Smokers Get Screwed Again on Wednesday

[NJ Stinks]

The federal tax on cigarettes increases 61 cents to $1.01 a pack on Wednesday. Supposedly, it's OK to nail 20% of the population to pay the entire cost of health insurance expansion for children.

I'm not expecting non-smokers to care one twit about this but imagine this. Imagine if Congress decided it wanted to fund something worthwhile on the backs of horseplayers. Let's face it - not even 10% of the population bets on horse races so who cares about horseplayers? So Congress puts a 10% tax on horse bets and high-roadly announces at the same time that they hope people will stop wasting their hard-earned money on the evils of gambling. How's does that sound to you?

Meanwhile this same Congress is up in arms about limiting charitable contributions. Here's a blurb from E.J. Dionne, Jr. of the Washington Post:
__________________________________________________ ___________

In an ideal world, Obama would come right out and say we'll need broad-based tax increases. But that would be suicidal right now. Witness the reaction to his effort to put a 28 percent ceiling on deductions. His proposal would affect only 1.2 percent of taxpayers, yet even that idea seems to be dying in Congress.

Obama's proposal is based on a sound intuition: Do we really believe it's fair that when a married couple with a taxable income of $50,000 gives $1,000 to charity, they get a tax benefit of $150, while a couple earning $1 million making exactly the same contribution gets back $350? Is it fair that the higher-income couple also gets a bigger tax advantage on their mortgage payments?

The value of the deductions is currently worth more to the higher-income couple because they pay taxes at a higher rate. Obama wouldn't even close the whole gap. Applied to this example, his 28 percent cap would still let the wealthier couple deduct $280.

Yet even this modest effort to raise money to pay for health-care reform is falling under a hail of fire from those who say the president wants to hurt private charities. Obama was quite right when he said at his news conference that the effect of this change on charitable giving would be small: Using 2007 figures, the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that Obama's change would reduce charitable contributions only marginally -- from $306 billion to $302 billion.

Is that too much for nonprofits to give up so the country can cover the costs of health care for the needy? The truth is that the opponents of making any changes in the amount the wealthy can deduct are using solicitude for the private charities to kill the whole plan.

Fine, kill it. But then, how else will we pay for health-care reform?

The full article at the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/25/AR2009032502801.html
__________________________________________________ _________

So it's OK to nail smokers for a good cause - many of whom are low income earners - but we've got to protect deductions for the top 1.5% earners and a little over 1% of all charitable contributions no matter what.

What a country.

[miesque]

Well if cigarettes are that big a component of your spending, you could move to a state which has low state taxes on cigarettes like of say Virginia where I believe the cost of a pack is about half of that in NY & NJ :p (I don't smoke but that is what I have heard and I believe it since Richmond is the headquarters of Philip Morris, I also know the smoking laws are much more lax here).

[DJofSD]

I thought the normal order was getting screwed then having a smoke.

[NJ Stinks]

Well if cigarettes are that big a component of your spending, you could move to a state which has low state taxes on cigarettes like of say Virginia where I believe the cost of a pack is about half of that in NY & NJ :p (I don't smoke but that is what I have heard and I believe it since Richmond is the headquarters of Philip Morris, I also know the smoking laws are much more lax here).

I smoke cigars so it's no big deal for me personally.

[NJ Stinks]

:D :ThmbUp:

[NJ Stinks]

I thought the normal order was getting screwed then having a smoke.

:D :ThmbUp:

(Forgot to quote you first. :blush: )

[098poi]

A young woman asks her Mom, "Mom, when you were pregnant with me did you smoke? " The Mom replies, "Not much, only when I was drinking." :D

[ArlJim78]

so taxing the 20% of smokers is bad, but targeting 1% of the wealthy is good?

progressive taxes are good, but deductions should be flat? you can't have it both ways.

i'm against all tax increases, but I find it comical how the people that are always in favor of cradle to grave government solutions always have some excuse why it should be the "other" guy to pay the way.

really there is no right to complain because we are getting $2 or $3 dollars of government spending for every tax dollar. I think the total income taxes collected is around $1 trillion and they're going to spend $3.5 trillion this year. what a bargain!

the guys that will really have a right to complain are the ones who are going to be stuck holding the bag when this ponzi scheme finally collapses.

