In article
>,
Bryan > wrote:

> On Nov 5, 5:42*am, Dave Smith > wrote:

> > Ironic isn't it. The government taxes a vice with the excuse that they
> > want to deter people from using it with a financial penalty. If they
> > succeed in deterring everyone they will suffer a tremendous loss of
> > revenue. *I don't know about other places but here in Ontario, the
> > percentage of people who smoke is less than half what it was 30 years
> > ago. Taxes on cigarettes have more than doubled, and total revenues have
> > increased, despite the drop in smoking.
>
> That's a win-win for everyone other than the folks who make the choice
> to keep stinking.

Up there in Canada, health care is mostly paid for by the government. I
don't know how much would be saved by people not smoking, but I imagine
it would make up a considerable amount of that shortfall. Granted, it
will then cost more money for healthcare, because people will live
longer, but shouldn't the prolonging of life be a good goal for a health
care system?

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA