Just Another Tax On Smokers

[Dave Peterson]

I think you and I might be on different pages here.

...I dont know where you're coming from. Paying for other people's problems? That has nothing to do with it. Entitled to get something? What are you saying that is, and when did I ever say that?

-People who have no choice on an issue like diabetes per sae, should not have to pay extra for anything becuz thats how they were born. End of discussion concerning them.

-People who do make those bad choices pay the consequences for their actions, like extra taxes.....it's so unbeleivably obvious.

----"What the Constitutions says, and mind you, NOT the original writing, but an Amendment is: (which guarantees me MY rights, to keep me free from paying for your obesity, HIV or any other disease, inherited or otherwise)"

...You lost me there. Uh- when did anyone ever say you (or anyone) ever pays for somebody elses problems? Where did that come from? I thought this was about tax, etc. for smokers? A little explanation would be nice. Plz.

---"What you need to understand is, it doesn't matter what you like or dislike that other person does. It's NONE of your bussiness, it's THEIRS. What if I don't like the way you eat..."

-Yes, I know that very well. I never said this had anything to do with what I or you dislikes about anyone else. I apologize if I wrote unclearly. What I meant was that there are some things (smoking obviously) that, no matter what you think of that person's habits, can still effect you or others in a negative way. Think about all the effects smoking has on others. A) Secondhand smoke (smoke from cigarettes inhaled by bystanders near a smoker) kills thousands a year. Thats bad. B)It can damage the smokers body which in turn can cause problems in offspring and many children die because of this. C)Think about when those smokers end up with heart disease and dying. They wouldnt be in their job, so wherever they work at pays part of the price. Hypothetically, if the president smoked and got some killer lung cancer from it and died, things would get bad and affect a lot more people than just him. This may be a bad example but insurance companies also end up having to pay for his medical bill (for the most part), and yes, I know that most insurance companies rarely have problems with losing money. ALl this applies to others who have made bad decisions and gotten in trouble for it.

-Anyways, whether or not I agree with another person's veiwpoint on smoking or whatever, they do affect other people in bad ways, no matter how minor, and that is reason enough for taxes on smoking.

So sure, you should have your freedom of doing whatever you want to yourself, I mean, it really isnt anyone elses buisiness to say anything against it. But when your personal choices begin to negatively effect those around you, you had better expect to see some bad things coming your way. And I agree its notjust smokers that should get this treatment, but all those others, minus those who cannot be blamed for it becuz of how they were born. Doesnt that sound like a plan to you? Thats what I would think if I were president.

[Soback]

Originally posted by Black Ghost:

"I think you and I might be on different pages here.

...I dont know where you're coming from. Paying for other people's problems? That has nothing to do with it. Entitled to get something? What are you saying that is, and when did I ever say that?

-People who have no choice on an issue like diabetes per sae, should not have to pay extra for anything becuz thats how they were born. End of discussion concerning them."

--- We do seem to be on different pages. If you are born with diabetes, or hypertension. Who do you think picks up the higher medical care costs for your entire live? If they don't pay more, BUT they use more, then someone has to pay. The service and supplies don't just appear out of thin air. Who pays more in that case? It's either YOU through your taxes, OR like in this case, they are trying to raise the costs to one particular problem group (smokers), while keeping the costs down for others. Therefore making them pay not only for the higher costs of their own treatments BUT also for OTHERS.

Posted by Black Ghost:

"...You lost me there. Uh- when did anyone ever say you (or anyone) ever pays for somebody elses problems? Where did that come from? I thought this was about tax, etc. for smokers? A little explanation would be nice. Plz."

--- See the my first answer. Like I have already explained, when you said that those that are born with problems shouldn't have to pay higher costs, it means that SOMEONE ELSE has to pay those costs FOR THEM. Passing those costs on to me or on to a specific group such as smokers, means that someone ELSE is carrying a burden that is NOT THEIRS.

And last. You keep on saying how smoking affects others. Well, so does HIV, so does TB, and so does obesity, hypertension, you name it.

If you are going to raise the rates on ONE problem group, you raise the rates on ALL problem groups. And since you are raising the rates on people who smoke, BUT haven't even developed any kind of problem, you might as well be ALSO raising the rates on people whos family has a history of high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, all based on chance, just like in smokers case, that they will develop whatever disease they are pre-disposed to.

You seem to keep thinking that raising insurance for smokers is ok, but raising insurance for "inherited" diseases is not. Who do you think pays for costs associated with "inherited" diseases? What if every single person in US stoped smoking, and the rates for those with inherited diseases stay the same. Who will they be picking on to make up the costs difference? You have a classic case of "If it doesn't affect me, and I don't like what they are doing anyway, I don't mind" Guess what, it's a step at a time with government. Once the extra money collected from smokers to pay for their and OTHERS problems is not enough, they will be coming after you, claming the same thing you are claiming right now. That people who were born or developed a condition because of genetics, shouldn't be paying, they couldn't help it, and therefore it will be YOUR problem to pick up the tab, just like they are trying to make it the smokers problem now.

Also keep in mind, that they ALREADY taxed the smokers for just the very reason that they are increasing the rates on them now. Where did that money go you ask? Into the botomless pit of beurocracy. So NO, it's NOT ok to raise the rates on smokers WITHOUT raising the rates on EVERY OTHER PROBLEM CASES TOO.

[Soback]

Let me give you an example that you might understand.

Here's a situation. Lets say we have two obese pepole. One is obese by choice, or more like lack of self control. Bad eating habits, constantly gourges on fast food, doesn't excercise, ect... The second is obese because of a thyroid condition, messed up metabolism, ect... Then there's a myrriad of other people with other problems.

Well, the fast food industry recognizes a growing problem and introduces an obesity fee. When an overweight person orders fast food, they have to pay an extra buck for the future costs associated with treating them. This is kinda like when they introduced an extra tax on cigarettes in New York, saying the income from these taxes will offset costs associted with treating smokers.

Then, on top of if, one day, the insurance company comes out and says that all obese people who do not have a thyroid condition, and are obese due to bad eating habits and lack of excercise will have to pay double for their rates, that's in addition to that extra buck they had to pay each time with their burger, the same buck that was supposedly going to offset the same costs the insurance companies are complaining about. Does the government drop that special tax and re-fund the money, of course not, don't be silly. Now not only do you pay that special tax, all the while wondering where that money is going, but also the higher insurance premiums. Sounds fair right? I mean those people are obese due to their own choice, their own fault, their own lifestyle. They develop problems because of that life style, and therefore cost more than a regular patient. However, people with an obese condition, that are obese due to genetic dissorder, do not have to pay those higher rates. Why? They cost just as much to treat, have the same if not worse problems, and unlike the obese by choice group that can correct their problem and end up costing less, these people will always cost more. Who do you think is picking up the difference in their premiums? If they both cost the same to treat, but one pays more. Well, the answer is, it's either the obese by choice guy that pays twice as much, or you the tax payer. You see, money doesn't appear out of thin air to make up the difference, someone has to pay.