[INFRONT07]

Great post;it hurts the poor and low income people.but don;t worry the great one will get others soon.just wait your turn;then you;ll hear from others as they get hit.then it will be too late.

[JustRalph]

More Cigarettes going underground..............


I met a man this weekend who gets his Cartons "under the counter" via the net............ the Gubbermint is making smokers into criminals.........

the more they tax........the more underground cigs go............

[boxcar]

More Cigarettes going underground..............


I met a man this weekend who gets his Cartons "under the counter" via the net............ the Gubbermint is making smokers into criminals.........

the more they tax........the more underground cigs go............

It never ceases to amaze me how stupid our elected officials really are. To say merely that they suffer from a severe, chronic case of Mental Myopia doesn't adequately describe the depth of their unintelligence and shortsightedness. You've nailed it perfectly, JR. The government's short-sighted action will simply open up alternative avenues for otherwise non-criminal smokers and even entrepreneur types. A tobacco underground will spring up overnight. Count on it.

One of BO's next smooth moves will be to mandate that local municipalities and their electric providers regulate the amount of electricity in every home, most especially with respect to air conditioning. When this happens, there will be more than a few happy electricians quietly applauding the move because their business will have picked up considerably in order to meet the demands of consumers who will not want to participate in or cooperate with the government by having these intrusive regulatory devices on their electrical lines.

Boxcar

[toetoe]

Just wait until King Barry I rams a sodomy tax down our ... er, throats. Some of his constituency may erupt. The $h!t (and all other fluids) will really hit the fan.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Can teens really afford the extra tax?

[boxcar]

Can teens really afford the extra tax?

The better question would have been: Will all the poor welfare recipients be able to afford the extra tax? So much for being for the little guy... :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Tom]

How is it we ALLOW anchors to buy ciggies to begin with?
Should be cause to cancel their checks.

[Lefty]

so much for Obama only taxing the wealthy. As I said before the election, we all will suffer from excessive taxation, one way or the other...

[newtothegame]

It never ceases to amaze me how stupid our elected officials really are. To say merely that they suffer from a severe, chronic case of Mental Myopia doesn't adequately describe the depth of their unintelligence and shortsightedness. You've nailed it perfectly, JR. The government's short-sighted action will simply open up alternative avenues for otherwise non-criminal smokers and even entrepreneur types. A tobacco underground will spring up overnight. Count on it.

One of BO's next smooth moves will be to mandate that local municipalities and their electric providers regulate the amount of electricity in every home, most especially with respect to air conditioning. When this happens, there will be more than a few happy electricians quietly applauding the move because their business will have picked up considerably in order to meet the demands of consumers who will not want to participate in or cooperate with the government by having these intrusive regulatory devices on their electrical lines.

Boxcar

Its already there Box.....now it will just get used MORE.....

[jballscalls]

As far as i'm concerned i hope they tax the crap out of cigarettes. never smoked one, the only effect they've had on my life was making my clothes, hair and everything else stink while i worked in the casino. yuck.

[newtothegame]

As far as i'm concerned i hope they tax the crap out of cigarettes. never smoked one, the only effect they've had on my life was making my clothes, hair and everything else stink while i worked in the casino. yuck.

I am not even gonna start getting into this arguement as there are many valid points (of which mainly is health care) to tax cigarrettes. what i will say is let us not forget what this country was built upon. Does tobacco ring any bells?? I will also tell you that if you arguement is health care, which ultimately is most of the aguements against cigarette smokers, then what about raising taxes on alcohol? What about raising taxes on McDonalds?? I am sure all those calories can't be good...and the list goes on and on....

[Lefty]

jb, I'm not a smoker either, never have been. But if they can do what they do to smokers what makes you so sure that they can't take away your pleasures too? A yr or two ago, Nevada voted to stop smoking in restaurants and bars that served food. I voted against it, because what happened is exactly what I thought would happen. Bars fired cooks and food servers so their customers could continue smoking. they had to do this to keep business from drastically falling off. So think before you're happy one group is losing rights because, sooner or later the same thing will happen to you and something you take pleasure in.

[jballscalls]

i completely understand what your saying lefty. I guess i should say that i dont want taxes on cigs, maybe just that it should be banned from anywhere indoors with the exception of smoking clubs or cigar bars, where everyone would be going to smoke.

the difference between banning cigs and banning mcdonalds is that somebody being fat doesnt necessarily directly effect an innocent persons health, whereas smoking does.

i guess i just hate cigs, so i dont think rationally on this issue

[newtothegame]

i completely understand what your saying lefty. I guess i should say that i dont want taxes on cigs, maybe just that it should be banned from anywhere indoors with the exception of smoking clubs or cigar bars, where everyone would be going to smoke.

the difference between banning cigs and banning mcdonalds is that somebody being fat doesnt necessarily directly effect an innocent persons health, whereas smoking does.

i guess i just hate cigs, so i dont think rationally on this issue

It may not directly affect your health but it surely affects your insurance cost....so DIRECTLY it does!!!

[dav4463]

I agree with the tax on horseplayer comments.

When the big shots decided to tax smokers because they are doing something bad....then us gamblers can't be too far behind.

They already added a huge tax to topless bars because it is immoral and bad according to "them" and many clubs lost a lot of money by either eating the tax themselves or losing a lot of business.

What if "they" decide that any place that serves alcohol is bad and start over-taxing every restaurant or entertainment facility? They will all go broke or lose a lot of business like topless bars.

What is someone gets in who thinks rock and roll is immoral? Then they can put a huge tax on concert tickets.

Fast food and gambling may be next. Watch out.

[JustRalph]

It may not directly affect your health but it surely affects your insurance cost....so DIRECTLY it does!!!

debatable............ there is some discussion out there about how smokers die much earlier in life and they don't burden the system into their later years......evening out the extra insurance burden

When it comes to social security...........smokers are a boon to the fund further illustrating the ponzi scheme aspects of FDR's baby

[michiken]

They already added a huge tax to topless bars because it is immoral and bad according to "them" and many clubs lost a lot of money by either eating the tax themselves or losing a lot of business.
The bill they passed was called the nipple tax.

[Tom]

Nipple Tax....wow, that's gotta hurt! :rolleyes:

Or this one......

[newtothegame]

debatable............ there is some discussion out there about how smokers die much earlier in life and they don't burden the system into their later years......evening out the extra insurance burden

When it comes to social security...........smokers are a boon to the fund further illustrating the ponzi scheme aspects of FDR's baby

Ralph...my post above you commented on was not in referrence to smokers...it was in referrence to slewis saying that fat people don't directly affect his health. And I agreed...not directly...but obesity does affect the cost of health care which was in response to McDonalds statement....

[Marshall Bennett]

Fat people and smokers stimulate the economy , at least that's what I'm gathering from all of this . :bang:

[JustRalph]

Ralph...my post above you commented on was not in referrence to smokers...it was in referrence to slewis saying that fat people don't directly affect his health. And I agreed...not directly...but obesity does affect the cost of health care which was in response to McDonalds statement....
:ThmbUp:

[acorn54]

the fact is that government is not going to stop with taxing the bad habit of smoking. next they will reach out to alcohol. then on and on. it's the old divide and conquer theory. pit one group against the other.

[Lefty]

acorn, you hit upon the basic strategy used by dims for years and years.

[JustRalph]

the fact is that government is not going to stop with taxing the bad habit of smoking. next they will reach out to alcohol. then on and on. it's the old divide and conquer theory. pit one group against the other.


They already tax the heck out of alcohol............

