Government Taxes on Cigarettes

[Killer_Man_]

You know what I hate? I was going to go buy some cigars or some clove ciggerattes cause I enjoy them while drinking at the bar with my friends. Well, they levy some heavy taxes on them.

For a pack of 20 cigs, instead of 6 bucks, it's like 12 bucks.

I was looking around and my parents roll your own tobacco is like 22 bucks instead of 9.

As far as I know, normal tobacco(The packs/cartons) are basically the same but went up a dollar. I think they did that because everyone was going to roll your own because it was -cheaper.-

And that Obama is a dick head because he wants to tax just tobacoo to fund health insurance for the kiddies.

Actually he isn't a dick head for that, I just see no reason to tax one side of it espeically when Doyle our governer plans on putting anther .75 cents on it to make more money for the state.(Mind you this is after raising it by a buck twice in two years.)

[Seegtease]

I think it's a kill 2 birds with one stone mentality. Health care for kids, more people quitting. From what I heard, more people are quitting today than ever, due to high cigarette prices and less money to spend.

[Z]

Maybe soon we will all be immortal and then, instead of killing us by our own will via cigarettes, drugs or alcohol, we'll just simply be gunned down to combat overpopulation.

Good thing the government is regulating what we can and cannot do to ourselves to an even greater degree than before. I've always hated this pesky free will of mine.

[Killer_Man_]

I think it's a kill 2 birds with one stone mentality. Health care for kids, more people quitting. From what I heard, more people are quitting today than ever, due to high cigarette prices and less money to spend.

Yes but what about booze? Booze can cause more short term damage(Such as driving) or one shot kill(If you drink too much).

Zeit, what I am trying to drive at is this, if they are going to tax for health care. They should tax across the board.

Besides big cig companies cigs aren't being taxed worth a shit. It should have gone up just as much but cigars/bulk tobbacco is the only thing that took the hit.

[Bloodcinder]

Maybe soon we will all be immortal...
Give Obama some time. He'll need at least two more months for that.

[chefTENGU]

Besides big cig companies cigs aren't being taxed worth a shit. It should have gone up just as much but cigars/bulk tobbacco is the only thing that took the hit.
They did. The federal tax increased from 29? to $1.01 per pack (that's FEDERAL tax, mind you; states tend to levy their own taxes on that stuff).

Good thing the government is regulating what we can and cannot do to ourselves to an even greater degree than before. I've always hated this pesky free will of mine.
They're not. They're just making it more expensive to keep an unhealthy habit.

I know, I know... why don't we tax the fatties since that causes plenty of health problems in its own right? Well, maybe someday we will, and everyone will be happy(?).

[Seegtease]

Yes but what about booze? Booze can cause more short term damage(Such as driving) or one shot kill(If you drink too much).

I think alcohol IS gov't taxed.

Good thing the government is regulating what we can and cannot do to ourselves to an even greater degree than before. I've always hated this pesky free will of mine.Although normally I am against all kinds of government regulations of this nature, this isn't the case here. Honestly I think it's a good idea. I think the government should stop taxing necessities and start taxing more luxuries. That way, people who have money to waste will end up (if it's worth it to them) covering more of the taxes with their excess money, and those who are barely getting by can survive on the bare minimum.

I know it sounds like an indirect way of taxing the rich and leaving the poor alone, but it's quite different. This way, the amount you are taxed is based on your own free will, rather than the government demanding it from basic things.

So if anything, this kind of stuff grants more power to the people's will concerning their money and taxes.

/me waits for barrage of counter-arguments.

[Z]

I can actually agree with the idea of taxing luxuries, in general. It's just that, with the addictive nature of smoking being public knowledge these days, and the fact that a majority of smokers come from less than wealthy incomes, the tax on cigarettes is going to be more of a hardship to lower income citizens rather than a saving grace.

If someone's addicted to something, they're going to pay whatever they have to to get their poison of choice until they hit that breaking point but that breaking point never comes quickly. I'd also imagine that it would be a little unfair to cigarette companies and the several employees that depend on such companies for a living.

I mean, if I sold cars and the government said "You can ride a bike. Bike riding is healthier for you and the environment and cars are dangerous. In fact, to prevent you from buying cars, we're going to add a massive tax on top of the sticker price because we know what's best for you and you don't" it would just seem insanely ridiculous. Car companies would go out of business, the many thousands they employed would be out of jobs, and so on and so forth.

[Seegtease]

If someone's addicted to something, they're going to pay whatever they have to to get their poison of choice until they hit that breaking point but that breaking point never comes quickly.

I don't know. Quit hotlines are busier than ever for this exact reason. There is a point where the finance threshold meets the addiction threshold, and people quit. Some people, it's extremely high. Others, not so. Either way, I can tell you it's working, and people ARE quitting.

I mean, if I sold cars and the government said "You can ride a bike. Bike riding is healthier for you and the environment and cars are dangerous. In fact, to prevent you from buying cars, we're going to add a massive tax on top of the sticker price because we know what's best for you and you don't" it would just seem insanely ridiculous. Car companies would go out of business, the many thousands they employed would be out of jobs, and so on and so forth.

Which is exactly why it won't happen. Not to mention all the people who have long-distance jobs would suddenly not be able to access those jobs, since a bike ride is restrictive. If the government ever did this, it would be an absolute suicide to the American economy, and they realize this, so the car analogy isn't going to work.

However if it DID happen for some outrageous reason, there would be a surge of mechanics (and thus new jobs would form to replace the car salesmen) fixing old cars and nobody would buy new cars anymore, they would buy private party and just keep getting work done to preserve their cars. Eventually, when people stopped buying new cars, the gov't would be forced to reduce taxes on it. But I don't see this happening at all.

Besides, cars for many (most) are a complete necessity to sustain their income. Cigarettes are not.

[chefTENGU]

If someone's addicted to something, they're going to pay whatever they have to to get their poison of choice until they hit that breaking point but that breaking point never comes quickly. I'd also imagine that it would be a little unfair to cigarette companies and the several employees that depend on such companies for a living.
Which is what I find really sad about addiction. When a pack of Newports was about $4.15 after tax at my station, I'd see people come in, hand me a $5 bill, and say "Give me a pack of Newports, and put the change on pump 3." That's the prioritizing of addiction. And it would break my heart to see people come in time and again, talking about how badly they wanted to quit, and how much they urged me (and any other non-smoker they could find) never to start such a horrible habit. It's a trap people build for themselves, and few are able to escape.

That being said, the reason most most often cited for quitting smoking is the expense involved.

Now that there's been a tremendous jump in price, and not just a marginal increase, I think it'll be painful enough to get more people to quit for good. At least I'm hoping it will be.

[Seegtease]

Not to mention the inclination to not start to begin with will be greater.

[Z]

If you're citing the thousands of people being employed under the automaobile market as a reason they wouldn't tax cars, I assure you there are thousands upon thousands of people effected by the sales of cigarettes that need that income to stay employed. It's called Big Tobacco for a reason. The industry is huge and employs a huge amount of people. The paper companies that supply the materials for the cases, for the rolling paper, etc. The distributing companies that get it out on the market, the marketing companies and PR firms that are trying to keep cigarettes from being banned altogether. It affects a lot of people.

