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.]
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So, in other words, Rob Reiner isn't against smoking at all. He's just a state-mandated joint venturer with the tobacco companies.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
I didn't know such a fat-ass could be so limber...tying himself up in knots like that.
Tool.
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..
Hey, at least he understands just a bit of economics.
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.
It's really easy to hate meathead.
But he did direct "This is Spinal Tap"..
He's just upset that the sinecure he is using as a springboard to run for Guvenah might be phased out.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
MikeP,
Remember, according to joe, only the government knows the public good. 🙂
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"...why only this government-run..."
Finally, someone admits, even if accidentally, that when the government passes sin taxes, they also gain an interest in propagating that sin.
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).
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?
So... many... jokes...
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I really despise that guy.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mo,
People drives from N.C. up to N.Y.C. all the time and sell cigarettes on street corners.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
C'mon, Jennifer, you just need to find a bootleg cigarette dealer. How hard can that be?
Ah, I see - you don't WANT to quit. Maybe we can all get together and pool our resources for you 🙂
Hey, $5-7 a day is about the same as a large-ish weed habit, or twice-daily Starbucks. (My point? Dunno.)
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.
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...