I was wondering if anyone else heard about it. If so, who is raising them, the feds or the provincial government?

I strongly oppose this, as taxes on alcohol and cigarettes tend to target the poor, as they would consume just as much, or possibly more, of these products than the rich. It throws our proportional taxation out of whack.

From your postal code, RA, you're evidently in Ontario. Around ten years ago, both Ont. and Quebec dropped their cigarette taxes drastically, supposedly to combat smuggling. But other provinces retained theirs, and they've gone steadily up. Here in low-tax Alberta, for example, cigarettes are around $9-$10 a pack, loss-leader sales aside.

I'm of two minds about this -- or three, really. I agree, consumption taxes are regressive (and besides, being proportionately higher on alcohol and tobacco, have that old flavour of "sin taxes").

On the other hand, there's a simple relationship between tobacco taxes and consumption. When they go up, more people stop smoking, and fewer people start, with obvious implications for the numbers of people suffering prematurely, shall we say (life after all being, absolutely without exception, a terminal condition).

[ 21 November 2003: Message edited by: stevepay ]

Why subsidise electricity and over-tax cigarettes? I'd say that electricity harms our collective health much more than cigarettes. Now that smoking has been banned from restaurants and most public establishments (at least in most of Ontario), smokers are really only hurting themselves. When you leave your lights and computer on at night, the coal being burned or the nuclear waste produced directly affects my health.

The demand for cigarettes is so ineleastic that the government knows they can get away with dramatically increasing prices. If you've studied economics, even at a high-school level, you'd know that when demand is inelastic, as prices rise quantity demanded is reduced on a proportionally small scale. The government's motivation, then, is to increase their tax revenue.

quote:

---

consumption taxes are regressive (and besides, being proportionately higher on alcohol and tobacco, have that old flavour of "sin taxes").

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
I'm moving this to "body and soul."

---

quote:

---

Who is behind taxing the smoker - or is it like you say...a conspiracy to help keep the poor poor?

---

I don't believe it's a conspiracy to keep the poor poor. It's just that any sort of consumption tax, say a sales tax, falls proportionately harder on those with lower incomes. That's what I mean by "regressive."

[ 02 May 2006: Message edited by: 'topherscompy ]

With mass production being brought to tobacco, poor people could afford this "status symbol".

If cigarettes get too expensive, they will re-attain the statment of "I've got money to burn".

I'm not sure that's the route to go, if societal cessation is the goal.

quote:

---

As a result, the government takes back in PST and ciggie tax or beer tax part of what it grudgingly hands out to these people. Slickest way of giving with one hand while taking with the other that I've ever seen.

---

Oh wait, I forgot. You think everybody on welfare deals drugs, or is a hooker, or is otherwise not worthy of basic courtesy due any human being. (And for evidence, I cite your own posts clearly showing that you regularly haul out anecdotes about your neighborhood to "prove" this)

These people may not be able to afford much in the way of alcohol or tobacco, but compared to illegal drugs they're cheaper, and if you're going to want to ease the drudgery of that kind of existence, you'll do it with alkeehall or tobacco. Besides, cigarettes in particular curb the appetite, and food is one of the biggest costs for someone on welfare.

The cost-benefit analysis may sound incredibly ludicrous to anyone who isn't on social assistance, but a $10 25-pack of smokes could well equate to saving $20 in food because you don't feel hungry afterwards.

quote:

---

You really think they're gonna deprive themselves of some sort of "extra" just because you, Mr. Middle-Class-I'm-Too-Good-For-These-People Magoo, have decreed that we should be paying out even less than we already do to people on welfare?

---

Of course not, but if they really can't afford to feed their kids on the money they get, I'd hope they might deprive themselves of this "extra" for them.

quote:

---

Oh wait, I forgot. You think everybody on welfare deals drugs, or is a hooker, or is otherwise not worthy of basic courtesy due any human being.

---

Uh, no. I'm responding to the assertion that hiking taxes on tobacco somehow targets the poor. If the poor don't actually smoke more then this is a nonsensical assertion. If they do smoke more, then what are you carrying on at me for? I don't need to bring my neighbourhood into this one.

quote:

---

$10 25-pack of smokes could well equate to saving $20 in food because you don't feel hungry afterwards.

---

What a fascinating pile of crap. When was the last time you bought a box of Mac and Cheese, or a can of beans? You're really, with a straight face and everything, going to tell me that $10 worth of smokes will somehow make a person feel more full than $10 worth of food? And that's neverminding the fact that eating is about a lot more than staving off hunger.

Shouldn't there be a strong correlation between smoking and massive weightloss if this were true?

quote:

---

Shouldn't there be a strong correlation between smoking and massive weightloss if this were true?

---

Smoking definitely curbs my appetite.

But then, just about everything in life this past year has curbed my appetite.

At that rate, a pack-a-day smoker who quits and replaces their habit with food again would a) have an extra $140/week food bill, and b) the weight gain that would come from eating that food.

In reality a pack-a-day smoker who quits will likely gain a few pounds, and the majority of smokers do not likely eat $20 less of food than a non-smoker.

[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

Spend a year campaigning. Lose thirty pounds. Quit campaigning. Gain twenty back.

quote:

---

Out of curiousity, is smoking allowed in prisons?

---

It is in federal penitentiaries, though there's been some talk of banning it. Some penitentiaries have non-smoking wings or at least ranges.

Nova Scotia, Manitoba, and I think Ontario have banned smoking in provincial jails. I don't know about the other provinces.

[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

all you ontario smokers could save some coin by buying bulk tobacco and rolling your own ciggies, you know.
yeah, i know it's not the same as the mass-produced cancer sticks, but really, you telling me you smoke for the flavour?

---

Yes I smoke for the flavour, I also call it and use it as my "psychiatric drug of choice."
Originally posted by Tommy_Payne:

quote:

---

In a bygone era, tobacco was a luxury enjoyed by the middle and upper classes. Poor people couldn't afford it.

---

quote:

---

At that rate, a pack-a-day smoker who quits and replaces their habit with food would a) have an extra $140/week food bill, and the weight gain that would come from eating that food.

---

[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: windymustang ]

quote:

---

There are treatment centres for alcoholics/addicts, why not use same-site facilities and add-on cigarette withdrawal.

