The War on the Tobacco is more of a sin tax like Alcohol. I don't think it would save the government any money, besides most of the taxes are on the state level. I agree with Darth Indiana Bond, about marijuana. It is very costly and we aren't winning the war. As for other cuts, we obviously need to something about Social Security and Medicare. I say raise the age and find some way to reform both. Those are the agencies that are causing the most concern. People like Ron Paul and Rick Perry saying to cut the Department of Energy or Interior is just stupid. The Interior is a drop in the bucket as things like the Bureau of Indiana Affairs and the National Park Service don't cost that much of the budget.

I suppose that Taxation without Representation is only business as usual?
The smokers are under attack as a minority who cannot by their numbers defend their position against third party majorities who are currently passing laws against renting apartments to tobacco users while allowing landlords to arbitrarily void contracts with smoking tenants in good standing.
There are now whole cities with 100% smoking bans in all parts of Their Town.
There are legislators who would like to tax tobacco out of existence, and when the black market rises up as it has in New York, then who is going to enforce the law?

As for 'sin taxes' and 'public benefit', shouldn't everyone pay pennies on the dollar for worthy programs instead of taxing tobacco and alcohol use out of existence? I find it funny that when the general public in the majority is taxed for these programs, the general public balks at paying for them. In California, when the Vehicle Registration Tax was doubled to cover the State deficit, the public impeached Gov. Grey Davis and his replacement, Gov. Arnold, repealed the increase. Gov. Arnold also vetoed unjust tobacco tax increases. The current Gov. Brown is hostile to tobacco with a progressive anti-tobacco majority in the State legislature.

People often argue that the taxes are 'justified' because nobody needs cigarettes. Obama suggested this when he passed The PACT Act to ensure local State tobacco tax collections by outlawing out-of-State tobacco purchases and delivery by the post office in spite of The Export Clause and when he increased the federal tobacco taxes to 20% of the price on cigarettes and over 2000% on loose tobacco. Well, what kind of a Free Country is it that those who do not use the product or exercise an activity are the ones who decide that nobody else does? At that rate, who needs movies? Movies are not necessary for survival, so why not tax movies two-thirds of the ticket price, say, let's add $9 tax to a movie ticket ($20 full price tax incl.) and a $12 tax for 3D tickets ($32 full price tax incl.)?
The benefit of this proposed tax to the public is obvious, isn't it?

I say bullcrap to the taxation without representation argument. Tobacco lobby is huge and have had a lot of power. Maybe they have lost it, but the general public has went against smoking in the last 20 years. Also, so they are in the minority but they still have a vote. I also don't see smoking as a right. The constitution don't give people the right to smoke, it isn't on the same level as freedom of religion and free speech. As for sin taxes, I don't think people think it will make anybody stop, but it gives extra revenue to the government. Movies are a bad comparison because they don't harm people. Smoking causes lung cancer and kill a lot of people a year. Drinking is a problem because people are stupid and drive and kill people (it also can kill you if drink too much). A better comparison would be soda or fast food, and I know people have talked about doing that, but it hasn't happened yet.

We have a two-fold problem with health in this country: we have a health care system that is both basically for-profit and yet massively inefficient and prohibitively expensive for most if they get seriously ill, AND we have horrible personal habits when it comes to eating well and exercise.

And I say Bullshit to you. You counter with the weary "Big Tobacco" argument, like the big bad wolf eh, and of course the shopworn "lung cancer" argument even though you totally Did Not Read My Previous Post...you know...the one with The Facts and Figures as provided by The American Cancer Society which state that, If You Do The Math and Do the Homework, you know, look up The Necessary Figures, you then Realize that only One-Third of One Percent of the smokers die annually from lung cancer while Two-Thirds of Lung Cancer Deaths Are Not Smoking-Related. Those are American Cancer Society Figures, not from The Big Bad Wolf, right?

And oh yeah, it's all Big Tobacco's fault. Never mind The Customers who smoke in The First Person as 13-20% of the U.S. population. We aren't even a consideration in such anti-legislations. The government ignores us.

