Should the FDA regulate tobacco?

[Andy]

This is a hard one for me. Right now in Ohio, the price of cigs, has gone up $0.60 a pack for three straight months.

Now, I'm against it because I feel it's wrong to specifically target a legal US product. If the product is that bad, then it should be banned. If not, then we shouldn't play taxation games with it.

You are effectively harming one of the few areas of our economy so far, unaffected by the downturn. Not to mention, it will not be an effective tax, just like how it didn't work in New York in the 90s.



On the other hand, I love how nearly every single smoker where I work, voted for Obama. Poetic justice is a wonderful thing to witness. Them squealing in pain at the cost of their smokes, due to the president they voted in, is music to my ears.

 

[PLC1]

Did you forget that CaLiCo stands for Capitalist, LIBERTARIAN, Conservative?

I didn't realize that. Welcome to the club.

Don't you find it incredibly hipocritical that "Liberals" want to ban tobacco but legalize Pot? Then they have the temerity to claim one causes cancer while the other cures it?

Yes, I find that terribly hypocritical. I also find it hypocritical that conservatives want to keep tobacco cheap and easy to get, while imposing draconian punishments for using or selling pot.

The law should be that you can smoke whatever you want, so long as it is outdoors and downwind, where I don't have to smell it.

And what's with all you Tax-Nazi's anyway? I say again... if you think taxing activities and products you disapprove of is acceptable, then I hope activities and products you enjoy become so heavily taxed that you can no longer participate in them. We can all live like slaves during the 1700's under environazi rule.

So, you would remove taxes on cigarettes and doobies? Don't both cause some expenses for the rest of us? What's wrong with having the users pay their own way?

But that's the endgame for the Tax-Nazi isn't it? To eliminate personal freedom and individual choice without having to directly ban things. Force people into lifestyles and choices that you agree with because they are too stupid to make decisions for themselves.

We would have to raise taxes on tobacco a lot before it costs nearly as much as other drugs.

But you're right about taxes: The power to tax is the power to destroy. That's why taxation, like drugs, have to be used in moderation.

I remember when America was the land of the free, I miss those days.

Really? I think those days are a long way in the past, if indeed they ever really existed.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

This is a hard one for me. Right now in Ohio, the price of cigs, has gone up $0.60 a pack for three straight months.

Now, I'm against it because I feel it's wrong to specifically target a legal US product. If the product is that bad, then it should be banned. If not, then we shouldn't play taxation games with it.

You are effectively harming one of the few areas of our economy so far, unaffected by the downturn. Not to mention, it will not be an effective tax, just like how it didn't work in New York in the 90s.



On the other hand, I love how nearly every single smoker where I work, voted for Obama. Poetic justice is a wonderful thing to witness. Them squealing in pain at the cost of their smokes, due to the president they voted in, is music to my ears.

are you ok with the rest off us paying alot more for health care to take care of smokers?

 

[Andy]

are you ok with the rest off us paying alot more for health care to take care of smokers?

If everyone paid for their own health care, that wouldn't be a problem, now would it? I'm not in support of socializing health care so I have to pay for a smokers health care costs.

But beyond that even, the last research I read on this indicated smokers die sooner, and thus cost the health care system less then others who linger on and on. So your screwy claim, doesn't even hold water, when it wasn't valid if it did.

 

[GenSeneca]

I didn't realize that. Welcome to the club.

We had a discussion about this long ago but I'll further refresh your memory:
Capitalism is my ideal and I agree with all the tenets of libertarianism and Conservatism that do not violate that ideal. That means there are some things about Libertarians and Conservatives that I completely disagree with.

Yes, I find that terribly hypocritical. I also find it hypocritical that conservatives want to keep tobacco cheap and easy to get, while imposing draconian punishments for using or selling pot.

I agree but thats because of the tendancy for people of any stripe to seek imposing their views on others through the power of government. At least the Conservatives are not suggesting that Pot causes cancer while cigarettes cure it.

The law should be that you can smoke whatever you want, so long as it....

...doesn't directly violate the rights of others.

Saying you shouldn't have to smell it is absurd... I can't stand to smell the stench of some long haired maggot infested teva wearing hippy drenched in patcholi oil but I'll never pass a law that says I have a "right" to not smell it because I have no such right.

So, you would remove taxes on cigarettes and doobies?

I would roll all taxation into a national sales tax that effects ALL citizens, of any income, any religion, any political persuasion, any race, color or creed, equally. Now some will say that "disproportionately affects the poor" but those same people are the ones who think taxing the bejeezus out of tobacco is a good thing, despite knowing damn good and well that such taxation disproportionately affects the poor.

