Gazette Pro-Tax Cigarette Editorial excerpt:The Gazette just like Doyle, went on record to say that if the tax has a beneficial impact on health, they support it. In addition, Doyle wants to take the issue straight to the public and is willing prove that his anti-smoking campaign is not just about raising taxes, but more importantly about public health. But the Gazette in typical fashion, paints the Governors proposal on smoking as an attack on citizen rights and just another way to raise more revenue to shift around. When in truth, only the state legislature and senate have the power to bring this plan into reality as noted by a comment earlier on this webpage.
Normally we would oppose any new tax. However, the possible benefits are too great in this case.
I feel it is important to note that neither the governor nor the president has the power to raise or lower taxes. All they can do is approve or reject what the legislative branch sends them. It is up to the state senate and assembly to pass a budget that raises or lowers taxes. They then send it on to the governor to sign or veto. If they don't approve it (and it takes both the senate and the assembly to approve it), the governor doesn't have anything to sign. Yes, the governor can request items and attempt to influence the resultant budget, but he cannot raise or lower taxes without the legislature's approval.—AnonymousAs a non-smoker, my own personal view on this issue is a pro-choice decision, meaning people should have the right to smoke so long as it does not infringe upon the conscious rights of others. Now that we know better, smoking is a health issue more than a rights or partisan issue, but I would admit that historically, Democrats have been the only ones stepping forward banning toxic substances to protect our health and welfare. Unfortunately, as long as tobacco is legal, I find all of this cigarette rhetoric nothing more than blowing smoke rings. Hollow on the inside, with slowly dissipating boundaries.
However, whether legal or not, the best advice is to never start smoking and if you smoke - quit!
9 comments:
There are some things that bother me about this.
One: isn't this getting dangerously close to prohibition? It would seem to be the next logical step. Tax it into oblivion, then outlaw it.
Two: Ok, say for the sake of arguement this works, everyone quits smoking. They lose all that tax revenue they've been sucking on for all these years. Where are they going to make up that shortfall? Why waste all that money on "programs" that nobody goes to anyway. There's enough info out there already on quitting smoking. If your going to quit, your going to quit, no program is going to make/help you if you don't want it.
Three: What comes next? Will they attack alcohol? Personally I think they should. Don't get me wrong I know smoking is bad, but so is alcohol. I would bet alcohol related death numbers are right up there with cigarette related ones. There seem to be big paralels between smoking and alcohol. Can the second attack on alcohol be far behind? In most cases smoking won't kill you quickly, but alcohol can kill you in less than an hour and thats ok?
Four: your directly attacking an entire industry. From tobacco farmers all the way up to manufacturers your squeezing the livelihoods of a legal industry.
There are more things but it's boiling down to someone else making choices for me. It's getting ridiculous. Why don't they just ban it? I mean if it's so horrible why not extend it to dairy products, spray paint, matches, guns, cars, ladders, and any number of things that can kill us? Hell, in some places you can get killed just walking out of your house. If smoking is that bad, (I know it's bad, I'm just saying) why don't they arrest big tobacco and charge them with murder? They knowingly put out, and have manipulated, a product that kills. That's intent. The MO is an easy one, money.
Doyle is a socialist. He wants the government control. Heck only one day after he gets sworn into office he is wanting to raise taxes. I agree with 4:23 where is it going to end?
To 4:23 AM,
You kept me reading up to point of what comes next. Things like ladders, dairy products and paint have non-lethal primary and secondary purposes. Cigarettes I guess give enjoyment first - death second. But I agree with you for the most part because I'm for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, even if it kills some people. Banning smoking is a non-partisan issue, but if had to pick one party that uses the US Constitution as a document to restrict rights - it's clearly the Republican Party.
I get your point Louis, I got kinda lost while I was writing it. My point was any number of things can kill people. I should have used things like sky diving as an example. I'm not railing on Doyle about doing this, I understand why he's doing it. It just seems people are looking at short term solutions for everything these days. I just have really mixed feelings about this. On one hand I understand why, on the other I have problems with eroding even more liberties. I think the need for cash is behind it and their beating on the flavor of the week to get it. Seems there are way too many other things to deal with at the moment. So is this a distraction or a serious effort?
Doyle just wants control. He doesn't want anything else. He wants more money to spend on social programs.
Like 2:00 AM, the liberal in me worries about the erosion of personal and lifestyle rights. There must be some balance to this.
If this propositon really works, the huge tax and smoking bans should eventually produce less revenue for the state, giving Doyle less money for the "social" programs you think he spends it on. So, I don't think this has anything to do with control and spending. I think his concerns are genuine.
I don't understand why government thinks they need to make decissions for business owners. If a business wants to have their paying customers to be able to smoke then they should be able to make that choice as a business owner.
Something I just listened to and that was Doyle's state of the state speech last year. He said he would raise taxes. Well, I guess he just meant that until he gets re-elected he won't raise taxes. What a clown. I guess the $1.50 tax increase on cigarettes isn't really a tax increase.
Doyles a hypocrite. His tax on cigarettes is going to hurt the people that can't afford the tax. A lot of low income people smoke cigarettes.
Post a Comment