US Navy Bans E-Cigarettes Fleet-Wide

[Darunion]

It doesn't even matter how they use the money, it was wrong to tax people like that to begin with. You really should stop thinking about trying to debate with me and instead understand the underlying principle.

Where does it stop?

If they tax smokes by 8 times the entire cost of the product and that isn't improper, what about skate boards? Kids are falling and hurting themselves all the time so a skate board that costs $50 should be taxed until it costs $400. We'll tax Twinkies, $8 a pack of four, Michelin Radials are twice as expensive as Hankook tires but much safer so we are going to tax Hankook tires and they will cost three times as much as the Michelin radials. The bio-degradable flyswatter is $2.75 but the old $1.25 plastic one has been taxed until it costs you $6.75. Now let's talk about your favorite aftershave.

And the money from those taxes, how is any of it tied to some government function? I'm sure we can make something up, but it's hard to budget that way isn't it. If I decide that taxes levied against tires and automotive related products should go to the Dept of Transportation, how do I budget for that? Every year that department submits their budget request, we need $3.5 Billion for FY 2019. We estimate that the new "Less than the safest tire tax" will provide $.7 million towards this funding ...... but it's really just a wild assed guess cause were thinking everyone is going to buy Michelin this year.

So over the last few years it was the evil tobacco companies and their employees who were attacked by this tax scheme, who's next?

Who knows, cause there really is no end to this bullshit once it really gets rolling.

It's wrong. It got passed cause it was all about smoking but it was wrong. It was "the ends justify the means" and it was and is wrong.

I hate smoking, i think it is something that needs to die in a fire (pun intended?), but on its own. I grew up in a smoking household but never tried it. I remmeber when cartons were cheap and it was an optimal time to start but I didn't. The government did not scare me into not doing it, i simply made a choice. That is how it should remain, a choice. Is it healthy to do? no, no one is trying to argue that fact. But it is not the governments place to charge citizens for making unhealthy choices. This vendetta against smoking is irritating at a minimum. I did like the idea of going to a bar and not smelling smoke all day, but I did not agree with the government forcing it upon businesses. I felt smokers and non-smokers who dont care should be able to go to a smoking bar or restaurant and those who want to be away from it can find one that doesn't allow it.

Rambling aside, it is a slippery slope of us willingly letting the government make our decisions for us 'to live healthier lives'. Many don't realize this is not a benevolent move to help us, longer healthier lives mean more tax revenue.

I have seen small towns/cities where they levy regulations for the 'droopy pants', just another example of people willingly giving away freedoms because they don't like what something looks like on someone else.

 

[Bandalo]

It doesn't even matter how they use the money, it was wrong to tax people like that to begin with. You really should stop thinking about trying to debate with me and instead understand the underlying principle.

Where does it stop?

If they tax smokes by 8 times the entire cost of the product and that isn't improper, what about skate boards? Kids are falling and hurting themselves all the time so a skate board that costs $50 should be taxed until it costs $400. We'll tax Twinkies, $8 a pack of four, Michelin Radials are twice as expensive as Hankook tires but much safer so we are going to tax Hankook tires and they will cost three times as much as the Michelin radials. The bio-degradable flyswatter is $2.75 but the old $1.25 plastic one has been taxed until it costs you $6.75. Now let's talk about your favorite aftershave.

And the money from those taxes, how is any of it tied to some government function? I'm sure we can make something up, but it's hard to budget that way isn't it. If I decide that taxes levied against tires and automotive related products should go to the Dept of Transportation, how do I budget for that? Every year that department submits their budget request, we need $3.5 Billion for FY 2019. We estimate that the new "Less than the safest tire tax" will provide $.7 million towards this funding ...... but it's really just a wild assed guess cause were thinking everyone is going to buy Michelin this year.

So over the last few years it was the evil tobacco companies and their employees who were attacked by this tax scheme, who's next?

Who knows, cause there really is no end to this bullshit once it really gets rolling.

It's wrong. It got passed cause it was all about smoking but it was wrong. It was "the ends justify the means" and it was and is wrong.

I do understand the underlying principle (more on that in a second), I just don't agree with you that it's necessarily an evil thing. Taxing something that's objectively "bad" isn't wrong. Could it be misused? Sure. Could it be inappropriately applied to other situations? Yep. Does that mean a tax on cigarettes is wrong? Nope. And I believe EVERY state in the US, and the federal government has all voted and agreed on this particular tax. Same with nearly every other country.

These taxes are called Pigovian taxes. You're charging a tax to try to cover external costs generated by the product. In the case of cigarettes, you're taxing them to offset the increased cost of medical care for smokers, to try and discourage smokers, and help people to quit. Soda taxes are another example, and they're trying to offset the increased costs of obesity.

I don't necessarily agree with these, but they're implemented with good intentions, to help keep citizens healthy and thus reduce the government's primary and secondary medical costs.

I'd rather see a rather inhumane waiver type system personally. You want to smoke? Sign this waiver and the government will pay zero of your smoking-related health costs. You're on the hook for all medical costs, and they'll pull the plug if you're on your death bed in the hospital with lung cancer. Insurance companies can charge you whatever they like for health insurance, and no one will restrict the premiums. But you won't pay any taxes on tobacco. Same with things like helmet laws. You want to ride a motorcycle with no helmet? Sign this waiver, and go nuts. No medical coverage if you crash, no death benefits if you die in a MC accident with no helmet on, etc. Same for seatbelt laws.

I WOULD like to see a lot more personal responsibility for these things happen. But it won't happen.

 

[Darunion]

I do understand the underlying principle (more on that in a second), I just don't agree with you that it's necessarily an evil thing. Taxing something that's objectively "bad" isn't wrong. Could it be misused? Sure. Could it be inappropriately applied to other situations? Yep. Does that mean a tax on cigarettes is wrong? Nope. And I believe EVERY state in the US, and the federal government has all voted and agreed on this particular tax. Same with nearly every other country.

These taxes are called Pigovian taxes. You're charging a tax to try to cover external costs generated by the product. In the case of cigarettes, you're taxing them to offset the increased cost of medical care for smokers, to try and discourage smokers, and help people to quit. Soda taxes are another example, and they're trying to offset the increased costs of obesity.

I don't necessarily agree with these, but they're implemented with good intentions, to help keep citizens healthy and thus reduce the government's primary and secondary medical costs.

I'd rather see a rather inhumane waiver type system personally. You want to smoke? Sign this waiver and the government will pay zero of your smoking-related health costs. You're on the hook for all medical costs, and they'll pull the plug if you're on your death bed in the hospital with lung cancer. Insurance companies can charge you whatever they like for health insurance, and no one will restrict the premiums. But you won't pay any taxes on tobacco. Same with things like helmet laws. You want to ride a motorcycle with no helmet? Sign this waiver, and go nuts. No medical coverage if you crash, no death benefits if you die in a MC accident with no helmet on, etc. Same for seatbelt laws.

I WOULD like to see a lot more personal responsibility for these things happen. But it won't happen.

We would spend most of our life reading legal documents and not living. There are so many things that can lead to poor health to the point where there are recommended life spans for your shoes before they cause back problems, certain keyboards can increase repetitive motion problems, food would have to be strongly regulated so none of us eat anything that would be bad for us. Driving should be all automated and we move around in protective cages to prevent any injury as well.

Basically you are wanting us to turn into the people from wall-e.

Guess what, we all die.

I would rather pay more than have someone watching my every move to make sure I don't put myself at any possible risk that would shorten my life. Hell, I woudl rather not have those last 20years of needing 24hr care.

Never heard of anyone getting toward their end saying "glad I played it safe my whole life".

Education is the best route, not control.

 

[Bandalo]

We would spend most of our life reading legal documents and not living. There are so many things that can lead to poor health to the point where there are recommended life spans for your shoes before they cause back problems, certain keyboards can increase repetitive motion problems, food would have to be strongly regulated so none of us eat anything that would be bad for us. Driving should be all automated and we move around in protective cages to prevent any injury as well.

Basically you are wanting us to turn into the people from wall-e.

Guess what, we all die.

I would rather pay more than have someone watching my every move to make sure I don't put myself at any possible risk that would shorten my life. Hell, I woudl rather not have those last 20years of needing 24hr care.

Never heard of anyone getting toward their end saying "glad I played it safe my whole life".

Education is the best route, not control.

That's some serious "slippery slope" argument. It's a long way from a tobacco tax to the regulations you're talking about. And given the public disinterest in the "soda taxes", I don't see any of your hypotheticals happening ever. If the government wanted the people from "Wall-E", they wouldn't be trying to make people MORE healthy. In the movie, the big corporations wanted people fat and lazy, not the government.

I certainly don't think the government should regulate everything we do. I do appreciate their efforts to INFORM people of the risks of things. Take nutrition labels on food for example. That's a great government regulation that helps let people make educated choices about what to eat, and means we don't just have to trust a corporation's advertising on what's healthy and what's not.

 

[lcpiper]

I do understand the underlying principle (more on that in a second), I just don't agree with you that it's necessarily an evil thing. .....................You're charging a tax to try to cover external costs generated by the product. In the case of cigarettes, you're taxing them to offset the increased cost of medical care for smokers,....................

