.00/pack for cigarettes.

What does not make sense is the additional millions of dollars now going towards fighting cigarette smugglers. That's right - millions of dollars. Did you know University students pay tuition by selling American cigarettes out of backpacks?

Ladies and Gentlemen, there CAN be a change. You must put the pressure on your government to change the abhorrent taxation. It is your responsibility to do so - to write to Dalton McGuinty, Tony Clement, and Stephen Harper. Let them know what you're thinking. Let them know how abbrasive it is, having PUBLIC FUNDS pay for PUBLIC DISCRIMINATION (calling smokers outright STUPID) after they got generations hooked and endorsed the habit.

Don't let their greed get to you!

Sounds fair. You smuggle us prescription drugs, we'll smuggle you cigarettes.

I'm not all that sympathetic for the smoking crowd. But everytime the price goes up, the black market cigs end up in circulation again. The Gov just never learns.

Don't let the government get you down.

I am not complaining about smoking bans on enclosed areas. Those make sense.

What does not make sense is paying nearly $10.00/pack for cigarettes.

What does not make sense is the additional millions of dollars now going towards fighting cigarette smugglers. That's right - millions of dollars. Did you know University students pay tuition by selling American cigarettes out of backpacks?

Ladies and Gentlemen, there CAN be a change. You must put the pressure on your government to change the abhorrent taxation. It is your responsibility to do so - to write to Dalton McGuinty, Tony Clement, and Stephen Harper. Let them know what you're thinking. Let them know how abbrasive it is, having PUBLIC FUNDS pay for PUBLIC DISCRIMINATION (calling smokers outright STUPID) after they got generations hooked and endorsed the habit.

Don't let their greed get to you!
ROFL so they figured out the price elasticity (or lack thereof) of cigarettes, and are taxing the hell out of them? More power to them, then. Not that you shouldn't try to change it, either. Maybe create a smoking-only state? Hmmm . . .

Is there no escape from the Health N@%^is?

For the record, I have no intention of starting to smoke. Standing up against taxtation of any form here.

But what about the poor students?

lmao, i first read the title as "comedian smokers - stand up"

little bit of a differet topic

hight taxes on cigs makes sence though. non-smokers have to pay for smokers using the health service. assuming smokers usually get sick more.

hight taxes on cigs makes sence though. non-smokers have to pay for smokers using the health service. assuming smokers usually get sick more.

Brilliant idea. Lets start a tax on fatty food which is determined by the weight of the person attempting to buy it. Maybe we should force people with lower IQs to pay more for power tools. Hell, let the discrimination commence!

Okay--so let me get this straight:

You want us to stop charging you so much for cigarettes, when the reason we do so is so we can pay for Stop Smoking advirtisments, and just make it CHEAPER and EASIER for you to kill yourselves at your own expense?

I'm sorry, but as much as I believe in Freedom of Choice, I believe that the act of smoking is really stupid and that smokers have made a bad decision. I will never stand in support of making it easier to inflict such self-harm.

Count me out.

Brilliant idea. Lets start a tax on fatty food which is determined by the weight of the person attempting to buy it. Maybe we should force people with lower IQs to pay more for power tools. Hell, let the discrimination commence!

These are awesome ideas - quite literally brilliant, even though they're fairly common. I totally support them, but it would be a public relations nightmare if the government tried to legislate these because over the past ten years, the government has been alternately demonising smokers and raising taxes on cigarettes. Our complaining about the rising costs just play into their hands, because it makes it sound like we want a free ride for when we 'get cancer'. (Yes, I am a smoker.)

Lets go ape-shit with legislation.

Straight and bisexual people have to pay extra tax off their paycheque in case of pregnancy, even though they may never get pregnant or cause pregnancy.

People with boats have to pay extra tax on their gas in case of boating accidents, even though they may never be in a boating accident.

And hell, if we continue along that line, people with cars have to pay even more tax on their gas, because of how often car accidents put people in the hospital.

The government is allowing us to have a habit that's more addictive than heroin, just so they can reap the extra tax benefits. That's the 'smart' thing to do; the 'caring' thing to do would be to ban it outright.

