Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
You Don't Hate Sick People, Do You?
Rob Reiner is opposing a California ballot initiative that would raise money for hospitals through a $1.50-a-pack cigarette tax hike. Reiner is worried that the initiative will threaten his pet project, the First 5 California program, a preschool enrichment boondoggle that relies on a 50-cent-a-pack tax hike approved by voters in 1998. "If the state increased cigarette taxes as proposed by the hospitals," the Associated Press notes, "purchases would inevitably decline as smokers shop elsewhere for lower prices or give up the habit. If fewer cigarettes are sold in the state, tax collections will decline. In turn, First 5 would receive less money."
Keep on smoking, folks. It's for the kids.
[Thanks to Lisa Snell for the clip.]
R C Dean|11.21.05 @ 2:22PM|#
So, in other words, Rob Reiner isn't against smoking at all. He's just a state-mandated joint venturer with the tobacco companies.
|11.21.05 @ 2:30PM|#
I didn't know such a fat-ass could be so limber...tying himself
up in knots like that.
Tool.
|11.21.05 @ 2:32PM|#
Geez, for the luvaPete.. I've been saying dis to yous guys for
years..
Da guy is a meathead. USDA-inspected, prime choice,
meat..head..
|11.21.05 @ 2:38PM|#
Da guy is a meathead.
One of the few things I agreed with Archie on.
Then again, Rob did give "The Princess Bride." I guess even a
asshole can do something right from time to time.
Hakluyt|11.21.05 @ 2:40PM|#
He's just upset that the sinecure he is using as a springboard to run for Guvenah might be phased out.
|11.21.05 @ 2:43PM|#
This is also why I voted against the Tennessee lottery a couple of years ago. I'm all for legalized gambling, but I don't think the state should be profiting from it, for exactly the reasons ridiculed here.
|11.21.05 @ 2:59PM|#
Elvis:
Of all the things the state does, allowing two-steps-above-ameoba
idiots to voluntarily throw their money into the public
coffers is pretty low on my list of stuff I oppose. The part I
oppose is the hypocrisy involved in allowing state lotteries, but
criminalizing all other forms of gambling...but that's another
story.
Regardless, there's a big difference between taxation and voluntary
games of chance. If the lottery was compulsory, then I'd see your
point, though.
|11.21.05 @ 3:05PM|#
dead elvis:
But doesn't the cynic in you enjoy the government taxing stupid
people? IF (big "if") this eases the tax burden on everyone else,
I'm all for it.
I'm completely dumbfounded when idiots line up for hours when the
jackpot is "big". And what makes it worst is that the newsmedia
cheerfully reports on it without the slightest bit of irony.
There, you see?! These people with their stupid little minds!
Stupid! Stupid!
|11.21.05 @ 3:06PM|#
By Reiner's own logic the First 5 program must have hurt other cigarette-tax funded programs when they hiked it by 50 cents. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
|11.21.05 @ 3:07PM|#
The part I oppose is the hypocrisy involved in allowing
state lotteries, but criminalizing all other forms of
gambling.
Indeed. When a private organization runs a numbers racket and
pockets 10% of the take, it's a crime. When the state runs a
numbers racket and pockets 50% of the take, it's For The
Children.
Hakluyt|11.21.05 @ 3:10PM|#
MikeP,
Remember, according to joe, only the government knows the public
good. :)
|11.21.05 @ 3:14PM|#
Evan-
Buying cigarettes isn't compulsory. Sin taxes are always
voluntary.
The analogy I see is in the state being dependent on revenue from
something it officially discourages. Imagine the funding crisis
that would ensue if people stopped playing the lottery.
|11.21.05 @ 3:21PM|#
Re: stupid people taxation.
I also find it distasteful that the government *advertises* in an
effort to drive up lottery sales. That the government wants to
encourage stupid people to be stupider is wrong. The cynic in me
doesn't enjoy it at all, it just kind of makes me sad.
|11.21.05 @ 3:38PM|#
brings to mind the south park epsiode with rob reiner pushing the colorado smoking ban. if you haven't seen it, find it and view it now.
