Lightbulbs

[thegreekdog]

Because when the tax on cigarettes becomes too onerous, it drives people more heavily into the black market. This undermines both the revenue-generation, and the reduced consumption goals.

How does it undermine the reduced consumption goals? I understand how it undermines revenue generation.

Also, the black market will exist if the product is made illegal.

It undermines the reduced consumption goal, because, by going into the black market for their smokes, the consumers are no longer paying more for the product, and thus are less encouraged to reduce their consumption.

It doesn't take something being illegal for there to be a black market. Overly onerous taxation will do the same thing, when there aren't any reasonable replacement products (such as there would be in the case of taxing light bulbs in the manner I suggested originally).

So would you say the illegality of certain drugs do not encourage people to reduce consumption? I'm not challenging, just asking. I'm trying to equate this to a real life thing.

[Timminz]

Because when the tax on cigarettes becomes too onerous, it drives people more heavily into the black market. This undermines both the revenue-generation, and the reduced consumption goals.

How does it undermine the reduced consumption goals? I understand how it undermines revenue generation.

Also, the black market will exist if the product is made illegal.

It undermines the reduced consumption goal, because, by going into the black market for their smokes, the consumers are no longer paying more for the product, and thus are less encouraged to reduce their consumption.

It doesn't take something being illegal for there to be a black market. Overly onerous taxation will do the same thing, when there aren't any reasonable replacement products (such as there would be in the case of taxing light bulbs in the manner I suggested originally).

So would you say the illegality of certain drugs do not encourage people to reduce consumption? I'm not challenging, just asking. I'm trying to equate this to a real life thing.

I'm arguing that taxation is a better (more economically efficient) way to alter consumer behaviour than quotas (such as "none", in the case of totally illegal products). Illegal drugs are a different kind of topic, in my mind, and I would have to consider it a bit more before answering. As I'm just about to head off to my corporate finance class, I don't have the time right now. Maybe I will do that later.

Sorry.

[Snorri1234]

why have a 2% tax on cigarettes instead of a 90% tax?

what on earth gives you the idea that we don't have that? in most countries at least 60% of the price on your cigarettes is tax.

And it still doesn't work? Holy shit.

Well of course it doesn't work. Though coupled with education it does sort of stop people from starting smoking. (but even then the effect is probably minimal)

So, roughly, you're arguing that tax on tobacco doesn't work in stopping people from smoking, except that you're also arguing that it does stop people from smoking too.

I'm saying that the intended effect (i.e. getting a lot of people to quit smoking) is not achieved but that there is still a small effect (that probably isn't worth it).

Much like making drugs illegal might stop some people from doing them but at the same time saying that it therefore "works" would be silly.

[Symmetry]

I'm saying that the intended effect (i.e. getting a lot of people to quit smoking) is not achieved but that there is still a small effect (that probably isn't worth it).

Much like making drugs illegal might stop some people from doing them but at the same time saying that it therefore "works" would be silly.

It works in the sense of stopping some people from smoking.

This isn't a difficult concept.

It seems like we're getting caught up on the basic phrase "Taxation stops people from smoking", because it has two meanings:

1) It stops some people from smoking
2) It stops all people from smoking

If you genuinely believe that anybody using that line (in any of its forms) actually means point 2, which would justify your arguments and those of Mr Dog, well, consider yourself disillusioned. It's a strawman.

So I think we can be done with the "People still smoke" lines, and the stuff about illegal drugs, no?

[rdsrds2120]

How did this turn into a thread about smoking?

-rd

[Symmetry]

How did this turn into a thread about smoking?

-rd

It's my thread, and I've read all the posts, but I have no idea why this turned out the way it did.

[thegreekdog]

I'm saying that the intended effect (i.e. getting a lot of people to quit smoking) is not achieved but that there is still a small effect (that probably isn't worth it).

Much like making drugs illegal might stop some people from doing them but at the same time saying that it therefore "works" would be silly.

It works in the sense of stopping some people from smoking.

This isn't a difficult concept.

It seems like we're getting caught up on the basic phrase "Taxation stops people from smoking", because it has two meanings:

1) It stops some people from smoking
2) It stops all people from smoking

If you genuinely believe that anybody using that line (in any of its forms) actually means point 2, which would justify your arguments and those of Mr Dog, well, consider yourself disillusioned. It's a strawman.

