From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Tax #48 from NYT article
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:16:57 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
=In article <5673@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
=>bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
=>.The government profits from the sale of substances which can cause
=>.cirrhosis (sp?) of the liver and lung cancer which can cause death in
=>.real human beings.  Does this bother you?  Note also that taxation is a
=>.tool which can be used to get less of something undesirable (that's the
=>.ostensible raison d'etre for the tobacco and liquor taxes - they're sin
=>.taxes, alledgedly the gov't has some sort of interest in stamping out
=>.sin (that's why we also subsidise tobacco farmers, go figure)).  What
=>.was that quote from a Supreme Court decision?  "The power to tax is the
=>.power to destroy?"  Apply this reasoning to the income tax at your own
=>.risk.
=>
=>Gee, I'm glad you brought that up. The tax on cigarettes and alcohol do
=>bother me a bit that somehow the country is profiting on the dependence
=>of part of the population to some drug. On the other hand these taxes
=>aren't levied by people who advocate that cigarette smoking or alcohol
=>consumption is and should remain a constitutionally protected right
=>against those "health-freaks" who prefer every tobacco factory or
=>alcohol distillery go straight to hell. Usually these sin taxes are used
=>to pay for advertising and health programs that encourage breaking the 
=>dependence on these substances.
=
=Umm, I don't think I've ever seen an ad from any gov't meant to deter
=smokers.  Methinks this tax money from tobacco and alcohol is more or
=less siphoned straight into the maw of the U.S. gov't, where some of it
=can be sent back to Jesse Helm's tobacco farmers.  Can't say that I
=know anything about tax dollars being used to help fund programs to
=break dependence on these substances - never been in that situation.
=
=Furthermore, I'm not sure that there really is a debate over the right
=to smoke or drink - sure, non-smoker's argue that we shouldn't have to
=pollute our lungs while engaging in some activity, and there are some
=nuts who want to hold liable tobacco and liquor companies for the
=injuries suffered by or because of the individuals who were forced
=(NOT!) to consume these products.  However, I'm not too sure that this
=is necc. trying to deny the right to smoke or drink.

I remember a while back some anti-smoking commericals with Brooke
Shields in them talking about how she really liked this guy whom she
wanted to pick up and talk to, but once she got to
eye-contact/conversation distance, he lit up a cigarette. She later says
how turned off she was. It was a pretty interesting ad. There were also
ads on how women should not drink or smoke while pregnant and the
drinking-and-driving commercials.

=>I don't think this is the case with the abortion debate. If a "tax" or
=>"fee" on an abortion clinic is imposed, where is the money going? 
=
=Probably where tax money usually goes - to go to pay for some programs
=which you think are a waste of money and for some which you think are
=worthwhile.

Probably.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion