Another Cigarette?

[Poindexter]

I try not to make this a preachy thing about smoking but I cringe when anyone compares smoking cigarettes to things such as transportation or eating. While it's legal and everyone has a right to smoke, putting it on the same level as some of life's necessities is an absurd line of reasoning.

With the current price of cigarettes I fully understand why some might also cringe at increasing the price even more, especially since it's demographic tends to be lower income earners. But comparing cigarettes to food or fuel only demonstrates a loss in perspective. If you can't afford to smoke you can quit, you can't say the same thing about food and transportation.

[Static]

I try not to make this a preachy thing about smoking but I cringe when anyone compares smoking cigarettes to things such as transportation or eating. While it's legal and everyone has a right to smoke, putting it on the same level as some of life's necessities is an absurd line of reasoning.

With the current price of cigarettes I fully understand why some might also cringe at increasing the price even more, especially since it's demographic tends to be lower income earners. But comparing cigarettes to food or fuel only demonstrates a loss in perspective. If you can't afford to smoke you can quit, you can't say the same thing about food and transportation.

Many people cannot afford to eat healthy, let alone drive. Raising taxes on tobacco does not work either because it increases trafficking. Furthermore, medical costs contributed to driving and eating far exceeds that of smoking for the simple reason that cigarette taxes cover the costs of smoking related illnesses and then some. So comparing food and driving is relevant.

[Gixxer]

I think taxing cigarettes to support forest fire fighting is a little pushing it. Should we begin to tax gasoline more to help pay for ambulance and firefighting or sugar, fats, and obese people to support the medical system?

That doesnt even make sense why would you want to tax gasoline to pay for ambulance and firefighting? Also eating fat doesnt make people fat.

Taxing cigarettes to support forest fires is great idea because some careless smokers flick their butts out the window which do start forest fires costing hundreds of millions of dollars to fight, and in damages.

[davis123]

Should tobacco taxes go up to cover the costs involved with putting out fires caused by idiots throwing butts out and starting fires? Do people even have a clue how much money smokers' pay for tobacco tax? Smokers pay MORE than their fair share of taxes to the government, there is lots left over to put towards fighting fires, so NO, absolutely no additional taxes should be added to tobacco to put towards wildfires..we've more than covered those costs in the tobacco taxes paid.

The figures below are all from 2006 to stay consistent
Below is the totals of tax revenue made on tobacco taxes, Canada wide and in BC
http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/totaltax.pdf

2006 Total Federal and Provincial Tobacco tax revenues 7,092,693,296
BC tax revenue portion: 709,000,000

2006 Health costs related to smoking (because I knew someone would bring up these costs :) )
http://www.smoke-free.ca/factsheets/pdf ... esults.pdf

Canada – Health care costs related to smoking
Costs of acute care hospitalization (active and passive smoking) 2,551,162,605
Costs of acute care hospitalizations (passive smoking only) 53,587,998
Ambulatory care – physician fees 142,150,618
Family physician visits 306,318,458
Prescription drugs 1,360,522,427
Canada Total: 4,413,742,106

Total Canada tax revenue made from tobacco in 2006: 7,092,693,296
Total Canada Portion of Health related costs: 4,413,742,106
Difference: 2,678,951,190

BC Portion – Health care costs related to smoking
Costs of acute care hospitalization (active and passive smoking) 386,998,137
Costs of acute care hospitalizations (passive smoking only) 7,052,339
Ambulatory care – physician fees 12,496,360
Family physician visits 59,556,947
Prescription drugs 146,395,782
BC Portion Total: 612,499,565

Total BC tax revenue made from tobacco in 2006: 709,000,000
Total BC Portion of Health related costs: 612,499,565
Difference: 96,500,435

Wildfires in BC in 2006 cost: $159 million
http://bcwildfire.ca/History/SummaryArchive.htm#2006
2,570 wildfires

2006 saw more than 1,500 lightning-caused wildfires and more than 1,000 human-caused starts. Although considerably lower than the 50% average, human-caused wildfires still accounted for about 40% of all wildfires this season. The result is that 40% of all unwanted wildfires in B.C. this season were preventable.

40% of those fires were human caused (about 63 million of the 2006 cost)
For arguments sake let’s say 50% campfires and 50% cigarettes (50% of the above is about 32 million)

BC’s portion of tobacco tax (709,000,000), minus the health costs related to smoking (612,499,565) leaves 96,500,435 – if smokers caused 50% of human caused fires then they have MORE than covered the 32 million in wildfire costs in the taxes they have paid the government.

So to answer the question should taxes be raised on tobacco to cover these wildfire costs…HELL NO!! What should be done? Well to answer that we first have to figure out how to make a stupid person, not stupid...because who throws lit cigarettes out a car window into dry grassy forested areas? STUPID PEOPLE DO

Oh yes, but most of you would say STUPID people also smoke, but those smokers happen to be addicted, not stupid, idiots throwing butts out of the window are not addicted to throwing sparky objects out a window, they are just PLAIN OLD STUPID...do you see the difference? I think starting off with a 10,000 fine to anyone throwing butts out a window would be a great start! If they do start a forest fire then make them pay the costs for that fire, sure lots you could never recoup that cost from, but in the long run the point is prevention of fires. So perhaps the stupid butt flickers might rethink if there are some serious consequences for their actions.

[Static]

*removed*

[davis123]

I think taxing cigarettes to support forest fire fighting is a little pushing it. Should we begin to tax gasoline more to help pay for ambulance and firefighting or sugar, fats, and obese people to support the medical system?

Think about how much money is spent on healthcare for obese people, the figures are much, much higher than smoker related healthcare, but yet you can buy a bag of sugar for 5$, with only the piddly amount of regular taxes on it, now look at what smokers pay for tobacco related products (versus what the actual cost from the manufacturer is) so you have an epidemic of obese people weighing down the healthcare system, but it is the smokers who are on the hook to pay those costs. So why are obese people not taxed to death on all the fatty foods they eat? They are killing themselves, no different than a smoker at all.

[dieseluphammerdown]

I try not to make this a preachy thing about smoking but I cringe when anyone compares smoking cigarettes to things such as transportation or eating. While it's legal and everyone has a right to smoke, putting it on the same level as some of life's necessities is an absurd line of reasoning.

With the current price of cigarettes I fully understand why some might also cringe at increasing the price even more, especially since it's demographic tends to be lower income earners. But comparing cigarettes to food or fuel only demonstrates a loss in perspective. If you can't afford to smoke you can quit, you can't say the same thing about food and transportation.

Really? So now you want to drag income into this?
Is your statement fact ? or just another attempt at feeling better about yourself while trying to through more barbs at smokers? Lower income LOL, oh man thanks for the laugh.

[Static]

^^^^ there does tend to be a higher proportion of smokers amongst those with lower socioeconomic status in the West. There is data to back this up. I'm on the treadmill right now so I will not provide it but Google will provide data. There is an article in this week's Economist that covers this topic.

[mexi cali]

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research ... f/0260.pdf

This would tend to agree with that.

[Poindexter]

The reason I brought up socioeconomic status wasn't a slight in smokers. Its just that any additional tax on cigarettes would unfortunately effect low income households disproportionately. Wasnt aware of just how much they were already paying until Davis' post. Instead of a new tax perhaps some of the tax already collected should just be allocated to protecting our forests and fighting fires.

[mexi cali]

The poll results were interesting on Cnet. I didn't think that as many people as did would say yes to impounding vehicles.