So I think we can be done with the "People still smoke" lines, and the stuff about illegal drugs, no?

How do we get people to stop smoking? Let's count the ways:

(1) Educate the public through anti-smoking campaigns;
(2) Make the sale of tobacco illegal punishable by fines and/or imprisonment (similar to illegal drug laws);
(3) Impose strict regulations on the purchase and sale of tobacco products mandating certain minimum chemical requirements of all tobacco products that make them less addictive;
(4) Impose a tax on cigarette sales.

Which of these has been the most effective? Which of these is not intended to get people to stop smoking, but rather intended to raise revenue for the government? That's why taxing cigarettes doesn't work - it's not meant to work. If a pack of cigarettes, untaxed, costs $5.00, people will buy it. If a pack of cigarettes, taxed, costs $5,000.00, most people would not buy it. So, the question is if the intent of a cigarette tax is to get people to stop smoking, why does a pack of cigarettes cost between $5.00 and $10.00, but not $5,000 or $50,000?

[Symmetry]

I'm saying that the intended effect (i.e. getting a lot of people to quit smoking) is not achieved but that there is still a small effect (that probably isn't worth it).

Much like making drugs illegal might stop some people from doing them but at the same time saying that it therefore "works" would be silly.

It works in the sense of stopping some people from smoking.

This isn't a difficult concept.

It seems like we're getting caught up on the basic phrase "Taxation stops people from smoking", because it has two meanings:

1) It stops some people from smoking
2) It stops all people from smoking

If you genuinely believe that anybody using that line (in any of its forms) actually means point 2, which would justify your arguments and those of Mr Dog, well, consider yourself disillusioned. It's a strawman.

So I think we can be done with the "People still smoke" lines, and the stuff about illegal drugs, no?

How do we get people to stop smoking? Let's count the ways:

(1) Educate the public through anti-smoking campaigns;
(2) Make the sale of tobacco illegal punishable by fines and/or imprisonment (similar to illegal drug laws);
(3) Impose strict regulations on the purchase and sale of tobacco products mandating certain minimum chemical requirements of all tobacco products that make them less addictive;
(4) Impose a tax on cigarette sales.

Which of these has been the most effective? Which of these is not intended to get people to stop smoking, but rather intended to raise revenue for the government? That's why taxing cigarettes doesn't work - it's not meant to work. If a pack of cigarettes, untaxed, costs $5.00, people will buy it. If a pack of cigarettes, taxed, costs $5,000.00, most people would not buy it. So, the question is if the intent of a cigarette tax is to get people to stop smoking, why does a pack of cigarettes cost between $5.00 and $10.00, but not $5,000 or $50,000?

Did you even read what I posted? You've used the same line again "How do we get people to stop smoking?" What is that? Some people, all people?

[thegreekdog]

I'm saying that the intended effect (i.e. getting a lot of people to quit smoking) is not achieved but that there is still a small effect (that probably isn't worth it).

Much like making drugs illegal might stop some people from doing them but at the same time saying that it therefore "works" would be silly.

It works in the sense of stopping some people from smoking.

This isn't a difficult concept.

It seems like we're getting caught up on the basic phrase "Taxation stops people from smoking", because it has two meanings:

1) It stops some people from smoking
2) It stops all people from smoking

If you genuinely believe that anybody using that line (in any of its forms) actually means point 2, which would justify your arguments and those of Mr Dog, well, consider yourself disillusioned. It's a strawman.

So I think we can be done with the "People still smoke" lines, and the stuff about illegal drugs, no?

How do we get people to stop smoking? Let's count the ways:

(1) Educate the public through anti-smoking campaigns;
(2) Make the sale of tobacco illegal punishable by fines and/or imprisonment (similar to illegal drug laws);
(3) Impose strict regulations on the purchase and sale of tobacco products mandating certain minimum chemical requirements of all tobacco products that make them less addictive;
(4) Impose a tax on cigarette sales.

Which of these has been the most effective? Which of these is not intended to get people to stop smoking, but rather intended to raise revenue for the government? That's why taxing cigarettes doesn't work - it's not meant to work. If a pack of cigarettes, untaxed, costs $5.00, people will buy it. If a pack of cigarettes, taxed, costs $5,000.00, most people would not buy it. So, the question is if the intent of a cigarette tax is to get people to stop smoking, why does a pack of cigarettes cost between $5.00 and $10.00, but not $5,000 or $50,000?

