CM>     more people are kiiled driving cars and working on jobs that
  >     there are for somking !!! would you support the same taxes on
  >     diving and owning a car ? sugar and caffeine also kills maybe
  >     we should have a suger tax , or better yet how about a war tax,
  >     that seem to kill a lot of people more quickly ! hehehe!
  >     I am a smoker why don't you ban my cigarettes if you wish to
  >     be my parent and control my life style . But then if I were not
  >     your "responsibility" you could say nothing.... LIBERALISM!
Cigarettes are just about the most addictive drugs in the world.  It is
not only addictive.  It is a mind altering drug.  I would be fine with
making their sale, and their use, completely illegal.
As for a tax on waging war:  it sounds like a great idea to me.  I also
support the idea I read somewhere else, that no person should be allowed
to declare, or wage, war unless he or she has six sons and is willing to
place all six sons on the front lines of the battles.
There are no studies I know of, that have been duplicated, that prove
caffeine is a killer.  As a matter of fact, I know of at least one study
that shows that caffeine consumers are less apt to suffer from
depression related illnesses, and less apt to kill themselves than
non-caffeine consumers.  I do know of individual studies that indicate
normal caffeine use increases certain health risks, but those studies,
when duplicated, often reveal contridictory data.  So the score is not
yet in on caffeine.  It *is* in on cigarettes.
As for sugar, maybe we *should* tax it.  But, again, the score really
isn't in yet on sugar.  There *are* again contriductory results on the
duplication of certain key research results.  However, it is hard to
come up with solid facts on sugar because most of the studies on sugar
and its effects on health are being paid for (although not done by) one
of two groups: the sugar producers, or the producers of the artificial
sweetener used in sweet and low.  (I forget what it's called right now).
I've reached the point where I pretty much ask about *every* study on
sugar's effects on the body, "Who paid for it?"  The artificial
sweetener group *always* finds sugar harmful; and the sugar group
*always* finds it not harmful.  Some good independent studies would be
useful.
As for autos, drivers in our state are *required* to carry auto
insurance to pay for the injuries, deaths, etc. they may encounter while
driving or being exposed to, automobiles.  Auto insurance increases in
cost as the insurance companies sees the buyer increasing in risk of
having an accident.  Workers in New Jersey are *required* to pay into a
workman's compensation insurance program, to cover lost work time due
to injury. I know my husband's company has an insurance plan to cover
his death, should it occur at work. If you are willing to substitute a
mandatory insurance policy for all smokers, then I will look at voting
against the taxing of cigarettes.   Remember that that insurance policy
will almost certainly cost you several thousand dollars a year, since
the insurance company will be out to make a profit, and will want to
earn more money than you will cost them in tobacco related illnesses of
yourself and others.
In the case of cigarettes, taxation will almost certainly cost you less
money than insurance.
                        Sondra
-*-
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ A question suppressed might be an answer lost.
--- Opus-CBCS 1.7x via O_QWKer 1.7 
---------------