We would have to raise taxes on tobacco a lot before it costs nearly as much as other drugs.

Those "other" drugs are illegal... Legalize pot and the price would plummit to a level where nearly any taxation would encourage an underground black market economy.

But you're right about taxes: The power to tax is the power to destroy.

Thats why we should have a tax code that taxes all citizens the exact same % regardless of other factors. Once our tax increases affects all citizens equally, rather than just targeting minority segments of the population, Americans would stand together in unity.

Really? I think those days are a long way in the past, if indeed they ever really existed.

About 150 years in the past... If we had the freedom we had then with the technology that we have now, Americans would already be living in the 22nd century while the rest of the world looked on with awe.

 

[GenSeneca]

If everyone paid for their own health care, that wouldn't be a problem, now would it?

A-to-the-Men!

You take care of yourself, I'll take care of myself and if we help each other... let it be because we choose to do so and not because we are forced into it through the power of government.

Socialized medicine just gives government, with the help of do-gooder busy bodies, an excuse to dictate how people live their lives. There is a reason we call the "Progressive" ideal the "Nanny" state... because it takes care of your every need in return for controling your life.

 

[PLC1]

We had a discussion about this long ago but I'll further refresh your memory:
Capitalism is my ideal and I agree with all the tenets of libertarianism and Conservatism that do not violate that ideal. That means there are some things about Libertarians and Conservatives that I completely disagree with.

Such as what?

I agree but thats because of the tendancy for people of any stripe to seek imposing their views on others through the power of government. At least the Conservatives are not suggesting that Pot causes cancer while cigarettes cure it.

No rational people are suggesting the reverse, but, of course, the irrational ones are wrong as usual. There is some evidence that pot does relieve the nausea caused by chemotherapy, but it can't cure cancer.

Yes, imposing one's views on others through the force of government is the antithesis of libertarian thought, and yes, both liberals and conservatives like to engage in doing so. I find the advocates of small government (conservatives?) who still want to dictate how the rest of us should live to be particularly contradictory in their philosophy.

...doesn't directly violate the rights of others.

Saying you shouldn't have to smell it is absurd... I can't stand to smell the stench of some long haired maggot infested teva wearing hippy drenched in patcholi oil but I'll never pass a law that says I have a "right" to not smell it because I have no such right.

OK, that's better. As long as they are outdoors and downwind, their smoking won't affect me.

I would roll all taxation into a national sales tax that effects ALL citizens, of any income, any religion, any political persuasion, any race, color or creed, equally. Now some will say that "disproportionately affects the poor" but those same people are the ones who think taxing the bejeezus out of tobacco is a good thing, despite knowing damn good and well that such taxation disproportionately affects the poor.

Philosophically, I agree with the principle, but what would such a sales tax to to business? Wouldn't it discourage sales?

Those "other" drugs are illegal... Legalize pot and the price would plummit to a level where nearly any taxation would encourage an underground black market economy.

Yes, of course the price would plummet. There could still be enough taxation to make up for the social ills they cause without creating a black market. Is there such a market for tobacco now? It is pretty heavily taxed. How about alcohol? I don't know of many who engage in moonshine stills.

Thats why we should have a tax code that taxes all citizens the exact same % regardless of other factors. Once our tax increases affects all citizens equally, rather than just targeting minority segments of the population, Americans would stand together in unity.

That's a good principle. Putting it into practice would be difficult. The devil is in the details, as well as in the unintended consequences.

About 150 years in the past... If we had the freedom we had then with the technology that we have now, Americans would already be living in the 22nd century while the rest of the world looked on with awe.

At least that long ago.

I think there may be some other things that would have to be done to be that far ahead of the rest of the world, starting with refraining from unnecessary wars.

 

[BigRob]

...doesn't directly violate the rights of others.

Saying you shouldn't have to smell it is absurd... I can't stand to smell the stench of some long haired maggot infested teva wearing hippy drenched in patcholi oil but I'll never pass a law that says I have a "right" to not smell it because I have no such right.

I do not think it is an issue of "having to smell it" but rather an issue of the health implications of secondhand smoke. It seems that person X smoking around me and damaging my lungs would be a problem for many people.

It is not like the stench of some hippy drenched in some oil will effect your health, whereas being forced to inhale some other persons smoke could. I think that is the difference.

 

[BigRob]

I think there may be some other things that would have to be done to be that far ahead of the rest of the world, starting with refraining from unnecessary wars.

I am interested in seeing a list of wars you would deem "unnecessary." Also, what your definition of "war" is.

 

[GenSeneca]

Such as what?