---

quote:

---

Can't see beyond the tip of your nose. I spent about $120/mo smoking...and it's my business and people of welfare's business where we spend are money. Who the hell are you - trying to tell poor people where to spend their money?

---

Uh, you don't get it. How about you un-jerk your knee until you're sure you do?

My point is that we hear what I believe to be conflicting stories about people on social assistance. One story is that they're given so little by our "mean ol'" government that they can't afford food, they can't afford rent, and they "don't have enough to live on".

The other is that when we tax luxuries, we're somehow punishing the poor.

So, my question is this: which is true? Are welfare recipients really so poor they can't buy food? Or are they really disproportionate consumers of luxuries like smokes and booze?

I don't care what they spend their cheque on, so long as they aren't asking for more. If they spend it on smokes and then say "but now I don't have enough for my kids to eat", then what do you suppose I'm going to say?

Let me make this perfectly clear: I'm not accusing anyone specifically, but IF there exist welfare recipients who choose to spend their money on luxuries and they don't ask for more money, I don't care.

IF there exist welfare recipients who choose to spend their money on luxuries and they they do ask for more money (since they now can't possibly live, and we'll be killing them if we don't give them more money) then yes, I think I have a right to ask why my tax dollars should support a) Multinational tobacco conglomerates and b) someone's luxury.

I don't mind making sure that fellow citizens don't starve or freeze — food and shelter are certainly necessities of life — but luxuries? Why?

[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

In the middle and upper classes, smoking has gone out of style. Generally, smokers these days are your blue collar or lower income workers, and doubling the price of a pack overnight is going to hit them hard, no doubt about it.

The only real solution to this problem is that people have to give up smoking. It isn't that government should lower the price of smokes, or force "rich" people to pay the tax instead.

quote:

---

I think there is. Don't people who quit smoking have problems with weight gain?

---

[ 02 May 2006: Message edited by: 'topherscompy ]

quote:

---

if taxing tobacco has anything to with getting people to quit smoking, why not use that tax revenue to hand out the patch?

---

Why not just use your cigarette money to buy patches instead? Why does the government have to hand them out?

quote:

---

The only real solution to this problem is that people have to give up smoking. It isn't that government should lower the price of smokes, or force "rich" people to pay the tax instead.

---

My only real issue with this issue is people with their holier than thou attitude dictating which current issue is the fad to target. If the govt and through them society target mainly tobacco as a health issue, where are the targets on allllll the other things that make people unhealthy.

Do you choose to drive a car? Do you choose to fly in planes? Do you choose to use anything made from petroleum products? Do you choose to eat unhealthy fast foods? Do you choose to be overweight?

Some people choose the "unhealthy" choice of smoking. What right is it of society in general to target them so out of proportion to the other health issues listed above?

Think about it. Society has been brainwashed with anti-smoking campains as much as they are brainwashed with ads for all the other unhealthy lifestyle choices.

Why does the govt. and society in general have the right and power to target one group of individuals? Aren't the consumers of fast food a lot bigger group to target.

Point one: Consumption taxes always hit those with less discretionary income harder. So a smoker who earns $70 thou a year is going to be hit harder than is a millionaire smoker. And a smoker who is living on welfare is going to be hit harder than the union guy/gril who earns $70 thou a year. How hard is that to comprehend?

Translated into moral/coercive terms, that means that our society has decided that it is fair to interfere blatantly in the lives of the very poor and to interfere moderately in the lives of the working/middle classes, while leaving suicide by tobacco among the wealthy a purely discretionary matter. Unnerstand?

Point two: Payments to welfare and (worse) disability petitioners in Ontario are now so low (Harris cuts) that it is hard for me to see how anyone lives on them, certainly in this city. Welfare recipients have NO discretionary income, since they don't have the income to pay for the basic necessities in the first place.

Perhaps that does not seem wrong to you, Magoo, but it does to me. What you are calling luxury, I would call freedom. I think that everyone in this exceptionally wealthy society should have a few choices about what to do of a Friday or Saturday night. People living on welfare or (worse) disability pensions in this province can't even choose what to eat for breakfast, if they can afford to eat breakfast at all.

If I were in those shoes, I would definitely quit smoking. I would spend my smoking money on booze and drink myself to death under a bridge somewhere.

quote:

---

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

---

quote:

---

What you are calling luxury, I would call freedom.

---

Didn't we have a discussion about freedoms on a thread a while back? About how some freedoms are "good" freedoms, and others are "bad" ones, and why we meddle in some but not others? I don't recall you being on the side of everyone's freedom to make choices back then. You wouldn't by any chance see smoking as a "freedom" because you're a smoker yourself, would you?

quote:

---

I would definitely quit smoking. I would spend my smoking money on booze and drink myself to death under a bridge somewhere.

---

Ok, I've had a chance to reconsider, and I've decided to satisfy your economic concern, Magoo. I'd just throw self from the bridge. Ok?

You seem to be missing the point. I don't mind whether Conrad Black smokes, and nobody else does either, since he is obviously free to smoke however much of whatever whenever he likes.

But we ALL care whether a welfare mother smokes or drinks, don't we, Magoo. We don't care whether she can eat, but we sure care that she might smoke or drink. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

quote:

---

But we ALL care whether a welfare mother smokes or drinks, don't we, Magoo. We don't care whether she can eat, but we sure care that she might smoke or drink. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

---

As I said further up, I don't really care, so long as it isn't followed by "but now I have no money left for food/rent/baby clothes".

But as I said earlier as well, I am a little confused about where someone who (allegedly) hasn't even enough money to feed themself finds the luxury cash for some smokes, or how the very poor can (allegedly) be hardest hit by a luxury tax. (Of course I'm working on the premise that paying multinational conglomerates for the right to inhale some poisonous smoke and be a tiny bit high for a few minutes is a luxury.)

quote:

---

Do you drive a car, Magoo?

---

quote:

---

I don't recall you being on the side of everyone's freedom to make choices back then.

---

PS: This strikes me as a very strange charge against me.

I am indeed a civil libertarian. I don't recall the thread you are referring to, but I don't know why you would raise this charge against me. Perhaps you could furnish us with a quote.

I measure everything against freedom, Magoo. Everything. I am a socialist, but before that I am an exceptionally cranky person who does not think that there are many persons on this earth who have the right to observe my life, much less pass judgement on it.

