Smoke 'em if you can afford 'em

Here we go again. Big gov'ment is strapping on its size 13 moral-superiority clodhoppers 'n' is getting ready to start trompling all over the rights of a maligned minority 'cause it's the "right thing to do". That's right, they's raising the taxes on tobacco products. Again. When it takes effect on Wednesday, it will be the single largest federal tobacco tax increase ever. The tax on a single pack o' smokes will go from 39 cents to just over a dollar. ($1.01, to be precise.) Taxes on cigars 'n' pipe 'n' smokeless tobacco will be increased, as well. The tax on chewing tobacco, fer example, will increase from 19.5 cents to 50 cents per pound.

Course, the claim it's all fer a good cause. Ain't that always the excuse they trot out when they decide to infringe on the rights o' some minority group er the other - that it's fer the "public good"? This time, they say they're going to use the tobacco taxes to help finance a major expansion o' health insurance fer children. While that may be a good use to put their extorted funds towards, in actual practice the idea is just plain stupid.

Now, I know you're prob'ly thinking, "Stupid? Ain't that rather a harsh word to use, Random?" Well, that's as maybe. But when it's the right word, it's the right word, 'n' I ain't going to shy away from using it. It is a stupid idea. Just look at the thing logically, which, obviously, the gov'ment ain't doing. They's claiming it's a win-win situation. First off, they's raising money to help fund child care. I admit, that's a good thing. Then, they claim that it will provide further incentive fer tobacco users to quit their bad habits, which will improve their health.

Let's just leave the health "benefits" o' less tobacco use aside fer right now 'n' concentrate on the
consequences o' diminished tobacco use among the general population. The first thought that springs to mind is: less tobacco use means less tobacco purchases which means a decrease in the revenues from tobacco taxes which means less money fer child health care. That's a lose-win, the children lose but the tobacco users "win" 'cause they're "healthier". If, on the other hand, there isn't a decrease in the number o' tobacco users, er if it even increases 'cause folks want to raise that money fer the kiddies, then it's a win-lose 'cause the tobacco users get singled out fer an unfairly disproportianate tax increase. On the third hand, we have the most likely scenario, which is a lose-lose fer ever'body. There will be a decrease in the number o' tobacco users, which will mean a decrease in the tax revenue fer the kiddies, which will mean another unfair tax increase on tobacco, which will mean fewer tobacco users, which will mean a decrease in the tax revenue fer the kiddies, which will mean another unfair tax increase on tobacco, which will mean fewer tobacco users... 'n' so on.

If they want to tax someone to raise money fer child health care, tax the deep pockets, not the folks already struggling with their finances. Make the petroleum companies pay fer it. I'd be willing to bet real money that more deaths in this country can be linked, either directly er indirectly, to the manufacturing 'n' use o' petroleum products than the manufacturing 'n' use o' tobacco. Er they could go after the drug companies. They're the ones who are, probably, most responsible fer the skyrocketing cost o' healthcare in this country, anyway. Make 'em put back some o' what they've taken. If they really want to make some money 'n' a tangible differ'nce at the same time, legalize the illegal drugs 'n' tax them.

Now there's a win-win. Maybe even a win-win-win er a win-win-win-win. They'd get more money fer the younguns that way than they could ever dream o' getting from tobacco users. If drugs was legal, they could regulate their manufacture 'n' quality, which means less deaths 'n' health problems from bad drugs. It would also pull the rug out from under the drug cartels 'n' the gangs running drugs in this country. That would mean less violence, less criminals, less folks in jail, safer neighborhoods, 'n' healthier environments fer the children o' drug families.

If they insist on placing the burden on the shoulders o' the tobacco user, then I say the tobacco user's in this country should stand up 'n' make themselves heard. I don't mean standing up in shouting 'bout how unfair it is er writing letters to congressfolks er any o' that, 'cause ain't no one going to listen to 'em if they's just using words. I mean they should speak with their wallets. What I'd like to see happen is fer ever' tobacco user in the country to quit buying tobacco products fer at least six months. Turn off that tax tap 'n' see what the gov'ment does when the tobacco users say, "No, you cain't have my money!" Maybe then they'll see the light 'n' actually try something intelligent fer a change. I know, asking the gov'ment to do something intelligent is like asking a chicken to lay hard boiled eggs. I can still dream, though. Least, until they find a way to tax that, too.