So. Fast forward. Now all the obese by choice people have corrected their problem and don't have to pay the higher premiums anymore. The other ones, the ones with genetic dissorder, however, still have the higher costs associated with treating them. BUT since you seem to think it's unfair to raise the premiums on them because they have the condition due to no fault of their own, WHO do you suggest pays the costs now? The obese by choice people are not there to pick up the difference anymore. Who do you think the insurance companies are eyeing now. It would be politically incorrect to raise the rates on the ones with inherited diseases, YOU however, the one with no major problems, hey, you are good, you are healthy, you can work, so YOU pay for them. After all, it's not their fault. So here you are, stuck in a guilt trap and paying higher premiums to make up the costs difference. You still need that insurance for your yearly check ups and in case of an accident. The thing is, you most likely won't even know and never wonder why you, the one that only sees a hospital once a year during his annual, is paying the same as the guy who is 300 pounds and is there 4 times a year, and eventually a corinary bypass or a heart transplant. It's only fair that you pay for that, right? I mean he was born this way.

That's why raising the insurance premiums for tobaco users is ok ONLY if you raise the insurance for others proportionatly to what the chances for their conditions being a problem are and costs associated with their condition. If you force one group, like smokers in this case, carry the burden that is not theirs, a time will come when that burden will be passed on to you. And if you want to spend your money carring for your next door neighbor with diabetes, his kids with astma and an obese wife, that's fine by me, I however, would rather spend my money on my family instead of being forced to spend it on someone whos problems are not my fault nor are my concern.

[ 02-20-2006, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

[Dave Peterson]

That's quite a story there. I applaud you.

Alright, I finally understand the point you're trying to make here; I see what you are trying to say.

Yeah... this has nothing to do with money (except for the tax part of course)- just so you know. Those taxes that smokers pay...they arent there to pay for a future medical bill. And the taxes you are paying now aren't being stocked up to pay for other people who are diabetics. Our money goes to other critical things in society (minus that stolen in scandals )

And do you want to know who pays for those people who have genetic problems they inherit- THEY do. Or their family or someone- but not YOU, or the taxpayers. And if there is some fine print somewhere that explains how are money is going towards that, then that is seriously messed up but I'm fairly sure it isnt. I mean, how much are those people's medical costs anyways- even if we did pay for them, it would be like 2 cents per taxpayer. I dropped twice that much on the ground earlier and I didnt even bother to pick it up. So dont tell me we are paying some great price for them, which I'm sure we arent anyways.

Do you know the REAL reason they have taxes on smokers and the reason they could tax people with problems due to their own lifestyle? Its not to make up for any cost. The real reason, like I already stated, is because the government is trying to eliminate or reduce the number of smokers. I dont think there is anything wrong to that (but thats just my opinion.)

I stick to the fact that people who cannot control their problems should not have to pay extra on anything when they already have to pay for a high medical bill, etc. because of that problem. Those people are no different from us, and its US, the people who arent medically at risk, who are making the decisions like smoking and getting overweight, who are making up 90%majority of the government's medical budget. So pick and choose: if you are correct about us paying for all those people who have problems, would you rather pay a small amount for those who rightfully deserve it, or pay a hell of a lot more for the rest of them by getting rid of the taxes on the people who are causing that money to be spent.

And from now on, lets stay on the subject of smoking taxes and not obesity.

[Soback]

Here's the REAL reason for the taxes. If you believe it's to force people to quit, you are deluting yourself.

"And while New York lawmakers say such tax hikes are needed to pay for important government programs, they also say they hope higher cigarette prices will encourage people to quit using tobacco ÔÇô especially since smoking in New York state accounts for $3 billion a year in direct health-care costs."

Those idiot politicians are contradicting themselfs. While they adming that such tax hikes are needed to pay for their fricking programs, they also want people to quit. Do you know why the quitting line is a lie? Because if it meant that people would quit, they simply would NOT want to tax them to the point of quiting, because then they wouldn't have the money to pay for their programs. What they do want to do, is tax them to the top, if revenue drops off, they will decrease the tax, and keep varrying it such as to collect the highest that they can. Oh, and by the way, those 3 billion in direct costs that smokers cause. You think that is payed out of those same taxes that they collect from smokers?

http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2002/09/15/onssin.htm

"Yet, fewer smokers means less cash for state coffers.

For example, records from the state Comptroller's Office show that between April of this year, when the $1.50-per-pack tax went into effect, and July, cigarette and tobacco taxes generated $180 million for the state's general fund.

But in 1999, when the state's cigarette tax was 56 cents per pack, cigarette and tobacco product taxes during the same period generated $230 million.

"This means there's fewer people smoking fewer cigarettes,'' said Blair Horner of the New York Public Interest Research Group, which often lobbies against the tobacco industry. "In terms of public policy, this is a good thing."

--- Um, no. What that means is that there's more people buying cigarettes over the internet. To avoid their taxes.

" Calvin doesn't buy it.

"Anyone who claims there's been a large-scale quitting on the part of smokers is mistaken," he said. "These formulas may be valid in a captive population where all these smokers are forced to pay the higher tax. But New York state doesn't have a captive population. We have a cigarette-tax sieve.''

New York smokers just take their business elsewhere, he said."

And another thing. If you try claiming that:

Posted by Black Ghost:

"Yeah... this has nothing to do with money (except for the tax part of course)- just so you know. Those taxes that smokers pay...they arent there to pay for a future medical bill."

--- Here, knowledge first.

"Statewide, the first cigarette tax hike came in December 1999, when Gov. George Pataki and the state's legislative leaders agreed to a three-year, $9 billion health-care deal that ÔÇô among other things ÔÇô expanded coverage to uninsured New Yorkers.

The cornerstone of the legislation, known as the Health Care Reform Act, was a 55-cents-per-pack cigarette tax increase that lawmakers estimated would generate $400 million annually.

Then, when Pataki and the Legislature reconvened for the 2002 legislative session in January, they set their sights on smokers once again.

As part of a politically popular $3.5 billion agreement providing multi-year pay raises to hospital workers, lawmakers raised cigarette taxes an additional 39 cents per pack. That hike, which went into effect April 1, is expected to generate $283 million per year."

Posted by Black Ghost:

"I mean, how much are those people's medical costs anyways- even if we did pay for them, it would be like 2 cents per taxpayer. I dropped twice that much on the ground earlier and I didnt even bother to pick it up. So dont tell me we are paying some great price for them, which I'm sure we arent anyways."

----- I don't care if two cents or half a cent. I DO NOT WANT TO PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSES LIVING. You seem to have a hard time understanding what freedom is.

Posted by Black Ghost:

"Do you know the REAL reason they have taxes on smokers and the reason they could tax people with problems due to their own lifestyle? Its not to make up for any cost."

----- If you believe that, then explain to me why a smoker that doesn't have lung cancer has to pay MORE for insurance than a diabetic or an obese guy that is having a corinary. You saying that the later two do not cost the industry more? Of course they do. But if they don't pay more, someone has to. You do know math, right? So, lets do this in a very simple way. Lets say the expense by the insurance industry is 100 bucks a year. And there's 20 people participating. Now 5 out of them have obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and other conditions. They require constant hospital visits, check ups and medication. Other 5 are smokers, 2 of which have cancer. And other 10 are healthy. To collect 100 bucks from 20 people, theoretically each one of them would pay 5 a year. Well, that's not how it works. The 10 healthy ones pay 3 bucks. That totals up to 30 with 70 left to collect. The 5 with problems pay 4 bucks, that totals up to 20, plus 30 from the healthy ones, leaves 50 to collect, and the 5 smokers pay 10 each.

Who costs the industry more, the smokers, two of which are healthy mind you, or the 5 with problems? Who is picking up the tab for the ones with prblems? AND THE BIG ONE, Since, like you claim, the ones with problems shouldn't pay more because their problems are not their fault. If the smokers quit smoking, WHO IS GOING TO BE PICKING UP THE TAB NEXT? Of course it's going to be YOU, the healthy one. Now, spread out the costs between 15 healthy and 5 sick, and it's not that big, BUT the fact remains, that I would rather use anything extra I have on MY family, rather than be paying for yours. If you are forcing me to pay for someone else, it's called legislative slavery. Research that and you will understand.

Taxes started out at 3% and look where they have blown up to now. Then it was special temporary taxes that ended up being anything but temporary. Like the special telecomunications tax that was introduced to pay for the Spanish war, YOU ARE STILL PAYING FOR THAT WAR. It was never recinded. It's ignorants that don't know how the government is raping them, that are the reason the rest of us are losing our freedoms. Then it's fees, like the parks fees. The same parks that are supposed to have been paid for with our taxes, now you go there, and you have to pay more. Kinda like the introduced a dog fee at the lake I go to. I asked them about it, and it ended up being that they just wanted more money and had to come up with SOMETHING to collect fees on. Next it will the fishing pole fee. Couple of years ago it was special taxes on cigarettes, in addition to already existent taxes. That was in New York. Today it's higher insurance premiums, for EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS THAT THOSE SPECIAL TAXES WERE COLLECTED FOR.

So, if you don't mind paying those two cents for someone else. Then go ahead and pay. But guess what, don't be forcing me to pay, no matter how little or a lot. I live in United States of America. It used to be the land of the free. It's none of your bussiness how I live my life, what I do in my home, or with my body. I pay for my lifestyle. You should heed the same advice, as you don't want me meddling in your life, just like I don't want you meddling in mine. Therefore I shouldn't be paying for others diseases through my higher insurance rates, just because I smoke. How do I know that I am paying for someone else. When you raise the rates on a guy that costs the industry $10,000 a year, just because he smokes, yet you keep the rates the same for a guy that costs $100,000 a year because "his condition is not his fault". Guess what, it doesn't take a genious to figure out that you are forcing the first guy to pick up the tab and pay for the second.

[Dave Peterson]

Oh stop grumbling on about paying for other people. Your argument becomes more and more contradictory every time you try to make a comeback. Just admit you are wrong.

You still never provided me with evidence that we pay for them at all I was just saying how little it would be if we did. I bet that hundreds of dollars of your taxes go to things you dont like or care about but are equally important to society. If we really do have to pay anything at all for anyones

[Dave Peterson]

(From abrupt cut off caused by inhaling of cigarette fumes)....

If we really do have to pay anything at all for anyone else's health problems(Id like a link to the document that explains that), then you should rethink your argument. They would be paying for YOU if you were in thier situation.

And sure, cigarettes generate a massive income for the government and many politicians would not want to lose smokers, but you cant place all your faith in those people. There are, beleive it or not, politicians who do have their priorities sorted out straight and would take the risk of losing income to making society better. Smoking is a SERIOUS ISSUE, its not some trivial little thing where the goverment makes money from at their own whim. There are reasons other than generating income that are for this and ive already stated them whether you choose to ignore them or not.

Ive already gone over all the facts. You're not going to ever change them so either you accept it or spend the rest of you life yelling at walls with the rest of the minority beleiving our government is unfair for putting taxes on smokers.

---You dont smoke so this whole issue doesnt directly affect you directly, but you beleive that if it is this now, then it'll be something more absurd later. Isnt that the idea you are stating here? You have a good point, but you seem to place to little faith in our democracy. The government may be looking for money, but something good may come from their decisions. Both of us though, would never support any radical change to the way we live if it was unfair. Believe me, if these taxes are radical decisions to you, you wouldn't believe the stuff that goes on in other countries, even major powers in Europe. If the government ever started making taxes and laws that werent justified, America would have to have become a dictatorship and lets not hope we have that planned in the future.

Whether or not you choose to beleive this though is your choice. You wont convince me to change my mind and if I cant change yours either than we would appear to be at a draw. I dont beleive that anything would come from any more arguing here. But keep in mind what I said just as I will to your ideas.

[Soback]

The fact stands. Whether you like it or not, the Constitution guarantees me freedom from slavery. Being forced to pay for you, your whole bill, a portion, a little or a lot, is considered slavery, for only a slave does not get to keep a product of his labors.

The fact stands. Whether you like it or not, the Constitution guarantees me the rights to Freedom and Pursuit of Happiness. And as it stands, the person is free to smoke if that makes him happy.

The fact stands. Simple math shows that if persons A medical costs are 50 thousand a year and his medical premiums are 1,200 a year, but persons B medical costs are 10,000 a year, but his medical premiums are 1,800 a year. Then person B is paying for person A's higher medical costs. Person A being an obese diabetic, person B being a smoker.

Combining all of the facts above. We can conclude that regardless of your likes or disslikes of smokers. Regardless of your opinion of whether people born with inherited conditions should pay for their medical costs. We can conclude that by charging the smokers higher insurance premiums, without increasing those same premiums for other at risk customers, the industry is putting on smokers the burden of other peoples medical costs. Especially on those smokers that haven't developed any adverse conditions due to smoking. The industry is therefore, working on a socialistic model of singling out and taking from one group to pay for the benefits of another. Socialism is slavery. Slavery is UnConstitutional. As such, this WILL be taken to court, and when the evidence comes up that smokers are paying higher fees, while people with other medical conditions that carry higher treatment costs pay less, it will be ruled un-constitutional to have smokers pick up the higher costs of other patients. Just like it is un-constitutional to be forcing me to pay for someone elses wellfare.

[Dave Peterson]

I hate to say it but you are beginning to sound like Nomad. Slavery? If you want to learn about slavery maybe you would care to visit some of those little third-world countries out of the way of legal government. Paying to help others even if you don't beleive in why you are doing it is not in the definition of slavery- but entirely the opposite. I dont know why you continue to insist you are unjustly pouring your profits into paying for others- there is no evidence of this! I certainly doubt that your taxes are at this moment paying for someone's health bill! (Unless of course they are the people who can't pay for it because they are in poverty... it would be selfish not to help those people.)

Oh sure, you or anyone has the right to smoke or do whatever with their life- as you said it is part of the Constitution. Hell, for all I care you can go to Cuba and smoke out all their warehouses- because it IS your choice. But when those choices interfere with others, then you are expected to have some form of retribution. Heres a famous qoute: "One ill turn deserves another." Means if you make a bad choice you get whats coming for you eventually. Im not saying you do any of this but if you think it is unjust for the government to regulate the taxes on smoking, you should think of the one's who will ultimately pay for your problem- whether in money of their own life. It happens every day and it is something that should be put an end too. If you want to take all the rest of the people with diabetes and do the same with them, so be it. I'd like to see you explain that case in a court.

Heres a little view of life and government many great leaders came to understand: some people are too stupid to make good decisions for themselves and the others effected by their decisions, so those who are right must step in and make those decisions for them. Its happened in history a thousand times. Sometims for good, sometimes for bad. This is one of those times that is good. Live with it.

And sure it may seem unfair and unjust to be putting heavy burdens on smokers, but in the end the benefits will outweigh the consequences.

if you think America is forcing slavery on this issue, then I am sorry you feel that way, but no one else does so it looks like majority rules.

[Soback]

You keep contradicting yourself.

First you say that we are not paying for anyones health care. Then you say that we are paying for smokers health care.

Which one is it?

As far as for proof. I already gave you one. It's simple math. Don't know why you seem unable to figure it out. I even do the additions and subtractions. Let me try again.

Person A costs 50,000 a year in health bills. He has diabetes with high blood pressure thrown in. Person B costs 10,000 a year. He smokes, but does not have cancer. Person A pays $150 a month. Person B pays $250 a month. You do see that person B pays $100 more a month than person A, right? You do see, however, that person A costs the industry more. Which SHOULD lead you to a logical conslusion that person B is being singled out due to the the unpopular opinion of smokers and that $100 more a month that he pays DOES NOT go towards his health care costs, he costs less. Instead it goes towards covering the difference between HIS LOWER costs and the person A's HIGHER COSTS.

And third. Why should I pay health care costs for someone who can't afford it? Why should the money that I have worked for, and earned, be taken from me, and go towards paying for someone elses living? You do know what slavery is, right? You do know that slaves were made to work, yet didn't get to keep what they have earned. Why don't you read up on legislative slavery. When you gain some knowledge on such things, then you can try and give me a logical argument as to why I should be paying health care costs for another, instead of trying to argue it with "they can't afford it, and not paying for them is just selfish". It's the same way you are trying to argue increasing costs on smokers, but leaving the costs on other problem categories the same, "it's for the best, smoking is bad, and we don't like it". What a shame that people born in the United States, don't even know how, why, and on what principles this country was founded, and don't even bother to learn the Constitution and try saying such things as "the rights of people born with inherited disease are protected by the Constitution, and they shouldn't pay higher health care premium costs, since it's not their fault". Which leaves WHOM to pay for their higher bills? You keep saying that nobody pays. Why don't you use logic instead, and try to understand, that if the costs are not covered, then the products and services can not be rendered. Money, products, services, NONE of those things appear out of thin air, so SOMEBODY HAS to pay. If the ones who actually require more medical care don't pay more, then WE DO. Hope that was simple enough.

If you like national health care, wellfare, and other social programs where 70% of your paycheck goes to pay for everyone else. May I suggest a move to Canada or Europe. I however, value my own skills, knowledge and abilities. And as such, knowing my own worth, I do not need a crutch of "if you were in their position, they would be paying for you". I earn my own money, and expect others to do the same, instead of hoping to get on other peoples backs for a free ride. Like in this case, the smokers backs, trying to make them pick up the costs for others problem cases.

[Dave Peterson]

Contradictory eh? You might look over your own posts and change your opinion.

First of all, you were the one that originally stated we pay for other people's health bills so I was assuming you were correct because I dont have the time to go looking that up for myself. Maybe you could check that one out so we can get this strait.

I dont think your little person A/B thing really fits into reality. Sure, the guy who has diabeates as you like to use might cost more (which might not be true in real life but to go along with your model we'll say he does) than the smoker, but that is innacurate data. Two points: A) That smoker may not be costing as much now, be he more than likely will be later on, which is going to cost more than the other guy in the future. B)If smoking was eliminated, WE OR THE INDUSTRY WOULDN'T BE PAYING FOR THOSE SMOKERS AT ALL!!! Since you are the one complaining about paying for other people, that would be a good start am I right? And look, that also gets rid of smoking. Kills two birds with one stone. See my point. True, you wouldn't be wanting to pay for the diabetic at all, but at least it isnt his fault. The smoker on the other hand did have a choice and now you are paying for him; maybe not as much but it's taking unneccesart $$$ from your taxes to pay for him. You gotta see what Im trying to tell you!

The point I made about the poor people wasnt meant as another factor in this, they are only a small fraction of the population so lets leave them out of this.

Slavery? Hmm... do you live in the South by chance, ye know, I hear there're a few radicals down there that still run plantations...

Oh, well it appears you live in California, my bad. Never heard of slavery down there, must be a new thing.

Thats the thing with Americans these days- we're all getting too greedy and self-centered...we always want more! One little thing goes bad for us and we blame the government. We find out we pay a small fraction of our taxes and we call slavery! MY GOD, WILL YOU STOP WITH THIS SLAVERY THING! Im gunna go find a real slave in Africa, bring him back, show him all you've got and ask him if you'd like to trade places!

Anyways, you can not like the fact that some small fraction of our tax money we'd already be paying anyways- is going to pay for someone else, but that changes nothing. I dont say I support it, maybe just because I havent really looked into it that much, but your opinion wont make those payments go away.

Dont like what I said about inherited diseases?

First of all, most of those people can pay for themselves and if not, it's just helping a friend in need. Dont you go to church or anything? If you had one of those inherited diseases and had to pay monumentous sums just for yourself, would you like to have someone come and stick another little bill in you face just because part of your health is being paid for by others? Maybe, but I dont think I would. Then let's go to the smoker, who suddenly has to pay that bill because of what he did. Okay, he's going to be mad, but it was his choice in the first place and its not like he's paying for any costs except the cigarettes. That's like going out every day and going on a shopping spree, its YOUR CHOICE if you want to smoke. The other guy doesnt have the benefit of just saying "I gotta pay high bills, maybe I should get rid of my disease." --That's the difference.

Is 70% of your paycheck really going to pay for other people? God, you must live in like a cardboard box if you are losing money at that rate. Im guessing you dont.

[Soback]

You seem to have read the sentence which contained the 70% tax quote, but completly missed the next sentence which implied that those 70% taxes exist in Europe and Canada, both of which comprise of socialistic governments. And since you don't seem to be aware of it, in US, the maximum Federal tax rate is 35%, then you add on top of it the maximum state tax (differs per state, but usually 15%) of 15%, that's 50%, THEN you add social security, about 7%, medicare 3%, and dissability 2%, that adds up to 62%. Now, if you are making 100,000 a year, your take home ammounts to $48,000. That's BULL. You might go into the rethoric about write offs, deductions, ect... that's all separate however, and varies from person to person and their individual situation, the FACT remains that the base tax is 62%. That means that out of 365 days, I work 226 days just to pay my taxes. You want to pile government imposed fees on top of that too? Now, I would understand it if that money was spend to benefit me. Like building a library, or a park, road construction, municipalities, defense, law, ect....THAT'S what taxes are supposed to be spend for, for things that PRIMARILY benefit those who pay them. HOWEVER when they are spend on things such as wellfare, medicare, social security, food stamps, those things primary benefit only the select people who under most circumstances DO NOT PAY TAXES, and their benefit to me is SECONDARY if not tritriary. That means I am working and paying for someone elses benefit WITHOUT HAVING A SAY. You might try squeezing in some poor argument how I can vote my say, while you know perfectly well that that's BS. You should study the history of the country you live in, and know what taxation without representation means, and what our founding people did about it, and what was that paper they wrote to make sure such a thing would never happen again.

Since you don't seem to be familiar with legislative slavery, and how we have become unsuspecting, unprotesting slaves. Here's some links with that information.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates101.html

http://www.mises.org/story/410

http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates17.html

"The 13th Amendment makes it very clear that we cannot legally or Constitutionally be forced into involuntary servitude.

As such, we maintain that a human being has an inalienable right to own 100 % of Person and 100% of Labor, including control over how the fruits of his actions are dispensed. A human being has an inalienable right to control the compensation for his labor while in the act of any service in the marketplace ÔÇô e.g., digging ditches, flipping burgers, word-processing documents for a company, programming computers, preparing court cases, performing surgery, preaching sermons, or writing novels.

A forcible direct tax on the labor of a human being is in violation of this right as stated in the 13th Amendment. If we work 40 hours a week, and another entity forcibly conscripts 25 % of our compensation, then we argue that we have been forced into involuntary servitude ÔÇô slavery ÔÇô for 10 of those 40 hours, and we were free for the other 30. If we could freely choose to work just the 30 hours and decline to work the 10 hours, then our wills would not be violated and the 13th Amendment would be honored."

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/pd041399c.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/52.html

http://www.semperliber.org/slavery.htm

Why don't you read, and then tell if it's legal to FORCE me to pay taxes for wellfare, medicare, social security, food stamps, or any other program that primarily benefits someone else rather than the person who paid those taxes.

http://antislavery.freeservers.com/#1

"Summary - A Quick Look At The Main Idea

This is also a Constitutional Argument

All wealth is labor in a stored format.

The money you earn is your labor in a stored format. Your earnings have been called 'income', but earned money is actually compensation for your time and mental and or physical labor.

When the government taxes your money/labor, then distributes your money/labor to people via government hand out programs (welfare), the government is making you work for those people who are receiving the handouts. This is servitude.

Virtually all government money comes from taxation. All government handout programs, such as Food Stamps or Medicare, require tax money in order to operate. Government handouts are government run socialism. All government social programs are taxpayer servitude.

If you don't like being forced to work for people via government handouts, then government hand out programs are putting you into involuntary servitude.

Involuntary servitude is illegal in the U.S.A. and is specifically forbidden by the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

In the long standing Supreme Court case Boyd v. United States Volume 116 U.S. Reports page 616 February 1, 1886, the Court noted that "constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. . . . It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." At p. 635. The court went on to say that what may not be done directly, may not be done indirectly through legislative fiat. In other words, something which cannot be done directly like involuntary servitude, cannot be done indirectly by creating government programs (legislative fiat) which make people involuntarily serve.

Charities, that only get money from donations, are voluntarily servitude because the labor/money is voluntarily given. Charity is only charity when it is given voluntarily.

Over half of the Federal budget is socialism. Income taxes are only about 50% of the money the Federal government takes in each year, therefore; all of your income taxes can be considered involuntary servitude. You can get a feel for how much of your labor is involuntary servitude by looking at the amount of income taxes you pay.

The Supreme Court will only rule on cases which are brought before the court. This case must be argued to the Supreme Court in order rectify the situation, which has existed since the year 1933. If nobody stands up and formally complains about being an involuntary servant, then the government can assume we are serving voluntarily. The only thing that can stop us from freeing ourselves, is saying it can't be done and then failing to act. We owe it to our children to pass on the freedom that so many have died for.

The definition of Taxpayer Slavery cannot yet be found in the dictionary because it is a new and revolutionary, as well as accurate, way of describing government run socialism. Taxpayer Slavery is defined in the preface section of this web page."

---------------------------------

Alright. NOW, seems like we have gotten the "it's ok to force citizens to pick up the tab for those with inherited diseases out of the way". Next step is, why don't you go ahead, and try to justify increasing the premium costs on smokers, even those without any medical problems, BUT, keeping the premiums for people with medical problems the same. How are you going to justify that a person who costs less per year to treat, pays MORE than a person that costs ten times as much.

Explain away. And please, do so with factual arguments, leave the negative feelings about smokers at the door. Lets have an intelligent LOGICAL discussion.

[ 02-27-2006, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Soback ]

[Dave Peterson]

Very well, we shall deal this out the old fashioned way. Lets start at the top.

-------------------------------------------------

------"You seem to have read the sentence which contained the 70% tax quote, but completly missed the next sentence which implied that those 70% taxes exist in Europe and Canada..."

---You know I was kidding, (even though I was confused when I read that statement). Makes sense now. My apolgies, I read it wrong.

-------------------------------------------------

Ok, now your knowledgeable argument strays off task a bit. I dont think that we should start another war about whether taxes are right or wrong or if we have to pay too much because that's a different issue. (By the way Im not going to defend the governemt there anyways what you said about all that is true) But you are only paying a small amount for the medical part anyways (Which is what we were talking about)--and you have been paying it for as long as you have been paying taxes so its obviously nothing new. Of course you dont WANT to pay for other people who cant or whatever- that is unfair, right? You wouldn't be benefiting, true? And you would also be giving away (no matter the amount) part of your salary for someone else. Bogus!

....Or is it?

Fair enough, Im sometimes not happy about those things as well, but when you think about it, you could end up in the same situation. What you pay for in the "welfare, personal health, etc..." category goes to all kinds of people and things. Where did a lot of Hurricane Katrina relief come from? And the people in Iraq and Afghanistan weve been helping, what about the money for that? You guessed it, that same place. True those are some of those out-of-the ordinaries, but no one really is just sitting out there feeding of your tax money like life support. (With a few exceptions). Do you know that your tax money also goes to pay for feeding people in prisons and giving them healthcare? It might sound crazy that chain-gangs are being fed by your taxes, but no matter what you think about it, they cant take those taxes away. Its the same for this issue, no one likes to pay taxes... and everyone gets mad when they see their own money funding something we dont like or even care about, but we cant change it. Im afraid I cant help you on that one. I still wouldnt call it slavery though. Even tax slavery.

------------------------------------------------

Here is you next statement: "A forcible direct tax on the labor of a human being is in violation of this right as stated in the 13th Amendment..." Fair enough, but you arent being taxed on labor, you are being taxed on wages.

--"If we work 40 hours a week, and another entity forcibly conscripts 25 % of our compensation, then we argue that we have been forced into involuntary servitude ÔÇô slavery ÔÇô for 10 of those 40 hours, and we were free for the other 30. If we could freely choose to work just the 30 hours and decline to work the 10 hours, then our wills would not be violated and the 13th Amendment would be honored."

-Okay, lets try that: consider if everyone had that view and only worked the amount of time that they directly recieved their own income. First of all, most buissinesses would fail-but thats besides the point... ...Okay so now we have 100 million people who get to keep 100% of the money they earn- hour to dollar. Suddenly though, there is a car accident and the entire intersection is hypothetically destroyed. Who's going to fix it now? Oops, the government has no money, it used it all paying for you. Guess the road stays broken. Then we got all those poor road workers out of a jobs cuz they cant get paid by the government.... See where Im going? That 25% that is deducted from your income isnt being flushed down the toilet- it goes to benefit you in ways you might not even realize. It also goes to benefit others. Fixing that road would allow Everyone to drive on it. See? So taxes are important, and even those little welfare/whatever ones go somewhere that eventually benefits society at large.

---------------------------------------------

"Why don't you read, and then tell if it's legal to FORCE me to pay taxes for wellfare, medicare, social security, food stamps, or any other program that primarily benefits someone else rather than the person who paid those taxes..."

-Perfectly legal. Perfectly what you want to be paying for- not neccessarily. But as I said already, that medicare money and all the rest goes to a wide variety of people and places that is important to keeping this society running. And if you do disagree with it, then I dont know what to say because it really isnt such a huge deal to me anyways. Out of the 6% of the taxes that go towards that, only about 2 or 1% fall into the category of "unjustly spent" and that number really isnt big. And its not enough to be called servitude.

------------------------------------------------

"Alright. NOW, seems like we have gotten the "it's ok to force citizens to pick up the tab for those with inherited diseases out of the way". Next step is, why don't you go ahead, and try to justify increasing the premium costs on smokers, even those without any medical problems, BUT, keeping the premiums for people with medical problems the same. How are you going to justify that a person who costs less per year to treat, pays MORE than a person that costs ten times as much."

---Ok Im glad weve gotten somewhere. How to justify why a smoker pays more than a guy who costs 10x more. Um, because he smokes! You see, there's more to this whole thing than just leveling out the money and all that between whos paying what and how much. Why did we get rid and ban drugs in this country? The same reason we are doing this now. And the government is lessening your taxes by making smokers pay more. If that isnt reason enough for smokers to quit, then they will keep adding more, so we get more money that the government needs AND we can stop the smoking once and for all so we can eventually ban it and end it alltogether and at the same time get some cash. You dont have to agree with it (though it is logical), but that is just what the government's thoughts are. Im not making this up as my own opinion just to make a point so dont come back and say I am just using my prejudice against smokers to make a case.

[Soback]

You have no case to ruin. Your statment of "Why should smokers pay more, even though they cost less. Because they smoke!." wouldn't even go over with a 6 year old.

And, the "1% unjustly spend is not enough to be called servitude", is in the same category as pretty much all of your other statements. They hold no water. It's like saying that if 11hours and 59 minutes you are forced to work for someone else, and get no benefits from it, is not considered servitude, BUT if you work 12 hours and 1 minute, THEN it's servitude.

The fact that wellfare, social security, medicare, food stamps is nothing new, doesn't mean that it's ok. You keep saying that I should pay because I could end up in the same situation. Let me clue you in. Even if I did end up in the same situation, I AM NOT ENTITLED TO OTHER PEOPLES MONEY. Get that entitlement mentality out of this thread. You can't back it up with facts, all you got is feelings on how those people are poor, and that it could be me. It STILL is not an excuse to take my money and give it to them. As far as help to Katrina goes, it's complete and utter BS. Bush and all the politicians that wasted my money on that are nothing more than a bunch of dung bags. Those who suffered from Katrina should've been taken care of strictly by donations, or from their insurance. If I were to have a problem, such as my home being damaged because of a mudslide, earthquake, or whatever else, would the government pay for it? If the other homes on the block ended up ok, guess what I would get from the government, ZERO. So don't be telling me that I have to pay for someone elses problems when they have been stupid and either didn't insure their place, or didn't evacuate their things when they have had A WEEK notice. It's STILL not my problem. Oh, and by the way, we have those lazzy Katrina evacuees here in Bay Area. A lot of them STILL haven't found a job, and the liberal tv news, and news papers were screaming how FEMA is ending their hotel, food, expenses subsidies. That's almost HALF A YEAR LATER. If forcing me to pay for their living is not survitude, then what is.

What you need to understand, is it's NOT a matter of likes or dislikes of where my taxes are going, but rather if it benefits the taxpayer, or is it at the expense of the taxpayer for someone elses benefit. Think about this statement for a bit, there's a difference there.

And, if you still think that spending my taxes for the direct benefit of my neighbor is legal. Then you haven't read the links I have posted, and haven't distinguished the difference of "Benefits the taxpayer" vs. "Benefits the non-taxpayer at taxpayers expense". Roads, benefit the taxpayer, police benefit taxpayer, parks benefit the taxpayer, wellfare benefits the person that recieves it, so do other socialist programs such as medicare, social security, food stamps, ect... ALL of those programs should be handled STRICTLY by charity. There is no difference between the government taking $100 bucks from me and giving it to a guy that lives a mile away, without a job, and that same guy robbing me on the street. It doesn't benefit me, it benefits him, and it's MY labor that produced that money.

Explain how bussineses would fail if people got to keep 100% of their income? Do bussinesses run on taxes, or on profits? In socialism "businesses" DO fail when people get to keep their paychecks. Because you can't call those "businesses" businesses, they are NOT, they are just government run programs. That's another reason out of thousands why in socialism taxes approach 70%.

So, to get back on track.

Posted by Black Ghost

"How to justify why a smoker pays more than a guy who costs 10x more. Um, because he smokes! You see, there's more to this whole thing than just leveling out the money and all that between whos paying what and how much."

----- See, that's where you just completly faltered in your wish to argue the points of why smokers should pay more. Insurance is BUSINESS. Businesses run on PROFITS. Those that lose money, go out of business. So, NO, there isn't much more to insurance than money. It can't run on good wishes. So, you need to come up with a better way to argue your point, instead of blurting out "He pays more, even though he costs less. Because he smokes" and then going on to explain how smoking is bad.

What are you going to do when the government decides it doesn't like you drinking soda. You do know that 4 years ago they were trying to put a special "child obesity" tax on soda. So, even if you are not obese, and just want a can of cold Coke, you would still have to pay a higher tax. What they are doing to smokers is the same thing. It's ILLEGAL. The only reason the population doesn't rise up and say enough, is because those who do not smoke, do not care. And then on top of it, there are others, like you, who say "Smoking is bad, so higher taxes on them is good". Years from now, the government will try that special "child obesity" tax on soda. What will you be saying then. "I don't mind, it's only a cent"? It just means that you don't know the value of money and that you don't value your own labor. Want to be a slave to the sickest, the poorest, the most corrupt people in this country, go ahead. Do not force those who like their freedom to bow down and spend their time for the benefit of those sickest, poorest, and corrupt. One hour that I spend working for their benefit, is an hour I lose working on my home, or my motorcycle, or just relaxing and enjoying MY life. Why should I work for the sole benefit of them enjoying theirs. It's slavery, plain and simple.

