What is Ron Paul's stand on cigarette taxes?

[Akus]

I was going around spreading the good word of Ron Paul and there was this tobacco shop. It had a poster on the door that read: "Oppose the federal tobacco tax", or something to that extent. I went inside to tell them of Ron Paul and when asked what his stand was on a sigarette tax, I couldn't come up with a half way decent answer. I just kept saying that he never voted to increase any taxes or any abusive government powers.

What is Ron Paul's stand on sigarette taxes?

Remember, he keeps saying he's against the income tax but his stance on other taxes is unknown, not to me anyways.

Thank you for all the future replies.

[Razmear]

I would assume he is against them, smoking is a choice and sin taxes are just another way to screw the working man.

[Matt Collins]

Yeah, I would guess he is against it too.

[james1906]

State issue. No federal tax, but states could get revenue through tobacco taxes.

[jonahtrainer]

State issue. No federal tax, but states could get revenue through tobacco taxes.

I doubt Ron Paul would want to raise taxes on them. However, they could be authorized under the Constitution (Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 1). This is where the power to tax gasoline is derived.

[blazin_it_alwyz]

Seeing as how those taxes on cigarettes are only justified as a means to get people to stop smoking because they are so expensive, I expect Paul to get rid of them, especially seeing as how he hates taxes, and he is for the legalization of drugs.

[Nefertiti]

I would assume he is against them, smoking is a choice and sin taxes are just another way to screw the working man.

As a choice, it doesn't screw the working man-only the man who chooses to smoke. Taxes on necessities are what truly screw the working man.

Increasing Illinois cigarette taxes were one of the factors that pushed my husband to give up smoking finally 15 months ago. He'd been smoking since he was a teen-almost 20 years, but he is still young enough to not lose any years of his life because his body will heal from the nasty habit. The more taxes on cigarettes the better in my opinion if they can help people to get back their health, lives, and money to spend on more enjoyable things. But some of those taxes need to be invested back into programs that help people quit smoking and prevent smoking in the first place otherwise they are hypocritical taxes.

[Wyurm]

Tobacco
According to the House Congressional Record, Paul made the following statements regarding a proposed 1997 tobacco settlement:

"The failure of Big Tobacco to fight Government's requirement to put warning labels on cigarettes while accepting agricultural subsidies allowed the entire smoking industry to be invaded by the Federal Government. Tobacco put the welcome mat out for big Government. Now it is only a matter of time before nicotine will be declared a drug and more FDA regulation will inundate us. Unfortunately, this will only compound our many problems with nicotine."
"Smoking should be treated no differently than compulsive eating, chocolate addiction, or driving too fast. But the way the tobacco corporate leaders are acting in cahoots with big government, you would think they are conspiring to prevent this."
"It has been suggested by some that smoking cigarettes provides certain immunity from some diseases. I personally cannot stand smoking, and even as a child I knew it was dangerous. It was a time when parents had a lot more to do with assuming the responsibility for teaching children about all dangers--like fire, chemicals, heights, crossing highways, sharp objects, guns, and smoking."
"Yes, the business leaders in the tobacco industry deserve sharp criticism. Once this precedent of paying medical bills is set, the manufacturers of automobiles will then be liable for all accidents even if the drivers are speeding and intoxicated. Chocolate addicts can then sue Hershey, fat people can sue cattle ranchers. The whole notion that tobacco companies should pay for tobacco-related illnesses is absurd."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ron_Paul#Tobacco

This was all I could find, sorry

[Spirit of '76]

More here:
http://ronpaullibrary.org/search/search.php?q=tobacco

[Spirit of '76]

Also, if you go back to talk to these guys, please do me a favor and tell them about smokersforums.org (http://www.smokersforums.org), a great resource for tobacco and tobacco legislation info.

Thanks. :)

[pazzo83]

State issue. No federal tax, but states could get revenue through tobacco taxes.

Yup, state/local taxes are completely within the reach of the 10th amendment. I can't see where Ron Paul would have a problem with them.

[Nefertiti]

I'm not so sure he would be against taxing cigarettes. He is against federal and income taxes, but not against taxes in general. In fact, he seems to suggest by endorsing this article I found in the Ron Paul library that he would support taxing of cigarettes, at least at a local level.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr062802.htm

[Sean]

I don't think he is for using state power to make people do things. He likes to let people make their own choices. So I don't think he would want very high taxes on cigarettes.

[Nash]

As a choice, it doesn't screw the working man-only the man who chooses to smoke. Taxes on necessities are what truly screw the working man.

Increasing Illinois cigarette taxes were one of the factors that pushed my husband to give up smoking finally 15 months ago. He'd been smoking since he was a teen-almost 20 years, but he is still young enough to not lose any years of his life because his body will heal from the nasty habit. The more taxes on cigarettes the better in my opinion if they can help people to get back their health, lives, and money to spend on more enjoyable things. But some of those taxes need to be invested back into programs that help people quit smoking and prevent smoking in the first place otherwise they are hypocritical taxes.


Yet the government insists that tobacco is addictive while at the same time taxing it.

If it is truly addictive, then people aren't going to really quit over the cost of the drug. Crack addicts will commit vicious violent crimes to get their fix. Coke addicts will drive themselves into bankruptcy to keep using their drug.

So either it is addictive and it's unfair to tax people who are addicted to a substance and cannot quit OR it isn't really as addictive as the government says and the demonization is unjustified.

[AFTFNJ]

HIS stance is quit smoking!

[Nefertiti]

That's why I think he would support using those taxes to help people to quit. The smokers paid the taxes, so giving the benefits of those taxes back to the people who paid them would be acceptable to him. Quitting is incredibly difficult I know but a lot of smokers DO want to quit and so if there were more help available to them they might succeed.

And while they may be less likely to get current smokers to stop smoking, high taxes might make some young people think twice before starting in the first place.

[PennCustom4RP]

Check out this article

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/111-08192007-1394765.html
Smokers owe millions in Pa. cigarette taxes

[ghemminger]

How can we tap this voter base?

[Shellshock1918]

I would assume he is against them, smoking is a choice and sin taxes are just another way to screw the working man.

of course its really a states issue, feds should have no say over it.

[Colleen]

Hi I haven't come across anything which would suggest he might take anything other than a free market approach to smokes. And by the way, cigarettes are probably the most highly taxed commodity we have, already.

Tobacco also has a medicinal quality, used properly, but you will never hear about that in the msm.

[constituent]

that's the nicotinic acid isn't it colleen?

[Colleen]

Hi Baby Gurl,

As to which of the cocktail of chemical components are involved in the varied healing benefits of theraputic usage of tobacco*, I would think it a synergy dance between them all.

Iam a libertarian and feel that government has no role in legislating things provided in nature for our use. As anything, it has a potential for abuse and each individual has free will to make such choices and should not be deterred or coerced to do what they otherwise would or not choose as a matter of free agency. As long as not offending another bystander.

I think the real problems occur when all the FDA- approved additives are introduced into the matrix. Then we have something altogether different. Something truly dangerous to consume. Government has taken a once revered natural herb and morphed it into something nature never intended.


* organic, like American Spirit brand.