Did you even read what I posted? You've used the same line again "How do we get people to stop smoking?" What is that? Some people, all people?

All people.

Answer this question - If smoking is bad for you, why would we want only some people to stop smoking?

[BigBallinStalin]

For what it's worth, the CDC weighs in:

The MMWR also reports that the average state cigarette tax increased from 33 cents in 1995 to $1.20 per pack in 2009 (a 267% increase). A state-to-state comparison shows that when the study was conducted South Carolina had the lowest state tax at 7 cents per pack, while New York had the highest state tax at $2.75 per pack. Furthermore, tobacco growing states and other bordering southeastern states had a cigarette tax rate substantially lower than the national average of $1.20 per pack.

Research shows that tax increases on tobacco products are an effective policy intervention designed to prevent initiation of adolescents and young adults, reduce cigarette consumption, and increase the number of smokers who quit. A 10% increase in the price of cigarettes is estimated to reduce consumption by 4%.

Such tax increases have also been shown to be more effective and have a greater public health impact when combined with other comprehensive tobacco control programs that reduce the prevalence of smoking through evidence-based policy tools. Increasing the price of cigarettes through tax increases can also diminish socioeconomic smoking disparities because low income groups are more responsive to price increases.

http://www.cdc.gov/features/SecondhandSmoke/

(The researchers of the MMWR are all paid by the government.)

__________________________________________________________________________


Frank J. Chaloupka weighs in:

(Professor of Economics, UIC
Research Associate, NBER)

How Effective are Taxes in Reducing Tobacco Consumption?

CONCLUSIONS
The review of the literature clearly shows that the answer to the question posed in the title of this
chapter is 'very effective'. Increasing cigarette and other tobacco taxes will lead to significant
reductions in the use of these products, resulting from reductions in the frequency of use by
continuing users, as well as reductions in the prevalence of use. Given this evidence, higher
tobacco taxes are likely to be the single most effective policy option for reducing the public
health toll from tobacco. When combined with other tobacco control activities, which could be
funded by earmarked tobacco taxes, even larger reductions in youth and adult tobacco use could
be achieved.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... 2A&cad=rja

However, he does mention that people tend to compensate by "smoking less" by using cigarettes with higher nicotine/tar content.

[thegreekdog]

For what it's worth, the CDC weighs in:

The MMWR also reports that the average state cigarette tax increased from 33 cents in 1995 to $1.20 per pack in 2009 (a 267% increase). A state-to-state comparison shows that when the study was conducted South Carolina had the lowest state tax at 7 cents per pack, while New York had the highest state tax at $2.75 per pack. Furthermore, tobacco growing states and other bordering southeastern states had a cigarette tax rate substantially lower than the national average of $1.20 per pack.

Research shows that tax increases on tobacco products are an effective policy intervention designed to prevent initiation of adolescents and young adults, reduce cigarette consumption, and increase the number of smokers who quit. A 10% increase in the price of cigarettes is estimated to reduce consumption by 4%.

Such tax increases have also been shown to be more effective and have a greater public health impact when combined with other comprehensive tobacco control programs that reduce the prevalence of smoking through evidence-based policy tools. Increasing the price of cigarettes through tax increases can also diminish socioeconomic smoking disparities because low income groups are more responsive to price increases.

http://www.cdc.gov/features/SecondhandSmoke/

(The researchers of the MMWR are all paid by the government.)

__________________________________________________________________________


Frank J. Chaloupka weighs in:

(Professor of Economics, UIC
Research Associate, NBER)

How Effective are Taxes in Reducing Tobacco Consumption?

CONCLUSIONS
The review of the literature clearly shows that the answer to the question posed in the title of this
chapter is 'very effective'. Increasing cigarette and other tobacco taxes will lead to significant
reductions in the use of these products, resulting from reductions in the frequency of use by
continuing users, as well as reductions in the prevalence of use. Given this evidence, higher
tobacco taxes are likely to be the single most effective policy option for reducing the public
health toll from tobacco. When combined with other tobacco control activities, which could be
funded by earmarked tobacco taxes, even larger reductions in youth and adult tobacco use could
be achieved.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... 2A&cad=rja

However, he does mention that people tend to compensate by "smoking less" by using cigarettes with higher nicotine/tar content.

Awesome - see my question to Symmetry above. And please forward my question to the CDC and Frank J. Chaloupka.

[PLAYER57832]

All people.

Answer this question - If smoking is bad for you, why would we want only some people to stop smoking?

There is the issue of choice and how far we should push people in a free society... i.e. the old "helmet law" arguments. (note, I am not saying you are wrong, just saying why).
In the case of tobacco, recognize that in the course of about 30 years, society has gone from "this is GOOD for you" to "this will KILL you". There is still a remnant of highly addicted people who either lack the willpower or whatever to quit. And, there are a few who are now stating up, ignoring the problems.

I am more worried about the latter group than the former. If anything, I think tobacco companies ought to supply the first group free tobacco for whatever remains of their lives... they made the mess, they have some responsibility for it. (and I DO mean intentionally.. but you can go back to the congressional "debates" with the tobacco company heads for more on that -- or just look at old advertisements).

[thegreekdog]

All people.

Answer this question - If smoking is bad for you, why would we want only some people to stop smoking?

There is the issue of choice and how far we should push people in a free society... i.e. the old "helmet law" arguments. (note, I am not saying you are wrong, just saying why).
In the case of tobacco, recognize that in the course of about 30 years, society has gone from "this is GOOD for you" to "this will KILL you". There is still a remnant of highly addicted people who either lack the willpower or whatever to quit. And, there are a few who are now stating up, ignoring the problems.

I am more worried about the latter group than the former. If anything, I think tobacco companies ought to supply the first group free tobacco for whatever remains of their lives... they made the mess, they have some responsibility for it. (and I DO mean intentionally.. but you can go back to the congressional "debates" with the tobacco company heads for more on that -- or just look at old advertisements).

You didn't answer my question.

[PLAYER57832]

You didn't answer my question.

Yes, I did. I don't want anyone to smoke, but for society, the measures required to completely eliminate it are not worth the loss of choice. I actually disagree, but that is the equation of society.

If you add in the politicians, then there is pressure from the tobacco companies. That last is pretty heavy. To get tobacco off the shelves for smoking, etc.. we need to find equally profitable things for the farmers, etc to do.. or find other ways they can sell tobacco.

[thegreekdog]

You didn't answer my question.

Yes, I did. I don't want anyone to smoke, but for society, the measures required to completely eliminate it are not worth the loss of choice. I actually disagree, but that is the equation of society.

If you add in the politicians, then there is pressure from the tobacco companies. That last is pretty heavy. To get tobacco off the shelves for smoking, etc.. we need to find equally profitable things for the farmers, etc to do.. or find other ways they can sell tobacco.

So why are we taxing tobacco products?

[patrickaa317]

You didn't answer my question.

Yes, I did. I don't want anyone to smoke, but for society, the measures required to completely eliminate it are not worth the loss of choice. I actually disagree, but that is the equation of society.

If you add in the politicians, then there is pressure from the tobacco companies. That last is pretty heavy. To get tobacco off the shelves for smoking, etc.. we need to find equally profitable things for the farmers, etc to do.. or find other ways they can sell tobacco.

Why should we decide what can and can't be sold. If they ever pushed to eliminate the sales of tobacco I would hope that coffee is only 10-15 years behind. I realize it isn't near as unhealthy as tobacco but it is still unhealthy.

And why would it be anyone's responsibility to find equally profitable things for the farmers? Why can't the people who raised tobacco find something else themselves? Are you assuming that the farmers aren't capable of figuring things out for themselves?

The biggest thing to think of is how gov't would get the revenues to replace the tobacco tax. 82% of the price of a pack of cigarette goes directly to the government from all the different taxes.

[BigBallinStalin]

For what it's worth, the CDC weighs in:

The MMWR also reports that the average state cigarette tax increased from 33 cents in 1995 to $1.20 per pack in 2009 (a 267% increase). A state-to-state comparison shows that when the study was conducted South Carolina had the lowest state tax at 7 cents per pack, while New York had the highest state tax at $2.75 per pack. Furthermore, tobacco growing states and other bordering southeastern states had a cigarette tax rate substantially lower than the national average of $1.20 per pack.

Research shows that tax increases on tobacco products are an effective policy intervention designed to prevent initiation of adolescents and young adults, reduce cigarette consumption, and increase the number of smokers who quit. A 10% increase in the price of cigarettes is estimated to reduce consumption by 4%.

Such tax increases have also been shown to be more effective and have a greater public health impact when combined with other comprehensive tobacco control programs that reduce the prevalence of smoking through evidence-based policy tools. Increasing the price of cigarettes through tax increases can also diminish socioeconomic smoking disparities because low income groups are more responsive to price increases.

http://www.cdc.gov/features/SecondhandSmoke/

(The researchers of the MMWR are all paid by the government.)

__________________________________________________________________________


Frank J. Chaloupka weighs in:

(Professor of Economics, UIC
Research Associate, NBER)

How Effective are Taxes in Reducing Tobacco Consumption?

CONCLUSIONS
The review of the literature clearly shows that the answer to the question posed in the title of this
chapter is 'very effective'. Increasing cigarette and other tobacco taxes will lead to significant
reductions in the use of these products, resulting from reductions in the frequency of use by
continuing users, as well as reductions in the prevalence of use. Given this evidence, higher
tobacco taxes are likely to be the single most effective policy option for reducing the public
health toll from tobacco. When combined with other tobacco control activities, which could be
funded by earmarked tobacco taxes, even larger reductions in youth and adult tobacco use could
be achieved.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... 2A&cad=rja

However, he does mention that people tend to compensate by "smoking less" by using cigarettes with higher nicotine/tar content.

Awesome - see my question to Symmetry above. And please forward my question to the CDC and Frank J. Chaloupka.

Great question, thegreekdog. It's taxed mainly for increasing government revenue.

I concur. Had the government really wanted to ended smoking for the sake of our health, then they would have banned the production of tobacco products. Cigarette smoking is responsible for more deaths per year than heroine, cocaine, and marijuana combined.

According to the CDC, "The adverse health effects from cigarette smoking account for an estimated 443,000 deaths, or nearly one of every five deaths, each year in the United States.(2,3)

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statist ... g_smoking/

Why, yes, Dr. Chaloupka. That is correct.

By the way, Dr. Chaloupka, as a young boy, did the others ridicule you for your funny name? It sounds like a great Mexican dish.

...

[Timminz]

I tried to get back to light bulbs. I really did.

[PLAYER57832]

You didn't answer my question.

Yes, I did. I don't want anyone to smoke, but for society, the measures required to completely eliminate it are not worth the loss of choice. I actually disagree, but that is the equation of society.

If you add in the politicians, then there is pressure from the tobacco companies. That last is pretty heavy. To get tobacco off the shelves for smoking, etc.. we need to find equally profitable things for the farmers, etc to do.. or find other ways they can sell tobacco.

So why are we taxing tobacco products?

Partly, tobacco does cost the US a lot of money.. money in medical bills, lost work time, etc. At some point, folks figured something had to be done, put pressure on the politicians and... poof, we have the tax.

But, the tax was not as high as it would need to be to get rid of tobacco, partially because if you make such a sudden change to a popular substance the black market flourishes, partially because there was too much pressre on politicians to not completely drive tobacco farmers out of business.

[PLAYER57832]

You didn't answer my question.

Yes, I did. I don't want anyone to smoke, but for society, the measures required to completely eliminate it are not worth the loss of choice. I actually disagree, but that is the equation of society.

If you add in the politicians, then there is pressure from the tobacco companies. That last is pretty heavy. To get tobacco off the shelves for smoking, etc.. we need to find equally profitable things for the farmers, etc to do.. or find other ways they can sell tobacco.

Why should we decide what can and can't be sold. If they ever pushed to eliminate the sales of tobacco I would hope that coffee is only 10-15 years behind. I realize it isn't near as unhealthy as tobacco but it is still unhealthy.

And why would it be anyone's responsibility to find equally profitable things for the farmers? Why can't the people who raised tobacco find something else themselves? Are you assuming that the farmers aren't capable of figuring things out for themselves?

The biggest thing to think of is how gov't would get the revenues to replace the tobacco tax. 82% of the price of a pack of cigarette goes directly to the government from all the different taxes.

coffee is not really unhealthy for everyone. It has health benefits for many.

Per the rest... I was not saying this is how it should be, I was saying that is what would be necessary to eliminate tobacco.

[Snorri1234]

I'm saying that the intended effect (i.e. getting a lot of people to quit smoking) is not achieved but that there is still a small effect (that probably isn't worth it).

Much like making drugs illegal might stop some people from doing them but at the same time saying that it therefore "works" would be silly.

It works in the sense of stopping some people from smoking.

This isn't a difficult concept.

