Taxation is legitimately a revenue power. The rate/consumption curve have a maximum above which the taxation rate is no longer revenue generating but is used to reduce consumption. When the rate is above the maximum, the tax is not legitimate.

No one, the government included, has any legitimate authority to control what you do to yourself.

So thank you and I think a smoke one mof my Fuente Royal Salutes while I have some rum or maybe some cuervo on ice.

“That said we still see a lack of understanding in the mentality of smokers. They see only the abuses against them, but do not understand that some cannot tolerate smoke. Too many smokers have a defiant attitude, understandably to some extent, which causes them to resent giving any consideration to others.”

When the last wave (of truly draconian) anti-smoking legislation passed here in Washington state, there were roughly 20% of the bars, restaurants, etc. in the state where you could still smoke. Now there are none.

Oddly, approximately 20% of the state’s population smoke. Hmmm…

But going into the 80% of the places that were non-smoking (by their own choice) just wasn’t good enough for the tobacco taliban. They had to take all of the places away. And throw in a “don’t smoke within 25 feet of a door or window” part too.

So you’re darn tootin’ we’ve got a “defiant attitude.” In fact, I’m just plain old angry. I used to be an overly polite smoker. But it has gotten to the “no more Mr. Nice Guy” stage.

I’ll “show some consideration to others” when those others step back out of my face.

Maybe.

Surely there must be some way that we can prove that their mental attitude and activism is increasing their stress levels and thus increasing their chances of heart attacks and other health issues. They feel that they are doing GOOD but all these people like us don’t appreciate them.

Therefore there should be a law of some sort stopping them for their own good! Think of the children that grow up in these stress-filled households!

Maybe we can make them go to counseling or threaten to take away their children if they don’t stop.

end of sarcastic rant :)

i.e.: How a 10,000% tax on firearms would be illegal, because the clear purpose of the tax would be to prohibit something, not revenue generation.

Good to see you.

Anyone who has reached the age of majority in this society should not in need of (s)mothering, thank you very much…yet far too self-appointed ‘nannies’ of both sexes are willing to try, and use the power of government in order to do so. Enough, already! What’s the point of being an adult, if someone is constantly trying to make you a de facto ward of The State?

We don’t care about the questionable heath risks. If one wants to take those risks, that’s their business. We don’t even care about the questionable concerns about second hand smoke. These issues are overblown. We care about the fact that we immediately get sick from exposure to smoke.

Still we think people should be able to smoke. There shouldn’t be excessive taxation. That said we still see a lack of understanding in the mentality of smokers. They see only the abuses against them, but do not understand that some cannot tolerate smoke. Too many smokers have a defiant attitude, understandably to some extent, which causes them to resent giving any consideration to others. They seem to want no restrictions. As an aside, why is it that smokers are so inconsiderate with their cigarette butts? Are they totally thoughtless?

Smoke creates a stench that permeates ones hair, clothing, vehicle and home. My Aunt who finally quit smoking due to health problems later asked how we ever stood her smoking, as she could no longer stand being around the stench from others smoke. In empathy for my cousin, when our Aunt died, allowed him to smoke in our home while staying with us. We were sick from it, and also had to wash the drapes, walls and shampoo the couch and carpets. Never again!

We are actually embarrassed and sensitive about our health problem to smoke. We don’t like having to stay away from friends and family who smoke. We would like to be able to go out and dance, but we can sacrifice dancing. Other activities like eating out are a little difficult to achieve. We don’t like having to have consideration from others due to our problems. We wish it wasn’t so.

There is often the reference concerning restaurants, that they are private property. Being open to the public bring certain regulation requirements such as building codes for safety, etc. There are not blanket private property rights as there is for residential property. The reference made about using ones legs to walk away from smoking is good, except when one cannot escape, such as in elevators, restaurants, etc. Is it too much to ask one not to smoke in a restaurant, and wait and smoke their cigarettes outside? Should ones right to smoke be above all consideration of others rights? I always liked the quote comparing restaurants with non-smoking areas to having swimming pools with one end of the pool as the non-peeing end. Works great!

Cause of Death/Age Range All Ages 85 and over 75 and above
Major Cardiovasular Diseases 936,923 340,450 296,202
Malignant Neoplasms (cancer) 553,091 77,136 165,009
Chronic Lower Resperitory Dis. 122,009 27,496 47,722

I wonder where all of the 400,000 people fit in? And then throw in the so-called obesity 400,000 number and it just doesn’t add up. And life expectancy continues to improve (78). I’m not saying cigarette smoking isn’t a cause of cancer, I’m making the point that it’s not as bad (especially second hand smoke) as it is inferred by the health nazi’s.

I understand the risks (exceedingly low), and appreciate the pleasure (rather high). I’m an adult capable of making my own choices. Apparently, I’m a rarity (or so people would have me believe).

As for the taxation aspect, I have one question: What happens if these moral crusaders DO succeed in banning smoking? How do they replace all those millions (billions?) of dollars that used to come from smokers?

The thing about the 400,000 number is what get’s me upset (as well as the second hand smoking fallacy, a relative risk of 1.19 good lord what a joke), the number is bogus as they include anyone who dies if they smoke regardless of their age (which by the way is the biggest factor in death). E.G. if the life expectance is 75 and you’re 90 and die but were a smoker, you’re included.

In a way, this crusade is just like the drug war. It can never be won and the longer you fight it, the more restrictive will be the rules under which you’re forced to live.

It’s as if liberty, the word most commonly used to describe the motivation for the founding of this country, is now the quickest way to elicit a blank stare (if not disdain) from anyone you mention it to. When the concept of liberty is pitted against the opportunity to justify the persecution of a minority, people always prefer the latter.