These are awesome ideas - quite literally brilliant, even though they're fairly common. I totally support them, but it would be a public relations nightmare if the government tried to legislate these because over the past ten years, the government has been alternately demonising smokers and raising taxes on cigarettes. Our complaining about the rising costs just play into their hands, because it makes it sound like we want a free ride for when we 'get cancer'. (Yes, I am a smoker.)

Lets go ape-shit with legislation.

Straight and bisexual people have to pay extra tax off their paycheque in case of pregnancy, even though they may never get pregnant or cause pregnancy.

People with boats have to pay extra tax on their gas in case of boating accidents, even though they may never be in a boating accident.

And hell, if we continue along that line, people with cars have to pay even more tax on their gas, because of how often car accidents put people in the hospital.

The government is allowing us to have a habit that's more addictive than heroin, just so they can reap the extra tax benefits. That's the 'smart' thing to do; the 'caring' thing to do would be to ban it outright.

If they banned it outright, you'd probably carry on smoking as would most of the smoking population, sales of smuggled and counterfeit cigarettes would go through the roof and the government would spend even more money cracking down on it then the burden it actually puts on the health care system.

If they banned it outright, you'd probably carry on smoking as would most of the smoking population, sales of smuggled and counterfeit cigarettes would go through the roof and the government would spend even more money cracking down on it then the burden it actually puts on the health care system.

Sounds kinda like the American 'War on Drugs' to me.

Sounds kinda like the American 'War on Drugs' to me.

Exactly, is that what you want?

Exactly, is that what you want?

As a smoker? Not particularly. What I'd like is for people to stop glaring at me when I'm a respectful distance away from them, smoking.

But OMGSEKUNDHNDSMOOOKE. They can't do that; that would mean they're letting the TERRORISTS WIN. <insert other derogatory statements linking the vast majority of anti-smoking people who are not health professionals to sheep>

It's my choice to smoke. I actually chose it of my free will - no peer pressure, nothing of the sort.

I'm sorry, but as much as I believe in Freedom of Choice, I believe that the act of smoking is really stupid and that smokers have made a bad decision. I will never stand in support of making it easier to inflict such self-harm.

Good on you. You must obviously support taxing people who choose euthanasia, or to not have life-saving blood transfers based on religious convictions.

The government is allowing us to have a habit that's more addictive than heroin, just so they can reap the extra tax benefits. That's the 'smart' thing to do; the 'caring' thing to do would be to ban it outright.

Just so you know, the "cigarettes iz more addicting than heroin!!1!!!" mantra is complete bullshit.

Though it's funny you mention heroin, since that's banned and the only thing it really accomplishes it makes heroin dealing and production a multi-billion dollar black market enterprise and forces heroin addicts into criminality and pariahood.

Sounds kinda like the American 'War on Drugs' to me.

+1(well actually most countries war on "drugs")

Don't let the government get you down.

I am not complaining about smoking bans on enclosed areas. Those make sense.

What does not make sense is paying nearly $10.00/pack for cigarettes.

What does not make sense is the additional millions of dollars now going towards fighting cigarette smugglers. That's right - millions of dollars. Did you know University students pay tuition by selling American cigarettes out of backpacks?

Ladies and Gentlemen, there CAN be a change. You must put the pressure on your government to change the abhorrent taxation. It is your responsibility to do so - to write to Dalton McGuinty, Tony Clement, and Stephen Harper. Let them know what you're thinking. Let them know how abbrasive it is, having PUBLIC FUNDS pay for PUBLIC DISCRIMINATION (calling smokers outright STUPID) after they got generations hooked and endorsed the habit.

Don't let their greed get to you!

What's the big deal? If you want to smoke, you have to pay your admission price; $10 a pack. If that's too much, stop smoking. Cigarettes aren't a necessity of life like toilet paper, porn or milk. They're a luxury item. *nod*

But what about the poor students?

Don't smoke. :)

Don't smoke. :)

I meant the dudes selling them to pay their tuition, if taxes are dropped on them where are they gunna get the money?

I don't think taxes on cigarettes are designed to discriminate. I think they are designed to keep people from starting the addictive habit(Many smokers really are addicted. Don't give me the "I smoke and can quit any time I want, therefore you are a retarded **** who f**ks his mother daily because smoking is not addictive" BS). Why would they be so addictive? Because the tobbacco companies care about one thing: profits. They profit from the addiction so they are trying to get more poeple to start because their customers are starting to, you know, get cancer and die.

Hell, here in Nevada, we have a 7.25(or was it 7.5)% sales tax on EVERYTHING. Is the average Nevadan being discriminated against? After all, the cigarette tax is against a single product(brand names don't count as products). My sales tax is a tax on EVERYTHING. Cars. Candy. Medical supplies needed to keep people alive. I'm not even sure what it pays for. I think most of it goes into the politicians' paychecks. Oh, teh discrimination. :p

I meant the dudes selling them to pay their tuition, if taxes are dropped on them where are they gunna get the money?

prostitution?

I personaly can't see much of a problem with the tax in and of its self and I am saying this as someone who smokes on occasion, what bothers me is the way people insist on acting like there is some inherant morality or lack thereof to smoking, yes it fucks up your lungs I don't argue with that proven fact but eating fatty foods fucks up your cardiovascular system and drinking does the same to your liver, the way I see it we pay taxes on these things so later if they do put us in hospital people can't complain because we already payed our way in the taxes. We choose to smoke and we pay our way through taxes as such the real annoyance is people who act like we are commiting a sin by doing so.
To Lydania, wake up we already pay extra for driving our cars in case of accidents, its called insurance you moron.

Should we put an additional tax on the Internet now, too, because it causes people to sit on their butts on places like NS all day? :P

Look, health hazzards are everywhere. Sitting at this computer, going through these forums, can cause you to run the risk of countless possible health effects. For instance, your eyes can slowly degenerate from looking at a monitor. Your lower-body can go to waste by sitting all the time. Television may not only cause laziness, but it constantly exposes you to commercials for fatty foods at every possible moment.

But there are a couple of key words there. May. Can. Not will. Do you want to pay $5 extra for something that might happen?

Consider this. You buy yourself a new frying pan. The salesman said it might be teflon-coated. Would you be willing to pay 30% more than a typical frying pan for a possibility? Probably not.

Knowing you may get fat, do you want to pay $4 for a chocolate bar instead of $1.50? We could call them 'luxury items' too - you don't need chocolate to survive.

Oh, that's right. You want chocolate.

$10 is outrageous. It's not an ethical price - it's overpriced greed. The government is raking in the money from the taxes here at the cost of my habit. What right do they have to do that? I still pay income tax. Smokers are still paying for other people's care. Maybe I don't want to pay for the people who are obese? Would you allow that?

The government doesn't even tax casino winnings here. Nevermind the fact that gambling addiction causes the loss of income and the suffering of families.

I don't have a problem helping to pay for stop smoking advertisements. I do have problems with ones that call people 'Stupid'. You don't see overeating advertisements calling people 'fat' - and if the government paid for them, you'd see a massive uproar.

My heart bleeds for you poor smokers. You don't get to slowly kill yourself and everyone around you for a cheap price. Really sad. Smokers want their disgusting habit they can pay for it and they can use it away from other people.

Smokers already have to use it away from other people. Legislation in Ontario doesn't let you smoke in any enclosed area, or places with an overhang. I am perfectly fine with that. I'm not fine with that -and- the demonic taxation that is occuring. Seriously, one or the other. I'm not a Libertarian, I just want common sense.

I know a great many adults who have to debate whether to buy a pack of cigarettes or bread. They can't quit, because that interferes with their job. And stop-smoking aids, well, they cost more than cigarettes and are still long-term commitments.

If the government really cared, they'd just have a moderate tax on smokes, and a government refund on stop-smoking aids.

Who was it who said taxes on cigarettes are a tax on stupid people,i'm not sure but i just see it as a down payment on the healthcare you're going to need eventually if you continue to smoke.:p

All I know is this - I've only ever heard of one person who quit smoking because it cost too damn much. My fiancee's now-deceased stepdad saw a gas station sign advertising the price of cigarettes in, like, 1976, and he decided it was too damn much and quit. No one does that. He was just...well, different.

