Topic: Sin taxes pay for medical benefits (Read 4942 times)

seilerbird · « **Reply #30 on:** March 06, 2009, 12:06:40 AM »

Don't forget that the totally stupid "war" on drugs costs US taxpayers $20 billion per year and does absolutely no good. At least 1/4th to 1/2 of that is spent trying to eradicate marijuana, which is impossible. I have two dead alcoholic parents and it really tees me off that an alcoholic can walk 1 block in almost any town in America and buy a legal drink. 20,000 people a year die in alcohol related traffic accidents, yet the federal government classifies marijuana as a schedule one drug with no medical value and continues to put cancer and aids patients in jail for trying to get a little pain relief from a substance that has never killed anyone.

John From Detroit · « **Reply #31 on:** March 06, 2009, 10:40:12 AM »

One of the things Michigan is considering is an increase in SIN-taxes

Also the US government is not thinking of a serious tax on Tobacco. Nation wide.

I post this without comment save to say the reason I can not qujit smoking is... I never started (And don't plan on it) and when it comes to Booze.. I prefer coffee.
or just plain water.

In other portions of this thread I see them speaking of legalizing MJ and taxing it. Two comments here

1: There is already a Marijuana tax act on the books.. (Federal books)

2: I've seen this argument before. And for several illegal drugs, not just MJ. I do not have the needed facts to comment on the merits of the purposal however I can tell you that the folks who have done the research sound quite reasonable.... That said. I've heard many who "Sounded reasonable" when in fact they were smoking the issue (not the same as smoking weed) rather well. (This is what's called an elaborate no comment)

I do think the issue needs further research by folks who do NOT have an agenda.. And that said. I do have an agenda on this issue so that's not me.

(If this post fails to explain my position: I wish to keep illegal drugs.. illegal)

seilerbird · « **Reply #32 on:** March 06, 2009, 11:49:47 AM »

Quote from: John In Detroit on March 06, 2009, 10:40:12 AM

(If this post fails to explain my position: I wish to keep illegal drugs.. illegal)

So what will you do if you get cancer, aids, glocoma, multiple sclorosis or some other disease that marijuana is so good at controlling the pain? How about your family or friends? Do you really want to watch them suffer because a perfectly safe medicine is illegal?

Mc2guy · « **Reply #33 on:** March 06, 2009, 11:53:55 AM »

Quote from: John In Detroit on March 06, 2009, 10:40:12 AM

One of the things Michigan is considering is an increase in SIN-taxes

Also the US government is not thinking of a serious tax on Tobacco. Nation wide.

I post this without comment save to say the reason I can not qujit smoking is... I never started (And don't plan on it) and when it comes to Booze.. I prefer coffee.
or just plain water.

In other portions of this thread I see them speaking of legalizing MJ and taxing it. Two comments here

1: There is already a Marijuana tax act on the books.. (Federal books)

2: I've seen this argument before. And for several illegal drugs, not just MJ. I do not have the needed facts to comment on the merits of the purposal however I can tell you that the folks who have done the research sound quite reasonable.... That said. I've heard many who "Sounded reasonable" when in fact they were smoking the issue (not the same as smoking weed) rather well. (This is what's called an elaborate no comment)

I do think the issue needs further research by folks who do NOT have an agenda.. And that said. I do have an agenda on this issue so that's not me.

(If this post fails to explain my position: I wish to keep illegal drugs.. illegal)

John, yours is a fair position. Just to be clear, I don't' want to legalize all drugs, and I have no agenda as I am not a user (a nice belgian ale, or a smooth single malt would be my drug of choice). My position is that MJ is a naturally occurring substance that has been in use for thousands of years (similar to alcohol). It has not proven to cause the same health problems that alcohol and tobacco have, and it appears to have some medical benefit for some. That said, and perhaps more importantly, about half the U.S. population has admitted to using or trying it, and about 20% of the population uses regularly. If prevention and enforcement rules worked, the numbers wouldn't be that high (no pun intended).

