Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Amendment 3--Yea or Nay?

So my friend Andrew sent me a link to the Jefferson City Business Times recent article on Amendment 3.

If you don't pay attention to this sort of thing, it is one of the big three decisions in the upcoming elections, the other two being the Talent v. McCaskill and Amendment 2 (Stem Cell/Cloning) choice.

Anyway, read the article I linked to and tell me what you think?

Is Amendment 3 something we should support or oppose? Leave a comment and tell me why.
If you don't have time to read it here's the paraphrased version.

Amendment 3 would raise the taxes on tobacco products from 17 cents a pack to 57 cents a pack and the gov't promises that the extra revenue would be spent on healthcare costs.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well I will start. I am going to vote against it. I don't agree with tax increases. And especially for something that will not be used for what it is said it will be used for. If this offends anyone feel free to make a comment you may change my mind.

3:27 PM  
Anonymous JW said...

Tough call. As a smoker, I'm not offended by the idea of paying more, considering the costs we incur. But I'm always concerned about legislating choice, which is what Columbia MO has just done.
One line in the text stood out to me. Economists downplay the social costs of smoking because they don't live as long. All things equal, err on the side of liberty.

11:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JW what to you mean by "but I'm always concerned about legislating choice, which is what Columbia MO has just done..."

7:10 AM  
Anonymous JW said...

Columbia just passed an ordinance banning smoking in the city. That's making decisions for people, which I don't agree with. Even if people make stupid decisions, they should be free to do as they choose.
They apparently successfully argued that second hand smoke is infringing on others rights. But that argument is a slippery slope which ends up with a tolatarian state.
We've made that connection with drinking and driving, but that in no way infringes with a business owners right to run the business as they see fit, or the individuals right to get drunk.
You have to draw the line somewhere, and I say it's here.

7:06 PM  
Blogger djobe said...

The other thing is that the state doesn't exactly have a good track record with being good stewards of tobacco windfall $$.

And I think I agree with Dub on the erring on the side of liberty.

Plus one more thing, unintended consequences, there is a possibility that a prohibitively high tax would open a new black market for cigarettes for unscrupulous smugglers seeking to avoid the high taxes...

10:35 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home