tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12528992.post6681908947589123866..comments2024-01-29T00:28:36.402-05:00Comments on The Itinerant Librarian: Thoughts on the cigarette taxA. Riverahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07446685621376561207noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12528992.post-65665997429544973622009-04-03T16:41:00.000-04:002009-04-03T16:41:00.000-04:00USpace: Hmm. Well, one could argue the government ...USpace: Hmm. Well, one could argue the government is not necessarily interested in people totally quitting. But I would look at it in more economic terms: the farmers, the megacorporations that make the tobacco products, the retailers who sell it. When one looks at it, that is quite a big economic machine, and companies like Altria (what Philip Morris is now called, to separate from their non-tobacco products), like other large corporations, do have pretty big lobbyists. So, I would go more with that. And yes, thus they do get their taxes, as they did with beer in the past, prior to Prohibition (and people still drank, by the way). <BR/><BR/>The reason I am not quite ready to see the racist angle, and I am not saying there is an absence of racism in the nation, is that there are plenty of white poor people too. Places like East Texas can be a pretty good example. Not all poor people are Black or Hispanic or other minority. Sure, the increase will likely price some people out, but if it means they will quit smoking, and thus get better odds on their health, that may not be a bad thing. <BR/><BR/>And this may be another reason why the tax may not be a bad thing. Again, for me, looking at it locally, from the Tyler Morning Telegraph for March 31, with the headline of "Cigarette Tax Spikes: East Texans React": <BR/><BR/>"Dr. Heidi McKellar, an East Texas Medical Center radiation oncologist who holds anti-smoking programs in Tyler-area schools, applauded the new tax.<BR/><BR/>Ms. McKellar said she sees patients, whose tobacco usage has led to cancer, continue to spend $300 a month on their two-pack-a-day habit instead of spend half that amount on the medicines they desperately need." <BR/><BR/>I am sorry, but I simply cannot find a lot of sympathy for someone who spends 300 a month on a smoking habit and chooses not to take care of their health. <BR/><BR/>But you do bring an interesting point, the government is certainly doing a balancing act: how much to squeeze in taxes versus their interest in public health versus the economy.A. Riverahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07446685621376561207noreply@blogger.com