Again, I don't think most people would advocate for the legalization of narcotics, but taking MJ laws off the books would allow enforcement and prevention agencies to focus on more problematic drugs like methamphetamines, opiates, et al.

The revenue benefits and job creation alone make me believe it should seriously be considered.

John From Detroit · « **Reply #34 on:** March 06, 2009, 06:32:03 PM »

I meant to say the US government is NOW considering a tax on Tobacco.. (I typed NOT when I meant NOW)

I do not wish to argue MJ's alleged benefits or costs here in the forum.

For one thing, as a Professional Police Dispatcher I got to see the 'Down side" rather well.. and I"m not convinced of the,, well you might notice I said "Alleged benefits" just now.

WE need a study by someone I can trust.. To date, people have either been

1: People I'd not trust to do a proper study
2: People who do not have the means to do a proper study

And thus. I've not seen a study that was not biased.

IN some other areas.. I have seen good studies, and I've seen some doozies too (in other areas) Some of 'em, I kind of wonder what the people who wrote up the conclusions (And in a few cases these documents were then submitted to the FDA for approval of a drug). back to topic, I have to wonder what the authors of that report were smoking, drinking or, otherwise using.. Cause it's for sure that their conclusions are NOT supported by the data they also reported.

Alas, the FDA never looked at the data, , Just the concussion (What you get when you jump head first into a conclusion) and though I do not (yet) seem to have a problem with the subsequent approved drug. I know a few folks who do.

porscheracer · « **Reply #35 on:** March 17, 2009, 07:16:00 AM »

FWIW, Arkansas just instituted an additional $0.58 / pack tax on cigarettes - to fund a trauma center.

As an ex-smoker - I find some peoples' holier-than-thou "just quit smoking" comments asinine and uninformed. I suspect that >75% of all tobacco users would quit, if they could. It's not like giving up pancakes for Lent. But, as with most "unpopular" activities, it's easy to jump on the bandwagon and criticize.

The US income tax was initially set up as a 1% "temporary" tax to help offset the costs of WWI. One congressman who voted against it was quoted as saying "What's to prevent it from becoming permanent and growing to as much as 10%??". I only wish . . ..

seilerbird · « **Reply #36 on:** March 17, 2009, 09:21:12 AM »

Quote from: John In Detroit on March 06, 2009, 06:32:03 PM

For one thing, as a Professional Police Dispatcher I got to see the 'Down side" rather well.. and I"m not convinced of the,, well you might notice I said "Alleged benefits" just now.

WE need a study by someone I can trust.. To date, people have either been

The only downside to mj is the fact it is illegal. No one has ever died from using it. It helps sick people relieve their pain. I have seen that in spades, I used to work at a mj clinic.

You will never get a study by someone you can trust. Everyone has an opinion on the matter. There was the famous study in the early 70s sponsered by the Nixon administration that concluded that mj should be legal. The study was never published and completely squashed by Nixon. Here is a partial list of groups currently supporting medical mj:

American Medical Association - the largest physician group in the U.S.
The American College of Physicians - America's second largest physicians group
Leukemia & Lymphoma Society - America's second largest cancer charity.
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Public Health Association
American Psychiatric Association
American Nurses Association
British Medical Association
AIDS Action
American Academy of HIV Medicine
Lymphoma Foundation of America
Health Canada

Thirteen states and many countries have legalized medical mj since the passage of 215 in California in 1996 and I don't think that it was defeated in any state. If you would like to find out a lot more about this herb read here:

Ron · « **Reply #37 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:07:26 AM »

Quote from: porscheracer on March 17, 2009, 07:16:00 AM

FWIW, Arkansas just instituted an additional $0.58 / pack tax on cigarettes - to fund a trauma center.