Robert Goodman|11.21.05 @ 3:39PM|#
Better we be allowed to gamble with one business (i.e. the state) than with none. Also better Rob Reiner oppose a tax increase, for whatever reason, than not.
|11.21.05 @ 3:41PM|#
I also find it distasteful that the government *advertises*
in an effort to drive up lottery sales.
I stopped paying attention so maybe they don't do this anymore ...
but at least initially, all commercials for the Missouri Lottery
that described how lottery winners get to live on Easy Street were
followed by a sotto voce disclaimer to explain that the commercial
was "for informational purposes only and not intended to induce"
anyone to actually play the lottery. So, no need to worry.
|11.21.05 @ 3:42PM|#
What I love is that the government has commercials telling you
to play the lottery, but then they have to have a disclaimer
telling you that you can become addicted to gambling, and so you
should be careful about it.
Probably the disclaimer is more to say "but it really isn't very
good for you, that's why on this government-run form of gambling is
legal" than it is thrown out their because they either a) really
think gambling's a problem or b) even give a shit about us at
all.
|11.21.05 @ 4:01PM|#
Finally, someone admits, even if accidentally, that when the government passes sin taxes, they also gain an interest in propagating that sin.
|11.21.05 @ 4:21PM|#
Sin taxes are generally considered to be inelastic revenue sources. Increases in taxes on cigarettes, gaming, etc., do not significantly decrease their consumption. (though I'm sure there's a ceiling). So yes, governments have an interest in propagating their consumption, but I don't think that's much of a paradox, since they really aren't trying to eradicate it to begin with (for the children rhetoric notwithstanding).
|11.21.05 @ 4:39PM|#
I'm sure there's a tipping point where rolling your own becomes
so cost effective it's worth the extra trouble.
What's the going rate for cigs is Cali these days?
R C Dean|11.21.05 @ 5:05PM|#
The part I oppose is the hypocrisy involved in allowing
state lotteries, but criminalizing all other forms of
gambling.
That's not hypocrisy, that's a business plan!
James B.|11.21.05 @ 5:50PM|#
Here in Pennsylvania they are using a talking groundhog (he
bills himself as the state's 2nd most famous groundhog) to promote
the state Lottery.
I am waiting for all those do-gooders who pilloried the tobacco
companines over Joe Camel (who wasn't cute, furry, talking or on
TV) to sue the Commonwealth for marketing the lottery to underage
gamblers.
|11.21.05 @ 6:11PM|#
Just to entertain one of my pet peeves, lotteries are only "a
tax on stupid people" if one assumes away the idea that there is
inherent utility -- in the form of the potential excitement of
anticipating the big drawing, and the "What if I won?" fantasizing,
among other things -- that's worth more to the player than the
dollars spent on the tickets. Expected payoff isn't the only
factor.
There's scads of study in the field of economics on lottery-playing
and other gambling, which I'm too lazy to Google up right now.
|11.21.05 @ 6:21PM|#
That's fair enough when you speak of people who buy a ticket or
two a week. People who buy more than that are simply fools.
The ad that I think drives it home was the one by the MA lottery a
couple of years back bragging that "76% of lottery income is
directly spent on payouts" (something like that). Imagine what a
fool you have to be to invest in a scheme that brags that you'll
lose 24% of what you bet.
Then there are the people who, even if they win, just use the
winnings to buy more tickets.
BTW Reiner is a complete hypocrite for this and his good movies
don'texcuse that any more than Polanski is excused based on
Rosemary's Baby.
|11.21.05 @ 7:05PM|#
How come nobody remembers that Reiner was responsible for the last huge cig tax? It was ok as long as it was for a program he sponsored. Also, no one seems to remember he was appointed to the board in charge of giving out that money shortly after the inititive passed
|11.21.05 @ 7:45PM|#
How come nobody remembers that Reiner was responsible for
the last huge cig tax? It was ok as long as it was for a program he
sponsored.
I thought that was the point? Reiner's bitching that adding a new
tax = fewer people buying cigarettes = less profit from the old
tax, not opposing sin taxes on principle... you should all know
that "principle" is an unknown concept to most Hollywood types.
|11.21.05 @ 9:57PM|#
Wow, the black-market potential for cigarette sales in California looks like it's expanding exponentially. Get a few semis full of illicit smokes from the Carolinas, and within 5 years you'll probably be see 3 cartons of illegal cigarettes dealt for every carton purchased "legally." Another banner opportunity for organized crime, brought to you courtesy of a bevy of knuckleheads (or Meatheads, as the case may be).
|11.21.05 @ 10:12PM|#
Increases in taxes on cigarettes, gaming, etc., do not
significantly decrease their consumption.
I personally quit smoking a couple of months ago, solely for
financial reasons after yet another tax increase. Cigarettes are
cheap but the taxes are outrageous. And just to clarify: it isn't
even so much that I minded spending five bucks a day on the
cigarettes, so much as I minded knowing about four bucks of
that went to the government.
|11.21.05 @ 11:20PM|#
Jennifer,
Five bucks a day for cigarettes? Is that for one pack or
what?
BTW congrats on quitting, but watch out for the third and fourth
month. You can usually get over the physical part in a week or so,
but the psychological part keeps coming back to haunt you for
months. You may even dream about the damned things. I've been
there. Much as I loved tobacco for thirty years, I'm not sorry that
I gave it up. Best thing you could do for yourself.
|11.21.05 @ 11:44PM|#
Back in Cali, I could get the buy two get ones for 9 bucks. In Indiana they're even cheap. I may have to bring some back over break if this passes.
|11.21.05 @ 11:57PM|#
Jennifer-
Another congrats on quitting. We certainly defend one's right to
smoke here, but let's face it, that's a *really* smart move.
Smarter than not buying lottery tickets.
And I'm certainly not going to let your fine example affect my
alcohol intake.
Hakluyt|11.22.05 @ 3:04AM|#
Mo,
People drives from N.C. up to N.Y.C. all the time and sell
cigarettes on street corners.
|11.22.05 @ 7:52AM|#
Interesting book: "The Nazi War on Cancer" by Robert N. Proctor;
describes how Nazi Germany pulled all the same anti-smoking stunts
that Nazi U.S. is currently pulling, including profitting from what
they claimed to decry.
Well, almost the same stunts...one difference is that the German
Nazis used non-Aryan slave labor to lower the Aryan industrial
cancer rates.
Fun fact: the main Nazi anti-smoking guy was also in charge of
murdering mental patients and other "undesireables." For The
Children, of course.
Mr. F.
|11.22.05 @ 9:59AM|#
What I love is that the government has commercials telling
you to play the lottery, but then they have to have a disclaimer
telling you that you can become addicted to gambling, and so you
should be careful about it.
In Illinois, all the radio commercials for the gambling boats end
with a phone number for help with gambling addiction. But the state
lottery commericals just end with "Have fun. Play Responsibly."
They just can't admit that the lottery is a form of gambling.
|11.22.05 @ 10:08AM|#
I'm sure there's a tipping point where rolling your own
becomes so cost effective it's worth the extra trouble.
I know a smoker who does this. He doesn't actually have to roll
them--he buys empty cigarettes with filter already attached and
loose tobacco. Part of the package is a machine that shakes the
tobacco down into the paper tubes. Says it costs him less than $1 a
pack--and although he no longer has the cost disincentive to
discourage him from smoking, it's just enough of a pain to 'make'
cigarettes, that it just about makes up for it.
|11.22.05 @ 10:44AM|#
Jennifer,
I didn't mean that higher taxes won't stop anyone from engaging in
whatever activity is being taxed, i was speaking more about the
aggregate. Also, I admit that there is likely a ceiling as to how
high you can go on these things.
Personally, I don't know how anyone can afford to smoke on a
regular basis.
|11.22.05 @ 11:30AM|#
People drives from N.C. up to N.Y.C. all the time and sell
cigarettes on street corners.
Where?? I've never seen it.