[Lefty]

yep and prob more taxes to follow. Glad i quit drinking when I was 50. If I didn't I couldn't afford to drink today.

[Tom]

Predatory taxation.

[PaceAdvantage]

Cigarettes should have been banned altogether ages ago. Anything else in the consumer world that has such a firm link to cancer is usually BANNED.

I find it hilarious that the US has gone gaga over Trans Fats, but still allows cigarettes to be sold. Ahhhh...the power of the tobacco lobby...gotta love it!

[Tom]

Yes, we keep electing whores to congress and wonder why we get pathetic government.

[boxcar]

Cigarettes should have been banned altogether ages ago. Anything else in the consumer world that has such a firm link to cancer is usually BANNED.

I find it hilarious that the US has gone gaga over Trans Fats, but still allows cigarettes to be sold. Ahhhh...the power of the tobacco lobby...gotta love it!

The tobacco lobby isn't the primary reason tobacco hasn't become extinct. The loss of tax revenue is the main reason.

Boxcar

[acorn54]

i think one of the arguements for prohibition of alcohol was the bad health effects. and we all know what a disaster prohibition of alcohol was. same goes for making drugs illegal. the war on drugs just provides the income for organized crime to become a dominant force in society.

[Tom]

It is not the role of any government to tell anyone what they can or cannot do or can or cannot take/swallow/smoke/shoot/snort/sniff/rub in/lick/roll in/insert/gargle/guzzle/sip/nip/chew/chomp/soak in/eat/.

[JustRalph]

The tobacco lobby isn't the primary reason tobacco hasn't become extinct. The loss of tax revenue is the main reason.

Boxcar

Ding Ding!! We have a winner............

[Imriledup]

I love it, nail those "slime'bag smokers to the wall.

[pandy]

I don't smoke but this tax is absurd, a brutal tax on the average joe. Years ago when NY raised taxes on beer my dad told me, "The blue collar guy works his butt off all week and looks forward to a few cold Buds on Saturday. High taxes on beer is cruel and stupid and punishes the working class."

[PaceAdvantage]

It is not the role of any government to tell anyone what they can or cannot do or can or cannot take/swallow/smoke/shoot/snort/sniff/rub in/lick/roll in/insert/gargle/guzzle/sip/nip/chew/chomp/soak in/eat/.It is the role of government to regulate what businesses can SELL to consumers in terms of safety.

If business suddenly decided to lace your cheerios with radium, would you uphold their right to do so if some nut out there wants a little radium with their breakfast?

Same thing with cigs.

[Lefty]

hey imriledd, just wait till they come for your rights, tax and tax and tax your pleasures. it's really not about smoking, it's about people and their rights.

[Tom]

PA, if I WANT radium laced Cheerios, it is not the government's place to tell me I can't have them.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes, but it IS the government's place to not let someone SELL them to you and profit off of death!

The FDA exists for a reason.

Name another item for sale in a convenience store or supermarket that has a more solid link to cancer than cigarettes.

[trying2win]

The federal tax on cigarettes increases 61 cents to $1.01 a pack on Wednesday.

I'm not expecting non-smokers to care one twit about this.

You're right. I don't.

I'm a non-smoker who cheers everytime he sees governments raising cigarette or other lung cancer and empheysema-causing products). I even cheer when I see governments imposing no-smoking restrictions in more and more places. In our province of Alberta, smoking is banned practically everywhere...HOORAY!

Our provincial government even outlawed pharmacies in our province from selling tobacco products in their stores earlier this year...again HOORAY! Our local pharmacist was complaining about this loss of revenue in his store...grumbling that the 7-Eleven store across the street could still sell cigarettes etc. I guess the theory was that pharmacies are supposed to be in the health-enhancing business, and tobacco products don't fit that description...I agree.

T2W

[Tom]

Yes, but it IS the government's place to not let someone SELL them to you and profit off of death!

The FDA exists for a reason.

Name another item for sale in a convenience store or supermarket that has a more solid link to cancer than cigarettes.

That can lead to prohibiting selling ice cream, candy, red meat.....no, I say the govnt has no right to get involved in that - I say the limits of their influence should be to make the seller provide me with all the details of the product so I can be responsible in my buying decisions. Your mayor is a good example -- the little burger and fries czar. What a jerk.

[PaceAdvantage]

Look, I'm all for allowing someone to put whatever they'd like into their body, as long as it does no harm to anyone else (that's a whole other side to the smoking debate as well, but I won't get into that).

I don't want the government telling me what to do, what to smoke, where to live or who to screw either.

But I just can't get by the hypocrisy involved with the sale of cigarettes. Other products with strong links to cancer or that contain known carcinogens are usually banned outright from being sold to the general public.

If you're going to advocate the sale of cigarettes, then I say allow anyone to use asbestos in any new construction of homes or office buildings. Let's see how well that goes over...

[Steve 'StatMan']

I don't like cigs, wish people didn't smoke them, generally glad they are regulation where they can be consumred, although I don't hate those who smoke for doing so, but agree all the governing bodies tax cigs way too high. Not fair to the people who smoke them. Too unfair IMHO to tax specific segements of the populaton so high, just so they don't have to unpopularly raise taxes on others. They know many smokers can't or won't quit, so they dump it on them.

I have no idea what is the right amount of tax or right % of tax, etc. I just know that most taxes are messed up, and the extremely high cigarette tax, one that I thankfullly will never have to pay personally, is one of them.

[Lefty]

cigarette money is a mainstay of the economy. What about a person's right to choose? I'm from a family of smokers, but I chose not to, but I support their right to smoke if they want to. At the racebook I choose to sit in the non-smoking section but I'm glad they have a smoking section for those that choose to smoke.

i bet you who think smokers should have no rights would scream like a stuck hog if they told you betting on horseracing was bad and banned horseracing in this country. From that perspective, please choose to uphold others' rights.

[PaceAdvantage]

i bet you who think smokers should have no rights would scream like a stuck hog if they told you betting on horseracing was bad and banned horseracing in this country. From that perspective, please choose to uphold others' rights.When it's shown pretty conclusively that playing the horses causes cancer, then I will be all for the banning of horseplaying.

This is not a discussion of smoker's rights! I never said smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke.

I said cigarettes shouldn't be allowed to be SOLD because they are a KNOWN high risk cause of cancer, just like asbestos, which to the best of my knowledge, isn't allowed in buildings anymore.

If there were any other consumer products out there that posed a similar risk of cancer, you bet your bottom dollar they would be off the market in short order.

When Ford produced the Pinto, and the Pinto started to explode when crashed into, what did Ford and the Government do? Continue to sell more Pintos of the exact same design?

When infant furniture is determined to have bars spaced wide enough to fit a child's head, thus causing a risk of choking and/or suffocation, what do they do? Do they continue to sell such furniture, or is it taken off the market?

When children's toys from China are laced with industrial poisons or lead, what do they do? Do they continue to sell these toys in US toy stores, or is it taken off the market?

How about Red Food Dye #2? Remember that one? Banned in 1976 because it was shown to cause cancer.

I can go on and on and on....

[hcap]

When it's shown pretty conclusively that playing the horses causes cancer, then I will be all for the banning of horseplaying.

This is not a discussion of smoker's rights! I never said smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke.

I said cigarettes shouldn't be allowed to be SOLD because they are a KNOWN high risk cause of cancer, just like asbestos, which to the best of my knowledge, isn't allowed in buildings anymore.

If there were any other consumer products out there that posed a similar risk of cancer, you bet your bottom dollar they would be off the market in short order.

When Ford produced the Pinto, and the Pinto started to explode when crashed into, what did Ford and the Government do? Continue to sell more Pintos of the exact same design?

When infant furniture is determined to have bars spaced wide enough to fit a child's head, thus causing a risk of choking and/or suffocation, what do they do? Do they continue to sell such furniture, or is it taken off the market?