Magoo, in answer to your last post (well, it was your last as I wrote this one, but who knows these days): do you have any idea at all of how much we now give people on welfare? disability?

quote:

---

I am indeed a civil libertarian. I don't recall the thread you are referring to, but I don't know why you would raise this charge against me. Perhaps you could furnish us with a quote.

---

I believe it was called "Large Vehicles and other personal choices" or some similar. It seems to me that you were one of the babblers with a down on personal choices... specifically owning certain vehicles. If not, then I retract and aplogize. If so though, then I'd ask how the choice to smoke, and foul the air around you, and contribute to growing health care costs, and put money in the pockets of big fat corporations is any more sacred a choice than choosing to drive a large car, and foul the air around you, and contribute to growing health care costs, and put money in the pockets of big fat corporations?

quote:

---

I am a socialist, but before that I am an exceptionally cranky person who does not think that there are many persons on this earth who have the right to observe my life, much less pass judgement on it.

---

I think commenting on a babbler's prior babblings is fair game at babble. I'm not observing your life — just a few tiny, written snippets of it.

quote:

---

What could you do with $900/month in downtown Toronto, Magoo?

---

Move. I wouldn't live here if I weren't working here. But if I had to stay then I wouldn't have much money left over after paying rent, so I guess I'd buy cigarettes with it. Okay, I'm being facetious, but that's my point. If I didn't have enough to eat, I wouldn't be buying cigarettes, or hockey tickets, or gold watches, or having my house cleaned by someone else, or any other luxuries.

Which brings us back, yet again, to my original point (which I think I can still see in the distance, and it looks like this --> ·

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
           
As I said further up, I don't really care, so long as it isn't followed by "but now I have no money left for food/rent/baby clothes".

---

Then why would you be in support of an increase in taxes that would cause more people to say "now I have no money left for food/rent/baby clothes." It seems that if they're saying that already, with a higher cigarette price, they will have even LESS money for those important things.

The government should be investing money into reducing the amount of smoking. The government should not be making the lives of those who smoke harder by raising cigarette taxes just to fill their coffers with money from coughers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

[...]how the very poor can (allegedly) be hardest hit by a luxury tax.

---

Why is this so hard to understand? Even if you ignore the fact that the poor usually consume more cigarettes than the middle or upper classes, the cost of cigarettes makes up a larger percentage of their budget.

[ 26 November 2003: Message edited by: RookieActivist ]

quote:

---

Why is this so hard to understand? Even if you ignore the fact that the poor usually consume more cigarettes than the middle or upper classes,
the cost of cigarettes makes up a larger percentage of their budget.

---

That's not hard to understand; it's just math. What I don't understand is why someone without enough money to buy food would be buying smokes.

Let's substitute another luxury — how about caviar — and see how it plays out.

We raise the cost of caviar. Now everyone who's used to paying $50 a tin will be paying $75 a tin. Except that extra $25 is really going to hit the guy who only gets $650 a month for food, shelter, transportation and clothing. Obviously, by raising the price of imported fish eggs by %50, we're targetting him... right?

quote:

---

It's almost as if tobacco was some kind of addictive drug!

---

Ya. You'd think that printing that in large letters on the side of every pack of smokes might dissuade people from wanting to get themselves hooked, but apparently not.

quote:

---

If I didn't have enough to eat, I wouldn't be buying cigarettes, or hockey tickets, or gold watches, or having my house cleaned by someone else, or any other luxuries.

---

quote:

---

You'd think that printing that in large letters on the side of every pack of smokes might dissuade people from wanting to get themselves hooked, but apparently not.

---

Anyone who wants to be addicted put up their hands! Alcohol is addictive, so are pain killers. Both are socially acceptable drugs. Most people don't take these with the intention of becomming addicted and despite that some people do. I don't see how that's so different from cigarettes.

quote:

---

At any rate, the fact that quitting is difficult isn't enough to make me categorize it as a necessity. If I did, then I'd have to include heroin, crack, meth, gambling and porn as necessities too.

---

The increase in the price will take food from the mouthes of children and only serve to make the rich richer on the backs of the poor and needy. Lotteries are considered by many to be a tax on the gullible and stupid. We must protect these citizens by ensuring that the price they pay will not steal the food and clothes from their children.

quote:

---

I don't see how that's so different from cigarettes.

---

In this case I wouldn't say they're very different at all, and if the government increased the tax on a bottle of gin then we could have pretty much the same thread we have now, and I'd be making pretty much the same point. If you spend your money on gin, and you don't have enough for other things, then it's maybe because you spent it on gin.

quote:

---

I'd ask people who are hooked on those things whether or not they are necessities.

---

I'm sure that would be illuminating. Excuse me sir, but are all those trifecta tickets really necessary? Ma'am? How necessary is that meth? Sir, do you really need that Hustler magazine?

quote:

---

You'd think that printing that in large letters on the side of every pack of smokes might dissuade people from wanting to get themselves hooked, but apparently not.

---

Originally posted by dee:

quote:

---

I have/would. But only the cigarettes.

---

Orig by Magoo again:

quote:

---

the fact that quitting is difficult isn't enough to make me categorize it as a necessity. If I did, then I'd have to include heroin, ...
...In this case I wouldn't say they're very different at all, and if the government increased the tax on a bottle of gin then we could have pretty much the same thread we have now, and I'd be making pretty much the same point.

---

Apparently, quiting smoking IS more difficult than quiting heroin. Addicts don't go through cold turkey, but there are no treatment centers with medications administered to help those that want or need to quit.

If you didn't notice, alcohol is a mind altering substance where as tobacco is not. There are also treatment centres available for free for alcohol addicts to check themselves into. Everything inculding excellent quality food, councilling and peer support as well as after care is paid for by the government. Get real and make some valid points.

Posted by Sports Guy:
You people make me sick. Your whines about having to pay more for the privilege of sucking on poison couched in anti-poverty language are shameful.
Posted by Scout:

quote:

---

Then feel free to fuck off.

---

"Then why would you be in support of an increase in taxes that would cause more people to say "now I have no money left for food/rent/baby clothes." It seems that if they're saying that already, with a higher cigarette price, they will have even LESS money for those important things."

It doesn't make sense. Why just make it harder for people who are already having difficulty putting food on the table to do so?

Yeah, yeah, they bring it on themselves. Because, of course, everyone who smokes is, what, a sinner? A deviant?

No, only if they're poor. If you're rich, feel free to smoke as much as you want. Because this isn't about smoking, it's about how poor people should be spending YOUR hard-earned tax dollars, isn't it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
What a fascinating pile of crap. When was the last time you bought a box of Mac and Cheese, or a can of beans? You're really, with a straight face and everything, going to tell me that $10 worth of smokes will somehow make a person feel more full than $10 worth of food? And that's neverminding the fact that eating is about a lot more than staving off hunger.

---

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

Whoa, what the hell was that that sailed over your head?! Was it a bird? A plane? Nay, it was the point I made!

quote:

---

The cost-benefit analysis may sound incredibly ludicrous to anyone who isn't on social assistance, but a $10 25-pack of smokes could well equate to saving $20 in food because you don't feel hungry afterwards.

The government comes out ahead on the deal, because GST isn't levied on all foods, but is levied in spades on cigarettes, and backing in the smokes tax makes it a no-brainer for the guvmint.

---

I do believe you managed to completely miss the point where I even acknowledge that the type of cost-benefit analysis engaged in instinctively by a social assistance recipient would be ludicrous to any of us who aren't on it, because we're not faced with those kind of stark choices.

Eating, when you have no. fucking. money. half the month goddamn well is about staving off hunger.

I'm going to repeat myself a bit since I have to go on a rant again just like I did in that thread in the BC forum where I bitched about people who don't know anything about what it's like on welfare.

Magoo, you just. don't. get. it.

I challenge you to allocate yourself just five hundred and ten bucks. No cheating. Take the $510, and we'll allow you a $160 damage deposit maximum for one month's rent on an apartment. (the rent allowance is $325, I divided by two and rounded off)

Rent an apartment for a month and try to live JUST on that five-ten. Betcha you won't be able to go a month on that money.

It's only in the past 15 years that the attitude toward smoking has changed from being socially acceptable to being a "deviant" behaviour.
My parents smoked, my aunts, my uncles, brother, sister... on and on. It's a way of life. A way of life that is NOT easy to change.

quote:

---

That was and still is my choice. It is no one's business but my own what I choose to spend my $649/mo on. So, screw you and your judgements Magoo and co.

---

I have a co.? Anyway, as I mentioned above, I don't care what you spent your money on, so long as it was your choice. If you had followed with "and then I didn't have enough money for necessities", it would be different.

quote:

---

Magoo, feel free to answer my question. I'll repeat here in case you missed it.

---

I don't think the government should ever act as though people are forced to smoke. Whattya want me to say here? That the government should start treating cigarettes like food?

quote:

---

Yeah, yeah, they bring it on themselves. Because, of course, everyone who smokes is, what, a sinner? A deviant?

---

No, just someone making a choice. Don't you have any sense of making a choice, and then dealing with the consequences of it? When I was a student I'd often spend what little money I had at the pub, and not have enough for food, but I knew why I didn't have enough for food. And I knew there was an easy solution to it too, if I wanted to choose it. There's no "evil" or "deviance" at play here... just a choice. One left me without food, the other without fun.

quote:

---

Because this isn't about smoking, it's about how poor people should be spending YOUR hard-earned tax dollars, isn't it?

---

Once it's out of my hands, it's someone else's. But I wouldn't relish paying more so that someone else can give it to Big Tobacco. I don't think my moral duty to make sure my fellow man doesn't starve or freeze extends to luxuries is all.

quote:

---

Magoo, you just. don't. get. it.

---

Somehow any discussion about poverty or issues related to it seems to sooner or later end up with "but how would you like to try living on $X, Richie Rich?". I'm not trying to suggest that it's easy, nor that I care to do it, nor even that I could.

quote:

---

Betcha you won't be able to go a month on that money.

---

Betcha I know a way to make that money disappear even faster. In fact, it's kind of my point.

quote:

---

It's a way of life. A way of life that is NOT easy to change.

---

Ugggghhh!

Only fitting, since I seem to think my first babble post was on this topic as well.

I'm a smoker. And yes, as a factory worker, you can look down on me as blue collar, you can all, with disdain, quarrel over the "choices" I make. Hey, mom, are you posting as well? A sixty of rum in one hand and a large king size in another and apparently the other hand is the big problem. But, as you lay peat moss on your garden or rock salt on your drive way, I inhale the nasty sentiment in my workplace that produces the bags you carelessly discard while making sure your property is all nice and proper. Cough, cough. N-Butyl fumes, ozone and the proprietary shit in a number of resins that smell bad apparently are safe to breathe. Greasy, nasty, sentiment in the air is a-okay. Cough, cough, your interest is touching. Not to mention the 12 hour swing shift, that's okay to work as long as you people don't work it, no?

I don't claim smoking is a choice. I don't deny the ample literature about the addictive and unhealthy nature of a cigarette. I'm touched that for once John Ibbitson, the consummate conservative, would crouch his anti-smoking rant in left-wing imagery, and that you people with an opinion would take an interest in my life. Really. I only wish you were there in university to tell me that my councilour was wrong, I just needed to transfer programs and I'd have at least one more chance. I just wish you guys were there to tell my parents that, sure, the marriage ain't working, but if you follow this step and that step, you guys might at least save 30 thousand dollars which, even though you both might take on new families, at least won't fuck up the chances of your first and only born because or animosity.

But no. Apparently you're only interested in my life when I light up at home. Or in a bar with all the other low-life rejects. Well,? fuck you.

All you people on a pedestal think it's better to force me buy my smokes (200 for $25) off some native guy that gives it to me in a ziplock bag that, gosh-darn, has absolutely no warning labels, imagine that. They're shit, but for the 75% savings? why not?

Stop kids from smoking? I'm all for that. Apparently high prices mean something to them, unlike the inelasticity of the price for us already hooked. But hell, the Ontario government told pharmacies that they can't sell smokes a long time ago, but apparently greater restrictions are out of the question now. God forbid they can't say every convenience store can't sell smokes either. The livelihood of Mac's Milk means more than the disposable cash in a citizen's pocket.

I know too many people that tried to quit, all older than myself. Apparently the average number of times a person quits is in the dozen range, so don't kid yourself in thinking a pure cigarette tax is for our benefit. It ain't. It's for yours )The current Liberal government expects a $800 billion boost to got towards the Tory deficit). If any government was serious about caring for my life they'd offer Zyban or whatever for free. My work health plan offers Zyban for 12 weeks. After that, you're on your own. Average of twelve attempts, that's at least 12 years for me?

But, hey, look at that, stop-smoking aides ain't free. Coke could go down my nostril, E could end up in my stomach, heroin could flow through my veins, but it's nice you'd like me to pay ten bucks for a pack a cigarettes (I might add, I started just after my own provincial government slashed taxes because apparently they were worried about the lost tax revenue from the smuggling across the Ontario/NY border? but now that the smuggling isn't an issue, gee, taxes are going up! I'm touched!).

Listening to you all? I'm? well, I'm just overwhelmed. The care that I thought never existed?

Pardon me, I have a tear in my eye.

One thing does seem clear though and that is Magoo really have a clue about either addiction or poverty.

On addiction
I'm on about my tenth attempt at quitting smoking and can testify that withdrawl is an incredibly hellish and miserable experience that impacts the entire person physically, emotionally, cognitively and socially.

Physically amongst other symptoms are sleeplessness,restlessness, intense cravings in which every living cell in your body cries out for a nicotine fix, feeling simulataneously, completely wound up and yet also utterly exhausted to the core, also the immune system seems compromised making you more succeptible to colds or infections.

Emotionally probably most unnerving is a sense of extreme emotional fragility as though your nerves are glass and might shatter. Of course there's feelings of depression and anxiety, constant irritability and rage did I mention the rage, the unsettling feeling that you might rip someone's head off if they jostle you on the subway or bus.

Cognitively, lack of focus, concentration, easily distracted, ability to think clearly is compromised.

Socially -irritability can have a major impact on significant relationships, also a strong desire to withdraw from contact and social activities.

Those are some of the symptoms of withdrawl and even with cessation aids they still exist. The patch may take the edge off but they are still there and they will flare up. Symptoms also tend to be more extreme under stressful situations.

To repeat withdrawl is a horrible, hellish experience.

So to say that avoiding the above is a luxury is absurd. Consider also I have the benefit of a stable employment and life situation that allows me to better deal with withdrawls. I also have an accomodating work place that accomodates a decrease in work performance that comes with withdrawls. I don't think that is the case with those living in poverty.

I have for the most part avoided this thread too, because on the one hand, Mr. Magoo's simplistic view that people on welfare must have enough money to live if they can buy smokes is ridiculous, as anyone who tries to live on $500 a month would realize. On the other hand, DrConway's over-the-top defence (that people on welfare buy cigarettes in order to stave off hunger) is equally ridiculous, and well-refuted by Magoo's response that if someone is hungry, probably 7 boxes of Kraft Dinner (or whatever) would probably stave off their hunger a lot more effectively than a pack of smokes. But of course, if I'd said that, it would have looked like I was defending Magoo's position, which I'm not.

It's true that in a perfect life, people of limited means would spend their money only on "necessities" first, and then spend whatever is leftover on cigarettes and beer. But real life isn't like that, not for people on welfare, and not for anyone else, either.

Most people in our society spend money that they don't have on consumer items that are not necessities. There are a billion everyday things that people buy that they can't afford. There are whole industries dedicated to trying to get people to buy shit they don't need with money they don't have. Look at the home improvement industry - entire television channels and companies are devoted to trying to get us to paint our walls a different colour and buy new furniture and accessories every season. Why do you think consumer debt is so high, and there are so many bankruptcies? It is part of our culture to spend what we don't have on shit we don't need, and it's not like people on welfare are living outside of that culture.

So yeah. Some people on welfare buy a couple of packs of smokes or a case of beer on cheque day. It's true that this money would be much better spent on groceries. But you know, those really are the only "leisure" consumables someone on welfare can buy. It's the one time of the month you can look forward to a treat. It's a dreary, nasty existence, trying to live on $500 a month.

Those of us lucky enough to have employment (and I feel free to use the word "lucky" because for 5 months or so earlier this year I wasn't employed and looking desperately, and it really makes me appreciate the job I have now) spend money on all sorts of little things (or even big things) that are "treats" rather than the very basic necessities. We employed people avoid the tedium of our daily routines by buying stuff we don't need, or buying extras, or buying treats. And you know, when I was unemployed, I watched every nickel and dime, and my financial situation was absolutely desperate. But I still managed to find five bucks once in a while to go to a cheap movie, or pay cover to go out dancing for the evening at a club.

Because if you can't have any treats ever, particularly living in our society where all sorts of consumer products are shoved in your face 24 hours a day, you'll go stark raving fucking crazy. And hell, I'm not even taking addiction into account in this analysis. Add in the type of withdrawal symptoms that N.R.Kissed talks about above, and, well frankly, I don't begrudge anyone a pack of smokes.

I have never gone through anything so emotionally devastating as the long period of unemployment earlier this year. I lost so much sleep. I was so scared of what was going to happen to me. I had a constant stomach ache worrying about money and how I was going to survive next month if I didn't have a job by then (and for 4 of those months, I DIDN'T have a job by the next month). I started to have panic attacks. I can't imagine having all of that happening and then also having withdrawal symptoms on top of it. I'd have wrung a pack of smokes out of my resources too, if I were a smoker.

You may or not be aware Magoo but your posts seem to postively drip with contempt for the poor and a lack of understanding of their situation.

your first post

quote:

---

You must be mistaken. How many times have I heard that recipients of social assistance don't have enough for the necessities of life? That they can't feed their wee children or buy shoes for a job interview? How can it be then that they're being targetted by a luxury tax?

---

Was reminiscent of William Hogarth's Gin Alleywith drunken negligent mother dropping the baby over the stairs.( those with an interest in comparitive social history might wish to note that the plaque of gin addiction amonqst the English poor occured after the government had actively encouraged the production of the substance. Of course it was the poor were blamed for using this substance to alleviate the misery of their condition. didn't our own gov't also subsidize tobacco farmers and the industry?)

Reality check Magoo an individual on welfare receives $520 a month a single mother with one child does not get that much more. So regardless of addiction issues there is a great deal of deprivation and inability to afford even the basic necessities of food and shelter

Secondly the majority of people on welfare are not on it for long periods of time. They are just unfortunate in that they have lost their jobs and changes to U.I. make it impossible for the majority of unemployed to qualify. So trying to differentiate between welfare recipients and taxpayers is rather a contemtible false distiction. They also paid taxes that helped pay your post secondary education, so don't get so smug about where your tax dollars are spent.

Furthermore you conceptualize the welfare system as a charity that is dependent on your overwhelming benefolence for which the poor should be eternal greatful. The welfare system is supposed to help people that are currently unable to find work, since unemployment rates routinely hover between 7-8% the unemployed can hardly be blamed for the scarcity of jobs. At one time job creation was actually a priority with government but this has been lost thanks to the freemarketjunkiefreaks.

[ 27 November 2003: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

What about some of the reasons why we might want to raise the price of smokes? Like, for one, making them a little less appealing to kids? Or how about the smokers RRSP (Registered Resuscitation Savings Plan) that takes revenues from your pack of smokes today and stashes them away so then when you need that first Angiogram, it's covered?

I don't really think the point of raising the tax on cigarettes is to make the lives of some poor people even worse, nor do I think that our government should make a decision like this on those grounds.

edited to add:

quote:

---

your first post

---

In my first post I was being facetious. I've heard it claimed many, many times that the poor don't have enough money for necessities (and no, I didn't introduce the word 'necessities' into the argument — they did). These critics also, without exception, blame the bad ol' government, "the Rich", the middle class, NeoLiberalism, NeoConservatism... basically everybody else. All I was trying to do was point out that you can give someone money for necessities, but if they don't spend it on necessities, well, Surprise!, they won't have those necessities. That doesn't mean you didn't give them the money.

[ 27 November 2003: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

But I'm free now.

And with all due respect to my still enslaved friends, Magoo is right (did I say that?). But he is.

Cost is a major factor in keeping kids from smoking. Probably the major factor.

Now ask yourselves, wouldn't you prefer to pay a little more, smoke a little less, and know maybe fewer kiddies will be smoking next year?

[ 27 November 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]

quote:

---

Listening to you all? I'm? well, I'm just overwhelmed. The care that I thought never existed?

Pardon me, I have a tear in my eye.

I need a smoke.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:

Cost is a major factor in keeping kids from smoking. Probably the major factor.

Now ask yourselves, wouldn't you prefer to pay a little more, smoke a little less, and know maybe fewer kiddies will be smoking next year?

---

You're wrong. I don't know how old you are, but I'm guessing you're an adult. It's relatively new that teens have such a large discretionary income. If a young adult wants to buy a pack of smokes, they have the ability to do so and probably have the budget for it more than most adults.

quote:

---

Price may be the most effective way to prevent teens from becoming daily smokers. A joint study from the University of Illinois at Chicago and the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research matched price hikes with teen smoking rates over six years. They found that a 10% price increase would decrease the number of children who started to smoke between 3% and 10%, depending on their stage of smoking, such as experimentation, beginning daily smoking, or relatively heavy daily smoking

---

quote:

---

And with all due respect to my still enslaved friends, Magoo is right (did I say that?). But he is.

---

Actually he's not because his entire premise is revolves around saying that addiction is a luxury.

On the contrary I would say being able to quit is a luxury, one that is more available to those of us with comfortable and stable lives. This probably true for most addictions whereby those with the resources are able to better access treatment programs.

The problem is decontexualized if you don't examine the interaction between poverty and addictiion. Being impoverished is quite a miserable, stressful existence, so I don't think it realistic that we expect people to make their lives more miserable by having to go through withdrawl. The best time to quit an addiction is when your life is not particularly stressful not a luxury for the poor.

It's a common assumption that people lose their housing due to addictions although this does occur it is also true that substance use increases after people become homeless. people who didn't have substance abuse problems prior to losing their housing develop them.

There are also inaccurate assumptions made about "welfare recipients" or the poor for that matter. As I mentioned before the vast majority of people collecting welfare are doing so for the short term, usually working poor people who've lost their jobs. Is that the best time to quit smoking after a stressful event?

i think one should also consider that the vast majority of poor people are also working, and I would also counter under considerable more stress than myself.

I think one of the major points myself and others are making is that taxing addicts is a politically expediant way to raise revenue and impacts those less capable of quitting(i.e. those whose lives are more stressful.)

quote:

---

In my first post I was being facetious. I've heard it claimed many, many times that the poor don't have enough money for necessities

---

These have been the mainstay of poor bashing for centuries and were the attitude and rationale behind the cuts to social assistance on both provincial and federal levels. As a result even the clean living poor can't afford housing, food or clothing. Yet because some impoverished people are also addicts then the argument is made that those on welfare don't need any more money because they all waste it on booze or smokes.

Even if you just think smoking is an incredibly stupid habit, you're still working with the assumption that the poor somehow should not be allowed to make mistakes, because if they do they deserve to lose their housing or go hungry.

Also implicit in these arguments is that the poor should suffer because the lack of decent jobs is obviously their fault.

Finally there is the assumption about the nature and function of welfare. That welfare is at the discretion of you as the benevolent tax payer who deems themselves generous enough to allow them subsistence.

I have to go buy my patches now.

[ 27 November 2003: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

Now, I am not a gin drinker. But I am hoping that people can see in this insane progression the consistency that is the hobgoblin of tiny minds, and the self-righteous puritanism that drove people to accept the demonizing of tobacco in the first place.

Why is anyone paying stupid sin taxes? If we're worried about people ingesting any kind of substance, then we should face that problem or complex of problems seriously. But taxes? This is a fair and sophisticated way of dealing with "addictions"? (I have some doubts about the ease with which most people fling that term around, on the basis of nothing but received information -- and that includes most doctors.)

Sin taxes are stupid. You are as bad a sinner as I am, probably worse, since I am a relatively retiring and kindly sort. I may be smoking myself to death, but apart from that, I am sweet as all get out, and at least my sin, my wee sin, is public, something I cannot avoid confessing.

I don't want you to have to pay for your sins either. I am not vengeful, nor do I think that making things worse for everyone is the way to go. Why should we all have to pay too much for wine that costs a tenth the price in France? Why? Who is getting that money? Same question with cigarettes.

quote:

---

The increase in the price will take food from the mouthes of children and only serve to make the rich richer on the backs of the poor and needy. Lotteries are considered by many to be a tax on the gullible and stupid. We must protect these citizens by ensuring that the price they pay will not steal the food and clothes from their children.