It seems like we're getting caught up on the basic phrase "Taxation stops people from smoking", because it has two meanings:

1) It stops some people from smoking
2) It stops all people from smoking

If you genuinely believe that anybody using that line (in any of its forms) actually means point 2, which would justify your arguments and those of Mr Dog, well, consider yourself disillusioned. It's a strawman.

So I think we can be done with the "People still smoke" lines, and the stuff about illegal drugs, no?

My point is that there is a difference between "an effect" and "a significant effect". While I do think a few people are deterred from smoking because of taxes, I don't think that I could statistically justify attributing those people to "taxes on smoking". And even if we could it is doubtful that it outweighs the money we spent that could've been put to better use. (in this case, education about the dangers of smoking)

[Symmetry]

I'm saying that the intended effect (i.e. getting a lot of people to quit smoking) is not achieved but that there is still a small effect (that probably isn't worth it).

Much like making drugs illegal might stop some people from doing them but at the same time saying that it therefore "works" would be silly.

It works in the sense of stopping some people from smoking.

This isn't a difficult concept.

It seems like we're getting caught up on the basic phrase "Taxation stops people from smoking", because it has two meanings:

1) It stops some people from smoking
2) It stops all people from smoking

If you genuinely believe that anybody using that line (in any of its forms) actually means point 2, which would justify your arguments and those of Mr Dog, well, consider yourself disillusioned. It's a strawman.

So I think we can be done with the "People still smoke" lines, and the stuff about illegal drugs, no?

My point is that there is a difference between "an effect" and "a significant effect". While I do think a few people are deterred from smoking because of taxes, I don't think that I could statistically justify attributing those people to "taxes on smoking". And even if we could it is doubtful that it outweighs the money we spent that could've been put to better use. (in this case, education about the dangers of smoking)

Now you sound like a politician.

Sorry but I've tried to pull apart your last post, but there's always another part that contradicts it.

It looks like you're disagreeing with me, for example, but of course you're also just stating your point.

It looks like you're saying that taxing tobacco would actually be spending money that could have been put to better use, for example on education, but you don't really explain how raising taxes actually causes a significant decrease in gov't revenue, or even how it takes money away from education.

Don't get me wrong- understanding both sides is fine, and saying that you sit on the fence on any given issue is fine by me.

Pretending to be on both sides of the fence at the same time? Not so great.

[Snorri1234]

I'm saying that the intended effect (i.e. getting a lot of people to quit smoking) is not achieved but that there is still a small effect (that probably isn't worth it).

Much like making drugs illegal might stop some people from doing them but at the same time saying that it therefore "works" would be silly.

It works in the sense of stopping some people from smoking.

This isn't a difficult concept.

It seems like we're getting caught up on the basic phrase "Taxation stops people from smoking", because it has two meanings:

1) It stops some people from smoking
2) It stops all people from smoking

If you genuinely believe that anybody using that line (in any of its forms) actually means point 2, which would justify your arguments and those of Mr Dog, well, consider yourself disillusioned. It's a strawman.

So I think we can be done with the "People still smoke" lines, and the stuff about illegal drugs, no?

My point is that there is a difference between "an effect" and "a significant effect". While I do think a few people are deterred from smoking because of taxes, I don't think that I could statistically justify attributing those people to "taxes on smoking". And even if we could it is doubtful that it outweighs the money we spent that could've been put to better use. (in this case, education about the dangers of smoking)

Now you sound like a politician.

Sorry but I've tried to pull apart your last post, but there's always another part that contradicts it.

It looks like you're disagreeing with me, for example, but of course you're also just stating your point.

It looks like you're saying that taxing tobacco would actually be spending money that could have been put to better use, for example on education, but you don't really explain how raising taxes actually causes a significant decrease in gov't revenue, or even how it takes money away from education.

Don't get me wrong- understanding both sides is fine, and saying that you sit on the fence on any given issue is fine by me.

Pretending to be on both sides of the fence at the same time? Not so great.

My bad, I was thinking about the implementation of the tax costing money but I forgot that it of course raises more than enough money to pay that back. Which of course means that any discussion about it not being worth it is pointless. I feel incredibly dumb for not actually realising that.


Still, that doesn't mean that smoking-taxes have a significant effect on the reduction of smoking.

[Symmetry]

I've got no idea what you're arguing now.

[john9blue]

that means he won the argument