When children's toys from China are laced with industrial poisons or lead, what do they do? Do they continue to sell these toys in US toy stores, or is it taken off the market?

How about Red Food Dye #2? Remember that one? Banned in 1976 because it was shown to cause cancer.

I can go on and on and on....
Watch out here. You are on "The slippery Slope to Socialism"
No wonder Lefty disagrees.

[newtothegame]

When it's shown pretty conclusively that playing the horses causes cancer, then I will be all for the banning of horseplaying.

This is not a discussion of smoker's rights! I never said smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke.

I said cigarettes shouldn't be allowed to be SOLD because they are a KNOWN high risk cause of cancer, just like asbestos, which to the best of my knowledge, isn't allowed in buildings anymore.

If there were any other consumer products out there that posed a similar risk of cancer, you bet your bottom dollar they would be off the market in short order.

When Ford produced the Pinto, and the Pinto started to explode when crashed into, what did Ford and the Government do? Continue to sell more Pintos of the exact same design?

When infant furniture is determined to have bars spaced wide enough to fit a child's head, thus causing a risk of choking and/or suffocation, what do they do? Do they continue to sell such furniture, or is it taken off the market?

When children's toys from China are laced with industrial poisons or lead, what do they do? Do they continue to sell these toys in US toy stores, or is it taken off the market?

How about Red Food Dye #2? Remember that one? Banned in 1976 because it was shown to cause cancer.

I can go on and on and on....


Pace...have to disagree with ya here. I understand your arguements which are valid...but I could easliy draw many of the same comparisons to alcohol which is also proven to cause liver diseases.....should that be taken off of the market as well?

[Tom]

I don't like cigs, wish people didn't smoke them.....

Obama smokes. I am glad for that.
I wish he would smoke more. Much more.:D

[Tom]

I will take my chances with red dye over the government any day.
The government is bad for your health. ;)

[cj's dad]

The next step will be to monitor pregnant women to hopefully prevent them from smoking, drinking, doping etc... so the babies have a better chance of being born defect free; maybe have them tested monthly and if they fail, the baby is aborted. After all, the govment has no problem with killing the unborn, even after birth; just ask BO.

Not a smoker but do believe that if cigs were a new product trying to gain FDA approval for public consumption, there would be no chance of that.

[rusrious]

I smoke, and personally, they should have doubled the tax more then it is now.. When you sit down, and figure out that if you stop, you can save over $500 a month ( wife and myself), and there are better and WISER reasons to use your money, It makes sense..

I was kinda depressed that my smokes were as cheap as they are ( $4.15 )

Im quiting in a few days here, got the E-Cig, and Commit, Im ready to be done with it..

Everyone wants to complain about eating Pasta and Ramon noodles, stop smoking and buy some steak

[jballscalls]

. What about a person's right to choose? in this country..

Did i just see you right you were pro choice??:bang:

[Tom]

You get to chose what affects YOU, not a baby.

[ddog]

The tobacco lobby isn't the primary reason tobacco hasn't become extinct. The loss of tax revenue is the main reason.

Boxcar


if the gvt banned the stuff it would of course all go to the black market , of which there is a huge amount already.

so, yeah , they can't ban it.

if that's your point then fine, if it's the other, well then DING DONG is more like it!

[ddog]

"You get to chose what affects YOU, not a baby"
uh huh and .....


Your right to tell the person responsible for the baby is nill, nada,none.



You would not wish to assert your right to smoke even if it means causing breathing problems for a baby who can't choose to avoid it would you?

[Pell Mell]

My mother and her lady friend were forced to quit smoking in 2002 when the price got so high in NJ they couldn't afford it anymore. My mother was 92 and her friend was 93. My mother died at 94 and the friend is still going and living alone.

[DJofSD]

I smoke, and personally, they should have doubled the tax more then it is now.. When you sit down, and figure out that if you stop, you can save over $500 a month ( wife and myself), and there are better and WISER reasons to use your money, It makes sense..I recently had another conversation with my son about smoking, drugs and addiction. He's nine years old. He's also recently started to better understand the value of money. I made a very similar point to him about how much it costs to feed the habit, literally, making him add up the cost of smoking a pack a day. And stessing after smoking the cigarettes, he would not having anything to show for it. He might as well burned his money. And after adding it up for the year to then think if he didn't smoke he'd have that money in his pocket, it left a strong impression.

[ddog]

dj

that's good.
maybe you could open a little fund and put in a couple of packs a week into the fund and then when he's 13-14 show him the CASH!

Just don't be tempted to throw it on a sure thing!!
;)

[DJofSD]

dd, I might consider that, thanks.

He already has a pass book savings account. It's adding up, closer to $1,000 than not. It's too bad the interest rate is what it is otherwise the lesson of compounded interest might be learned sooner rather than later.

[jballscalls]

You get to chose what affects YOU, not a baby.

doesnt a baby affect you?

[Tom]

So do neighbors.
Get real.

[PaceAdvantage]

but I could easliy draw many of the same comparisons to alcohol which is also proven to cause liver diseases.....should that be taken off of the market as well?You raise a valid point. Alcohol, when taken excessively certainly can cause long term health problems and even death.

You must admit though that between the social drinker and the social smoker (less than a pack a day), the social smoker has a helluva higher risk of adverse health affects due to their habit.

[Lefty]

Yeah, but people get drunk and kill other people with their cars. Never heard of Nicotine causing tragedy like that. If smoking is legal and people want to do it, I'm not gonna try and stand in the way. I don't want them standing in my way for something I like to do.

[Pell Mell]

You raise a valid point. Alcohol, when taken excessively certainly can cause long term health problems and even death.

You must admit though that between the social drinker and the social smoker (less than a pack a day), the social smoker has a helluva higher risk of adverse health affects due to their habit.

Not according to a couple doctor buddies of mine. They say alcohol affects every organ in your body, especially the liver, heart and brain.

[PaceAdvantage]

I've never read an article or report citing cigarette smoking's positive impact on health. On the other hand, I have read more than a few reports citing drinking in moderation as good for the heart and whatnot.

And the carcinogens in cigarette smoke affect a variety of organs, from the lungs to the heart, stomach, bladder, kidneys, throat, mouth, tongue, etc. etc.

[acorn54]

I've never read an article or report citing cigarette smoking's positive impact on health. On the other hand, I have read more than a few reports citing drinking in moderation as good for the heart and whatnot.

And the carcinogens in cigarette smoke affect a variety of organs, from the lungs to the heart, stomach, bladder, kidneys, throat, mouth, tongue, etc. etc.
it's true what you say. smoking is unhealthy and society incurs alot of health care expense due to cigarettes. but people who overeat and eat the wrong foods become overweight. i never saw an old fat person. being overweight causes health problems and society incurs high health costs from overweight people. should we start taxing foods that cause people to be overweight to cover the health costs that are incurred from such foods? where does it end.
governor patterson already proposed an obeisty tax on sodas with sugar in them, maybe this is a prelude of things to come. i think the government doesn't give a damm whether something is healthy or unhealthy, its just a pretext to tax people and right now smoking cigarettes is unpopular with the majority of people so it is politically safe to tax cigarettes to the hilt.

[newtothegame]

Cigarette Tax Will Affect Low-Income Americans Most (http://www.gallup.com/poll/117214/Cigarette-Tax-Affect-Low-Income-Americans.aspx)


it was posted earlier by someone (forgive me I am not sure whom) that this tax was not directed at lower income....want to rethink that???

[The Judge]

was about to buy a package of cigarettes then told the clerk to cancel that and to give her a 1/2 pt. of Vodka as it was cheaper.

[boxcar]

Cigarette Tax Will Affect Low-Income Americans Most (http://www.gallup.com/poll/117214/Cigarette-Tax-Affect-Low-Income-Americans.aspx)


it was posted earlier by someone (forgive me I am not sure whom) that this tax was not directed at lower income....want to rethink that???