Yes, a tax on cigarettes will eventually force people to bite the habit, thereby reducing the risk of lung cancer and emphysema but, like I said, if we all lived forever, we'd have to start shooting people just to combat overpopulation. We were all meant to die in some form or fashion and with warning labels all over the boxes, if John Smith wants to take the risk of dying at 60 or 70 due to cigarette related health hazards, then why should the government step in and say "We don't trust you to make that choice for yourself."

In the same instance, if I want to risk dying in a car accident any day of the week, I don't need the government to tell me that I can't take that risk.

[chefTENGU]

?if John Smith wants to take the risk of dying at 60 or 70 due to cigarette related health hazards, then why should the government step in and say "We don't trust you to make that choice for yourself."
They're not saying that, though. Anyone who is of at least 18 years of age may still purchase cigarettes if they really want to (and even if they don't really want to, but feel like they NEED to).

They're not saying anyone has to stop. They're just encouraging people to quit and not to start in the first place. No one is telling anyone (of age) that they're not allowed to smoke.

[Seegtease]

If you're citing the thousands of people being employed under the automaobile market as a reason they wouldn't tax cars, I assure you there are thousands upon thousands of people effected by the sales of cigarettes that need that income to stay employed.

Not that so much as the millions of people who could no longer get to work.

As for the loss of jobs in the tobacco industry, the money saved by people who quit could very well exceed that amount, which means they have more money to spend on OTHER things, which means more jobs open in OTHER markets. The money has to be spent somewhere, so the loss of jobs would only be temporary.

We were all meant to die in some form or fashion and with warning labels all over the boxes, if John Smith wants to take the risk of dying at 60 or 70 due to cigarette related health hazards, then why should the government step in and say "We don't trust you to make that choice for yourself."

They aren't. They're just saying, "If you want to kill yourself, have at it, but since you're killing yourself you probably won't mind if we take some of your money. By the way, you really shouldn't smoke."

This isn't government regulation. It's quite different, and it still allows people to enact their free will, the people just have to consider greater consequences. The choice always lies with the consumer, as it should.

I'm not going to go into the overpopulation discussion because that will end up much longer and more complex.

[Z]

Not in so many words, no, but if you take what costed about $3 two years ago and turn it into something that cost $10+ today, then it's still the same message. It's taking a product and gradually making it unattainable by the public majority.

---------- Post added at 17:02 ---------- Previous post was at 16:59 ----------

This isn't government regulation. It's quite different, and it still allows people to enact their free will, the people just have to consider greater consequences. The choice always lies with the consumer, as it should.It's government regulation in the sense that it's not the tobacco industry doing it to themselves. It's literally the government regulating the price of cigarettes.

In a supply vs demand scenario, the provider sets the price based on the demand. If the tobacco companies got to set the price for their own products, it wouldn't be $10+. It's the government that is "unfairly" setting a price to intentionally offset demand.

[Seegtease]

Even so, the consumer has to make the decision themselves. The government simply increases the value. As long as it's up to the consumer to determine if it's worth the value, I don't see the problem. They still have the choice to buy.

[Z]

Posts moved, as we obviously have a debate a-goin on! Hehe :D

My main point is that it's the government regulating what should be a choice we make for ourselves.

Will it cause people to eventually drop the habbit? Sure. But not by their own choice. They have to drop the habit because the government regulated the prices and make it too expensive for some people with lower incomes to purchase. No reasonable choice is being made here. It's being forced

As soon as we start saying that the government can make choices for us as long as they feel it's for our own well being, then we forfeit our free will. We declare that we should not be trusted to run our own lives and make our own choices and if the government feels we shouldn't have something or do something then they should raise the cost of it to make it unattainable to us.

That's just something I can't agree with.

[Seegtease]

My main point is that it's the government regulating what should be a choice we make for ourselves.

That's just it. They aren't regulating our choice. The price is not and has never been our choice. Our choice may be influenced, but it's still our choice.

I don't know how else to say it without continually being repetitive.

[chefTENGU]

Will it cause people to eventually drop the habbit? Sure. But not by their own choice.
When someone's addicted to nicotine, I doubt they're always buying cigarettes because it's their own choice. They had a choice, but after a chemical dependency sets in, it's their body making the choice, regardless of what the person actually wants for themselves.

I've seen enough smokers desperately trying to quit to realize that it's not something people do necessarily because they want to.

With the increase in price, it might just be the boost someone's willpower needs in order to resist their next craving. And I think that's a good thing.

[Z]

I can agree with that; once you've been smoking long enough, it's hard to stop. So how about we have government funded rehab opportunities available rather than hiking up the cost of cigarettes to force some less-than-wealthy people from smoking them?

Some people don't want to quit smoking simply because they like smoking. I have several friends who fit such a description. KM seems to be one of those people as well. Why force them to stop when they don't want to and are smoking responsibly and in moderation?

[Seegtease]

So how about we have government funded rehab opportunities available rather than hiking up the cost of cigarettes to force some less-than-wealthy people from smoking them?

Because the latter is more effective? And don't gov't funded rehab places exist?

[chefTENGU]

Not to mention smoking cessation programs funded by big tobacco companies like Phillip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, and others.

I don't see how increasing the price is regulating someone's choice. If I can't afford to buy beer or steaks constantly because it's too expensive, then I have to either quit them entirely, save them for special occasions (my preference), or sacrifice something else I want in order to get them. It's called budgeting, and everyone has to learn to do it for what's important for themselves. If I want to be able to drink beer with nightly prime rib dinners, then I either have to earn more or find something I'm willing to cut out for that luxury. What's the big deal?

[Z]

That's exactly my point, Seeg; If given a choice, the majority doesn't want to quit smoking. Therefore the government has to hike the price to to force people to quit smoking.

If people want to quit, whether they want to kick an addiction or whatever, they have options available to them already.

---------- Post added at 17:34 ---------- Previous post was at 17:32 ----------

chef, as far as your analogy, if you can't afford beer or steaks, it's because the supplier set the prices to reach a demand. It's not the government forcing you out of your ability to purchase. If tabacco companies set their own prices to $10+ for a pack, that would be one thing. They didn't. The government stepped in and forced the price hike.

[chefTENGU]

Government sets sales tax for food purchases. Retailers set cigarette prices before tax is assessed. What's the difference?

The point is, I'm no more entitled to beer or steaks than you or anyone else is to cigarettes. Either I can become my own brewer and butcher (which would kick ass, actually), or I can pay the arbitrary price set by the external forces of manufacturer and government.

[Z]

Sales taxes are fixed rates, in most cases.

Lets say I'm a musician. Without going into the Freedom of Speech bit, lets also say my lyrics are violent and the government suspects that it could be the cause of unrulyness with the general public (like they did with the Columbine incident).

I want to sell my CDs for $5 because I want to reach a large audience. The government then says that, because they think people can't cope with my music with while maintaining an healthy social judgement, they're going to place a hefty tax hike on my music making it $40 per CD.

Technically, they haven't banned my music from being played but they've forced out a massive chunk of the market because they don't trust people to listen and maintain their reason.

Yes, they did it for the good of the people but they did it by forcing less-than-wealthy people out of their ability to buy it. Not becuase they didn't want to listen.

HTey're forcing people to quit smoking by holding their wallets ransom and it's not even something that the supplier agrees with. It's strictly government intervention in an attempt to make a choice for the general public without their consent.

[Bloodcinder]

FIRST


I mean, wait. What? Oh. Yeah.

Z's winning.

[Seegtease]

That's exactly my point, Seeg; If given a choice, the majority doesn't want to quit smoking.

