Opinion of graphic cigarette pack warnings?

[darklordoftech]

I, as a non-smoker, would rather not have to see them when I go shopping or hang out with smokers.

[dead0man]

I, as a smoker, don't freaking care.

[President Johnson]

Freedom warnings. If it was up to me, I'd raise the tabacco tax even further.

[dead0man]

Freedom warnings. If it was up to me, I'd raise the tabacco tax even further.

yeah, screw poor people!  What have they ever done for anybody?

[President Johnson]

Freedom warnings. If it was up to me, I'd raise the tabacco tax even further.

yeah, screw poor people!  What have they ever done for anybody?

Smoking produces extreme high healthcare costs because of the many diseases it causes. Taxes are an even better way to prevent people from smoking, because people usually chose a roof over their head and food on the table.

[dead0man]

Freedom warnings. If it was up to me, I'd raise the tabacco tax even further.

yeah, screw poor people!  What have they ever done for anybody?

Smoking produces extreme high healthcare costs because of the many diseases it causes. Taxes are an even better way to prevent people from smoking, because people usually chose a roof over their head and food on the table.

Are there more healthcare costs from dying of lung cancer at 64 vs dying of "old age" at 92?  I don't know, I'd guess the latter was more expensive because of all those extra years, but I'd be willing to look at some data if you got it.

[President Johnson]

Freedom warnings. If it was up to me, I'd raise the tabacco tax even further.

yeah, screw poor people!  What have they ever done for anybody?

Smoking produces extreme high healthcare costs because of the many diseases it causes. Taxes are an even better way to prevent people from smoking, because people usually chose a roof over their head and food on the table.

Are there more healthcare costs from dying of lung cancer at 64 vs dying of "old age" at 92?  I don't know, I'd guess the latter was more expensive because of all those extra years, but I'd be willing to look at some data if you got it.

I was referring to Germany, where it costs 80 billion Euros a year, which is more than a longer life would cost _{(German Article)}. For America, I doubt it's much different. Even if there is a zero-net effect, it would still be better to raise taxes on cigarettes to prevent people from smoking.

The harm of passive smoking should also be considered, let alone smoking parents being a negative example for children.

[dead0man]

Freedom warnings. If it was up to me, I'd raise the tabacco tax even further.

yeah, screw poor people!  What have they ever done for anybody?

Smoking produces extreme high healthcare costs because of the many diseases it causes. Taxes are an even better way to prevent people from smoking, because people usually chose a roof over their head and food on the table.

Are there more healthcare costs from dying of lung cancer at 64 vs dying of "old age" at 92?  I don't know, I'd guess the latter was more expensive because of all those extra years, but I'd be willing to look at some data if you got it.

I was referring to Germany, where it costs 80 billion Euros a year, which is more than a longer life would cost _{(German Article)}. For America, I doubt it's much different. Even if there is a zero-net effect, it would still be better to raise taxes on cigarettes to prevent people from smoking.

I know why you want to ban something millions of people enjoy, I'm just saying that doing it makes poor people poorer.  I understand that you think it's worth it.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Cigarettes probably won't even exist in a few years as everyone moves on to vaping, so who cares.

[President Johnson]

Freedom warnings. If it was up to me, I'd raise the tabacco tax even further.

yeah, screw poor people!  What have they ever done for anybody?

Smoking produces extreme high healthcare costs because of the many diseases it causes. Taxes are an even better way to prevent people from smoking, because people usually chose a roof over their head and food on the table.

Are there more healthcare costs from dying of lung cancer at 64 vs dying of "old age" at 92?  I don't know, I'd guess the latter was more expensive because of all those extra years, but I'd be willing to look at some data if you got it.

I was referring to Germany, where it costs 80 billion Euros a year, which is more than a longer life would cost _{(German Article)}. For America, I doubt it's much different. Even if there is a zero-net effect, it would still be better to raise taxes on cigarettes to prevent people from smoking.