That said, I am all for taxing the dickens out of cigarettes, but then again, I don't smoke, and neither does anyone in my immediate family, so I don't give a flying fig.

Should we put an additional tax on the Internet now, too, because it causes people to sit on their butts on places like NS all day? :P


I don't believe there is any secondhand Internet usage. Internet fumes affecting those all around you... :p

So? I can't smoke indoors, or in any enclosed areas anymore. People don't have to sit in a room filled with smoke anymore. That's fine by me.

But our taxes aren't going to just health care. We're paying additional taxes on countless amounts of things.

Our gov't rakes in $144M in cigarette taxation alone. That's PER WEEK. That goes to paving roads and education. I'm sorry, but if you're going to give me a discriminatory tax, the money should be going towards the exact reason for it - health care and anti-smoking advertisements.

All I know is this - I've only ever heard of one person who quit smoking because it cost too damn much. My fiancee's now-deceased stepdad saw a gas station sign advertising the price of cigarettes in, like, 1976, and he decided it was too damn much and quit. No one does that. He was just...well, different.

That said, I am all for taxing the dickens out of cigarettes, but then again, I don't smoke, and neither does anyone in my immediate family, so I don't give a flying fig.

Working as a cashier who sells cigarettes, you'd actually be surprised at how many people I know who have started to cut down how much they smoke cos the smokes cost too much. Especially because my store just raised its prices by about 50 cents a pack. Nobody has up an quit, yet... actually, wait. One guy has decided to try. I'm cheering for him.

Of course, I might help a little with my finger-wagging at the regulars. BUt anyhow, my point is, yes, some people do actually look at prices and decide they need to chnage their habits.

Did you know it's estimated that 40% of all Canadian cigarettes are being sold on the black market? How much do you think increased cigarette taxation is causing people to quit? It's causing people to buy illegally.

That means that the police have to spend even more of your tax dollars to fend off the smugglers, too. And that means you have to live with the violent crime that surfaces because of it.

They could have done this the honourable way, but they have done it the greedy way, and the backlash has been millions of dollars down the tubes to fight cig smugglers when this could have all been avoided by taxing us appropriately - knowing fully well that in almost every other case, increase in cigarette taxes has resulted in people obtaining them from somewhere else. In Michigan, when they did it ten years ago, every state within a one day drive to Michigan witnessed a huge increase in tobacco sales and barely any drop in the amount of smokers.

If you think this taxation is helping any, you're dead wrong. It's causing more and more problems.

Sounds kinda like the American 'War on Drugs' to me.

Bingo! Does anyone remember how effective prohibition was? (Thanx Canada and Mexico for all the booze. It was really appreciated).

The simple fact is, A government cannot effectively prohibit the possesion of anything, so long as their is a demand for it. The instant they do, a black market will spring up. The best a government can do is attempt to regulate (read tax) something and balance the ammount of regulation imposed against the prevalence of the black market they create.

Parkinson addressed this very issue of taxation, and, IMO, quite accurately:
Pharaoh taxed the Israelites in terms of service: 'And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour; and they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field.'...As a reckless generalisation we can say that the productive people of the world have discovered from experience that they will always have to yield 10 percent to somebody, whether to a gangster, a feudal lord, or a department of Inland Revenue. It comes to much the same thing in any case. To escape from one tax gatherer will usually mean paying blackmail to another. Up to about 10 percent the exaction is in accordance, it would seem, with a law of nature. When it rises above that level, the time has come for the Israelites to study the atlas. There may be better places than Egypt; and in point of fact there are.

ROFL so they figured out the price elasticity (or lack thereof) of cigarettes, and are taxing the hell out of them? More power to them, then. Not that you shouldn't try to change it, either. Maybe create a smoking-only state? Hmmm . . .

Theyve already got that system ongoing with booze and government booze outlets. It's a natural progression of sin tax and I reckon it will be a nice little money maker for Nanny. They might also figure out that they will have more control of tobacco if it is only sold at government outlets or licensed smoke easys as well.