The majority DOES want to quit smoking, but isn't pressured enough to do so. The downsides that already exist (expense and cancer) aren't great enough for them to push it away. A little extra actually DOES help people realize that they shouldn't do it, and quit.

Therefore the government has to hike the price to to force people to quit smoking.

Encourages, not forces. You have to make a distinction because if it were forcing, they'd outlaw them altogether.

It's totally a win/win situation. The government gets more taxes that are presumably being used for good things (child health care) and with less people getting cancer, health care prices would drop in general due to decreased demand. And they do this without actually oppressing the people by outlawing them.

[Arainach]

HTey're forcing people to quit smoking by holding their wallets ransom and it's not even something that the supplier agrees with. It's strictly government intervention in an attempt to make a choice for the general public without their consent.Look at the overwhelming cost of smoking on our healthcare system. Cigarette smokers have been paying far too little per pack for a long time; this is just a small step towards correcting that.

[Seegtease]

OH SHIT WE AGREE I RECANT ALL I SAID FOR THE SAKE OF UNIVERSE PRESERVATION

[Aingeleag]

Well, as a smoker of 10 years.. I'm gonna say my peace in here lol.
This whole cigarette tax thing.. I'm attempting to cut back and smoke crappy brand cigs.. my main problem with it is that yes, I think the tax should extend across the board.. I know that everything is taxed these days, but I had someone tell me the other day "well, you should quit now then, it'll only kill you".. Yeah, with smoking it might be me killing myself.. as opposed to me drinking and driving or something and killing innocents. All of this shit is bad for you.. I just think that cigs are one of the lesser evils. Nobody has come from a broken home because their daddy smoked a cigarette and beat the snot out of everyone, for example. After the huge bans in a lot of places where smokers can't be inside either, it seems that they are targeting smokers for some reason in particular.. Gotta admit it'd be pretty heinous to outlaw beer in bars lol
But yeah.. so I dunno.. I can see how it's good, but I can see a lot of other things getting worse before it's all said and done though too.

[Arainach]

You act as if alcohol isn't heavily taxed as well.

[Seegtease]

STOP ARY!

But no really, that's one reason (other than lack of desire) I don't drink often. I can't afford it. And I know that stuff doesn't cost THAT much to make, so you know taxes do a lot of it.

But it really doesn't bother me. It's probably better for me anyway.

[Z]

Let's use that scenario then, since it can be personalized:

Beer distributors want you and I to both consume their product. They're even willing to price their product to be affordable by the many rather than the few for this reason. Why is it okay for the government to then say, in defiance of the beer distributor, that instead of letting us both have a chance to consume it, they're going to put it out of your financial reach only, because they don't feel it is in your best interest to drink alcohol? And they're only going to do this to this product and any other products they deem unfit for you consumption. Why is it okay for the government to force demand for any given product to be lowered by their means?

I mean, by its very definition, it's classism. It's interfering with a free market for the sole purpose of taking a product out of the financial grasp of a certain financial class of people.

If the distributor decided that demand was great enough that they were going to hike the price up to match that demand then that is perfectly understandable and something I can't argue against. But if a distributor has a good market and the government steps in to intentionally sabotage that market or product with an extra price hike then I just think that's wrong.

I'm sure if cigarettes could be banned overnight without riots in the street, it'd happen under the same pretenses. However, given that there would be a massive reaction if something were ever to occur so suddenly, it won't. It'll simply be phased out so that we can live longer, but only in a style that the government deems appropriate.

Like motorcycles? Well in 2007, motorcycles were responsible for over 5,000 deaths. We, the government, think you should not ride motorcycles anymore. First, we're going to add a special motorcycle tax. As soon as demand goes down (Cuz we made it go down, bwah ha ha!) we'll ease in the idea of banning motorcycles. They're dangerous and we don't trust you to use them right.

How about mini skirts? Well, research has shown that provacative clothing may lead to rape. From now on, we're going to put an additional special mini-skirt tax. You'll wear what we want you to wear. It's for your own good, afterall! Don't wanna risk the possibility of being raped, do you? Trust us. We know what's best for you.

You like smoking? Well it's not good for you. We're going to ban it in public places. Then we're going to even ban it in bars, just for a laugh. After all that's done, (and this is the kicker) We're going to add a tax hike to it, making it over 250% more expensive to smoke than it was just two years ago. But don't worry, kids. If you want to smoke, you still have a choice. You just have to pay out the ass for that choice and once you get done with that, you better check with us to make sure you're smoking in the right spot! I don't care if that bar owner says you can smoke in his place or not. It's not his choice anymore!* We're the government! You'll do what the hell we say!

*True story

[Gareth]

Alcohol is like dis:
http://liq.wa.gov/images/bottle2006.gif

I don't really care how much they tax tobacco, Because I almost never use it. I only have a cigar once a year or two at the most and even then it's usually only to celebrate something epic.

Being addicted to smoking is still being addicted to something. While It's not crack, weed, or meth, It's still "omg hey I need my fix". People get pissy when they "depend" on something like this.

Anything that makes you chemically dependent should get taxed up the ass or banned, it leads to less people sucking down those oh so glorious cancer sticks.

And I did smoke regularly for two weeks, I stopped after finding I could not run a mile anymore since I started.

Anyway, in my opinion I support the tax hike and I think it should be higher. But why? Tobacco is not a necessity of life. Neither is alcohol. They are commodities, and if the government or some kind of regulatory system can make a few bucks off of it to run this and that, they will.

[deathofcheese]

:tldr:

...and...

You like smoking? Well it's not good for you. We're going to ban it in public places. Then we're going to even ban it in bars, just for a laugh. After all that's done, (and this is the kicker) We're going to add a tax hike to it, making it over 250% more expensive to smoke than it was just two years ago. But don't worry, kids. If you want to smoke, you still have a choice. You just have to pay out the ass for that choice and once you get done with that, you better check with us to make sure you're smoking in the right spot! I don't care if that bar owner says you can smoke in his place or not. It's not his choice anymore!* We're the government! You'll do what the hell we say!

*True storyGreenville, the major city in the upstate area of SC, banned smoking in most public places, including restaurants like bars. At first, the ban was later overturned as being unconstitutional, but the city fought back and passed another ban which is expected to hold this time. This ban is unlike the Blue Law "ban" of selling alcohol on Sunday, which establishments in large cities can get around by purchasing a $500/month liquor-on-Sunday license (I'm guessing at the price; I've never heard the actual figure). Bars (establishments which serve heavy amounts of alcohol while serving little-to-no food) complain that this severely impacts their business, as one of the popular things to do while sitting there having a drink is to smoke. I can't say I blame them.

I don't like breathing smoke whenever I go out, nor do I appreciate sitting near smokers when I'm not prepared to be (i.e. if I'm smoking myself on the rare occasion I do smoke, or if I'm going to a bar), so I can appreciate this "Breathe Easy" initiative that makes sure that pretty much wherever I go, I won't even have to ask about being placed in the no smoking section. However, the government taxing the hell out of cigarettes is not only indirectly stomping on the free market corner of tobacco (not like the government already has been for many years), but it's also legislating against free choice. It's like legislating that once you're established in a religion, you cannot change your mind and go to another religion. Granted, we have a constitutional amendment which prevents this, so this might be a weak example.

