PDA

View Full Version : Cigarette tax increase to pay for children's health care


rockdawg21
02-04-2009, 01:45 PM
Was just watching CNN and found this to be quite controversial.

It's people's choice to smoke cigarettes, I personally am a non-smoker, but have friends who smoke (wish they didn't but that's their business).

They just announced a proposed tax increase of 62 cents per pack of cigarettes to pay for health care for children. 13 million children are estimated to benefit from this.

That's just picking on smokers, it's complete BS.

County Mike
02-04-2009, 01:55 PM
That's it! Now I'm really going to quit smoking. I hate kids and I'm not going to let my filthy habit pay for their health benefits. Screw 'em! I'm done.

NateR
02-04-2009, 02:12 PM
So does this mean that they'll stop running all of those anti-smoking ads? Because if it's funding children's healthcare, then wouldn't we want more people to start smoking?:blink:

I could just see Marlboro's new ad campaign: "Show your children that you love them by smoking a pack of cigarettes today." :laugh:

rockdawg21
02-04-2009, 02:17 PM
LOL, love your responses!

MattHughesRocks
02-04-2009, 02:42 PM
Do it for the babies!

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e292/skysrock/Smileys/StonedSmileys.gif

MattHughesRocks
02-04-2009, 02:43 PM
Oh wait! That's not a cigarette! :scared0011:

rockdawg21
02-04-2009, 02:52 PM
Oh wait! That's not a cigarette! :scared0011:
This guy agrees!

http://images.smh.com.au/ftsmh/ffximage/2009/02/01/phelps_narrowweb__300x401,0.jpg

NateR
02-04-2009, 02:58 PM
This guy agrees!

http://images.smh.com.au/ftsmh/ffximage/2009/02/01/phelps_narrowweb__300x401,0.jpg

Hey, it's 8-time Olympic Gold Medalist Michael Phelps! I wonder why VCURamFan doesn't use that one for his sigline?:tongue0011:

:Whistle:

matthughesfan21
02-04-2009, 03:02 PM
Was just watching CNN and found this to be quite controversial.

It's people's choice to smoke cigarettes, I personally am a non-smoker, but have friends who smoke (wish they didn't but that's their business).

They just announced a proposed tax increase of 62 cents per pack of cigarettes to pay for health care for children. 13 million children are estimated to benefit from this.

That's just picking on smokers, it's complete BS.good to hear...what ticks me off the most is working at a grocery store, seeing people come in who have to pay for literally everything with a LINK card(even just a soda), but then buy 4 packs of cigarretes(this is a daily occurence), people need to get there priorities straight

NateR
02-04-2009, 03:06 PM
but then buy 4 packs of cigarretes(this is a daily occurence), people need to get there priorities straight

But now they're funding children's healthcare! They're heroes!!

:laugh:

matthughesfan21
02-04-2009, 03:07 PM
But now they're funding children's healthcare! They're heroes!!

:laugh:haha just a few days ago they were worthless drains on society as well as taxpayers money, now they are heroes....Really living that American Dream huh?:laugh:

rockdawg21
02-04-2009, 03:17 PM
Not to mention, they will be heroes of the children of illegal immigrants! Another benefit for illegal border crossings to give "legal" births!

Tyburn
02-04-2009, 06:48 PM
Was just watching CNN and found this to be quite controversial.

It's people's choice to smoke cigarettes, I personally am a non-smoker, but have friends who smoke (wish they didn't but that's their business).

They just announced a proposed tax increase of 62 cents per pack of cigarettes to pay for health care for children. 13 million children are estimated to benefit from this.

That's just picking on smokers, it's complete BS.

No its not. It's still their choice to smoke or not...they just have to pay more if they wish to continue.

rockdawg21
02-04-2009, 06:52 PM
No its not. It's still their choice to smoke or not...they just have to pay more if they wish to continue.
Sure it is. It's like the legislators in California passing laws that prohibit smoking in all bars. It infringes on the rights of something that's legal to do. Our government allows cigarettes to be sold, and throwing extra taxes to pay for something that is NOT their fault, or not allowing them to smoke in all public places is infringing on their rights.

