Is there a "penalty" tax on alcohol? I wouldn't mind paying a little more tax on alcohol to fund detox programs.

Not that I know of. And the thing is, if more of the proposed tax was going to smoking cessation programs, I might not have such an issue with it.

And I do understand about the health issues, especially those that involve kids. However, as a smoker, I am already paying higher premiums on my heath insurance, with I am happy to do. Chances are my smoking will cost more in health costs. But as someone pointed out up thread, alcochol wreaks just as much havoc, and in my opinion a heck of a lot more with public costs and insurance and medi-care and medi-caid.

It's also a pretty regressive tax, which I'm against on principle.

This, more than anything, is swaying me from my yes vote on our prop. It's going to hit poor people (who are disproportionately smokers) the hardest, and as such, will likely lead to more crime -- black market cigarettes, more liquor store robberies.....

Alright, I think I'm sold against it.

Until somebody sways me back the other way.

Someone remind me how much I don't want to answer the phone when I have nummy celery with peanut butter in my hand.

as such, will likely lead to more crime -- black market cigarettes, more liquor store robberies.....

Right, that's why the law enforcement is against it. It's also the same reason the parental notification prop is a bad, bad idea. It will only lead to more dangerously unsafe abortions by minors.

Alright, I think I'm sold against it.

I feel politically relevant.

It's also the same reason the parental notification prop is a bad, bad idea.

The scare tactic PRO argument in the voter's guide really pissed me off: "PARENTS! Right now anyone can arrange a secret abortion for your daughter and you won't even know."

Screw you. Even if I had a minor daughter, screw you.

"PARETS! Right now anyone can arrange a secret abortion for your daughter and you won't even know."

Yeah, and if you pass the prop, that secret abortion could damn near kill your daughter.

It's...this is the sort of argument you shouldn't even have to think about. I mean, if I can have a pretty solid, coherent stance on this, the choice should be obvious.

do they really think Ohioans believe that California and New York are now completely devoid of bars and restaurants?

As an Ohioan, I can tell you that, until reading Jessica's post, I believed that the entire state of California AND the former gastronomical paradise that is NYC were empty of bars and restaurants.

Why? Because the ads told me that, and teevee wouldn't lie to me.

....right?

Seriously, the battling smoking issues in Ohio are pissing me off big time.

I refuse to live in a world without cheese.

I don't care what they say, I won't stay
In a world without cheese

In Quebec, actually, high cigarette taxes caused enormous problems, eventually leading to a show-down with the federal government. (Quebec won.)

I thought the line of reasoning was because of the huge burden that smokers placed on health resources, insurance companies, and whatnot.

Insurance companies can afford it, and are private businesses anyway.

Lots of things put a strain on health resources. And, well, one thing smokers don't strain is Social Security. Quite the opposite. Which is not to say these aren't legitimate issues, but there's more to it than just smokers driving us all to the poor house.

Again, I don't think smokers should have free reign, either. But I wish there were more room for compromise.

..And curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid git.