rocketpig said:
Pretty damned high. Remember, I'm a Libertarian. I believe in distributing as little as possible. If smokers are a burden on the healthcare industry, tax them and put it in a fund for the uninsured smokers to use at a later date. Take California, for example. About ten years ago, a group decided they didn't like smoking and managed to weasel through a cigarette tax that went to schools (not for smoking education, mind you). Just to the schools to do whatever with... How is that right? I'd like to think people are smart enough to realize that it's not okay to start taxing something just because you don't like it. That's an awfully slippery slope to start down. |
In Minnesota the governor got a "User Fee" (because he promised no new taxes) put through which with he balanced the budget. Why would we want to use a tax on something that we don't want people to do to balance our budget? I guess I was just mad because Nicotine is one of the top 5 most addictive substances in the world, doesn't cost the country nearly as much money for health care as obesity and bad eating habits (like a lot of gamers have, I would wager), but it's okay to just say "they dum" and everyone just shakes their heads along with it like they are so much better than smokers. Also, I paid higher insurance rates than a non-smoker when I was, and it hasn't gone down yet. Do people that stay up all night eating Cheezy poofs and drinking red-bull have to pay higher rates? I don't think so.
