The government tax on cigarettes should decrease if locations where smoking is permitted decrease.

I will analyze the benefits of the tobacco excise, the benefit of increasing the number of places where smoking is prohibited, the results of these actions, the support for both arguments, and the evidence to maintain the tax. Refutations: 1. ) ". .. american smokers are being subjected to more and more taxation. " While it is true that in many states the cigarette tax is increasing, you portray this negatively, while in fact the majority of voters (smoker and non-smoker alike) support the tax increase. While I will go into this in more depth later, it is important to make this assertion early. Seeing as this was the only real argument made in your intro, I will now support my case with facts and arguments: 1. ) The Reason for the Taxation It is clear that the reason for the tax is to decrease the total number of smokers, and thus, improve the overall health of citizens. It has decreased the total sales of tobacco, thus it is irrefutable that the tax has a positive affect on overall health. The revenue from much of the taxation is put toward state healthcare service providers, and toward preventative services focused on our youth. 2. ) Reason for Smoking Ban in Restaraunts Less than a quarter of all Americans smoke cigarettes. Whereas 97% of all non-smokers support the ban of smoking in restaraunts and other public facilities. The argument is clear. People do not want to inhale the smoke of another's cigarette. Parents support the ban of cigareetes where they bring their children ( A child's risk of cancer is nearly double that of the risk of an adult due to lung capacity and etc. ). This ha also seen an increase in support, and clear benefits have been cited. 3. ) Most Smokers wish to Quit The tax clearly supports their efforts. A 1994 U. S. Department of Health and Human Services study of teen smokers found that 55% of past month smokers and 45% of daily smokers predict that they probably would not, or definitely would not, be smoking in five years. Yet, in a longitudinal follow-up study five years later, the researchers found that, typically, the teen smokers had maintained or increased their quantity consumed. Studies also show that each 10% tax increase on cigarettes results in a direct 4% decrease in consumption. The justification is clear. 4. ) A Vast Majority of the Public supports the Tax 37% of all smokers nationwide support the tobacco tax (Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Study) and around 74% of non-smokers support the tax. In fact 30% of members of political parties said they would cross party lines just to support the tax INCREASE. . http://www.tobaccofreekids.org... Please read the previous report before continuing. 5. ) The Net Benefit is Greater It is clear that the benefits from these actions are great, and even smokers support the tax increase, so why change this? It is illogical to even attempt to try and pass a proposition to lower the tax, when a majority of 3-1 will vote against it. If the government by-passed the vote, we would be catering to the minority of smokers who don't seek to quit, who don't support the tax, and who find the increase in smoking-banned locations unfair. Even smokers can understand that non-smokers don't want to inhale their smoke. If I need to post the health hazards of second-hand smoke, I will. 6. ) Revenues have Increased in states that have Increased their Cigarette Tax By taxing this habit that is so unpopular (even to smokers) states have been able to use the money to benefit the greater good as I have said before. The tax brings nearly $1 billion forward for the government to redirect toward education, the upkeep of public roads, tobacco education, and other communal services. Whereas studies have proven that it has had nearly no negative recourse for smokers. It will hardly push someone into the depths of povery, and any attepmt to state this would be an exaggeration. 7. ) Banning Restaraunt is hardly Justification to increase the Number of Smokers The Ends justify the means. Although I wa unable to make a complete case (Time constraints), I have sufficiently proven that it would be illogical to decrease a tax that has nearly no negative recourse, and that even a large proportion of smokers support. I urge all readers to read-on, and vote neg. I will provide sources when I have more time, and I will provide more factual evidence to support my case. Looking forward to your refutations. -mdb2290