[Dave Peterson]

Poorly said, perhaps, but I am inclined a six year old would side with me becuz little kids are scared of smokers.

Maybe that is bad reasoning, but there is, like I said, more behind it. Its not like you have so many facts supporting yourself. All you did was give me a bunch of links to some sites of people that hate taxes and some figures that are probably innacurate anyways. The real truth cannot be defined in numbers.

-------------------------------------------------

Here are some confusing things you said:

---------'It's like saying that if 11hours and 59 minutes you are forced to work for someone else, and get no benefits from it, is not considered servitude, BUT if you work 12 hours and 1 minute, THEN it's servitude. "

and then:

-----Explain how bussineses would fail if people got to keep 100% of their income? Do bussinesses run on taxes, or on profits? In socialism "businesses" DO fail when people get to keep their paychecks. Because you can't call those "businesses" businesses, they are NOT, they are just government run programs. That's another reason out of thousands why in socialism taxes approach 70%."

..........This is all essentially leading me to beleive you dont understand the value of taxation and our society. Not that anyone likes it, but nothing would function without them. Bussinesses would fail, everything would fall apart! Its very simple and obvious!

-------------------------------------------------

---"There is no difference between the government taking $100 bucks from me and giving it to a guy that lives a mile away, without a job, and that same guy robbing me on the street. It doesn't benefit me, it benefits him, and it's MY labor that produced that money."

---That seems reasonable, but you arent giving money to people that would rob you off the street. There are hundreds of organizations that redistribute that welfare tax money to safe children and people that are about to die. Even you mr moneybags could spare a dime for them. AND BELEIVE ME, THERE ARE SOME LAZY ASSES OUT THERE THAT DO MISUSE THIS BENEFIT AND LIVE OFF THE WELFARE TAXES AND THEY DESERVE NOTHING FROM US. I think those are the people you are talking about and you are right, they dont need anything and should receive nothing from our efforts. But for those who cannot help it, orphaned children, widows without any money, things like that should be covered partially. If they are feeding off that money and not trying to find a job, then they dont deserve it. And charity only works when people contribute to it and if everyone had your attitude then no one would be benefiting from it.

[Dave Peterson]

And I wasnt finished completely...

-----------------------------------------------

"Even if I did end up in the same situation, I AM NOT ENTITLED TO OTHER PEOPLES MONEY. Get that entitlement mentality out of this thread. You can't back it up with facts, all you got is feelings on how those people are poor, and that it could be me. It STILL is not an excuse to take my money and give it to them."

----It's not "entitlement". You are not entitled to other people's money, but indirectly your taxes go to paying for them, whether you like it or not. Taxes are routed into individual programs and organizations that redistribute them to those who need it.

-Here is the main point of social security, welfare, medicare, etc...: Takes a small amount of tax money (no great loss) from all taxpayers and uses it to help those who need it. I already explained who those people are in my last post.

-Why we pay them is a bit different: 1) So America does not look like a third world country. 2)To reduce death rate and crime rate for those we would be neglecting if we didnt 3) simply to help those people. There are probably other reasons too and this is good enough for most caring people. YOU SHOULDNT BE COMPLAING ABOUT THESE PROGRAMS ANYWAYS BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT WORSE THINGS THAT ARE DONE TO SPEND OUR TAX MONEY ANYWAYS! So lets stop argueing about paying for other people and get back on subject.

------------------------------------------------

"As far as help to Katrina goes, it's complete and utter BS. Bush and all the politicians that wasted my money on that are nothing more than a bunch of dung bags. Those who suffered from Katrina should've been taken care of strictly by donations, or from their insurance."

----Wow, Mr Logic and Reasoning... Nomad could have worded that better. You are either incredibly selfish or just plain stupid. You make all those educated arguments and then say something like that. First of all, Katrina was considered a national crisis. It was dam right for Bush and the others to spend as much money as was needed to help New Orleans, and even if you hate Bush and would say anything to get at him, you just sound like a fool saying he wasted our money. If he hadnt acted, all those people trapped in the dome would still be there- many of them dead. And dont say some bogus thing like " donations and insurance should have covered it" because you know that wouldnt have happened. And like i said before, if everyone was like you and just said "Well its not benefiting me to contribute to them", then there wouldnt be any donations at all.

-------------------------------------------------

"If I were to have a problem, such as my home being damaged because of a mudslide, earthquake, or whatever else, would the government pay for it? If the other homes on the block ended up ok, guess what I would get from the government, ZERO."

-----No wonder. You are the one arguing that the government SHOULDNT pay to help you in a crisis.

"If forcing me to pay for their living is not survitude, then what is."

----Listening to you rant on like you are being opressed by Adolf Hitler.

-------------------------------------------------

"What you need to understand, is it's NOT a matter of likes or dislikes of where my taxes are going, but rather if it benefits the taxpayer, or is it at the expense of the taxpayer for someone elses benefit."

----And it is also a matter of whether it benefits society at large. Because without that society you wouldnt have any money at all.

-------------------------------------------------

"See, that's where you just completly faltered in your wish to argue the points of why smokers should pay more. Insurance is BUSINESS. Businesses run on PROFITS."

---Yeah. I thought this was about taxes... I thought we got over the subject of insurance quite a while ago. Very well. Insurance IS profits. So if their smoker dies, they lose profits. True, I dont like the way insurance works these days but that is just the way it is.

-------------------------------------------------

"What are you going to do when the government decides it doesn't like you drinking soda. You do know that 4 years ago they were trying to put a special "child obesity" tax on soda. So, even if you are not obese, and just want a can of cold Coke, you would still have to pay a higher tax. What they are doing to smokers is the same thing. It's ILLEGAL."

----There is quite a difference between the two of these issues. Both are partially for government profit and for health reasons. But why do you think the soda tax didnt pass? Because it is illogical whereas a smoking tax is not. Why? Because soda cannot kill you, it cant kill others around you, and the "health" argument for the tax was a total failure. Im not even going to explain about smoking again.

------------------------------------------------

"The only reason the population doesn't rise up and say enough, is because those who do not smoke, do not care. And then on top of it, there are others, like you, who say "Smoking is bad, so higher taxes on them is good"."

---Hmmm... THEY DONT CARE?!! I think they do, but they wont speak up because they know they cant win against overwhelming evidence against smokers.