A better idea would be to legislate that businesses can choose whether they want to ban smoking in their establishment, so that more family-oriented places like Olive Garden or a popular pizza place can opt in to banning smoking, whereas a more adult place that thrives with business that's largely connected to smoking, like a seedy bar or just a bar in general, can have the option of not banning smoking.

Although I'm sure it's not the only state that has, if you go to a restaurant in New York, you're not even asked if you prefer smoking or non. There is no longer a smoking section, so there's no choice for you to make anymore. The last few times I've been out and about, hosts/hostesses still ask if I'd prefer smoking or non, even though their establishment is a Breathe Easy business, meaning they don't have smoking.

[Arainach]

Business choice isn't absolute. Businesses can't choose whether or not they serve blacks. They can't choose whether it's economically beneficial for them to be handicap-accessible or not.

[Killer_Man_]

In my city, it's the business' choice(Resturant or bars) on rather they allow smoking or not.

They did. The federal tax increased from 29? to $1.01 per pack (that's FEDERAL tax, mind you; states tend to levy their own taxes on that stuff).


They're not. They're just making it more expensive to keep an unhealthy habit.


I'm not one who has the unhealthy habit of smoking. I just like to have a few as I am drinking with friends.

Besides, packs of smokes went from 6.50(name brand that is.) to 7.30 a packish. That's not that much tax.

Bulk tobbacco went from 9 bucks(For a 20 OZ bag) to 22 bucks. Come on now. That's a major jump for one side of the market. Only reason they did that because no one wanted name brand and started to buy the Native American brand(pure 100% tobbacco) or Gambler.

I think alcohol IS gov't taxed.

Yes but I expect that if cigs went up, booze should jump up a few dollars too. It's really lame. The only reason I'm kinda hiked up on this because my pack of cloved cigs went from starting at 5 bucks a 20 piece pack to 6, and now it's like 13. And once again I only do it when I'm drinking so it's not really harming me it's more so harming my parents. Especially my Dad who bitches all the damn time about money... But I disgress that's a different topic.

After all, Zeit, booze causes liver damage, alchol posioning, cause people to vomit which they can choke and or down right kill someone cause there are people who drive while drunk. The only reason I am going off kinda is Doyle, our governer, thinks there are more responsible drinkers than there are smokers! Which is highly false in my opinion. Not to mention drinking can make you gain large amount of weight. Drinking can cause a lot of short term and long term damage as cigs do.

That's -ok-. My Dad has figured out he can order tobbacco online and it's about 10 bucks cheaper(I think he's getting it from one of the tobbacco states) and I can order my drinking cigs online from Indonesia(sp? and yes my cigs come from there.) for about 20 bucks for 200 pieces. Eat that Uncle Sam!

Some people don't want to quit smoking simply because they like smoking. I have several friends who fit such a description. KM seems to be one of those people as well. Why force them to stop when they don't want to and are smoking responsibly and in moderation?Actually I can go days or weeks without smoking. I only smoke when I am drinking such as a cigar or two or a cig or two. I'm not like my parents who must have X amount in a day.

The only reason I take so long between smoking is because I enjoy the high from the cigar or the cloved cig. It's why I mostly do it when I am drinking.

[Sunflower]

I can't figure out why cigarettes are allowed to be sold with the ingredients they have. There are plenty of food additives that are banned because they are unsafe. Aspartame is almost on its way to being banned in some states, which I think is very good. But for some reason, cigarettes just have to put a warning on the box and they can still be sold. Why?

[Seegtease]

You like smoking? Well it's not good for you. We're going to ban it in public places. Then we're going to even ban it in bars, just for a laugh. After all that's done, (and this is the kicker) We're going to add a tax hike to it, making it over 250% more expensive to smoke than it was just two years ago. But don't worry, kids. If you want to smoke, you still have a choice. You just have to pay out the ass for that choice and once you get done with that, you better check with us to make sure you're smoking in the right spot! I don't care if that bar owner says you can smoke in his place or not. It's not his choice anymore!* We're the government! You'll do what the hell we say!

*True story

I don't have time for much posting right now but I'll just mention that in Oregon, you can't smoke in any business, including bars. Pissed a lot of people off, no doubt. And you must be 10 feet from any business entrance, ventilation intake, or window.

In some cases the government should make these decisions. In this case, it's because of secondhand smoke. People are too rude too always consider who is around them. It's the same reason we have laws against theft. It'd be nice if people were kind enough to not steal from other people without having to have legal punishment, but they aren't. And it's a proven fact that smoking affects non-smokers greatly, so somebody has to look out for them. Either that, or the gov't should make it legal to punch somebody in the face for smoking near you. Non-smokers need protection from having to be subjected to unwanted smoke, and I don't think laws like this are out of line.

[Killer_Man_]

Zeit, if the place bans smoking. I'm always by the cig disposal thing which is always away from entrances/windows. I am just saying that drinking can kill people just as much and can be addicting just as bad to some people.

[Z]

In some cases the government should make these decisions. In this case, it's because of secondhand smoke. People are too rude too always consider who is around them.

If I own a bar and I want smoking, I should be allowed to have it. Anyone who doesn't want to risk second hand smoke is welcome to go to another bar. The government shouldn't force me to cater to the whiners and, in turn, prohibit others from enjoying themselves in my privately owned facility.

[chefTENGU]

So much... so much to read... must... arrg. I can't do it.

I just want to emphasize my point that the way it sounds to me, the argument against the tobacco tax hike boils down to smokers feeling entitled to cheap cigarettes (I'm sorry if someone finds that comment offensive, I'm not trying to be, I'm just trying to explain what it seems like to me). Let's forget about that for a second; I want to focus on what I said earlier about the price of meat being expensive for someone like me.

You know what else is expensive at grocery stores? Fresh fruit and vegetables, definitely one of life's big necessities (that is, if you want to avoid things like scurvy I have a funny anecdote about that). During the winter, much of what you're going to find at the grocery store's produce section is going to be imported from South America, especially if something bad happened to the fruit crops in Florida and California. The prices on that produce tends to be quite high, due to federal import tariffs placed on it.

If someone could explain to me why smokers are entitled to cheap cigarettes (something that's not a necessity) when we accept that nobody is entitled to cheap meat, fruit, or vegetables (things which are definitely necessities*), all for the same reason (federal and state taxes and other duties), it would go a long way to helping me understand where the argument against the tax hike is coming from.

*I know some folks like to live a "vegetarian" lifestyle, but that doesn't mean meat isn't a necessity. On the contrary, vegetarians are intentionally cutting themselves off from several essential nutrients and minerals which are very difficult to get solely from plants, which means that if one doesn't eat meat, one must take some form of dietary supplement in order to maintain good health.

I just think that cigs are one of the lesser evils. Nobody has come from a broken home because their daddy smoked a cigarette and beat the snot out of everyone, for example.
I just wanted to say there's nothing inherently evil about any substance (or any other inanimate object for that matter), only the actions that people take.

After the huge bans in a lot of places where smokers can't be inside either, it seems that they are targeting smokers for some reason in particular.. Gotta admit it'd be pretty heinous to outlaw beer in bars lol
But yeah.. so I dunno.. I can see how it's good, but I can see a lot of other things getting worse before it's all said and done though too.
I would like to point out that in most places it is illegal to drink in public. Which means that while smokers are exiled outside, drinkers are imprisoned indoors (or at least in places where they won't be around the general public).

You might find this video amusing, though. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=110445&title=Klassic-Kolbert---Civil-Lights)

[Killer_Man_]

If you drink on your property you can drink as long as you keep sane. :P

I never said anything about cheap ciggerettes but the main reason the tax hike went up was because of Obama's health insurance plan for kids and then Doyle wants to tax it more because the state isn't making enough money off of it.

I just find it funny to tax something like that so high.

I have no problem quitting, it's easy to do since I do it for days and weeks on end. I just like to be able to kick back have a few beers and maybe one or two cigs/cigars without it dipping too deeply into my wallet.

Besides most states have food cards and if people are stupid enough to buy non-necessities with it they don't deserve the meat, cheese or whatever.

My parents were smart when I was younger and we had food stamps/cards. They use their own money for the 'ala carte' items.

EDIT:

Maybe I'm just a cheap bastard who likes putting more money into his savings.*

*That's anther story for anther time

[Z]

If someone could explain to me why smokers are entitled to cheap cigarettes (something that's not a necessity) when we accept that nobody is entitled to cheap meat, fruit, or vegetables (things which are definitely necessities*), all for the same reason (federal and state taxes and other duties), it would go a long way to helping me understand where the argument against the tax hike is coming from.

I don't think anyone's arguing that cigarettes should be inherently cheap. The argument is that they should be taxed just as everything else is (rather than at an unfair massive margin to deliberately offset demand). If the cigarette companies want to up their prices, that's one thing. They don't. It's the government that wants to up the prices of cigarettes to intentionally deplete an enterprise.

[chefTENGU]

If you drink on your property you can drink as long as you keep sane. :P
People's private property is not in "public."

I never said anything about cheap ciggerettes but the main reason the tax hike went up was because of Obama's health insurance plan for kids and then Doyle wants to tax it more because the state isn't making enough money off of it.
That's the usual reason the government raises taxes. They want to fund programs or they need more money.

The money you pay on sales taxes, gas taxes, booze taxes, and every other tax, goes to some program, pay state employees, or something to that effect. So how does this apply to why we shouldn't tax cigarettes so much?

I just find it funny to tax something like that so high.
Just be glad you're not self-employed. I hear plenty of complaints about taxes from my father-in-law.

Besides most states have food cards and if people are stupid enough to buy non-necessities with it they don't deserve the meat, cheese or whatever.
You can't buy non-necessities with a food card. Only food. You can buy a whole lot of shitty food with it, or a smaller amount of actual food, but you can only spend it on food. It's actually impossible for it to apply to a non-food or otherwise ineligible item.

---------- Post added at 15:35 ---------- Previous post was at 15:31 ----------

I don't think anyone's arguing that cigarettes should be inherently cheap. The argument is that they should be taxed just as everything else is (rather than at an unfair massive margin to deliberately offset demand). If the cigarette companies want to up their prices, that's one thing. They don't. It's the government that wants to up the prices of cigarettes to intentionally deplete an enterprise.
Ah, I see.

Well, my advice is to take an old idea and apply it to the present... If you think the tobacco tax hike is unfair, boycott it.

I'm dead serious.

Doing that will hit them right where it hurts (i.e., tax revenue), which will most likely make them more amenable to smokers' demands. It's what a whole bunch of pissed-off colonists did when ol' King George started taxing their tea; so pissed off several "parties" got thrown up and down the coast (and to this day, the state of Massachusetts will not place any sort of tax on tea).

[Z]

I don't actually smoke cigarettes. I'm just against the idea of the government ceasing control of something they have no business controlling. I don't like that some guys in Washington can tell a guy in Texas which customers he can and cannot serve or what that person's customers can and cannot do inside his own private establishment. I don't like the government saying "We'll fine you if you don't wear a seatbelt" or "We'll fine you if you smoke cigarettes" or "we'll punish you if you even consider living a lifestyle we haven't pre-approved for you."

It just seems wrong to me. I miss freedom.

---------- Post added at 15:49 ---------- Previous post was at 15:42 ----------

Here's another true story about a local business here in Austin:

Once upon a time Sidepocket, a pool hall/sports bar that was privately owned, was a thriving business in North Austin. It was one of those places you wanted to go on friday and saturday nights to hang out, grab a beer, and just relax after al ong work week. Smoking was legal inside, at the time, and almost every customer did it.

Like i said before, I personally don't smoke, but I have many friends who do and we used to hang out there a lot. It was fun and if the smoke ever bothered someone, they would leave and find somewhere else to go (like Clicks or Fast Eddies).

Then the public smoking ban passed. Now (and this is not an exaggeration) the Sidepocket has a weekly customer count of no more than 30 people. That's not in a day. That's in a week. And the owner had to set the prices so low to encourage people to come in that now it's like a thug pool hall. You can even google SidePocket Austin and read the reviews of it now. It's run down and it really can't recover.

Because it's no longer legal to smoke in bars in Texas, the owner of the Sidepocket lost a massive amount of revenue as well as his customer base and is in the process of selling his many-years-owned pool hall to some foreign douche who's going to turn the pool hall and a few centers around it into a mini-china town. In Texas.

So I have a hard time sympathizing with the government when they decide to take matters that should be personal choice and make it become their business to decide for you what you should and should not do. It's ridiculous.

The owner says he's not even getting back what he originally paid for it because he's really got no choice but to sell and apparently the buyers know that. It sucks.

[chefTENGU]

What I don't get is why his clientele suddenly decided not to show up just because they couldn't smoke inside.

Why bother going out to a bar if all you want to do is smoke with a few friends? I thought the appeal of going to a place like that is to hang out, play some pool, have a few drinks, and grab a bite to eat, all which is still perfectly legal to do in a bar.

Maybe I'm not getting something, but it just doesn't make sense to me.

[Z]

The idea is to play pool, drink, and hang out. Because there was no smoking, it became apparently inconvenient for everyone to have to keep pausing in their activities to go outside for 5 minutes before coming in and resuming.

Other local bars illegally disregarded the smoking ban and received a lot of that client base that the legally abiding bars lost. Strips clubs also managed to somehow get an exemption from the law, apparently, so where once people went to play pool, smoke and drink, they now go to get to lapdances, smoke and drink.

[chefTENGU]

Wow, I never knew people could be so petty.

[Z]

It's not just there, either. Here's a very incomplete list of all the bars that had to close across America and the percentages of business they loss due to the smoking ban:

http://www.smokersclub.com/banloss3.htm

[Killer_Man_]

The money you pay on sales taxes, gas taxes, booze taxes, and every other tax, goes to some program, pay state employees, or something to that effect. So how does this apply to why we shouldn't tax cigarettes so much?

Yes but if everyone quits, what are you going to tax next? Gas? Booze? Think about it Chef.


Just be glad you're not self-employed. I hear plenty of complaints about taxes from my father-in-law.I know, I have a friend whose parents are self employed insurance company/franchise.


You can't buy non-necessities with a food card. Only food. You can buy a whole lot of shitty food with it, or a smaller amount of actual food, but you can only spend it on food. It's actually impossible for it to apply to
a non-food or otherwise ineligible item.Then WI is messed up because you can buy soda, ice cream and etc with a food card. I always felt you should be only be able to buy things like bread, meat, cerals, fruit, veggies and etc. You know the essentials to live. Soda, candy, ice cream and anything that has little to no nutritional value should be ala carte.

Trust me, there is a lot of people who are boycotting it in WI. I think there is going to be a rally sometime soon in Racine.

----

Chef, it is silly to not be able to smoke in a bar and just not show up anymore. Even to me. I would never stop going to a place because they banned smoking.

[chefTENGU]

Refusing to go somewhere they've gone to on a regular basis just because they'd have to spend 5 freaking minutes standing outside so they can smoke sounds like a really shitty attitude to have. Especially considering that it's not the bar owner's fault that the ban was imposed.

I'm not being sarcastic. That sort of thing makes me lose a little bit of faith in humanity.

---------- Post added at 16:11 ---------- Previous post was at 16:09 ----------

Yes but if everyone quits, what are you going to tax next? Gas? Booze? Think about it Chef.
/me facepalms

Then WI is messed up because you can buy soda, ice cream and etc with a food card.
Those things still fall under the category of "food." I said you can buy "shitty" food with food stamps, which impoverished people tend to do because you can buy a whole lot more of it than you can healthy food on the same amount of money.

[Z]

That sort of thing makes me lose a little bit of faith in humanity.
That's what I'm saying, though -- shit like this has consequences and I don't think people fully appreciate what those consequences are.

[chefTENGU]

That's what I'm saying, though -- shit like this has consequences and I don't think people fully appreciate what those consequences are.
Agreed. But...

If people took time to consider the consequences of their choices more fully, I think there'd be a lot less people smoking to begin with.

And I forgot to mention this earlier, but Aingelag had mentioned trying to cut back by smoking the crappy cheap generic cigarettes (which I've heard described as tasting like "cardboard and ass"). I don't mean to be all pessimistic about it, but I've seen a lot of people try the same thing. Most of the time, they just develop a taste for crappy cigarettes. But hey, at least you wouldn't be paying as much for your usual brand, which has got to be a plus.

[Z]

It's what my parents had to do. They switched to these "natural" cigarettes that have still maintained a $3.25 price tag somehow. They say it's not as great but it's better than being reemed in the ass by the tax hike.

[Arainach]

I can't figure out why cigarettes are allowed to be sold with the ingredients they have. There are plenty of food additives that are banned because they are unsafe. Aspartame is almost on its way to being banned in some states, which I think is very good. But for some reason, cigarettes just have to put a warning on the box and they can still be sold. Why?Because the tobacco industry was profitable and lobbying congress long before the FDA came about.

[Bloodcinder]

We still get to smoke in Morgantown bars despite the state ban because the Mafia runs our county government.

[deathofcheese]

Z hit the nail on the head. Yes they could go outside and smoke every five minutes, or they could go somewhere else and illegally smoke inside every five minutes, or just not go out at all and smoke at someone's house whenever they wanted. It's similar to an owner banning a particular type of music that ends up killing his customer base because they happened to be the kind of people that went there for that particular kind of music.

[Arainach]

The problem is the lack of enforcement of the smoking ban more than the ban itself.

[Seegtease]

If I own a bar and I want smoking, I should be allowed to have it. Anyone who doesn't want to risk second hand smoke is welcome to go to another bar. The government shouldn't force me to cater to the whiners and, in turn, prohibit others from enjoying themselves in my privately owned facility.

Another bar? What bar, unless not allowed by law, chooses to have no smoking? I've never seen one. And furthermore...

Then the public smoking ban passed. Now (and this is not an exaggeration) the Sidepocket has a weekly customer count of no more than 30 people.If this is what happens when ALL bars get banned from smoking, it would be even WORSE for a bar to willingly ban smoking while other bars still allow it, because then the people actually have alternate places to go. In a statewide ban, they don't have alternate places to go.

A ban is the ONLY way to get a smoke free bar outside of the bar owner committing business suicide.

And you know, I wouldn't care so much if smoke just stayed in one place, but we live in a world of physics. Unfortunately, like most gases, it travels wherever it is taken. Which means only people who can tolerate it (or are willing to suffer the harsh effects of secondhand smoke) can enjoy bars. I think all people should be able to enjoy bars if they wish, without necessary risk to their lungs.

Wow, I never knew people could be so petty.

I was going to say something to this effect. So where are they going instead? They can't go to OTHER bars to smoke, so they just don't go to bars? I find this kind of hard to believe. Their whole enjoyment of the bar was hinging on their being able to smoke in there or not?

---------- Post added at 15:58 ---------- Previous post was at 15:56 ----------

Look at the overwhelming cost of smoking on our healthcare system. Cigarette smokers have been paying far too little per pack for a long time; this is just a small step towards correcting that.

I would also like you to address this point Z, if you can. If it raises healthcare costs, it's only right that it would repay its debt.

[Z]

Here's 9 reasons for rising health care costs:

http://zanesafrit.typepad.com/zane_safrit/2009/03/healthcare-costs-9-reasons-theyre-high-and-getting-higher.html

There are nine reasons for escalating health care costs.

1. New value (new medical capabilities) resulting in
2. More people who live longer (http://thesystemmd.com/?p=22).

The article reports a Dutch study showing that “preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn’t save money.”
3. Inefficiency (http://thesystemmd.com/?p=52)
4. Regulatory compliance (http://thesystemmd.com/?p=169) and unfunded mandates
5. Perverse incentives
6. Defensive medicine (http://thesystemmd.com/?p=26)
7. Adverse outcomes and errors
8. Profits taken out of healthcare (insurance and medical malpractice)
9. Fraud and embezzlement

Another bar? What bar, unless not allowed by law, chooses to have no smoking?
We've been talking about Supply and Demand quite a bit in this thread. If there is a demand for a Smoke Free Bar, people should supply it, the government shouldn't force it. If the demand for such a bar is so high that a ban is necessary, then one would think if someone opened a Smoke Free Bar (assuming a ban was not in place) then it would make a shitload of money.

Give us choice.

[Seegtease]

We've been talking about Supply and Demand quite a bit in this thread. If there is a demand for a Smoke Free Bar, people should supply it, the government shouldn't force it. If the demand for such a bar is so high that a ban is necessary, then one would think is someone opened a Smoke Free Bar (assuming a ban was not in place) then it would make a shitload of money.

In theory that makes sense, but it doesn't happen. If there is a smoke free bar around, most people probably don't know about it. People who don't like smokey bars just assume that all bars have smoke (since as far as I know, that's 99% true, as I can assume there have to be SOME smoke free bars somewhere), so they just are forced to avoid bars.

It's just a pity that people who wish to have healthy lungs have to avoid bars because some people can't go any amount of time without smoking.

This wouldn't be a long debate if smoking only affected the user, but time and again that's proven to not be the case at all. I don't think smoking around other people should be allowed at all without the other person's consent, since it's basically saying "mind if I taint your air? too bad, doing it anyways" but since that's impossible to enforce it's irrelevant.

[Z]

Other peoples consent? If you see someone smoking at a bar and you stay at that bar, how is that not consent?

The theory makes sense because it's sensible. It's reasonable. It's what should happen.

If I want to go to a bar that has a pool table and I walk into a bar that doesn't, I leave the bar and find one that has a pool table. I don't get the government to require that all bars must have pool tables.

[Arainach]

We've been talking about Supply and Demand quite a bit in this thread. If there is a demand for a Smoke Free Bar, people should supply it, the government shouldn't force it. If the demand for such a bar is so high that a ban is necessary, then one would think if someone opened a Smoke Free Bar (assuming a ban was not in place) then it would make a shitload of money.Smoke-Free Bars are an externality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities). It's better for everyone if bars are smoke-free, but not beneficial for any bar to go smoke-free unless they all do at once. The free market can't handle externalities. That's why the government has to step in. See:Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation)

In some cases where the economy is not perfectly competitive, the existence of a tax can increase economic efficiency. If there is a negative externality associated with a good, meaning that it has negative effects not felt by the consumer, then the free market will trade too much of that good. By putting a tax on the good, the government can increase overall welfare as well as raising revenue in taxation. This is known as a 'double dividend'.

There are a wide range of goods where there is, or is claimed to be, a negative externality. Polluting fuels (like petrol), goods which incur public healthcare costs (such as alcohol or tobacco), and charges for existing 'free' public goods (like congestion charging) all offer the possibility of a double dividend.

[Z]

Are you talking better in a health sense or better in an economic sense? If the latter, I refer you to the list of the hundreds of bars that closed due to a negative economic impact. If the former, I don't think anyone is arguing that.

Look at it this way: A while back, Gay Bars were almost nonexistant. Then a demand surfaced, someone made a gay bar, and the straight bars were preserved. Like-minded people, whether gays vs straights or smokers vs non-smokers, have the ability to satisfy their own desires without impeding on one another as long as they just do it. There's no reason for the government to have to step in and force it upon anyone.

[Seegtease]

The theory makes sense because it's sensible. It's reasonable. It's what should happen.

But it doesn't. No matter how good you plan it out, it's still not happening. And I assure you there are people, such as myself, who will not go in a bar because of smoke.

Look at it this way: A while back, Gay Bars were almost nonexistant. Then a demand surfaced, someone made a gay bar, and the straight bars were preserved.

Fortunately, you can go to a gay bar without turning gay. But you can't go to a smoking bar without inhaling smoke. A gay bar doesn't exclude non-gay patrons, while a smoking bar excludes non-smokers (or those who can't handle or don't want to be subjected to it). Very different things.

Until gayness flows in the air and people can catch it, I'm not buying that comparison.

[Z]

And I assure you there are people, such as myself, who will not go in a bar because of smoke.That's my point. If you don't want to go to a bar that allows smoking, then don't go to it. Go to a bar that doesn't allow smoking. If there isn't already one available, they should create it. It's the textbook definition of Free Enterprise.

free enterprise

Definition
Business (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/business.html) governed by the laws of supply (http://www.investorwords.com/4822/supply.html) and demand (http://www.investorwords.com/1396/demand.html), not restrained by government (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/government.html) interference, regulation (http://www.investorwords.com/5950/regulation.html) or subsidy (http://www.investorwords.com/4807/subsidy.html).You have a demand. Someone should supply it. The government shouldn't force it on every bar in the U.S. just to satisfy those that complain.

Just like, when gays wanted a bar where they could socially mingle without fear of violent or hateful reactions from the patrons, they created an establishment specifically for that purpose. The comparison works, you're just looking at it from the wrong angle.

No one is arguing that smoking is healthy. The only argument I'm putting forth is the preference for Free Enterprise versus a preference for a pre-approved government lifestyle. It's one or the other.

[Seegtease]

That's my point. If you don't want to go to a bar that allows smoking, then don't go to it. Go to a bar that doesn't allow smoking. If there isn't already one available, they should create it. It's the textbook definition of Free Enterprise.

But they don't. I don't know how many times I have to say this.

What you think they should do and what actually happens are two different things.

I, the non-smoker, do not have a choice, because no choice exists. The only way to get any reasonable amount of non-smoking bars is for the government to ban them. Non-smoking bars would not be able to compete adequately with smoking bars, which is why they don't exist.

There's two options. 1) All bars be smoking or 2) No bars be smoking (by government intervention).

In the first option, the audience is limited to people who can stand smoke. In the latter, anybody can go in the bar. That's obviously the better choice.

[deathofcheese]

In the first option, the audience is limited to people who can stand smoke. In the latter, anybody can go in the bar. That's obviously the better choice.Except it's not because it's going to turn away the majority of bar-goers because they won't be allowed to smoke. When Greenville banned smoking (the second time, the time that stuck), bar business plummeted. People who appreciated non-smoking bars still didn't come out, and people who relied on smoking-allowed bars had to stop coming. (Seriously, when given a choice between giving up bars and giving up smoking, which do you think a lifelong smoker is going to choose?)

Some smokers are now starting to come out, but it's a once in a while (gotta have my bar fix) thing, with nowhere near the regularity they had before the smoking ban.

[Killer_Man_]

Zeit, I bet you 95% of the people who go to certain bars are either A. Lower/Middle class who want to get away or B. Smoke.

That's why Kenosha and Racine will never pass a smoking ban(They are trying at the city level cause it'll never flush at state level). Because those who didn't want smoking to be a choice of the business owner. Voted no and the majority being smokers said yes we want to smoke in public places that allow it.

[Z]

But they don't.
Then you do it. If there is a demand, DO IT! Don't punish me for someone else's lack of initiative.

When someone wanted a bar that had karaoke, they made karaoke bars.
When someone wanted a bar that broadcasts sports, they made sports bars.
When someone wanted a bar that could cater to the gay crowd, they make gay bars.
When someone wants a smoke free bar, make a smoke free bar. Don't get the governmental to convert all bars.

If you and several hundred thousand of your buddies demand a smoke free bar be made, and one of you actually has the initiative to make one, then the problem is solved and you already have a built-in customer base! We can have smoking bars and smoke free bars without converting one to the will of the other. We have straight bars, we have gay bars, we have sports bars, we have karaoke bars. Variety is made possible be people doing rather than sitting and complaining.

---------- Post added at 13:00 ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 ----------

Here, I've thought up another example that might get the point across. You run a burger joint, right?

What if, after several complaints and statistics of public obesity and the unhealthiness of hamburgers, the government then came in and forced you to start making soyburgers instead? It's healthier, no doubt, but it's just not the same as a hamburger. Soon, you start to notice that your business is drying up. People don't want to go to your shop anymore because they can easily make their own hamburgers at home with real meat. Your business closes, along with several others, but at least the complainers got their way, right?

Wrong.

The solution I am proposing is that if someone wants healthy burger, open up a soyburger shop. If there's enough demand, then great! It'll be a thriving business and the hamburger shops that everyone else loves will still be intact.

The defense against this plan can't be "Well, people don't do it". If someone hasn't supplied to a demand, then do it yourself and reap the benefits. Just because someone's hasn't tried something doesn't mean someone can't try something.

Without initiative, we wouldn't have crazy things like Smash Shacks
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/17/smallbusiness/smash_shack.smb/index.htm

^ A business that thrives on people coming in, paying for a set amount of time, and smashing the shit out of every single thing in a room for that allotted time period just to get their frustration out. Ten years ago, people might have said "Well no one would make that" but finally someone did.

Bottom line:

If there's a demand and no one else has done it, that doesn't mean you start trying to fix bars that aren't broken. You make a new bar or you accept that your drive for a smoke free bar isn't enough to actually do something about it. And if you don't care enough to do something about it yourself, why impose on the people who did care enough to make a bar of their liking?

[deathofcheese]

Another idea would be to let the customer base decide whether to make an establishment non-smoking. Run a survey for a year and see how many people want to keep the place smoking-allowed versus how many people would prefer to patron a smoke-free establishment. Or better yet, designate certain days, weeks, months, what have you, as smoke-free periods. That way, business would swing around for both parties. Neither would completely get their way, but they'd at least have a compromise instead of some on-high-mandated resolution that pisses off more people than it pleases.