Well.... Libertarians seem to think we should cower in our own shores and never use the military outside of our borders without being at war. They also seem less than keen on the idea of developing future combat systems and are totally against weaponizing space. Our military should be used to protect our interests, at home and abroad, it should be well funded and constantly at the cutting edge of technology... and I'm all for the weaponization of space (missile defense and laser warfare).

As for the Conservatives, there are some religious "Progressives" who would use the power of the government to impose their will on others. Luckily, they seem to be in the minority among Conservatives. The governments only role is to protect the rights of its citizens... what we choose to do economically, socially and spiritually should be of no concern to our government.

Philosophically, I agree with the principle, but what would such a sales tax to to business? Wouldn't it discourage sales?

No. Read about the Fair Tax. While I disagree with the prebate system, a national sales tax would eliminated indirect taxes (like those on Gas and Tobacco). If Americans actually saw how much we paid in both direct and indirect taxes, there would be a tax revolt. That's why government prefers to levy indirect taxes on specific minorities, be it an industry or group of people.

How about alcohol? I don't know of many who engage in moonshine stills.

Most black market moonshine stills and tobacco farms will be local to an area, so you're not going to hear about them when they get busted unless you live in the area.. but there are regular busts of illegal moonshine operations. March 23rd, 2009: Moonshine and Marijuana Bust in Martin County

That's a good principle. Putting it into practice would be difficult.

You mean putting it back into practice.... our government was founded on such principles of equality but we've been "Progressive" in our march the opposite direction. In the Progressive world of next Tuesday, some Americans are more equal than others.

 

[PLC1]

Well.... Libertarians seem to think we should cower in our own shores and never use the military outside of our borders without being at war. They also seem less than keen on the idea of developing future combat systems and are totally against weaponizing space. Our military should be used to protect our interests, at home and abroad, it should be well funded and constantly at the cutting edge of technology... and I'm all for the weaponization of space (missile defense and laser warfare).

I don't see anything about that on this Libertarian website, but that doesn't mean it isn't a part of the platform. I'm not sure about "cowering in our own shores", but aggressive and unnecessary wars against nations that aren't a threat to us should not be among the things the government is allowed to do..

I can't go along with the open borders part of the platform though, can you?

Immigrants' Rights: Argues that borders should be open but surveilled--everyone who does not pose a threat to public health or national security should be allowed to enter the country legally. Would eliminate all federal benefits to undocumented immigrants.

As for the Conservatives, there are some religious "Progressives" who would use the power of the government to impose their will on others. Luckily, they seem to be in the minority among Conservatives. The governments only role is to protect the rights of its citizens... what we choose to do economically, socially and spiritually should be of no concern to our government.

Do you really think they are among the minority? Pro life seems to be a big issue with "conservatives", as is gay marriage.

No. Read about the Fair Tax. While I disagree with the prebate system, a national sales tax would eliminated indirect taxes (like those on Gas and Tobacco). If Americans actually saw how much we paid in both direct and indirect taxes, there would be a tax revolt. That's why government prefers to levy indirect taxes on specific minorities, be it an industry or group of people.

You're right there. If people really knew how much taxes are, there would be a revolt. Deficit spending is another indirect tax, one that is collected by inflation. There is no free lunch, as so many think.

Most black market moonshine stills and tobacco farms will be local to an area, so you're not going to hear about them when they get busted unless you live in the area.. but there are regular busts of illegal moonshine operations. March 23rd, 2009: Moonshine and Marijuana Bust in Martin County

Still, just what percentage of alcohol is produced by illegal operations? A tax to make up for the social costs is justified, it seems to me. How much of the time of the local cops is taken up by drunks, for example? How much effort does it take to keep them off of the road? If there were a tax on pot, it could also be used to help keep potheads in the passenger seats.

You mean putting it back into practice.... our government was founded on such principles of equality but we've been "Progressive" in our march the opposite direction. In the Progressive world of next Tuesday, some Americans are more equal than others.

As you said, it has been going on for a very long time now.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'm not sure about "cowering in our own shores", but aggressive and unnecessary wars against nations that aren't a threat to us should not be among the things the government is allowed to do..

From the LP site:
3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

I think we do have some responsibility to "Police" the world, if for no other reason than to protect our trade routes and shipping lanes from piracy. I certainly don't think we should be in the business of nation building but also feel we are far too PC in our use of military force.

I can't go along with the open borders part of the platform though, can you?

Not "open borders" but I'm all for open immigration on the pre-condition that we eliminate the welfare state. Open immigration to anyone who wants to come here but put them through the process of assimilation, we don't need any multicultural crap, that's nothing more than self segregation. Learn English, learn our history, learn our laws, become Americans.

