Who has the bigger addiction: Liberals to tax increases or smokers to tobacco?
550452
I'd say it's about equal. Hard for either to stop more than short term. They all go back to doing it.
933189
Tobacco taxation raises revenue of £9.5bn compared with the £1.7bn needed to treat smoking-related illness. There you go, so next time an anti smoker needs hospital treatment you may find that it is that smoker you so dislike that is actually paying for that life saving operation you need! (When you are hit by a car for example!!)\nHere's an interesting read for you!!!! Evidence???\nhttp://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/road_air_pollution_health.pdf#search='evidence%20of%20car%20pollution%20causing%20illness'
352298
Cigarettes are the 3rd most adictive drug in the world and millions of people smoke, now take those numbers and realise that 'every; goverment taxes the hell out of each packet- in spain and eastern Europe you can buy a pack for about €2 but in Ireland each pack costs €6.50, thats nearly €5 tax on every pack with over a million Irish smoking about 1 pack a day so do the math, the Irish goverment makes €5 X 1 million X 365 tax and more every year...they'll never be banned
1169858
Maybe the way tobacco products are advertised and promoted needs to changed but ban it all together?  No.....it is a viable product and like most things if used in moderation by adults there is nothing wrong with it.  Plus as an after thought, if it was banned get ready to pay a lot more in taxes in general.  My state alone collects almost $30 million a year in cigarette taxes.  You think if they banned tobacco they would give up that $30 Million?  No way, it would made up in higher gas, sales, and/or property taxes.
240655
in america most states have had this ban for a while.  (i think new york for about 3 yrs, and ct about 2) numerous business owners have complained b/c it keeps customers away according to them.( bars/restaurants/nightclubs) as for the tax implications...i can only guess it must be pretty bad as cigs are highly taxed.
1015988
We tax those that smoke, we tax those that drink booze both are addictions both cost billions in heathcare.  So why not a fat tax?  In following the logic that the US government sued tobacco companies for payback of healthcare costs.\nI would find it hypocritical for some who support a smoking ban and taxes and NOT support a fat tax.\n\nI support neither as the tax raised would just be misused by our politicians.
106491
Raises taxes or lowers taxes.
1107485
people keep trying to raise tax on cigarettes because they dont want people to smoke. These people should worry about themselves.
148651
One of many theories about the reasons behind such a move is that due to the increased taxation of cigarettes, many UK smokers have been turning to illegally imported cigarettes, which have actually reduced the amount of money the government recieve from the increased taxation on tobacco, and that by banning smoking in public houses, the availability of imported cigarettes and tobacco will be reduced; as much of the trade in these goods is done within pubs (but this is just a theory).\n\nThe alternate revenue that the government will recieve is already in effect, if you look at the statistics you will find that taxation on purchased goods, petrol and especially coucil tax have increased a staggering amount, while the weekly earning and benifits have remained the same.\nIt is doubtless that once the effects of lessened tobacco sales have reached the treasury, the poll tax will be extremely high, petrol will be as expensive as gold and alcohol and spirits will be taxed through the roof.\n\nI personally decided to quit a couple of weeks ago, just before this decision came in - but I still disagree completely with the governments infringement on civil liberties.\n\nSmoking is legal - cigarettes are legal, therefore it should not be a governmental decision on which public houses should and should not allow smoking. These matters should be left to the discretion of the pub landlord or the brewery. If a landlord chose to allow smoking in his bar, non-smokers would be free to seek out alternative pubs and clubs that would cater to non-smokers.\nThat's what freedom of choice is all about.