[Z]

Right. There's tons of ways to meet a compromise before we resort to government imposed banishments for all.

[Arainach]

Then you do it. If there is a demand, DO IT! Don't punish me for someone else's lack of initiative$#@$ing Libertarians. I don't believe you addressed my point last time, so I'll bring it up again:

The free market cannot fix all problems. There are many things that are beneficial to everyone but that no one is willing to spend the cost on in a free market. Bridges between areas, for example - everyone benefits, but no one wants to be the one to pay for hte bridge and put themselves at a disadvantage, so the bridge is never built. In this case, the first bar to go smoke-free loses tons of business unless everyone else goes smoke-free, so there's no reason for anyone to be the first one.

[Bloodcinder]

Girls, girls. You're all pretty!

[Z]

In this case, the first bar to go smoke-free loses tons of business unless everyone else goes smoke-free, so there's no reason for anyone to be the first one.

Your analogy is based on a conversion of an existing bar. I'm talking about a new bar. Leave the old bars alone to run their private business how they want to run it. A new bar can't lose business because it never had business to begin with. If you open a bar (and this is theoretically speaking, given an absence of a public smoking ban) and advertise the smoke-free environment as your gimmick, then you get the smoke-free patrons as your starting (and lasting) base. If that bar isn't a success in the area that you've opened it, then obviously the smoke-free patrons are the minority and bring in the least amount of business to bars anyway so why force an industry to cater to a group of people who don't even fund said industry?

In the hamburger analogy, it'd be banning meat in hamburgers for the sake of the vegans. That doesn't make sense.

After 4 pages, I'm not any closer to budging in this stance and I can only assume the same can be said for you and Seeg so I think we just have to agree to disagree.

[chefTENGU]

I was thinking about something... you mention all the business dollars lost through the smoking ban, but there's two sides to every story. The bar owner's loss became the new owner's gain.

It's not like these places are being shut down and abandoned, they're being sold off to new owners for new purposes. So, wouldn't be fair to say that "countless amounts of money have been lost" is a specious argument, since that money is still being made, just by someone else?

I know it sucks to have to sell property at a loss, especially when it's through no fault of one's own. It just evens out in the end.

[Z]

Yes, that's true. The business that takes the place of that bar that had to be closed due to government interference would probably make money of their own. However, you still have a government entity phasing out an industry (or rather, industries) due to their interference. Most notably, the Tobacco industry. The tobacco industry, who employs many thousands, and whose existence effects many thousands more, is being unfairly targeted. We've just been talking about bars as one of the many "casualties of war" so to speak via the public smoking ban.

---------- Post added at 16:04 ---------- Previous post was at 16:00 ----------

In fact, I wouldn't even be opposed to a temporary smoking banishment. If a banishment is what it takes, as Ary suggests, for smoke-free bars to surface, then let them surface. After 5 years or so, how about we lift the ban and allow smoke-enabled bars to once again come into existence. Then consumers and owners alike truly do have a choice about how they will run their privately owned business and the patrons can decide which environment they'd rather go to.

Would that be a fair compromise?

[chefTENGU]

That's a true point regarding the economy of local businesses but it doesn't help in the government gradual phasing out of the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry, who employs many thousands, and whose existence effects many thousands more, is being unfairly targeted. We've just been talking about bars as one of the many "casualties of war" so to speak via the public smoking ban.
Even if everyone in America never smoked tobacco ever again, those jobs and those companies would remain. Don't they make most of their money exporting their products to foreign countries?

They're really cheap over there, too. Since being a health nut is what's fashionable (notice that when something is labeled "organic" the price is a lot higher compared to anything similiar?), and other countries don't levy the same taxes that we do on tobacco, it's actually cheaper to buy imported American cigarettes than it is for us to buy them domestically.

Last I heard, in South Korea, a pack of Marlboros cost around ₩2000, which is less than $2 US.

[Z]

Where does that leave the American smokers, though, like KM and others who smoke for enjoyment? They're being forced to quit, some against their will, due to price hikes and government banning on where it's legal for them to enjoy a certain product.

[Seegtease]

If you open a bar (and this is theoretically speaking, given an absence of a public smoking ban) and advertise the smoke-free environment as your gimmick, then you get the smoke-free patrons as your starting (and lasting) base.

Do you know how difficult it is to start a business up, especially if you don't have much money for doing so? And do you know how incredibly risky it would be to open a bar that non-smoking? People aren't big enough risk-takers to do it.

Also, your burger comparison doesn't work. A person buying a burger does not affect the people around him. He eats his meaty burger, and his vegetarian friend eats a garden burger. In a bar, a person smokes, and his non-smoking friend inhales the smoke. At best, the government could just require burger joints to stock a garden burger to cater to the vegetarians eating habits. However, they don't have to do that because most burger places already stock them, because it's financially good for them to do so. Besides, it would be kind of silly for the government to ban the sale of burgers from a restaurant but still allow the ground beef to be sold in stores.

With smoking, you can't cater to both audiences. Not even with a non-smoking section, because you and I both know non-smoking sections pretty much smell like smoke too.

And smokers can still go to a non-smoking bar. They just have to go outside to smoke. Why is that so difficult? It's better than a non-smoker having to go outside every time they need to take a breath.

[Z]

And smokers can still go to a non-smoking bar. They just have to go outside to smoke. Why is that so difficult? It's better than a non-smoker having to go outside every time they need to take a breath.I can only answer your question with someone else's answer, as I personally don't smoke:

Z hit the nail on the head. Yes they could go outside and smoke every five minutes, or they could go somewhere else and illegally smoke inside every five minutes, or just not go out at all and smoke at someone's house whenever they wanted. It's similar to an owner banning a particular type of music that ends up killing his customer base because they happened to be the kind of people that went there for that particular kind of music.I don't know the 'Why' beyond inconvenience. No one seeks out inconvenience when convenience is available. I just know the effects and the effects are closed bars and business owners undermining the government.

With smoking, you can't cater to both audiences.Not in the same place, no. But no one has been arguing that. We're talking a smoke free bar and a smoking enabled bar in two different buildings or whatever.

I'm not saying opening a bar is easy. I'm saying if you want change, make change. Don't ban or oppress smokers when they just want a place to relax.

I'm going to go ahead and make this my last post in this topic. We've hit that point where we're just repeating eachother to eachother. We can agree to disagree in this matter mostly do the the fact that, despite my preference for choice, in this matter I've got none. The ban has been passed and the tax is in effect. I just feel it's wrong.

[Seegtease]

I just know the effects and the effects are closed bars and business owners undermining the government.

I think this is a temporary response of anger/frustration by smokers. Eventually, smokers will realize that it's not that bad and start coming more regularly. It's just a shocker to some places.

[Killer_Man_]

You know, I just got home from a bar/clubish one that had ban on smoking. They were doing pretty good I must say from what I asked the bartender. Then again it was in Milwakeeish area, not some random city.

[chefTENGU]

Where does that leave the American smokers, though, like KM and others who smoke for enjoyment? They're being forced to quit, some against their will, due to price hikes and government banning on where it's legal for them to enjoy a certain product.
I was just pointing out that the tobacco companies are not going to be hurting as badly as people seem to think they will.