IMHO Arkansas goofed. While they were taking the time to pass legislation to raise the tax on cigaretts they should have made it $3.58 per pack or more as well as $5. on each cigar and package of Snuff.

tswms · « **Reply #38 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:32:06 AM »

The ark legislature knew exactly what they were doing. Two years from now
(the ark legislature only meets every other year) they will discover that the sin tax will not be enough to pay for the trauma program so the will have to raise other taxes. This seems to be a common pattern. It is easy to get a program passed which is paid for by cigarette taxes. 77% of people do not smoke so they don't care how much the tax is, but when revenue falls short they never cancel a government program.
I am waiting for the day when some city or state has the b--- to outlaw the mfg, sale , transportation ,or possession of any tobacco product. That will never happen because it is such a cash cow.

Wendy · « **Reply #39 on:** March 17, 2009, 12:03:35 PM »

tswms, You're absolutely right. There's no way tobacco can be outlawed because so many states and the federal government rely on that tax revenue. What would they tax next to make up for the loss of revenue - gas? And why are we financially punishing people who are doing something that is absolutely legal ? No, I don't smoke (used to but in 1981 I just quit), I think it's stupid for health as well as financial reasons but it is legal. And why is no one concerned about that other "sin tax," the one on alcohol?

Wendy

seilerbird · « **Reply #40 on:** March 17, 2009, 02:09:37 PM »

Quote from: tswms on March 17, 2009, 11:32:06 AM

The ark legislature knew exactly what they were doing. Two years from now
(the ark legislature only meets every other year) they will discover that the sin tax will not be enough to pay for the trauma program so the will have to raise other taxes. This seems to be a common pattern. It is easy to get a program passed which is paid for by cigarette taxes. 77% of people do not smoke so they don't care how much the tax is, but when revenue falls short they never cancel a government program.
I am waiting for the day when some city or state has the b--- to outlaw the mfg, sale , transportation ,or possession of any tobacco product. That will never happen because it is such a cash cow.

Last I heard the federal government was actually subsidising the farmers who grow tobacco.

Ron · « **Reply #41 on:** March 17, 2009, 02:27:24 PM »

Quote from: seilerbird on March 17, 2009, 02:09:37 PM

Last I heard the federal government was actually subsidising the farmers who grow tobacco.

If that is indeed true then I think there should be at least a $8 - $10 tax on cigarettes and other tobaco products including $12 - $15 on each cigar.

Mc2guy · « **Reply #42 on:** March 17, 2009, 02:45:47 PM »

Quote from: Ron on March 17, 2009, 02:27:24 PM

If that is indeed true then I think there should be at least a $8 - $10 tax on cigarettes and other tobaco products including $12 - $15 on each cigar.

It is true. The decline in smokers in the U.S. has put a great deal of pressure on mid-atlantic tobacco farmers and the fed (and state I believe in Virginia) does subsidize tobacco farming. Again, the farmer and the cigarette maker are responsible for about $1.50/box. Law suits, forced advertising (anti-smoking), and taxes make up the other $1.25-$4.00 depending on where you live.

I live in the D.C. metro area (Virginia), and there are several gas stations on Interstate 95 near where I live that make the lion-share of their operating profits selling cartons of cigarettes to out of stater's. The tax on tobacco in Virginia is a pittance compared to other North-eastern states, and travelers will stop before entering MD because after that, cig prices go up $2+ dollars a pack as you head north. What's funny is that by law, you can only buy 10 cartons at a time or else you are considered a wholesaler and it is illegal to transport more than 10 cartons over state lines. Instead you will see a car full of 4 people each line up to buy 10 cartons a piece before they pile back into their car to head north (invariably the plates are Maryland or Delaware).

Daisy · « **Reply #43 on:** March 18, 2009, 11:25:24 AM »

Wendy said:

Quote

And why is no one concerned about that other "sin tax," the one on alcohol?