-------------------------------------------------

"Years from now, the government will try that special "child obesity" tax on soda. What will you be saying then. "I don't mind, it's only a cent"? It just means that you don't know the value of money and that you don't value your own labor. Want to be a slave to the sickest, the poorest, the most corrupt people in this country, go ahead. Do not force those who like their freedom to bow down and spend their time for the benefit of those sickest, poorest, and corrupt. One hour that I spend working for their benefit, is an hour I lose working on my home, or my motorcycle, or just relaxing and enjoying MY life. Why should I work for the sole benefit of them enjoying theirs. It's slavery, plain and simple."

----Oh your wrong again. Not that I am a big pop drinker, but I would stand up to that because ultimately there would be no gain for the government or the people. THIS kind of taxation would be useless because it would not effect people enough to make them stop drinking pop, which isnt even much of a health problem anyways. Now if someone drank like 5 cans a day and then got some illness I would expect INSURANCE to raise, but not taxes.

----It isnt the value of money that is the issue it is the use of it and how you got it. You arent bowing down to the lowlifes of this country, they arelooking up to you. Some people dont deserve you money, but a lot do. Its time to make a law so that our tax money only goes to those who truly need it, rather than getting rid of it altogether.

If wish to continue fighting facts. Go ahead. But you are getting nowhere and this is getting quite uninteresting. I suggest we stop posting here and just pretend this never happened. THis is turning into a massive waste of time for both of us. I suggest we just keep our own opinions on this subject and stop this pointless debate.

[LostInSpace]

This is what I'm talking about:

CNN/AP:Dana Reeve, who won worldwide admiration for her devotion to her "Superman" husband, Christopher Reeve, through his decade of near-total paralysis, has died of lung cancer. Dana Reeve wasn't a smoker but she announced in August that she had been diagnosed with lung cancer.

Like I've said, don't believe the government or any nanny propaganda about smoking. All the nannies around the world are probably cheesed off they can't attribute this cancer death to smoking. Cigarettes have gotten a bad rap because of the medical community and those nannies. You go to a doctor, you're diagnosed with cancer the first question they ask you is "do you smoke?". If you answer yes, "rejoice, we have a quick and easy cause!". If you answer no, "Duh! Ah to hell with it all there goes our agenda!".

But rest assured, I'm sure the nannies are going to scour her past to see if she was exposed to second hand smoke somewhere in her past instead of finding a real cause: Genetics. Stop being such sheeple.

The government should start employing the same propaganda technique they've use on smokers and start using it to combat the terrorist. It was just a month or so ago that the government announced that the terrorists are winning the propaganda war.

[Aperson]

People often erroneously say smoking causes cancer. What they actually mean is that it increases the chance of cancer. Everyone has a chance of dieing from cancer, however small, as cells DNA naturally mutates. Smoking increases that chance because it can increase the mutation rate which increases the chance of the mutation causing cancerous growth. So obviously genetics is apart of this but its certainly not the only factor (in the case of smokers, lifestyle choices greatly contribute).

You probably know this but you sound like your saying smoking has little to no contribution.

[Dave Peterson]

Smoking may not "cause" lung cancer or any of those other things, but the risk increase is so great that it might as well have. Its not just cancer. There is a whole load of things it can cause, and all of them are potentially fatal, hence 500,000 deaths a year due to smoking related cases and 4000 from secondhand. Thats pretty bad considering there were 3000 deaths in the Sept 11 attack and THAT was a national case, so this should be adressed as well.

[Soback]

Sure it does. And so does grilled meat, nickel, estrogen, progesterone, selenium sulfide (used in shampoos). According to WHO 35% of carcinogens are derived from food alone, and 30% come from smoking. You are more at risk of developing cancer when eating certain foods, rather than smoking.

http://www.tianxian.com/books/chap7-4.asp

So judging by your rationale, we should institute a special tax on people who eat steaks, and raise their insurance premiums.

When you make such silly statements as bussinesses would fail if they weren't taxed, we have to pay for others living if they can't help themselfs, and trying to throw that statistic of 4000 deaths a year due to second hand smoke. It just shows that you have no comprehension of how economy functions (in relation to taxation statement), and what exactly causes cancer (in your later statement). You keep repeating the same line "Smoking is bad", but what you fail to do is corelate and weave factual information into it.

Here's food for thought. How do you know that 1000 of those 4000 people didn't develop cancer because they went out to a steak place every Friday, or a certain food item that is a carcinogen wasn't a regular part of their diet. You see, it takes more than just throw out data that you have picked up from an unti-smoking, anti-tabaco, anti-big bussiness campaign.

[Soback]

Here's a little more. How many of those 4000 worked in an industry dealing with carcinogens.

Do you know how many things, chemicals, compounds, ect... are categorized as carcinogens?

If any of them were a plumber, painter, carpenter, mechanic, scientist, lab attendant, ect... thousands of other different professions. They could have developed cancer due to some other carcinogen.

But, like I have said. You are 5% MORE at risk of developing cancer, just from foods alone, as compared to smoking. So, numbers DO matter. If you just pitch your tent at the tobacco headquarters with a sign saying "Smoking is bad", "Special taxes on the smokers", "Higher insurance premiums for smokers", and your major anti smoking reason is cancer. Well, what does it say about how informed you are when you ignore the steak factory, paint making plant, or a lumber mill next door.

[Aperson]

I have a feeling that all carcinogens do not effect the body equally, but I may be wrong.

Oh and the way they figured out smoking was a significant contributing factor of lung cancer is that lots of people were smoking, then several decades later, the percentage of the population that had lung cancer rose in similar amounts to how many people were smoking so many decades ago. A similar but opposite effect is happening now. That's how they know that "wow, smoking greatly increases your chance of cancer".

Another way is that they take one group, who smokes (the test subjects), and they take another group with no smokers (the control) and then compare their morality rates and when they die. They generally make sure that other factors arenÔÇÖt present so the two groups are as similar as possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most people working in facilities with carcinogenic substances floating around usually proper protective gear?

[Dave Peterson]

You are quite possibly correct there.

---"and the way they figured out smoking was a significant contributing factor of lung cancer is that lots of people were smoking, then several decades later, the percentage of the population that had lung cancer rose in similar amounts to how many people were smoking so many decades ago."

----True, but you forget the OTHER, and more scientific way they came to that conclusion was by simply testing them for lung cancer and comparing the ratio for lung cancer between smokers and nonsmokers.

---"and they take another group with no smokers (the control) and then compare their morality rates and when they die."

-I beleive you mean *mortality* rate.

Yes, in most or all cases where carcinogenic substances are in the air, working conditions, employees/ workers wear protective gear. But this isnt neccesarily (usually not) because of smoking it is because of the work environment like a steel mill for example. The 4000 deaths I mentioned were for secondhand smoke caused directly from smokers. Part of that percentage was from family members of smokers and the other from beeing in close quarters with smokers like in a restaurant.

[Soback]

Were they eating well done steak in that reastaurant? Because you do know that steak is a carcinogen, right? How did they determine if it was the cigarette smoke from rather then the steak they ate every Friday night at that same restaurant.

[Dave Peterson]

Oh no, I like my steak done medium-rare...

I dont think there has ever been a case of someone dying from well done steak. Just quit before you say something completely UNLOGICAL.