Do you really think they are among the minority? Pro life seems to be a big issue with "conservatives", as is gay marriage.

I think the Pat Robertson type of Conservatives are among the minority, yes.

Gay marriage, like the abortion battle, comes down to definitions. Gays want to change the definition of the word "marriage" while pro-lifers want "Life" defined as a legal term. As for gay marriage, I think gays are going about it all wrong... they should be pointing out that government should not be in the business of issuing marriage licenses in the first place but simply record keepers.

Similarly, pro-lifers shouldn't be calling those who get abortions sinners and telling them they will rot in hell... they should be fighting to have the courts recognize that the life of an individual starts in the womb, they actually have the science to support that claim while not so much science about the sinner burning in hell claim.

If there were a tax on pot, it could also be used to help keep potheads in the passenger seats.

My point was that once taxes get too high, the black market pops up and the open market dries. That's true for all things taxed. Some people look at an ounce of bionic chronic selling for $400 an ounce and think the government could make serious money off legalizing and taxing the product but the reality is that legalization would cause the price to plummit. That $400 price tag includes a "Risk" tax by the producer and subsequent distributors. Pot is cheap to grow and harvest, the taxes on it, if made legal, would have to be minimal in order to prevent a black market.

 

[PLC1]

From the LP site:
3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

I think we do have some responsibility to "Police" the world, if for no other reason than to protect our trade routes and shipping lanes from piracy. I certainly don't think we should be in the business of nation building but also feel we are far too PC in our use of military force.

Yes, I suppose that defending the US could be extended to defending her interests abroad, but where do you draw the line? If the "live and let live" philosophy the Libertarians espouse could be extended to other nations, then we might have a reasonable foreign policy.

As for "entangling alliances", should we really go it alone every time?

No, the business of nation building is not something we should be doing, as shown by our latest attempt.

Not "open borders" but I'm all for open immigration on the pre-condition that we eliminate the welfare state. Open immigration to anyone who wants to come here but put them through the process of assimilation, we don't need any multicultural crap, that's nothing more than self segregation. Learn English, learn our history, learn our laws, become Americans.

We need also to do a background check, as we already have plenty of felons and don't need any more. That, and limit the number to so that they can actually be assimilated, and don't merely transfer a third world way of life to the US.

I think the Pat Robertson type of Conservatives are among the minority, yes.

I'm no so sure, but maybe.

Gay marriage, like the abortion battle, comes down to definitions. Gays want to change the definition of the word "marriage" while pro-lifers want "Life" defined as a legal term. As for gay marriage, I think gays are going about it all wrong... they should be pointing out that government should not be in the business of issuing marriage licenses in the first place but simply record keepers.

Exactly. It should be up to the individuals, and perhaps the churches doing the ceremonies, who is married, not to the government.

Similarly, pro-lifers shouldn't be calling those who get abortions sinners and telling them they will rot in hell... they should be fighting to have the courts recognize that the life of an individual starts in the womb, they actually have the science to support that claim while not so much science about the sinner burning in hell claim.

Is there really a scientific way to determine when life begins? Is a zygote a human life? Does life begin when the first cells begin to multiply, or when the spirit enters the body? Just when does that happen? I don't think there is any way to prove any of that.

My point was that once taxes get too high, the black market pops up and the open market dries. That's true for all things taxed. Some people look at an ounce of bionic chronic selling for $400 an ounce and think the government could make serious money off legalizing and taxing the product but the reality is that legalization would cause the price to plummit. That $400 price tag includes a "Risk" tax by the producer and subsequent distributors. Pot is cheap to grow and harvest, the taxes on it, if made legal, would have to be minimal in order to prevent a black market.

Sure, taxes need to be kept to a reasonable level, but that doesn't mean no taxes at all. A substance that causes problems to the rest of us should have to pay for those problems. Why should I have to pay to lock up a drunk in order to keep him off of the streets when I don't drink and drive myself? Let the alcohol pay for the alcoholic.

 

[Andy]

Yes, I suppose that defending the US could be extended to defending her interests abroad, but where do you draw the line? If the "live and let live" philosophy the Libertarians espouse could be extended to other nations, then we might have a reasonable foreign policy.

As for "entangling alliances", should we really go it alone every time?

Yes, if needed. Iraq is a perfect example. Saddam violated every aspect of the cease fire for years and years on end. After indirectly kicking out the UN inspectors, who documented his thwarting of their inspections time and time again, we asked the UN to do something. And do something they didn't. They yacked incessantly and did nothing, while at the same time being involved in the oil for food scandal.