I know why you want to ban something millions of people enjoy, I'm just saying that doing it makes poor people poorer.  I understand that you think it's worth it.

That's a question of priorities. I'm open to do other things that advance poor people such as education, free kindergarden (that parents can balance work and kids) or even further reduce the VAT tax for (mostly healthy) food. Just to name a few proposals.

[Kingpoleon]

Freedom warnings. If it was up to me, I'd raise the tabacco tax even further.

yeah, screw poor people!  What have they ever done for anybody?

Smoking produces extreme high healthcare costs because of the many diseases it causes. Taxes are an even better way to prevent people from smoking, because people usually chose a roof over their head and food on the table.

Are there more healthcare costs from dying of lung cancer at 64 vs dying of "old age" at 92?  I don't know, I'd guess the latter was more expensive because of all those extra years, but I'd be willing to look at some data if you got it.

I was referring to Germany, where it costs 80 billion Euros a year, which is more than a longer life would cost _{(German Article)}. For America, I doubt it's much different. Even if there is a zero-net effect, it would still be better to raise taxes on cigarettes to prevent people from smoking.

I know why you want to ban something millions of people enjoy, I'm just saying that doing it makes poor people poorer.  I understand that you think it's worth it.

That's a question of priorities. I'm open to do other things that advance poor people such as education, free kindergarden (that parents can balance work and kids) or even further reduce the VAT tax for (mostly healthy) food. Just to name a few proposals.

Is kindergarten not free in Germany?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I, as a non-smoker, would rather not have to see them when I go shopping or hang out with smokers.

same

[courts]

Freedom warnings. If it was up to me, I'd raise the tabacco tax even further.

yeah, screw poor people!  What have they ever done for anybody?

Smoking produces extreme high healthcare costs because of the many diseases it causes. Taxes are an even better way to prevent people from smoking, because people usually chose a roof over their head and food on the table.

Are there more healthcare costs from dying of lung cancer at 64 vs dying of "old age" at 92?  I don't know, I'd guess the latter was more expensive because of all those extra years, but I'd be willing to look at some data if you got it.

I was referring to Germany, where it costs 80 billion Euros a year, which is more than a longer life would cost _{(German Article)}. For America, I doubt it's much different. Even if there is a zero-net effect, it would still be better to raise taxes on cigarettes to prevent people from smoking.

I know why you want to ban something millions of people enjoy, I'm just saying that doing it makes poor people poorer.  I understand that you think it's worth it.

That's a question of priorities. I'm open to do other things that advance poor people such as education, free kindergarden (that parents can balance work and kids) or even further reduce the VAT tax for (mostly healthy) food. Just to name a few proposals.

sounds reasonable. i think that the cigarette tax going higher raises other issues like more attempts at evasion/black market but.. it's not like i'm hugely opposed to the existence of a cigarette tax in the first place either

[America Needs R'hllor]

Freedom warnings. If it was up to me, I'd raise the tabacco tax even further.

yeah, screw poor people!  What have they ever done for anybody?

Smoking produces extreme high healthcare costs because of the many diseases it causes. Taxes are an even better way to prevent people from smoking, because people usually chose a roof over their head and food on the table.

Are there more healthcare costs from dying of lung cancer at 64 vs dying of "old age" at 92?  I don't know, I'd guess the latter was more expensive because of all those extra years, but I'd be willing to look at some data if you got it.

Very false equivalency. One is inevitable and part of everyone's life, the other (if caused by cigarettes) is caused by direct actions that can be prevented or minimized.

[AudmanOut]

Freedom warnings of course! Anyone who still smokes is a idiot.

[dead0man]

Freedom warnings. If it was up to me, I'd raise the tabacco tax even further.

yeah, screw poor people!  What have they ever done for anybody?

Smoking produces extreme high healthcare costs because of the many diseases it causes. Taxes are an even better way to prevent people from smoking, because people usually chose a roof over their head and food on the table.

Are there more healthcare costs from dying of lung cancer at 64 vs dying of "old age" at 92?  I don't know, I'd guess the latter was more expensive because of all those extra years, but I'd be willing to look at some data if you got it.

Very false equivalency. One is inevitable and part of everyone's life, the other (if caused by cigarettes) is caused by direct actions that can be prevented or minimized.

but if it's not you, why do you care what other people do that might shorten their life?  Being kind of fat is just as unhealthy as smoking.  Being really fat is way worse.  It's caused by direct actions and can be prevented.  Should we tax fat people?  Some people sky dive, some people SCUBA dive in caves, others climb cliffs or pull ups on the side of construction cranes, should they all be taxed to prevent them from doing those things?

[Santander]

I prefer the attractive appearance of American cigarette packs, but I don't really care either way. A warning label isn't going to stop me from smoking. I think a simple

ROKEN IS DODELIJK

type warning is better.

[thumb21]

Rates of smoking have decline to a point where it doesn't really matter anymore. People who smoke know that it will hurt their health.

[HillGoose]

I mean it's whatever. Don't have an opinion one way or another.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

I, as a second-hand smoker, who has absolutely no consent in inhaling tobacco fumes, want to kill myself when these graphic PSAs and warnings taunt me for having to suffer. I already have breathing problems, and I'm not even an adult. IT'S F***ING DISGUSTING, I KNOW. STOP RUBBING IT IN. I HAVE A PARENT WHO WILL PROBABLY DIE EARLY, AND I WILL PROBABLY DIE EARLY MYSELF.  OFF, LEAVE ME ALONE, IT'S NOT LIKE I CAN "QUIT SMOKING" WHEN MY LIPS HAVE NEVER TOUCHED A CIGARETTE.

[Lourdes]

Indifferent

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Freedom warnings. If it was up to me, I'd raise the tabacco tax even further.

yeah, screw poor people!  What have they ever done for anybody?

Smoking produces extreme high healthcare costs because of the many diseases it causes. Taxes are an even better way to prevent people from smoking, because people usually chose a roof over their head and food on the table.

Are there more healthcare costs from dying of lung cancer at 64 vs dying of "old age" at 92?  I don't know, I'd guess the latter was more expensive because of all those extra years, but I'd be willing to look at some data if you got it.

Very false equivalency. One is inevitable and part of everyone's life, the other (if caused by cigarettes) is caused by direct actions that can be prevented or minimized.

That has important implications but not necessarily financial ones in aggregate.

[DC Al Fine]

Is there any evidence that they reduce smoking? This feels like one of those policies that look like "doing something" without improving anything.

[dead0man]

Of course, this doesn't account for any quality of life differences. The smoker doesn't just die earlier, because on average he has worse health at 40, at 50, and so on. Moreover, the cost savings will benefit Medicare or Medicaid rather than the prematurely dead "consumer" of health care." Who, as I'm sure you know, was paying more for his insurance during his working years because it's the only choice that private insurers can upcharge their enrollees for making under the ACA...

indeed, the "system" is very hard on smokers.  Unfairly even.  That's why I said "screw poor people" to start this little hijack.  It's already hard to be poor.  If they try to get a little enjoyment out of life by doing something the "citizen regulators" don't like, the safety Nazis will tax the hell out of it...or worse, make it illegal and throw them in jail for it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This could easily be prevented by making sure any of those tax dollars don't go to a "regular" fund and stay with the people supposedly being harmed (ya know, as monies to be used for smoking related health care issues).  But we all know politicians "trying to help" (and in turn, the dummies voting for them) never really are.

[darklordoftech]

Smokers reduce healthcare costs by dying younger, they contribute lots of tax revenue to both state and federal governments (the federal government uses this money to fund CHIP), and the Master Settlement requires tobacco companies to pay the state governments per cigarettes sold. Politicians and people who depend on government programs should be thanking smokers.