Yup, since the general public is way too stupid to make decisions concerning their health, the government should make them for us. Great idea Blaser!

I also don’t give a shit about that fact, really, because that’s not anybody’s business other than the smokers. But the sorts of people who propose increasing the per-pack cigarette tax by $0.85 to socialize healthcare are exactly the people who want to “help the poor” or whatever the hell. I fail to see how targeting a tax at exactly the demographic you value more than other demographics is really helping.

And niedermeyer, no one feels sorry for you. If you choose to pay hand over fist so tobacco companies can slowly kill you, stand in the rain for all I care. It is your choice, and you pay for the consequences.

So it shouldn’t be up to the bar owner? These things should be mandated by the state? It’s a legitimate beef, I think, because the business owners have no say in whether or not smokers can stay indoors.

Next I’ll hear you arguing that my alcoholic band teacher in middle school should have been allowed to bring his jack and coke to class, so that he wouldn’t have to wait to sneak out on his lunch break for a fix.

I imagine drinking on the job would probably be in violation of his terms of employment, to which all parties involved voluntarily agreed. This is different than smoking bans because, again, the owner of the property in question didn’t have a say. If some bar owner on his own decided not to allow smoking, it’d be a fine analogy as then smokers would be free to go to some other bar..but when the state has mandated that there may not be smoking in bars, which are wholly populated by adults, there isn’t a choice about it. Blah Blah blah freedomcakes.

It is not about what’s fair, it is about stupidity. If you are stupid enough to light up and hand over your hard earned money to taste that sweet tar, it means that you will hand over more if the state puts a tax on it.

Are you arguing that the cigarette tax will discourage a certain number of people from smoking? Doesn’t that undermine the price-inelasticity argument for using this tax to raise revenue? Are you arguing that smokers create some sort of externality* which neccessitates a pigouvian tax? If the tax is supposed to be pigouvian doesn’t that, again, undermine the revenue-raising rationale?

I mean, I get that you think smokers are stupid and deserve to stand in the rain and all, but I’m not exactly sure what your point is beyond that. Further, it still doesn’t make a bit of sense to help people by taxing an item that, on balance, they consume more than anyone else. The poor and uneducated have the highest incidence of smoking…helping the poor and uneducated (which, standard libertarian disclaimer, I think isn’t the state’s job in the first goddamn place) by taxing cigarettes to pay for the healthcare of people making $70k a year seems, well, laughable really.

*I would assume “second hand smoke” but as anyone in a bar is an adult who consented to be there, I can’t really see how this would be an externality.

I disagree.

And niedermeyer, no one feels sorry for you. If you choose to pay hand over fist so tobacco companies can slowly kill you, stand in the rain for all I care. It is your choice, and you pay for the consequences. Next I’ll hear you arguing that my alcoholic band teacher in middle school should have been allowed to bring his jack and coke to class, so that he wouldn’t have to wait to sneak out on his lunch break for a fix.

It is not about what’s fair, it is about stupidity. If you are stupid enough to light up and hand over your hard earned money to taste that sweet tar, it means that you will hand over more if the state puts a tax on it. Shout out to Andy: how’s that for supply and demand!

Talk to Shadow. He may be able to do it.