So you think the government was footing the bill for these smokers? How exactly was that happening? How is it that someone goes to a Doctor, complains of problems, and when asked about insurance, what, they just check the Box that Says, "Covered by Uncle Sam" ?

What about the States, were the States sharing those costs? New York City, was New York in on the benefit scheme as well?

How is it you figure this was happening?

I have to say, at risk of getting smacked by an admin, among the varied political beliefs of our citizens, some among us believe that Uncle Sam is supposed to do things like this, get involved in our lives, etc. But there are a good many others that don't beleave this is right, and that the Federal Government isn't supposed to be our Grandmothers and Grandfathers and Mommies and Daddies.

I think this is perhaps the root of our disagreement on this issue, or at least it is playing a significant roll.

The Laws banning smoking and the absolutely horribly exorbitant taxation, we destructive intrusions.

The same governments could have set regulations and health codes for proper ventilation of smoking areas so that non-smoking rooms would have less than x number of particles per cubic foot of airborne residue (smoke) ensuring healthy air for people to breath without hurting businesses like they did. This would have been a reasonable approach but as it was, the Federal Government had to try and force people to stop smoking and that is why they chose the other way.

The government was going to try to "make" people quit because they were of a mind that it would be better for us. We are too stupid to make our own choices and we need the Government to decide for us, and no measure is unreasonable as long as it's in our best interests, (according to them).

Look, don't get me wrong, I am not anti-government. I just don't like it when the government oversteps their purpose and I see their purpose as managing those things that, (from the point of view of the "United States", the Union), are beyond what the individual States can reasonably manage. National Defense would be an example, international treaties, etc. It is my view that telling me where I can smoke a legal substances is just a tad outside of bounds if for no other reason than my City or my State can handle it just fine without them so, 10th Amendment brother, bow out.

 

[lcpiper]

That's some serious "slippery slope" argument. It's a long way from a tobacco tax to the regulations you're talking about...............

I don't think so. I think it's just a pen stroke away, all it needs is a catalyst. All that needs to happen is a change that effects revenues in a way that makes the government decide that they need to leverage untapped sources of revenue. The groundwork has already been laid, the principles and benefits proven. If it's bad for you or impacts others, we can tax it in order to "encourage changes in behavior".

You know there were limits placed on the Federal Government regarding taxation.

Do you think that such a thing would have passed 200 years ago and if so, then why did it take 200 years to get around to it?

 

[Ebernanut]

I do understand the underlying principle (more on that in a second), I just don't agree with you that it's necessarily an evil thing. Taxing something that's objectively "bad" isn't wrong. Could it be misused? Sure. Could it be inappropriately applied to other situations? Yep. Does that mean a tax on cigarettes is wrong? Nope. And I believe EVERY state in the US, and the federal government has all voted and agreed on this particular tax. Same with nearly every other country.

These taxes are called Pigovian taxes. You're charging a tax to try to cover external costs generated by the product. In the case of cigarettes, you're taxing them to offset the increased cost of medical care for smokers, to try and discourage smokers, and help people to quit. Soda taxes are another example, and they're trying to offset the increased costs of obesity.

I don't necessarily agree with these, but they're implemented with good intentions, to help keep citizens healthy and thus reduce the government's primary and secondary medical costs.

I'd rather see a rather inhumane waiver type system personally. You want to smoke? Sign this waiver and the government will pay zero of your smoking-related health costs. You're on the hook for all medical costs, and they'll pull the plug if you're on your death bed in the hospital with lung cancer. Insurance companies can charge you whatever they like for health insurance, and no one will restrict the premiums. But you won't pay any taxes on tobacco. Same with things like helmet laws. You want to ride a motorcycle with no helmet? Sign this waiver, and go nuts. No medical coverage if you crash, no death benefits if you die in a MC accident with no helmet on, etc. Same for seatbelt laws.

I WOULD like to see a lot more personal responsibility for these things happen. But it won't happen.

The idea that health care costs more for smokers is only true if you look at short term costs, studies have shown that this is actually the opposite of the truth if you look at long term costs. The reason for this is logical if you think about it, while smokers tend to have more health issues they also tend to die younger. Not only does this mean that they need health care for less time but also that they're less likely to end up with age related health issues that generally cost more to treat, not to mention that older people are more likely to have multiple health issues. The decreased lifespan also saves the public money due to less money spent on Social Security, Medicare, and other programs for the elderly.

Very little money from tobacco taxes or the tobacco MSA(master settlement agreement) actually goes to prevention or cessation programs, most states spend nothing or a single digit percentage(North Dakota is the exception at 14.7%) on these sorts of things with the vast majority of the money going directly into the general fund. Some states have already spent the MSA money for several years in advance by selling future rights to the money(like a structured settlement sellout) and might end up being on the hook for paying some of it back because smoking rates are falling faster than they predicted.

Smoking is undoubtedly bad for you(which is why I'm glad I was able to finally quit a few years ago) and tobacco companies lied for decades about the risks but the anti-smoking groups and politicians in favor of more tobacco taxes have been lying just as much the last decade or two.

 

[Bandalo]

So you think the government was footing the bill for these smokers? How exactly was that happening? How is it that someone goes to a Doctor, complains of problems, and when asked about insurance, what, they just check the Box that Says, "Covered by Uncle Sam" ?

What about the States, were the States sharing those costs? New York City, was New York in on the benefit scheme as well?

How is it you figure this was happening?

I have to say, at risk of getting smacked by an admin, among the varied political beliefs of our citizens, some among us believe that Uncle Sam is supposed to do things like this, get involved in our lives, etc. But there are a good many others that don't beleave this is right, and that the Federal Government isn't supposed to be our Grandmothers and Grandfathers and Mommies and Daddies.

I think this is perhaps the root of our disagreement on this issue, or at least it is playing a significant roll.

The Laws banning smoking and the absolutely horribly exorbitant taxation, we destructive intrusions.

The same governments could have set regulations and health codes for proper ventilation of smoking areas so that non-smoking rooms would have less than x number of particles per cubic foot of airborne residue (smoke) ensuring healthy air for people to breath without hurting businesses like they did. This would have been a reasonable approach but as it was, the Federal Government had to try and force people to stop smoking and that is why they chose the other way.

The government was going to try to "make" people quit because they were of a mind that it would be better for us. We are too stupid to make our own choices and we need the Government to decide for us, and no measure is unreasonable as long as it's in our best interests, (according to them).

Look, don't get me wrong, I am not anti-government. I just don't like it when the government oversteps their purpose and I see their purpose as managing those things that, (from the point of view of the "United States", the Union), are beyond what the individual States can reasonably manage. National Defense would be an example, international treaties, etc. It is my view that telling me where I can smoke a legal substances is just a tad outside of bounds if for no other reason than my City or my State can handle it just fine without them so, 10th Amendment brother, bow out.

I think it may come down to what role government should have. Should it let people engage in destructive behavior, or should it make an attempt to stop them via whatever means? I don't have a problem with those behaviors myself, as long as I'm not paying for them. Smoke yourself silly as long as you don't do it around me or my family (second hand smoke). AND, as long as my medical insurance and taxes aren't higher because of it. You want to ride a motorcycle with no helmet? All you, as long as I'm not paying the bill for the accident, the clean up, the emergency medical care until you drop dead, the burial or disposal of the body, and then the welfare care for the family you left behind.

I don't have any problem with the government's role in taxing those behaviors. I think those taxes reflect the general beliefs and desires of the population at large, and they're based on valid scientific evidence, so it seems reasonable. Government should reflect the people, and this one seems to be the will of the people. Otherwise you wouldn't have these taxes in EVERY single state and most foreign countries too.

Even if you think the government SHOULDN'T be involved, you have to realize they have to be. If the government wasn't there to educate about the dangers of smoking, you'd have tobacco companies going on about the amazing health benefits. The government should have the welfare of the citizens as its first priority, over that of corporations or making a buck. And in this case, they're trying to educate people to the dangers of this behavior.

I don't think so. I think it's just a pen stroke away, all it needs is a catalyst. All that needs to happen is a change that effects revenues in a way that makes the government decide that they need to leverage untapped sources of revenue. The groundwork has already been laid, the principles and benefits proven. If it's bad for you or impacts others, we can tax it in order to "encourage changes in behavior".

You know there were limits placed on the Federal Government regarding taxation.

Do you think that such a thing would have passed 200 years ago and if so, then why did it take 200 years to get around to it?

I think 200 years ago we didn't have established science to prove things like this, and now we do. How much do you think the government really makes vs what they spend on tobacco? If they need more revenue, they're going to go after income taxes and various corporate taxes. Adding a "sin tax" to large soft drinks is a drop in the bucket, especially since those taxes are designed to DISCOURAGE purchases, not maximize income for the IRS.

The idea that health care costs more for smokers is only true if you look at short term costs, studies have shown that this is actually the opposite of the truth if you look at long term costs. The reason for this is logical if you think about it, while smokers tend to have more health issues they also tend to die younger. Not only does this mean that they need health care for less time but also that they're less likely to end up with age related health issues that generally cost more to treat, not to mention that older people are more likely to have multiple health issues. The decreased lifespan also saves the public money due to less money spent on Social Security, Medicare, and other programs for the elderly.