That has puzzled me for years. Though I have no concrete evidence, I believe that alcohol has killed and/or maimed more people/animals than tobacco or second hand smoke has. I'm guessing that there are many more people that drink than smoke and Washington is full of them. So doubt we'll see any justified taxes on that "sin".

Daisy
Ex-smoker, non-drinker

Ron · « **Reply #44 on:** March 18, 2009, 11:53:21 AM »

I suspect a reason we do not have more severe drunk driving laws and consequences is that possibly there are too many drunks in the bodys that are responsible to legislate such laws.

Mc2guy · « **Reply #45 on:** March 18, 2009, 12:49:23 PM »

Quote from: Daisy on March 18, 2009, 11:25:24 AM

Wendy said:

link=topic=19014.msg209188#msg209188 date=1237309415]
And why is no one concerned about that other "sin tax," the one on alcohol?

That has puzzled me for years. Though I have no concrete evidence, I believe that alcohol has killed and/or maimed more people/animals than tobacco or second hand smoke has. I'm guessing that there are many more people that drink than smoke and Washington is full of them. So doubt we'll see any justified taxes on that "sin".

Daisy
Ex-smoker, non-drinker

Many states do impose a flat alcohol tax, particularly that which is served in public, i.e. a restaurant. Some municipalities effectively eliminate alcohol sales by imposing very costly "liquor licenses" which a seller must pay in order to have the right to sell alcohol on premises. Both practices are taxes.

The cost of beer when up about $2/case in Virginia in 1995 when they passed a state wide alcohol tax. A huge blow for us college goers at the time.

To Ron's point, the penalties for DWI/DUI have in fact become MUCH more severe for most states over the last decade. Virginia now has a no-tolerance policy where a first offense is automatic loss of license and any BAC over .15 is automatic two week jail time. A second offense is a felony with a 5 year minimum loss of license, and a third offense is a lifetime ban and up to 3 years in prison.

Wendy · « **Reply #46 on:** March 18, 2009, 01:12:48 PM »

I know there are taxes on alcohol. My point was that this whole "sin tax" discussion focused on smoking and the taxes on smoking materials. We don't pay nearly as much attention to the taxes on alcohol which are also "sin" taxes.

BTW, California is considering an additional tax on wine that would make Two Buck Chuck Two-and-a-Half Buck Chuck !!

And speaking of "sin taxes," the Cottontail Ranch in Nevada is closed and up for sale. There's another revenue loss for the state of Nevada.

Wendy
ex-smoker, current wine drinker

Mc2guy · « **Reply #47 on:** March 18, 2009, 02:08:24 PM »

Wendy,

I misunderstood your position. Forgive me.

Mc2guy
ex-smoker, current Belgian beer snob.

Ron · « **Reply #48 on:** March 18, 2009, 02:13:09 PM »

Quote from: Mc2guy on March 18, 2009, 12:49:23 PM

To Ron's point, the penalties for DWI/DUI have in fact become MUCH more severe for most states over the last decade. Virginia now has a no-tolerance policy where a first offense is automatic loss of license and any BAC over .15 is automatic two week jail time. A second offense is a felony with a 5 year minimum loss of license, and a third offense is a lifetime ban and up to 3 years in prison.

I have to disagree that DWI/DUI penalties have become much more severe for MOST states over the last decade. Hats off to Virginia for their more severe DWI/DUI penalties. I just wish more states would do likewise. Actually I would like to see the penalties match what they have in Australia.

John From Detroit · « **Reply #49 on:** March 18, 2009, 02:29:35 PM »

Drunk Driving laws vary from place to place.. There is a popular internet post that claims to cite the laws in other countries.. Now some of the cites, I do not believe, but some of them sound very reasonable to me..

I think it's Granada where there is no such offense as Driving under the influence 2nd offense

The reason for this is if you are convicted of DUI, the last three words you will ever hear are "READY", "AIM" and "FIRE"

Now that,,, Is just about right in my opinion.

Not far from me a drunk weaving down the freeway landed in the ditch, At this point I turned the phone over to my relief and went home

Next morning I find he got out of the ditch, wrong way on freeway, head to head with a jeep, One dead, One critical, he's barley brused

Turns out it was not his first drunk drive, nor his 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th (Something like 7 or 8th)

He was on probation (3 or more = felony) license revoked, It was a felony for him to so much as unlock the passenger side door on a car so sitting behind the wheel was clearly out of the question, Starting a car to warm it up so someone else could drive also a felony, in fact the only thing he could legally do with a car is wash it, wax it, or open/close an unlocked door and buckle/unbuckle his seat belt once seated.

His defense at his murder trial was "I was drunk, I didn't mean to kill nobody"

The verdict: Guilty 2nd degree homicide, the sentence 20 years

Should have been death far as I'm concerned, that's what SHE got (The passenger in the jeep)

Mc2guy · « **Reply #50 on:** March 24, 2009, 12:03:21 PM »

Sorry to resurrect a dying thread, but there were two interesting related articles that I read today that I though folks here might find interesting. The first is a commentary from a Harvard Professor on the merits of legalization, it is actually quite well written from a logical argument standpoint. The second is an announcement of an additional $700 million from the Fed to for Mexico Border Drug Enforcement. Enjoy.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/obama.mexico.policy/index.html

John From Detroit · « **Reply #51 on:** March 24, 2009, 04:32:18 PM »

And another story, to which I do not have a link (I'm sad to say) today spoke of the dangers of long term Marajuana use.. Ah, found the link,, FOX news I'm sad to say Fox News Link

I have heard the arguments for legalization and I will admit they are very good ones.

I've also heard the arguments against and frankly they are not so good

However that said, The strongest argument I've heard is that it is no more dangerous than Alcohol

Fact is, Very little is more dangerous than alcohol which, depending on how you figure (Direct + Indirect causes of death) is a factor in more deaths than just about any other single cause every year

We don't need another #1

Mc2guy · « **Reply #52 on:** March 24, 2009, 06:09:26 PM »

I find the idea of legal use of hard-core drugs distasteful and somewhat scary. That said, people who intend to use will do so regardless of legality and or health impacts. I also agree that the same can be said for alcohol, tobacco, and food. Tobacco, Alcohol and Trans-fats are legal for adults, yet many many people avoid them because of the known health impacts. I believe it would be the same for illicit drugs.

John From Detroit · « **Reply #53 on:** March 24, 2009, 07:09:45 PM »

Well.. Alcohol I avoid as a matter of Taste.. Frankly ... It tastes terrible, at least to me. Thus I avoid it.

Marijuana makes me want to puke, even when the smoker is 30 feet away at the other end of the bus
(The driver was kind enough to take a detour, only a few feet, and past a special bus stop, he exited the bus, went inside and came back with a couple of other gentelmen, Like the bus driver they were wearing uniforms.. However they were not DOT (Department of Transportation) They were PD (police dept) and those gentelman invited the MJ smokers (Smoking is prohibited on a city bus) to drop in for breakfast (it was around 11:30 PM at the time) at the nearby "Hotel" (The detour was through said "Hotel"'s parking lot)

Hard drugs: Well.. I rather enjoy a clear mind,, The thought of taking drugs which might impeed the thought process... VERY SCARY.

OF course, there used to be an anti drug commercial on TV where the "Candyman" (Pusher) is offering his wares to, as I recall, kids around sixth grade And one of the kids is pointing out the downside of all the products,, Finally the kid asks "IS there anything there that can't hurt you" and the pusher admits there is not and says "Why do you think they call it Dope?" (The dope, is of course, the user)

No, As I said, I have heard the arguments in favor of legalization, and they are very good, Very well thought out and logical
I've also heard the arguments against, and frankly they are not as good.

I still favor keeping them illegal

WilleyB · « **Reply #54 on:** March 24, 2009, 07:42:33 PM »

Quote from: Wendy

The problem with "sin taxes" to pay for programs is that sometimes the "sin" goes away and then you're out that revenue.

Wendy the problem with stating why a tax is levied is that it has no relation as to how the money is spent. All taxes go into "General Revenue" and from there the minions determine where it will be allocated. So the % of tax $ raised for a specific use may have no relation to the actual % of $ allocated to that same specific use.
Or maybe explained better this way, sin taxes help governments commit more sins, that's the way I see it

Cheers
Willis

Luca1369 · « **Reply #55 on:** March 24, 2009, 07:54:31 PM »

Quote from: John In Detroit on March 24, 2009, 07:09:45 PM

I still favor keeping them illegal

John,

Legal isn't working. I wouldn't legalize all drugs, only marijuana, that would free up countless dollars and personnel to fight the more addictive and dangerous drugs.

Steve

Carl L · « **Reply #56 on:** March 25, 2009, 01:13:41 PM »

Quote from: WilleyB on March 24, 2009, 07:42:33 PM

Wendy the problem with stating why a tax is levied is that it has no relation as to how the money is spent. All taxes go into "General Revenue" and from there the minions determine where it will be allocated. So the % of tax $ raised for a specific use may have no relation to the actual % of $ allocated to that same specific use. ....

Not always. The revenues from specific taxes can be entailed to specific purposes. Two of the more noted examples are the gas/fuel tax which is entailed for street and highway purposes by many states, and the federal social security tax (FICA) which indeed is a tax and not a pension contribution.

Ron · « **Reply #57 on:** March 25, 2009, 02:25:26 PM »

Quote from: Carl L on March 25, 2009, 01:13:41 PM

Not always. The revenues from specific taxes can be entailed to specific purposes. Two of the more noted examples are the gas/fuel tax which is entailed for street and highway purposes by many states, and the federal social security tax (FICA) which indeed is a tax and not a pension contribution.

Lets face it politicians see a source to spend money from and they will devise a awy do do just that. Social security would have been self funding by now as originally planned if the WDCI had been forced not to spend the funds on other pet projects.

WilleyB · « **Reply #58 on:** March 25, 2009, 05:31:55 PM »

Quote

Two of the more noted examples are the gas/fuel tax which is entailed for street and highway purposes by many states

LOL well maybe you have a saint or two in the US, but they're all scoundrels here, both feds and provincials, and the municipals I can vouch are no better. If the fuel and gas tax were spent on roads, by gee wizz I'm sure they'd be paved with gold instead of the present carpet of pot holes.

Mis direction of tax funds, Let's see our top Prov Jackass purchased 200 kiddie ATV's, of course there was a joyous uproar of indignation from the public so he sold them so to say, had some club take them off his hands. Sound's good except there's no guarantee of payment and the likely hood of getting one is extremely doubtful This is only one example.

Cheers
Willis

John From Detroit · « **Reply #59 on:** March 25, 2009, 07:42:53 PM »

Quote from: Luca1369 on March 24, 2009, 07:54:31 PM

John,

Legal isn't working. I wouldn't legalize all drugs, only marijuana, that would free up countless dollars and personnel to fight the more addictive and dangerous drugs.

Steve

Well, other than keeping MJ on the illegal list I agree with you.. However I do recall reading an interestiong factoid a few years (Or was it decades) ago.

Some of the biggest contributors to politicians who promise to take a hard line on drugs are the drug cartels themselves.

You see, by keeping it illegal they can charge big bucks for their ..... (Polite words fail me here).... and if it were made legal their profits would vanish as Joe Farmer got into the business.

Far as I'm concerned the drug lords do need to be paid.. They need to be paid what they deserve.. Alas, Federal law prevents me from stating in this form just what I think they deserve.

News:

Author Topic: Sin taxes pay for medical benefits (Read 4942 times)