My on-again, off-again bitches at me to quit all the time. I just
don't feel like it. Even at the current scam of 7 bucks a day.
|11.22.05 @ 11:41AM|#
JW--
Yeah, I smoked a pack a day and it averaged out to five bucks per
day. Sometimes a little more, sometimes less--my brand would
sometimes have a "buy one get one free" deal; other times they
wouldn't have my preferred brand so I'd buy a pack of those cheapo
"Monarch Lights," which taste exactly the way dead dogshit smells.
But overall, it was about $150 a month.
I'm being careful about not gaining weight, and so far I've
actually managed to lose half a pound since I quit. That's the good
news. The bad news is I am insanely jealous of every smoker I see,
and the amount of interstate commerce I've been regulating has also
gone up.
I've got to move back to Tobacco Country.
|11.22.05 @ 11:50AM|#
I've got to move back to Tobacco Country.
Wouldn't that make it harder to stay on the wagon? You could move
to California, where smoking in public gets you the evil eye.
|11.22.05 @ 11:51AM|#
I don't WANT to stay on the wagon, Rhywun. The wagon sucks. I'm
only on the wagon because I can't afford to walk.
(Did I stretch the wagon metaphor a bit too far? Methinks I
did.)
R C Dean|11.22.05 @ 12:26PM|#
C'mon, Jennifer, you just need to find a bootleg cigarette dealer. How hard can that be?
|11.22.05 @ 12:29PM|#
Ah, I see - you don't WANT to quit. Maybe we can all get together and pool our resources for you :-)
|11.22.05 @ 5:31PM|#
Hey, $5-7 a day is about the same as a large-ish weed habit, or twice-daily Starbucks. (My point? Dunno.)
|11.23.05 @ 1:37PM|#
The main thing the general public doesn't seem to understand is
that no matter how much "extra" money a sin tax or lottery brings
in the government can never have enough. In the end all you have is
more entrenched programs begging for more and more money. They told
us in LA that the lottery funds would go to you guessed it "the
children" and for pay raises for teachers and ditto for the tax
from the casinos. Have the teachers gotten raises nope do our
schools still suck yep. So one wonders where the money actually
went. Its not like the pols see a surplus of cash from sin/lottery
tax and then reduce their spending in some other area by the same
amount. It is all just more pork trimmings to flavor up their
favorite lobbiests contracts etc.
What gets me most is the ads on the radio and TV for the lottery
instant scratch off tickets. They are always coming out with new
hooks to get people to play such as Lucky 7's, Hangman, etc etc.
The thing is they use gimicks such as saying "Up to 20 chances to
win on each ticket." To me this is false advertising and
misrepresentation of the truth. Whether you have a supposed
1,000,000 chances to win on each ticket or not when you flip the
tickets over in the FINE print you can see the true odds of winning
and its usually 1 in 3.97 roughly.
So no matter if they say you have up to 500 chances to win per
ticket or if you just scratch off the ticket and it says loser or
winner you still only have odds of 1 in 3.97 that the ticket will
be a winner.
Then they follow up with the problem gambling hotline PSA
lol.
Last time I went to the casino I took $50 and planned to leave
without it no problem. After walking around for a 1/2 hour dropping
a few quarters in random slots as I tried to decide what table game
to play I started to think of the odds on all the games they
offered. After some quick calculations I put the remaining $45 back
in my pocket and left. Yeah its fun to play some games and all that
jazz but when it comes to gambling I will stick with poker at least
the house doesn't have a built in odds advantage over that game and
I only have to pay a small rake to play. With slots and table games
you might as well just walk in the casino go staight to the
cashiers desk,put your money on the counter and ask if you've won.
Not a lot of difference there and it would save folks a lot of time
slowly being seperated from their money.
Remember all that government propaganda isn't propaganda at all if
the majority of the population believes it as gospel.
|11.23.05 @ 3:55PM|#
Is Rob Reiner's anti-smoking crusade just a smokescreen (heh) to
keep us from starting an anti-obesity campaign, of which he's sure
to be a victim?
I remember my mother saying something about people living in glass
houses...
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245