Yes, yes, yes...but dont' forget: With statists what counts the most with the masses (whom they believe are asses) are nice sentiments and good intentions.
We're expected to be stupid enough to not take into account the impact their foolish actions have on society -- most especially upon those for whom they feign so much love and compassion and concern. :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Since there are more low income americans than the high income ones, it does compute that low income Americans will suffer the most.

[Tom]

was about to buy a package of cigarettes then told the clerk to cancel that and to give her a 1/2 pt. of Vodka as it was cheaper.

I probably paid for it anyway.:D

[sandpit]

my best friend is a cardiologist and he once told me that if everyone quit smoking, he would lose 90% of his business.

[WinterTriangle]

low income Americans will suffer the most.

It depends on the way you look at it.

I believe that I am 'suffering' because I have an addiction to cigarettes.


I quit for 5 years and started again, so the price hike gave me another excuse to quit again now. Addiction IS suffering....being in the grips of something where you lose control of your ability to do or not do something?


Surely anyone who has ever had an addiction can admit, and understand, that ANYONE with an addiction is not, and cannot, think rationally about the thing that they're addicted to?

I learned an interesting fact in my quit smoking clinic...cigs are the *only* drug that delivers BOTH a relaxant and a stimulant. Why they are harder to quit than heroin, supposedly.

I also have to *psychologically* question myself when I *demand* that my right to do something, which is so terribly unhealthy to my person, is something I'm willing to fight for???? This is just my addiction talking....... and at least I know this!!!

I make a distinction between "my addiction talking" and "my real brain functioning." They are 2 separate things. As an addict, I "listen" to my addiction feed me absurd and desperate messages.....and then, I ignore them. :lol:

There's a reason the word "smoke-screen" became a vocabulary word. When you're in a fog, you can't see or think very well.

I have had a good time "oberserving" my addiction lately. :)

So, smokers are essentially not in a position to "decide" whether cigarettes should be banned or outlawed. Their addiction will make that decision FOR them.

Wish me luck. :blush:

I have no idea why, as a PROVEN carcinogen, they have not been banned outright. If they proved chicken was carcinogenic, chicken would disappear from the grocery shelves.

Nobody is taking away your right to smoke here, though. They are just making it "uncomfortable" to continue. I can't see that as a bad thing, quite frankly.

[Warren Henry]

FOLKS,

Get a grip.

Do any of you know any problem gamblers? Do problem gamblers sometimes hurt other people - like the ones that gamble away their savings, houses, etc. Do problem gamblers sometimes embezzle or steal to support their habits. Are problem gamblers addicts?

If you never gamble, you aren't very likely to become a problem gambler. Thus, all forms of gambling should be outlawed?

Gambling businesses are already taxed at a much higher rate than other businesses. Why? Is it because the majority of folks don't see it as a necessary activity? Or because the participants are willing to put up with the onerous take? When the government maxes out how much sin tax they can get from tobacco and alcohol, they will come for us next. If we look down our noses at the folks that smoke, I suspect that they won't have much sympathy for us when our time comes.

The real question we should be asking is "what is the legitimate role of government?"

[Tom]

The real question we should be asking is "what is the legitimate role of government?"

No, the question is "Is there a legitimate role for government?"
Since government no longer exists to serve the people - ALL the people, should we allow it to exist at all?

[Warren Henry]

No, the question is "Is there a legitimate role for government?"
Since government no longer exists to serve the people - ALL the people, should we allow it to exist at all?

Tom,

I am inclined to agree with you except for one thing. Anarchy doesn't work too well either. Usually anarchy is replaced by a dictatorship of some sort as the population is willing to give up their freedoms for what they percieve as relative safety.

What we really need to do is to reform the government we have and get back to the Consitiution as written, not as interpreted by those in power. This will be hard to do, but it is our only chance to survive as the great country this once was.