---

quote:

---

Cost is a major factor in keeping kids from smoking. Probably the major factor.

---

You might have a study to back that up wingnut, but I don't care how many studies there are in this area. I have known and cared for teenagers for the last 30 years and cost has nothing to do with whether or not children and young adults will smoke. Most of them start to smoke because their friends do. Even the kids that used to be jocks will start smoking after leaving their field of expertice. Smoking is considered cool and bad behavior by adolscents and kids will always indulge in these types of behaviors regardless of their education, family background, finances or anything else. That's what's part of being a teenager...to rebel against society and what is considered acceptable.

Someone also commented on the costs to health care that smoking and second hand smoking adds. If this is true, since so many other factors are not considered in these studies, like clockwork's employment situation, can you tell me why there are so many elderly folks around who have or did smoke most of their lives?

I have volunteered in Care Homes for about 30 years, and the vast majority of those people I have met....hundreds, if not thousands...smoke or did smoke until going into the care home. Has anyone ever checked out this fact? I haven't but it is a fact because I have experienced seeing it all over North America.

Originally posted by skdadl:

quote:

---

Sin taxes are stupid, just stupid. They oppress vulnerable people unnecessarily.

---

quote:

---

Actually he's not

---

I, mean, that is true, isn't it?

WindyMustang, my dear, I suppose anecdotal evidence from a biased observer outweighs dispassionate numbers any day of the week.

Quit smoking, you will feel better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
Even if you just think smoking is an incredibly stupid habit, you're still working with the assumption that the poor somehow should not be allowed to make mistakes, because if they do they deserve to lose their housing or go hungry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
On the other hand, DrConway's over-the-top defence (that people on welfare buy cigarettes in order to stave off hunger) is equally ridiculous, and well-refuted by Magoo's response that if someone is hungry, probably 7 boxes of Kraft Dinner (or whatever) would probably stave off their hunger a lot more effectively than a pack of smokes. But of course, if I'd said that, it would have looked like I was defending Magoo's position, which I'm not.

---

I hypothesized it as a possible cost-benefit analysis, factoring in the rather well-known phenomenon that smokes are an appetite suppressant.

Michelle, I hate repeating myself but I clearly stated that it probably wouldn't seem a valid "cost-benefit" analysis to anyone not on social assistance because the absolute stark fact staring welfare recipients in the face is that the government gives them $510 a month and that's all the cheap bastards will hand out.

To draw an analogy, it has equally been pointed out that poor people often, ironically enough, have bad dietary habits because while the food they eat is quite cheap, it's not the kind of stuff that's very healthy.

quote:

---

can you tell me why there are so many elderly folks around who have or did smoke most of their lives?

---

quote:

---

Yah, I've been saying this for years. According to the "stats" they should've all died off by now...

---

I was drving down the 401 two weeks ago at night. I was going 120 in the left lane. There was a car ahead of me in the center lane. I saw movementin front of me and realized it was a man, darkly dressed running across the 401. I watched with my mouth hanging open as the guy in the middle lane raced toward the fellow. I thought no way he would make it. But he did. Barely.

quote:

---

According to the "stats" they should've all died off by now...

---

Serious misunderstanding of stats, that. No-one ever said smoking is certain to give you lung cancer, emphysema, or whatever before you've got to a ripe old age. It's just far more likely.

And when you look at all the people in their seventies on up who smoked for decades, or who still smoke, you're not seeing the ones who died in their forties, fifties, or whatever.

Please note: I'm not an anti-smoker. I support people's freedom to smoke -- even if it lands them in (publicly-funded) hospitals sooner than they might otherwise have gone.

quote:

---

WindyMustang, my dear, I suppose anecdotal evidence from a biased observer outweighs dispassionate numbers any day of the week.

---

As for all the rest of you with your empirical evidence supporting deaths directly related to smoking. I heartily disagree. I believe that all illnesses are dis eases of the mind body and spirit. Again I'll refer Louise Hay's writings on the subject. I know maybe I should be called WingNut with all my new age, body, mind, spirit connections and beliefs.

You'll like WingNut, actually, windy. This is the only topic on which he and I, anyway, disagree. And, I mean, it's not so much the health concerns and warnings that I disagree with -- it's the demonizing. I think it frees so many people to be irresponsible and self-righteous at the same time. Someone up above mentions the niece who reacts hysterically to cigarette smoke and yet does ecstasy. Those people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:
They found that a 10% price increase would decrease the number of children who started to smoke between 3% and 10%, depending on their stage of smoking, such as experimentation, beginning daily smoking, or relatively heavy daily smoking.[/URL]

---

Even this study doesn't prove that price changes greatly affect youth smoking. If there is a 10% increase in price, and only a 3% to 10% decrease in smoking, then the youth demand for cigarettes is inelastic. Probably moreso than the elasticity of adult demand.

quote:

---

windymustang, in the summer of 2057 I will be coming up on my 112th birthday, so, um -- could you be sure to have a nice chaise longue handy for me? I doze off easily.

---

You betcho...and I'll even drive down in my classic, whatever...hopefully a 67 Mustang hardtop, 4 speed with a Hurst straightshifter, hightech turbocharger modified of course to conserve fuel...or better yet, run on water. We'll cruise leisurely through the provinces, staying at the best places, and enjoying fine dining and of course wine for you...and when we arrive here, weeks or months later, what a party it will be. We'll be laughing our faces off at the ones still running around trying to get rich, and ignoring the best of times: friends, laughter, fun and flirting. Maybe you guys will be sippin' a cool one, but the SF & I will be mellowing out under the trees that we've just planted. What a great party!

Originally posted by Wingnut:

quote:

---

WindyMustang, my sweetums, 2057 is waaaaaaaay too long to have to wait for a doob. Can we speed that one up? I will promise not to call you dear again although I reserve rights on snookums.

---

OK, anytime actually. We're planning a Christmas party or some kind of good time soon. Just as soon as I'm back on my feet again.

Sweetums and snookums works for me. What should I call you? Loverboy, Big Daddy, Honeykins, Sugarlove? Give me a suitable reply...I just don't know you well enough to call you something like MUSTANGSALLY, or something just as racy. How about 'lil Duece Coupe?
OH YEAH AND THIS

quote:

---

Quit smoking, you will feel better.

---

[ 30 November 2003: Message edited by: windymustang ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by windymustang:
Originally posted by skdadl:

I still have .5g from a 3g. purchase last June. Not a big time partyer that way, but I sure like to pretend that I am!

[ 30 November 2003: Message edited by: windymustang ]

---

Ew. That bud must be so dry.

Why is it that we're penalizing the end-user for his/her addiction, when we really should be penalizing the tobacco companies for providing the poison, and marketing it so heavily.

Would those who support luxury taxes also support corporate poison taxes? What about penalties for the number of deaths concretely linked to the product they sell?

Why is it that all these great social reforms/tax grabs are always aimed at the people who are least able to fight back or deal with their impact? Why can't we turn our disdain for cigarette smoking the other direction and make them pay for the health care and other societal costs?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lima Bean:
I was reading over this thread earlier today and had a thought:

Why is it that we're penalizing the end-user for his/her addiction, when we really should be penalizing the tobacco companies for providing the poison, and marketing it so heavily.

Would those who support luxury taxes also support corporate poison taxes? What about penalties for the number of deaths concretely linked to the product they sell?

Why is it that all these great social reforms/tax grabs are always aimed at the people who are least able to fight back or deal with their impact? Why can't we turn our disdain for cigarette smoking the other direction and make them pay for the health care and other societal costs?

Why's it always the little guy who gets screwed?

---

I read through this thread and I'm a little bit shocked at the arguments being made in favour of abolishing "sin" taxes because it hurts the poor person who needs that smoke or needs that drink as an escape from their desperate circumstances. But is that what we, as a society, really want to do? Encourage people to escape into alchohol, drugs and cigarettes?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

I see your point, but really, the little guy is going to get screwed even if you went after the companies with the tax instead, because it would just increase the price of cigarettes from the source instead of in the store.

---

So if I understand your point correctly, high corporate taxes cause poverty.

It is said that addictions cause people to do crazy things and here is the perfect example. An online community of people who are passionate and sincere about poverty issues have co-opted the language of the anti-poverty movement to complain that as consumers of a certain product they have to pay more for that product. This group of nicotine junkies, who normally have no problems with high taxes and severe restrictions on personal liberty in the name of public safety (gun control) or social justice (Wealth Caps) now have objections to an increase in the price of poison due to government action.

I do agree that government policy on this file is ripe with hypocrisy. I support a full ban on tobacco, it serves no usefull purpose. However, failling that, I support any measure that will dissuade people from smoking. Included in that is increased health dollars to fund smoking cessation aids and other programs that can assist poor people who are dealing with addiction to nicotine. That being said, to suggest that people on welfare should not take accountability for their health and well being not to mention their standard of living by attempting to quit smoking is condescending and patronizing. I realize that it is difficult to quit, I watched my Mother try several times before she eventually quit. Unfortunately, she didn't quit soon enough because she died of lung cancer 5 years after quitting.

Let's see. Mr. Magoo is blaming the victim, not unusual. Everyone else's counterarguments are passionate but do not delve very deeply into the problem. Windymustang sounds like an addict willing to say anything as long as it will get her that next hit.
Nobody seems to be paying much attention to the fact that unlike any other addictive drug, tobacco eventually kills about half the people who use it--generally in very lingering, painful, unpleasant deaths (which also, as a side note, tend to be very expensive). I'd bet the health of most of the others is impaired. And they still can't quit. This is not a typical consumer-choice problem.
The only person making much attempt to focus the problem where it deserves to be focussed is Lima Bean.

All right. When you look at individual behaviour, and you see this poor person uses tobacco and that one does not, it's easy to make moral judgments. When you look at statistics and find that considerably more poor people smoke than everyone else, you have to start looking at social explanations. Then, when you find that it's not just tobacco, that this pattern holds for most addictive substances and even some addictions that aren't substances (e.g. gambling), you really have to figure there's some relationship between class and addiction.
In the case of tobacco, you also find that it's a very difficult addiction to break and that most people who become addicted do so when they are kids (many others do so in institutional settings--the army, prison). Then you find that evidence is strong that tobacco companies deliberately target children for their advertising and promotional messages, and manipulate the content of their products to make them more addictive. I'd say this makes a pretty good case that the smokers, whether poor or not, are the victims. They are the victims of well orchestrated campaigns to target them before they are responsible enough to make a mature judgment and addict them heavily enough that by the time they realize how bad their mistake was, they are basically trapped.
So. From a practical perspective, raising the price of tobacco will reduce the amount smoked, and that's good. But it's not a cure for the problem, and it does not tackle the plight of the poor, who are in such bad shape that they need addictions to get by and who mostly became addicts before they should have been making such choices.

Tobacco addiction needs to be dealt with like any other drug. Safe light-up zones exist, so that's one pillar in place. But there needs to be outreach and treatment on demand and more anti-smoking advertising, of the sorts that studies have shown are effective. And the fourth pillar--enforcement. Advertising bans should be maintained and toughened. There should not be subsidies of any sort for tobacco farming. Sales to kids should be policed more seriously. And advertising tobacco to kids should be seriously punished, on a personal level rather than a corporate one. You run an ad campaign to advertise deathsticks to kids, you should be doing time.

More generally, the lives of the poor should not be so hopeless that they're driven to addiction, of whatever sort. Clearly, we need our social programs back. In the meantime, if it's gonna happen, the most available addictions should be cheap, as harmless as possible, as minimally addictive as possible, and not readily centrally controlled. Frankly, I think I'd rather see people dropping acid than smoking cigarettes, but I'd *far* rather see widespread use of marijuana than of cigarettes. Especially in brownie or other non-smoke-inhaling form. Ideally from widespread private cultivation.

And if I weren't resigned to the idea that the problems of prohibition are greater than the problems of legal drugs, I'd favour putting every last tobacco company executive in jail until the end of the millennium on thousands of counts each of conspiracy to commit murder. Bastards!

From reading your post, it seems that you don't believe that is the answer. That may just be my interpretation, though.

I agree with almost all you are saying. I think if the government wants to stop kids from starting smoking, they really need to crack down on stores that sell cigarettes to kids. If it becomes damn near impossible for 16 year olds to get cigarettes, it WILL lower thier consumption. They will always have the disposable income to use on smokes, but if no one will sell them to them, its much less likely they will start.