251341
Yes.  The government wastes huge amounts of money on enforcement, a great many lives are disrupted by their contact with the criminal "justice" system, and their families thrown into chaos.  All this for something which ought to be a personal decision of adults, and a parental decision for children, just like other herbal remedies.  \n\nI don't like taxes generally, but if the tax were no larger in proportion to that on tobacco, it would be no less fair than taxing alcohol and tobacco.  It would then stabilize a market which is currently based on an underworld versus an authoritarian control system, both sides of which have the effect of jacking up the price.  \n\nAnd you can tell the Supreme Court has to reach really hard when they use the interstate commerce clause, and cite parallels with wheat price control cases, in order to maintain federal control over what should be a state matter.\n\nPlease note that it would still be illegal to operate a vehicle while intoxicated.  Marijuana is considerably less dangerous in that regard than alcohol.  One's concentration can actually be improved on grass; it can only be dulled by alcohol.  But most pot smokers agree that driving a car while high is not something they want to do.  If you need to in an emergency, you can probably do better than someone who is drinking, but it will ruin your high.  Of course, the emergency that made it necessary to drive would probably also ruin it.\n\nDon't forget that just because it becomes legal, there is no reason to suppose that everyone will start smoking all the time, or that those who smoke will stay high all the time.  People who live under secure enough conditions that they have no paranoia about getting arrested generally do not smoke all the time anyway, unless for control of chronic pain.  The high is reduced if you don't get to contrast it with being straight some of the time.  I think for most people it would just be a better way to unwind when they come home from work than a cocktail.
664074
Increase revenue (taxes) or decrease spending.
1135166
It's not what they're smoking -- Libs just NEED to feel good about themselves.   I use to be a Democrat and somewhat liberal.  It made me feel good to be on the side of the party of the "common man."  It made me feel good to trash the "rich" Republicans.  It made me feel good to be for peace.  It made me feel good to be for equality.  It made me feel good to support social welfare programs.  Then I started reading and listening and thinking and I concluded that today's Democrats are not the Democrats that my parents and grandparents supported (and therefore I supported). They are more like Socialist who want the CENTRALIZED CONTROL OF AMERICA and a political-economic policy that boarders on communism.   The Socialist programs of the New Deal and The Great Society have failed for the most part and are destroying our country.  Now I am much more conservative, and a great deal worried.
847911
I'm going with wise.  It would be too costly to put the tax & spend liberals back in charge!
1044142
Liberals are closer to socialists.  They believe in big government (that is, high taxes) so that everyone is "taken care of".  They also believe that whatever you believe is okay.\n\nFor example, I have personal experience with Sweden, where the payroll taxes are double what they are in the US.  But the social benefits are higher too.  \n\nDo you want everyone to have the same opportunities, whether they want to work hard or just goof off?  If you say yes, that's liberal.  If you say no, that's conservative.\n\nCurrently in Holland, a new political party wants to legalize child pornography.  That is an ultra-liberal view.  "Whatever turns you on," is the ultimate catch-phrase of the liberals.  If that's you, then you are liberal.\n\nIf you believe in hard work, and making more money and being more successful than your lazy neighbor; if child pornography makes you sick, then you are a conservative.\n\nYou choose.
103590
What state do you live in? Most states do not have a "grocery tax" - in fact, I am unaware of any. Rather, the taxes you pay on certain groceries is a form of consumption tax and will apply to far more than groceries.\n\nRaising taxes on cigarettes, in my opinion, is not a viable solution. It penalizes a small percentage of society for using a LEGAL substance.\n\nRather, I am in favor of a new yuppy tax. If a frappuccino costs $3.00, I think we should add a 200% tax to it making it $9.00. Hey, that is $6.00 for each drink to the state. Not a large segment of society drinks them, but enough do that will raise a significant amount of money to the state's coffers.\n\nKinda seems unfair, doesn't it?\n\nAnd, no ... I am not a smoker (used to be, though! :)
818161
None. don't want to litter. I thought the best protest would be purchasing cigarettes from a state which doesn't have a smoking ban. Have to travel about an hour but gee at least that other state without smoking bans will be getting my cigarette taxes. Imagine if every smoker did that? Might have to purchase a few cartons at a time but let the state feel the lack of smoking dollars.
901494
They would rather raise all taxes, not just gas taxes!\n\n\n\n\nThey are for themselves, not the "little people"!