Say I own a bar in California, I'm the one paying the rent, taxes, etc., I should have every right to permit smoking, but BS legislation prevents it.

Keep in mind, I'm a non-smoker, I hate cigarette smoke, but legislation and taxes like that is simply picking on smokers.

Tyburn
02-04-2009, 07:02 PM
Sure it is. It's like the legislators in California passing laws that prohibit smoking in all bars.
They did that in England. :ninja:

Infact, any indoor public place. In our store they had to remove the smoking room...now the smokers are pushed outside.

You might "own" the bar...but you dont "own" the law that governs the land the bar is built on.

Again, there is nothing stopping you smoking...you just have to pay more, and watch you dont smoke in an area where its banned.

rockdawg21
02-04-2009, 07:12 PM
They did that in England. :ninja:
Must be nice, I still think it infringes on people's rights though.

You might "own" the bar...but you dont "own" the law that governs the land the bar is built on.
Yup, and more proof that that the U.S. is changing from a Republic, as it was originally founded, to Socialism. Big government is the way of the future here.

Again, there is nothing stopping you smoking...you just have to pay more, and watch you dont smoke in an area where its banned.
That's true, but I still think it's crap.

Tyburn
02-04-2009, 07:17 PM
1) Must be nice, I still think it infringes on people's rights though.


Yup, and more proof that that the U.S. is changing from a Republic, as it was originally founded, to Socialism. Big government is the way of the future here.


That's true, but I still think it's crap.
1) No it had a few unforseen side effects. For example...now the entrance ways to buildings get clustered with smokers, whereas the non smokers didnt see them before because they were all in smoke rooms...now you breath MORE of it then before. Also, late at night all the women and youths are OUTSIDE the clubs smoking rather then inside. At least inside they are out of the way...on the roadside and drunk they are a public disgrace, not to mention at risk from preditors who would take advantage of them.

No it kinda backfired.

2) A Republic is not IMHO as good as a Democrasy....when the U.S spreads its ethos through the rest of the world, it spreads democrasy not republicanism.

3) :laugh:

NateR
02-04-2009, 07:41 PM
2) A Republic is not IMHO as good as a Democrasy....when the U.S spreads its ethos through the rest of the world, it spreads democrasy not republicanism.


Actually, the governments that we set up in countries like Iraq are Republics not Democracies. A Republic is where you democratically elect representatives to govern your country. A true Democracy would be to bring everything from installing a new stop sign to going to war up to a popular vote. We don't do that and we don't groom new "Democracies" to do that.

The official description of America's government is a "Federal Republic with Democratic Tradition." Some people also refer to it as a "Representative Democracy."

que
02-04-2009, 08:35 PM
michael phelps took a puff but he didn't inhale

NateR
02-04-2009, 08:55 PM
michael phelps took a puff but he didn't inhale

That means he can still run for President. :laugh:

Tyburn
02-04-2009, 09:27 PM
That means he can still run for President. :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh:

I'm not sure we're laughing about the same thing...but hey :unsure-1:

Tyburn
02-04-2009, 09:33 PM
Actually, the governments that we set up in countries like Iraq are Republics not Democracies. A Republic is where you democratically elect representatives to govern your country. A true Democracy would be to bring everything from installing a new stop sign to going to war up to a popular vote. We don't do that and we don't groom new "Democracies" to do that.

The official description of America's government is a "Federal Republic with Democratic Tradition." Some people also refer to it as a "Representative Democracy."
No you possibly create Democratic Republics :rolleyes:

But I think you find that in Iraq the people vote for the person they want to ellect, they DONT vote for a section of the community that votes for them, I expect that whilst you find the government possibly has proportional representation...I doubt that works out well considering one side is such a Minority.

Federal just means Collective...I would think yours was somewhere between a Democratic Republic and a Democratic Government....ive not heard of "representative democrasy" BUT...with a tiny minor change you have a new name

thats what was so hard about political philosophy for me :blink: