If cigarette companies are so bad

hsmith · 12-08-2006, 10:45 AM

for creating an addictive product and "profiting" off of it, why isn't government looked at the same for making an INSANE profit off of addictive cigarettes? They make more than the companies off a pack of cigs as it is now.

Why don't people ever point their criticism at the gov't for abusing an addictive substance to make an buck? If you are going to attack the companies for the policy, why isn't the gov't attacked for doing the same thing?

7960 · 12-08-2006, 10:50 AM

No one will every adequately explain to me how NY can ban trans-fats while allowing cigarettes to be sold.

hsmith · 12-08-2006, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

No one will every adequately explain to me how NY can ban trans-fats while allowing cigarettes to be sold.

I mean, am I wrong in my supposition? Is the government not profiting off an addictive substance the same way that the companies that make them are?

And I agree with your point

Scrum · 12-08-2006, 11:44 AM

That's a great point.

It's like they think the insane tax on cigarettes will actually keep people from smoking. That's not the case.
The government just rakes in more money.

Scrum · 12-08-2006, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

No one will every adequately explain to me how NY can ban trans-fats while allowing cigarettes to be sold.

I don't see how they can ban trans-fat at all.

"sorry people. you are too stupid to know what to put in your mouth so we will decide for you."

hsmith · 12-08-2006, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

That's a great point.

It's like they think the insane tax on cigarettes will actually keep people from smoking. That's not the case.
The government just rakes in more money.

you can't call one evil for doing it and not the other. they are both making an insane product on a addictive product.

that being said, people have every right to smoke all they want

it is just hypocritical to say "cigarette companies are evil cause they make money off a deadly product" but not say the same for the gov't

7960 · 12-08-2006, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

I mean, am I wrong in my supposition?

No.

Is the government not profiting off an addictive substance the same way that the companies that make them are?

Yes.

And I agree with your point

If they don't 100% ban all tobacco, all alcohol, and any kind of refined sugar or sweetener (including high fructose corn syrup) then they're beyond hypocritical.

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I don't see how they can ban trans-fat at all.

I didn't want to get into it, but neither do I.

AVengeance · 12-08-2006, 12:15 PM

The government is the biggest drug addict in the world. They're ADDICTED to tobacco tax money, they're addicted to the "war on drugs" and all the profit they make from that, they're addicted to alcohol (which is a drug, believe it or not) and they have another department dedicated to that specific war (BATF).

I, too, am baffled about the trans fat thing. I can understand the government forcing food makers to state that it's there (it's well known that it messes up your body as it builds up in you over time, causing your arteries to clog and other issues), but to ban it entirely is insane. I can think of only two reasons they're doing this

1) they're going to "prove" trans fats are not harmful at all, because the people affected won't get any thinner, collectively. This will protect all food makers from lawsuits and criminal action later, after the law is overturned.

2) some company just made a replacement for trans-fat, and they need the government to eliminate the competition for them so they can market their newer, more addictive replacement.

edit:
3) the government will later pretend to "cave in" to industry and consumer pressure that certain foods just can't be made as yummy, inexpensively, and with the same shelf life without trans fat. They'll then reach an agreement, and we'll have a sin-tax with trans fat as we already do with tobacco products. The sin-tax for trans fat will be federal, of course, so the states will have no control over it, and will include a cause that prevents trans fats from being banned by any state or lesser government.

6SpeedTA95 · 12-08-2006, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

No one will every adequately explain to me how NY can ban trans-fats while allowing cigarettes to be sold.

I can sum it up in one character "$"

lew · 12-08-2006, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

No one will every adequately explain to me how NY can ban trans-fats while allowing cigarettes to be sold.

NY banned trans-fats?

7960 · 12-08-2006, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by lew

NY banned trans-fats?

sorry, in restaurants

NY bans trans fats in restaurants
New York, Dec 07: New York has become the first major city in the United States to ban use of artificial trans fats in more than 20,000 restaurants and eateries.

Zee News - NY bans trans fats in restaurants

DosEquis · 12-08-2006, 03:58 PM

You see, according to Cocteau's plan I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green jello all over my body reading playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".

lew · 12-08-2006, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

sorry, in restaurants

NY bans trans fats in restaurants
New York, Dec 07: New York has become the first major city in the United States to ban use of artificial trans fats in more than 20,000 restaurants and eateries.

Zee News - NY bans trans fats in restaurants

Trans-fats are horrible, but banning them?

nbiggershaft · 12-08-2006, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Trans-fats are horrible, but banning them?

The only reasonable excuse would be if trans fats were bad enough for you that they paramounted to an unreasonable risk, the public would have to be protected from, like fda regulations on food. That would have to be a hell of a burden to overcome, but I suppose it's possible, I'm no docter.

Diesel66 · 12-08-2006, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I don't see how they can ban trans-fat at all.

"sorry people. you are too stupid to know what to put in your mouth so we will decide for you."

even worse is the fact that there is no science behind the scare. But that never stopped the govt/public.

RMNIXON · 12-08-2006, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

No one will every adequately explain to me how NY can ban trans-fats while allowing cigarettes to be sold.

Can you tax a trans-fat?

RMNIXON · 12-08-2006, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

for creating an addictive product and "profiting" off of it, why isn't government looked at the same for making an INSANE profit off of addictive cigarettes? They make more than the companies off a pack of cigs as it is now.

Why don't people ever point their criticism at the gov't for abusing an addictive substance to make an buck? If you are going to attack the companies for the policy, why isn't the gov't attacked for doing the same thing?

The government argument, (and this is a sin tax imposed by a non-religious government) is that the tax will discourage smoking because of the high costs. This is probably true of the lower classes (Ahah! A Government class prejudice!). In short: It is a cash cow for the government under a phony blanket of good social engineering. They will also try to fool you with the public healthcare arguments which have been proven false. The public cost of treating someone of a smoke related illness has never been proven to be more than the public cost to treat the same individual of any number of health problems if they should live years beyond that of a smoker! So it is the government right to take your money while giving you the freedom to damage your health with a bad behavior choice. Is that about it?

Diamond Cross · 12-09-2006, 02:17 AM

Government never met a tax it didn't like.

motivez · 12-11-2006, 09:13 PM

I don't really like the idea of a 'vice tax', because that means the government is telling people essentially what behavior is 'bad' enough to warrant an extra tax, leading the government to get involved in morality decisions, etc, etc.. it's a slippery slope.

However, I think cigarette companies are bad because in the past they knowingly hid the dangers of smoking from the public and tried to pass off their product as safe, etc..

I also don't like them targeting minors.

RMNIXON · 12-11-2006, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't really like the idea of a 'vice tax', because that means the government is telling people essentially what behavior is 'bad' enough to warrant an extra tax, leading the government to get involved in morality decisions, etc, etc.. it's a slippery slope.

However, I think cigarette companies are bad because in the past they knowingly hid the dangers of smoking from the public and tried to pass off their product as safe, etc..

I also don't like them targeting minors.

Good points. That is why I don't mind the cigarette company bashing as long as it is logical and factual. In the court of public opinion they should be on the bottom. But when the Lawyers and the government use the public outrage to cash-in, that is when I must object. These companies are still making good money off their product. Perhaps the overall market is down, but any tax that is across the board is an equal expence to all competitors. It is the consumer who still makes the choice to use a legal product that pays.