We’re About To Create More Crime By Criminalizing Another Drug

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

So … how much is a pack of cigarettes in New York right now? Five bucks? Seven? Have you been reading the crime reports from areas of the country with high taxes on cigarettes? Yeah --- crime reports. Hijackings, armed robberies.

You do recognize that we have a strong parallel to the war on drugs here, don’t you? Taxes drive up the price of nicotine to unaffordable levels just as prohibition has driven up the price of things like marijuana and cocaine to unaffordable levels. As the prices go up, criminals enter the picture. These criminals are willing to steal, even to kill, in order to get their hands on these commodities that are worth so much. Right now a truckload of cigarettes in New York has a street value of over one million dollars. That, my friends, is a price that will bring out the crooks, the thieves, the murderers.

Please note that no matter how disgusted I am by smoking and smokers --- I have NEVER called for smoking to be outlawed. Treat smokers like lepers? Fine. Outlaw cigarettes? No. And now we’re seeing why.

I wonder who will be the first person killed in New York because of the high taxes on cigarettes.

c&p boort.com/nuze

 

[Sillyman]

I see your point, although I think "treating smoker's like lepers" isn't exactly the way to solve the problem either. That has it's own repercussions, although probably not as violent as criminalizing them would.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

I agree with you, Todd. Look at the gains the Mafia made during prohibition, that's the same situation.

Treat smokers like lepers, and fat people too!

Or, maybe we could let people make their own decisions and force them to accept personal responsibility.

Rhumb

 

[Sillyman]

Smoker's have plenty of negative consequences to deal with without being rejected by society.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Smoker's have plenty of negative consequences to deal with without being rejected by society. [/QUOTE

I don't want to reject smokers personally, hell I have friends who are smokers, they know when they come to my house the smokes stay home, and I know when I go to theirs I have to deal with it.

I don't want to die, because someone else loves killing themselves.

 

[Sillyman]

I don't want to reject smokers personally, hell I have friends who are smokers, they know when they come to my house the smokes stay home, and I know when I go to theirs I have to deal with it.

I don't want to die, because someone else loves killing themselves. [/B]

That is the best way to handle it I find. While I'm not fond of breathing in smoke, it takes a good 40 years to develop cancer when you are the primary smoker. A little second hand certainly won't hurt me, and I'm within my rights to say not in my room, car, etc, although I normally allow it.

 

[Never]

Would someone tell me if conservatives believe in personal responsibility or not?
Cause it seems to me that placing the blame for one person murdering another on high cigarette taxes doesn't quite fit that description.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Would someone tell me if conservatives believe in personal responsibility or not?
Cause it seems to me that placing the blame for one person murdering another on high cigarette taxes doesn't quite fit that description.

I don't think conservatives are saying that - although I can't speak for them. I think what they are saying, and that I would say, is that the taxes do have seemingly unintended consequences. I say "seemingly" because I believe the consequences are intentional - that the people in power know exactly what they are doing. It is all about power; when you have some so-called "war on something" like this, you wind up controlling more people than if you actually solve the problem via education. All kinds of people in power benefit this way - everybody except the people being controlled - this includes the smokers and the people around them.

Smoking and the number of people smoking has decreased in the US, but that is primarily due to people being educated about the downsides of smoking. For most people you are not going to get them to quit by raising the cost of cigs - they are addicted - all you are going to do is cost their family more to support their habit. When I was down visiting my daughter I offered to buy my son-in-law untaxed cigs from a local reservation where they are cheap. My kids are struggling financially and the cost of his habit isn't helping - taxes just went up on cigs in Oregon - again.

I don't like being the supplier for someone who has a drug habit, but I am not going to be making a profit, I am not doing it to get someone hooked, and I know he isn't going to quit just because the cost goes too high - so fuck the government!

 

[deliciously_naughty]

Shrug...how much does a good bottle of wine cost in new york right now? "Sin Tax" as it is called is a way of the state generating revenue. New York is especially a strange state...we have a huge deficeit so the state is really creative in how to make the revenue up. They are ticket nazis...the tiniest infraction will earn you a massive fine...speaking as 70 dollars for parking on the wrong side of the street on street cleaning day (2 times in the last month). There's no tax on food, but there's tax on "snacks"...aka candy and chips and such. etc.

In principle...most states are running at a deficeit. They need revenue. Should they raise property taxes? Can they make a decent amount of 2 or 3 or 30 cents per pack of cigarettes. In reality it is something that people choose to buy, or not. We can argue addiction, but it does come down to having initially made a choice to smoke. The same "sin taxes" are applicable on our other bad habits...alcohol, candy (in nyc), etc.

I much prefer a higher tax on something I can choose to buy (or not) than another hike in my already 8.25% sales tax.

As for the high price of cigarettes in the first place...most likely due to the lawsuits that the companies have lost. They had to make the revenue up later too.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

We can argue addiction, but it does come down to having initially made a choice to smoke.

The problem is that rather than being honest about it and saying that they are trying to raise revenue to pay for other programs which also increase their power (social programs such as welfare), they assert that raising the sin taxes is to decrease the sin. What it actually does is just the opposite; now you have made it a financial incentive for people to smuggle cigarettes, and to buy smuggled cigs. Not to mention the stealing and violence.

Some people in government actually want more crime; it makes people afraid and compliant with government, it allows them to increase their power by increasing the number of law enforcement personnel, it allows them to increase their power by passing more draconian laws, and it allows them to put more people in prison, which in turn gives them more money and power. It is now estimated that we have about one-half million people in prison on non-violent drug offenses.

What it comes down to is that taxes equate to power. When you allow the government to tax something based on whether it is good or bad, when you allow them to try to tax something out of existance, when you allow them to increase taxes to the point that there is a financial incentive to commit crime - you get more crime, pay more in taxes even if you don't consume the taxed item, and you increase the power of the government. None of those are good consequences.