So today on my way home from work I hear they are raising the tax on cigarettes by $1.01 a pack in Ohio...

I don't smoke so i don't care... but it really just makes me wonder...

Should such taxes be legal?

I mean when you think about it... they're kinda discramtory and "easy marks".

Taxes on cigarettes are always going to be passed because most people don't smoke.

I mean... someone could just as eaisly put a tax on videogames....

or something else most people don't eat.  Like soda... or candy or whatever.

So... are you fine with single item taxes or do you have an issue with them?

Cigarette taxes in ny are horrible, newports are up near $8 a pack. i'm so glad I quit. It's kind of unfair to smokers, they don't need to make that much money per pack sold.

There was talk of taxing fast food/soda a few months back, I don't know if it ever went through. I don't pay much attention.

they should tax alcohol a lot more as well. and then they should legalize pot and tax the crap out of it.

I agree. Selling Marijuana could make them so much money rather than let the drug dealers benefit.  I think that could also stop it from being considered the 'Gateway drug.'

No, I don't agree with single item taxes. This disproportionately effects the lower class and poor. More lower class and poor ppl are smokers than the upper income brackets. The more you tax a single item the less that item is purchased/used.

Now you could say that these people that smoke are stupid and need to stop smoking so we are going to tax the bejeebus out of it to encourage non-use. But they are counting on increased tax revenue from this and are putting it toward SCHIP. Once the funds dry up from taxing the poor, the burden will shift to a new group of people, since the entitlement program won't be allowed to do with less funding.

Kind of a mixed bag.

On one hand, it discriminates against whatever the government feels like it needs to: Gasoline, Cigs, Alcohol, ect.

On the other, some items to have a higher toll on the government, and it's agencies, and need to be taxed.

In the case of alcohol, it costs our police force extra money, as they have to spend more time policing it.

I think that taxation on such items that cost a disproportionate amount of government revenue should be taxed accordingly....But taxed accordingly, and not plastered with an arbitrary number that they make up in a back room somewhere.

Sure, why not. If a product is creating a negative externality that hurts society, you should tax it to reduce consumption.

Cigarettes: cost the healthcare system more money, cause harm to people through secondary smoke, are physically addictive, etc.

Vehicles that weigh over a certain amount/have larger engines than necessary: Use more gasoline than other vehicles and drive up the cost of fuel, typically emit more smog and other pollutants, endanger other people on the highway who drive smaller cars.

Carbon based energy tax: has become a national defense issue, hurts our long-term economic growth, many of the sources of energy we currently use create an unacceptable amount of pollutants, would encourage investment in nuclear and renewable energy.

Why not tax things that create problems for the economy and society as a whole? Its like putting regulations on businesses that cause harm to the consumer. Not to mention it generates revenue. And taxes that target a specific activity are a phenomenal way to decrease that activity.

Is liberty always a good thing?  Should I be free to rob and kill people?  Should I be free to swindle people out of money?  Should companies be free to put harmful chemicals in the food they produce because they save money?  Should nuclear power plants be free to dump toxic waste in landfills?

Freedom is a great thing.  But too much freedom is a terrible thing.

Too much freedom is never a bad thing. Freedom is a great thing. The thing you described was not freedom, but crime. Crime is anarchy. Anarchy =/= freedom.

Even a little freedom can be used to do bad things. If you wanted to stop all the bad things in the world, there would be no more world.