Conservatives like myself, wanted to Bush to simply do what needed done immediately. Instead he waited nearly two years for the UN to do what they should have done 5 years prior. I'm convinced this is why we didn't find all the WMDs our intel, and the worlds intel, said was there. We gave him two years to hide, transfer, and dispose of the WMDs before we got there.

No, the business of nation building is not something we should be doing, as shown by our latest attempt.

What's wrong with our latest attempt? We have an ally in the middle east, and a nation of people that are ecstatic to be free from a horrible ruthless dictator.

This is a picture from a demonstration in support of the U.S.-Iraq security pact, Nov, 2008. Do they seem unhappy to you? No, more like celebrating our support of them.

Is there really a scientific way to determine when life begins? Is a zygote a human life? Does life begin when the first cells begin to multiply, or when the spirit enters the body? Just when does that happen? I don't think there is any way to prove any of that.

When a egg becomes a viable human, then it is alive. The classic definition of life is simply metabolism, growth, reproduction. The egg alone does none of these. Once conception happens, all three happen. At that point it is a living human being.

Sure, taxes need to be kept to a reasonable level, but that doesn't mean no taxes at all. A substance that causes problems to the rest of us should have to pay for those problems. Why should I have to pay to lock up a drunk in order to keep him off of the streets when I don't drink and drive myself? Let the alcohol pay for the alcoholic.

What was the problem with prohibition? Supposedly the amount of crime and specifically organized crime, was oh so horrible, that they had to legalize alcohol to stop it... right?

Ok, the amount of taxes necessary to cover the cost of alcohol related social problems, would be so high, that a black market for booze would undoubtedly spring into existence. Similarly, for Tobacco, raising taxes, for even the far few social costs, would still cause a black market for the sticks.

Already in Ohio, we have a black market for imported, cheaper cigarettes. Now granted the Ohio market is smallish, and very new. In New York, which had steeper taxes on tobacco, the black market was much larger, and much more organized. However, next month, and I hear the month after, taxes on cigarettes is going up. People are going to be looking for cheap Tobacco, and already know a few that are going to be in the business of importing untaxed cigs.

The main point is this. You are still going to have the same result as prohibition.

 

[PLC1]

Yes, if needed. Iraq is a perfect example. Saddam violated every aspect of the cease fire for years and years on end. After indirectly kicking out the UN inspectors, who documented his thwarting of their inspections time and time again, we asked the UN to do something. And do something they didn't. They yacked incessantly and did nothing, while at the same time being involved in the oil for food scandal.

Conservatives like myself, wanted to Bush to simply do what needed done immediately. Instead he waited nearly two years for the UN to do what they should have done 5 years prior. I'm convinced this is why we didn't find all the WMDs our intel, and the worlds intel, said was there. We gave him two years to hide, transfer, and dispose of the WMDs before we got there.



What's wrong with our latest attempt? We have an ally in the middle east, and a nation of people that are ecstatic to be free from a horrible ruthless dictator.

Six years of war, hundreds of billions of dollars, over four thousand US soldiers' lives, tens of thousands of our soldiers wounded, hundreds of thousands of civilian lives, and we might have an ally in the Middle East. Had we known the cost up front, would we still have gone ahead?

When a egg becomes a viable human, then it is alive. The classic definition of life is simply metabolism, growth, reproduction. The egg alone does none of these. Once conception happens, all three happen. At that point it is a living human being.

Your definition of human life is supportable if you believe that a human being is a body only. If you believe that we are a soul as well, then human life, that is to say, life on Earth, begins when the soul enters the body. As I said before, no one knows when that happens. No one can, in fact, prove that it does happen.

Ironically, it seems to be the Christians who argue that life begins at conception, rather than the atheists, but still, neither side really knows that they are right. They simply believe themselves to be right.

What was the problem with prohibition? Supposedly the amount of crime and specifically organized crime, was oh so horrible, that they had to legalize alcohol to stop it... right?

Ok, the amount of taxes necessary to cover the cost of alcohol related social problems, would be so high, that a black market for booze would undoubtedly spring into existence. Similarly, for Tobacco, raising taxes, for even the far few social costs, would still cause a black market for the sticks.

Already in Ohio, we have a black market for imported, cheaper cigarettes. Now granted the Ohio market is smallish, and very new. In New York, which had steeper taxes on tobacco, the black market was much larger, and much more organized. However, next month, and I hear the month after, taxes on cigarettes is going up. People are going to be looking for cheap Tobacco, and already know a few that are going to be in the business of importing untaxed cigs.

The main point is this. You are still going to have the same result as prohibition.

But we do have taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, and we don't have the same result as prohibition.


Just what do you think would happen should the authoritarian extremists among us manage to outlaw tobacco?