Are you, by chance, a smoker?

No.

I oppose the tax as well.

I'm a smoker. I get why sin taxes are popular, and although I'd rather they pass a tax on carbonated drinks or candy bars, I get that I have a choice --- pay the higher price or quit smoking. Quitting is looking better and better.

The tax's main justifcation to raise unneeded money. Is it the government's job to "help" me to quit smoking? I also enjoy steak and cheetos, both are bad for me. What happend to the idea of a free country?

That concept went out with the seat belt and auto insurance laws. And "they" are trying their darnedest to regulate steak, Cheetos and candy bars; it won't be long now. We're all unhealthy, stupid, and obese, remember? The gov't has always been more apt to add taxes than to take away spending. Dog forbid they should stop giving money away to other countries and trying to take care of everyone but their own.

I am mixed about the huge tax. Sin taxes have never raised money. Graduated increases in tobacco tax may have been more prudent. I am not comfortable with the trend these days of laws impacting our society being legislated from the executive or from the courts.

On the other hand, nicotine is a deadly, physically addictive drug. If there is any benefit from smoking, I don't know what it is. The knowledge that a large number of our children will not have access to cigarettes because the cost will be out of reach makes this tax more tolerable than any other that could have been passed.

Arguing about this tax is like arguing about tax on gas.  It doesn't affect everyone, but still a portion of soceity has to pay it.  If you don't want to pay a tax, don't consume the thing that is being taxed.  Pretty plain and simple. 

This is why we need to get rid of the IRS, and start a federal income tax.  Then no one will be singled out.  If you consume something, you pay the tax.  If you don't want to spend your money, you don't have to pay the tax.  Pretty simple to me.

www.fairtax.org

My blog is not about whether cig taxes are good btw.

Oh, it is on the perceived lie about raising taxes on people making less then 250k?  I guess it's all semantics right?

1) You're taking Obama's statement out of context, as it related to income tax, not the taxation of specific goods or services.

2) Tobacco is not an essential need, i.e. no one person must have a cigarette in order to have shelter, food or other staples.  As Btown stated above, people choose to smoke.  If they don't wish to pay a higher tax on it, they can either cut down, or quit. 

Florida, did you watch the video?

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

"..will see any form of tax increase" - It's very clear. This is not like something Ive pointed out, but the entire media now accepts. Its just known he broke this promise, google it.

Essential need? What? What does this have to do with any point ive made, or how does it justify it? Dildos are not 'essential' - does this justify a stupid tax?

My main point was that supporters of the Obama tax hike on low income smokers admit that higher taxes mean some will quit, which is what people like myself say about other taxes.

I agree with axi...a tax is a tax, and the problem with taxes such as these "sin" taxes is what will "they" next decide is bad for us? Cheeseburgers? Make-Up? who knows? The problem with taxes such as this is that we, the people, don't get a say in the passing of them, we just just get hosed by them.

As a non(ex)-smoker, this tax has no effect on me directly, but it certainly has an effect on the non-smoking public indirectly. The smokers who really can't afford this tax aren't going to just quit smoking. A sad fact is that many of the low income people who smoke are drinkers and drug users as well. They will find a way to smoke. They will steal or buy black market smokes, they will steal property to support their habits, all of them, and everyone else will pay the price at some point, even the folks who quit because of the prices. It was easier for me to stop using drugs than it was to quit smoking, so I know from whence I speak.

The taxes WILL raise money, but it won't shrink deficits any more than any other tax ever has, it will just get spent on some program that I won't benefit from.

None of us are surprised to see additional taxes on tobacco products. In New York state the tax is now at $2.75 per pack, and New York City can levy up to $1.50 on top of that. I know people complain all the time here in California, but this state is way down on the list for most taxed on tobacco products. The latest smoker tax was the compromise piece of legislation to fund the SCHIP program, which all Republicans were averse to see funded.  I guess you consider health funding for kids unnecessary.

Your statement header, however, is not self evident.

Yeah, we're just evil, wicked, mean and nasty and all of societies ill's are our fault. MY kids wouldn't be eligible for that program adam, so why should I want to help fund it? Oh well, I guess since the tobacco tax will affect those who are more likely to smoke, I shouldn't carp about it, but I will anyway. Unfair taxes are unfair taxes, period, and it is very unlikely that the money raised will actually make it, in any large part, to the actual funding of this act.  I haven't read the details of the act, but I am sure there are healthy rations of pork stuffed in it too.

BTW..Here is the breakdown on smokers v. income per annum..

$0 - 6,000       &n bsp;      30%

$6,001- 12,000     34%

$12,001 - 24,000  30%

It goes down from there.

American Smokers and Income, Charted - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com

There's always another anti-tax tea party for those who missed the first one. The next opportunity for them to huff and puff will be the Fourth of July. Those who crave Super Big Gulp drinks may want to attend as well. You never know when Big Brother has its sights on those as well.

Adam, if tobacco is a dangerous killer, then ban it completely.  I don't like the idea of the government using taxes on dangerous substances to provide child care.  If it is dangerous, ban it, and tax baby food and diapers to fund child care....

Ron, so you're saying  Taxes = bad, outright prohibition = good. Seriously? Banning substances that have high demand only serves to create a black market from which the government collects NO tax revenue. I think prohibition and the failed war on drugs has proved this fact sufficiently enough. 

Like it or not, tobacco users' freedom to use the drug costs taxpayers billions of dollars in increased health-care costs, higher insurance premiums, etc. What is wrong with asking them to pony up the dough to offset these added societal costs?  

No tom, read the post.  Everyone has said tobacco is bad and a killer. Then ban it.  We have banned asbestos, CFC's, DDT,etc.  How many prescription drugs have been released that have had harmful side effects?  We have banned those.  We didn't just raise taxes on these products so we could fund a pet project. We banned the harmful substances.

Like it or not, tobacco users' freedom to use the drug costs taxpayers billions of dollars in increased health-care costs, higher insurance premiums, etc. What is wrong with asking them to pony up the dough to offset these added societal costs?  

So children are going without healthcare because people smoke??  Is that why taxes on tobacco are going to fund child healthcare programs?  Shouldn't they be going to pay for the treatment of smokers?  Why not just get rid of all government intervention into healthcare funding.  Since when has freedom ever gotten in the way of the liberals telling us what we can and cannot do?  In order to offset healthcare costs, lets not cover treatment for lung disease and heart disease for smokers.  That will certainly reduce costs, and is in line with socialized medicine..