And I am concerned. Using tobacco as a Cancer Scapegoat is a disservice to those that will die because the hype misdirects the needed attention. Else by hyping the dangers of tobacco use, given the incredibly small numbers of deaths caused by tobacco, The American Cancer Society is admitting that they are out of ideas for finding the true causes and curing the disease. I see it this way. If smoking causes lung cancer, the lung cancer death rate from smoking would not be One-Third of One Percent of the smoking population per year.
The numbers would be at least 50% or more of the smoking population per year. Something else is causing the cancer.

And then, to claim The Constitution provides no Right to Smoke.
Here's a Clue. Rights are Inalienable. Owned by The First Person. Non-Transferable.
Not Subject to Denial or Disparagement of The Right by Third-Parties who Do Not Exercise The Right. Not subject to a democratic vote.
The 9th Amendment clearly states: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The term "Shall Not" is known as A Mandate. It means exactly what it says.
Also, unlike The First Amendment, The 9th Amendment does not limit its prohibition to Congress and The Government. The 9th Amendment prohibition against denying Or disparaging non-enumerated Rights to The People in The First Person is all-encompassing.
Nobody is allowed to deny The Rights of The First Person, as long as the exercise of The Right in question does not trespass against The First Person Rights of Other Citizens. When it does, The Government may regulate in order to prevent interference between me and you and visa-versa, but The Government cannot deny, disparage or prohibit outright any behavior when limited to The First Person.

Oh, and of course smoking is not popular. That's a good reason to tax the hell out of it now.
Let's attack and prohibit everything that might kill .3% (One-Third of One Percent) of the public by overtaxation with prohibition of The Rights, and leave it to the majority to deny and disparage the unpopular. Sure the smokers have the vote In The Minority, but at the end of the day it is you and the majority who want special taxes and special programs as long as You don't have to pay for them.

Cancer is not a major disease by any means, given the numbers, but it is important to care about the cure. Why don't you support everybody pitching in pennies on the dollar to find one?

P.S. You don't smoke and you hate tobacco use, so you see nothing wrong in attacking those of use who enjoy it. There is no difference between the current tobacco taxes and the idea of disproportionate taxation of movie tickets. The latter is only 'a poor example' when the idea hits too close to home for you to tolerate it.

Wow I am not going to go over point by point on that because it would take too long and I do have a life. First, I am not sure about those statistics. I have seen other stats that completely disagree with those and I also have known people who have died from Lung Cancer. Also what do you mean Cancer is not a major disease? It is the second leading cause of death, and I have family who I have died from cancer. I had an Uncle who was killed because of Prostate Cancer so that is really bullshit to say that Cancer isn't a major disease. Tell that to the millions of families who lose loved ones ever year.
And why do you give a fuck about smoking. Are you huge smoker or something? You don't need smoking to live and it isn't like people are going to miss it. And we live in a democracy, so some things that are unpopular will get taxed. If you don't like it go move near a Native American reservation.

I consider taxing cigarettes on the same level as fining people for not wearing seat belts or helmets. I guess you are some huge libertarian that things we should have no restrictions and be able to buy heroin and pay for prostitutes.

Yes, it will take too long to respect the Rights of others and of course you will dispute the statistics provided by The American Cancer Society. Remember, they provided the California statistics for 2011, not me. On page 4 of the following link, I think:

http://www.ccrcal.org/pdf/Reports/ACS_2011.pdf

You will pummel the smokers with outrageous taxes and violate Their Privacy even though two-thirds of lung cancer deaths in California Are Not Smoking-Related and that only One-Third of One Percent of the State smoking population die from lung cancer each year, 17, 000 deaths this year from a smoking population of more than 4,500,000 Californian smokers and a State Population of over 36,000,000 people. Right.

But You want somebody else to pay out the ass for The Cure. Not You or everyone including me at pennies on the dollar for a worthy cause. Conquer Cancer? Huh? Too much work for you?

Let's change the subject. Let's end the War on Drugs? Really?
Do you know that The State of California lists Marijuana Smoke as a carcinogen?

http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/ ... 111811.pdf Page 13



So now what? Legalize heroin and ban tobacco and marijuana? No. Tobacco is Heroin...no.

Heroin disrupts the user and risks death on withdrawal for Most Users in the Majority. Smoking does not. Prostitution is a two-party activity which threatens disease and, depending on the professionalism of the whore, pregnancy. It is not a First Person Activity.

Rights are wonderful until someone else's First Person Rights piss you off, right? Then it's Prohibition Time. Yeah...

But what does this have to do with Taxes and Cuts? Everything.
People love their advantages over others.

EDIT: I blew it. I mistakenly attributed the "ending the War on Drugs" to you.
So how do you feel about decriminalizing pot?

Now that we've gotten way off topic and have begun discussing legalization of things, let me say that Penn and Teller's excellent show "Bullshit" provides an excellent arguement as to why prostitution should be legalized. My girlfriend got me into the subject. She's very much for its legalization.

Well we have gotten way off topic, and I am not responding anymore because it seems rather pointless. You won't change your mind and I won't change yours. As for legalizing Pot, I am not sure about that, although I would decriminalize it and instead just give fines to people.

Well, it is and it isn't off-topic. The budget may or may not be cut but it all comes down to the taxes imposed on the Citizens.
The budget and any cuts are meaningless otherwise.

I would add to that meth and other drugs.

I am okay with that, although many meth users are makers, and those people are dangerous to their communities.

You mean tax them and if so, then for what reason?

Well I misread what he was quoting. I thought he was referring to decriminalizing the drugs. I am against making Heroin, Meth, and other hard drugs legal. All three of them are deadly, if we legalize them we should just legalize arsenic, hemlock, and cyanide as well because they are just as deadly. I think somethings need to stay illegal. As a society, we have to have rules and there has to be lines in the sand somewhere or else we have cannibals, satanists, and pedophiles all saying they should have to right to practice their beliefs, not to mention murder would be legal.
I do think we need to stop putting most drug users behind bars, as it just cause major overcrowding issues in our jails.

I agree.

There's no need for troops in military bases overseas unless in war zones. This only creates a budgetary need to keep those bases running and those troops paid. Bring'em home and have them find jobs or go to school and get jobs.

I agree about some bases, except we need to keep troops in South Korea. If we left there it might give North Korea ideas to invade. They won't invade if we are there as a buffer.

A North Korean invasion of South Korea would collapse in a few days. They can't mobilize for long.

It would still kill a lot of people, and if we stay there they are less likely to attack.

Yeah, its like a nuclear war would not last long either lol...

I would legalize them and probably would tax them as well; but I am open to arguments against taxing them.

What is funny about that?

Well its not funny but Tyler's point that we have no need to protect South Korea, as an North Korean attack would lose momentum quickly. It would still lead to massive casualties and should be avoided.

The US as a superpower has a role to play in the world and history shows us if we just sit home and stick our necks in the sand.

Sooner or latter someone kicks us in the behind.

We are already supposed to have that protection with First Person Rights respected and with "Clear and Present Danger" upheld to protect The First Person against obvious harm.
This is why Rights are Inalienable: Non-Tranferable for consideration by Third Party Cannibals, Satanists, Pedophiles, Politicians, or any other Alliance or Confederacy operating at the state level.

I have to say I am getting tired of hear republicans talk about freezing government workers pay. As some one who works for the Park Service, I hate they consider us not important. And there are the radicals out there who want to get rid of the Park Service and other government agencies. Those kind of things make me mad not only because they threaten my livelihood but tr to get rid of things that we should protecting like our heritage, natural beauty, and history.

well the govt can continue giving workers a pay increases and go further in debt and then get in real financial trouble and be force to cut your pay drastically or likley fire you in the future.

That is what has happened all across the world.