Very little money from tobacco taxes or the tobacco MSA(master settlement agreement) actually goes to prevention or cessation programs, most states spend nothing or a single digit percentage(North Dakota is the exception at 14.7%) on these sorts of things with the vast majority of the money going directly into the general fund. Some states have already spent the MSA money for several years in advance by selling future rights to the money(like a structured settlement sellout) and might end up being on the hook for paying some of it back because smoking rates are falling faster than they predicted.

Smoking is undoubtedly bad for you(which is why I'm glad I was able to finally quit a few years ago) and tobacco companies lied for decades about the risks but the anti-smoking groups and politicians in favor of more tobacco taxes have been lying just as much the last decade or two.

I've never seen any good data one way or another on exactly how much each state collects and how much they spend regarding tobacco. Based on everything else I have seen, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the money collected was far more than what was spent on that area, or that the spending was poorly tracked or used ineffectively. I have heard when the federal govt gave all that settlement money to the states they didn't include any spending requirements or oversight, so I'm not in the least surprised the states hosed that one up. In the end though, the states DO have cessation programs, they DO promote non-smoking and tobacco regulations, so they haven't failed 100%. The purpose of the taxes wasn't really to generate revenue anyway, it's supposed to discourage purchases. If no one buys cigarettes because the taxes are too high, then really they've met their goal.

 

[Ebernanut]

I've never seen any good data one way or another on exactly how much each state collects and how much they spend regarding tobacco. Based on everything else I have seen, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the money collected was far more than what was spent on that area, or that the spending was poorly tracked or used ineffectively. I have heard when the federal govt gave all that settlement money to the states they didn't include any spending requirements or oversight, so I'm not in the least surprised the states hosed that one up. In the end though, the states DO have cessation programs, they DO promote non-smoking and tobacco regulations, so they haven't failed 100%. The purpose of the taxes wasn't really to generate revenue anyway, it's supposed to discourage purchases. If no one buys cigarettes because the taxes are too high, then really they've met their goal.

The best data I found was here: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6120.pdf (pages 8/9 for numbers), unfortunately it only goes through 2010. The reason I mentioned cessation and prevention(propaganda) is that they do more to lower smoking rates than taxes do, though the possibility of using money from an increase for prevention/cessation is also one of the main justifications I've heard when most goes into the general fund. According to that link states spend an average of 2.4% of tobacco revenue on it which is about 1/6 of what the CDC recommended to have a meaningful impact, I would consider that a failure when the money is there.

Most addicts will spend whatever they can to feed their addiction and tobacco can be a strong addiction, I know that when I was younger and broke I spent money on cigarettes that I couldn't really afford to because going without wasn't an option I was willing to consider. If they raise the taxes to the point that people can't afford it they'll just create a black market(which is already happening and introduces a criminal element into the equation) and end up with people growing it in their closet.

Personally it seems like the real reason these taxes are there is partly to generate revenue from one of the last minority groups that it's socially acceptable to hate and partly to fine people for doing something that others are puritanically opposed to. According to this most states get 1-2% of their tax revenue from tobacco taxes which isn't a huge amount but is far more than a drop in the bucket and would be hard for most states to replace or cut without ruffling some feathers.

 

[lcpiper]

I think it may come down to what role government should have. ..................... The purpose of the taxes wasn't really to generate revenue anyway, it's supposed to discourage purchases. If no one buys cigarettes because the taxes are too high, then really they've met their goal.

And I brought this up, and from what I have read from you, we both have very different views on this. While I have no problem with the government doing studies on the effects of smoking and making sure that consumers have good information about smoking. I also think it is perfectly reasonable that they use tax dollars to fund the studies and oversight on compliance by tobacco companies.

But I am against the government taking any active role in trying to actively discourage smoking and using taxation as a blunt instrument to force compliance.

I think our differences stem from exactly how we see our Federal Government and what the Government's role should be. I also think that this is about as far as the moderators on [H] are going to let us go.

I can say I disagree with you, but I can also say that I support your right to make this choice. In fact, I'll even defend it. I have put my very life on the line to do so in the past, I would again.

What more is there to say.

 

[Bandalo]

In fact, I'll even defend it. I have put my very life on the line to do so in the past, I would again.

What more is there to say.

I'm still in the thick of it myself...another year or so before retirement.

I think we'll just call this a political difference, and agree to disagree!

Good chatting with you, nice to see civil discourse rather than the usual internet attacks on my mom.