What a 2,158% tax increase means to my SS Disability...

[catnhatnh]

There is no typo in my thread title and this is a fact-not some alarmist rant. I am a smoker. All smokers have been targeted by SCHIP to take an unfair hit. Manufactured cigarette taxes rise by 156% on April 1st. Who else has been targeted for such a hit? Why was alcohol not given it's share of the "sin tax" burden?

But for the poorest of us it is much worse.

Pushed by always rising costs of living, 2 years ago I turned to RYO (roll your own) for my habit. While cartons of cigarettes soared to over $40 per carton, I found that by purchasing pounds of loose tobacco and rolling my own I could reduce my cost to a more reasonable figure of $13-14 dollars per carton (tobacco at $19 per pound and paper tubes at $4 per 200). Of course I also had to buy a rolling machine ($45) and invest 1/2 hour a day to rolling...

Here are the SCHIP increases: Cigarettes were .39 per pack and rose .61 to $1.00 per pack-156% increase. By itself it reeks of unfairness. But loose tobacco- tax was $1.09 per pound, April 1st $23.53-A 2,158% increase...

Now let's look at absolute terms...A pound of tobacco makes about 2 cartons. A more affluent smoker who buys manufactured cigarettes will pay .61 more per pack. Less affluent RYO folks-A whopping $1.12 per pack!
My cost increase per year-$538.76.

You may not like smoking. I am myself happy to see millions more children insured. What it MEANS to me is making choices. 3.5% of my net annual income disappeared. I'll eat a little more poorly and do without a couple more "extras" and maybe even cut back on my smoking some.

But if "sharing the burdens" means doing this to the lowest income people while others "share the burden" by collecting "just" $500k, then something is seriously wrong.

[Renew Deal]

1. Cut off your smoking and you can save 3.5% of your net income

and your life.

[catnhatnh]

3. Thank you for the helpful advise and great discussion...

...of the points in my post.

[Renew Deal]

7. No problem

Do you have a better solution than the one I offered? You can't change the tax situation. So what's left? You decide where to spend your money. Do you pay the increased taxes and possibly diminsh your quality of life in other areas? Or do you cut back on smoking and mantain your quality of life? Obviously the best solution is the one I initially offered. Stop smoking and get the added bonus of saving your life.

[Hannah Bell]

55. who's going to pay for your schip (schools, health care) when everyone stops smoking?

[Renew Deal]

60. People buying Nicorette

:D

[readmoreoften]

256. You have the patience of a saint.

I just wanted to say that.

[liberalhistorian]

121. Exactly. I'm sorry, but I'm getting tired of smokers crying poor.

Aside from all of the health hazards which it does no good to tell them anyway, and aside from the damage second-hand smoke does to so many people and not just those with respiratory problems, cigarettes are horrendously expensive. They were when I smoked before quitting twenty years ago, but they're far worse now. Why is it that those who cry poor always seem to have enough money for cigarettes?

[catnhatnh]

176. Why is it that those who use "Liberal" in their name...

Always seem to support using taxes to screw legal behaviors they don't approve of rather than working to ban the product that allows the behavior? Because I checked and I haven't found posts by you arguing for the outright banning of the sales and distribution of tobacco. Why have you never argued for lower tobacco taxes since you find them "horrendously expensive"? Why don't you address why a tax on me should increase 20 fold.

[Lorien]

191. Her name isn't "LibertarianHistorian" so I see no hypocrisy here

smoking is an expensive and dangerous choice, not a necessity. I may really enjoy VanGogh Vodka but I'm not going to complain that it costs $32 a bottle and is therefore too expensive for me to drink daily. You can choose to pay the tax by buying cigarettes (which are in no way essential to your life-it's just a habit you enjoy, like my enjoyment of vodka once a year), OR you can choose not to pay the tax by not buying cigarettes. Personally I'm all for "luxury" taxes if they make essentials that everyone NEEDS more affordable.

[pipi_k]

213. I don't see how banning the stuff is going to help.

People who can't quit smoking are still going to do it, except that if it's banned, they'll be breaking the law.

That means fines and jail, neither of which they want or can afford.

Banning stuff leads to it being sold by the criminal element. Do we need more crime?

How did Prohibition work out for people?


As a former smoker myself, I do realize how difficult it is to quit. It's a powerful addiction. But the "cleaning out" period only lasts about a week or two. If someone can get through a couple of weeks smoke free, they're probably well on their way to breaking the addiction. After that...after the physical cravings have mostly passed, it DOES become a choice as to whether or not to pick up that one cigarette that will start the whole addiction over again.

Nobody chooses to become addicted, but once the addiction has been dealt with, they can choose, or not choose, to pick up the drink or cigarette or whatever else they're addicted to.

BTW...I've been smoke free for nearly 13 years. I know that if I were to smoke just ONE cigarette, that would be it. Right back to being addicted again. I choose not to pick up that first cigarette.

[liberalhistorian]

216. I support lower taxes on items that are truly needed,

such as certain food items, etc., but not for health-damaging items that are not needed that people choose to damage their health with, thereby increasing costs for the rest of us.

[vanboggie]

201. It is called addiction

I've tried everything...still addicted. I'm going to take another round of Chantix since that drug helped me the most. At least when I started back up this time I'm smoking 1/2 pack a day insted of 3/packs day. I know all the lectures - hell, I've given some of them to smokers during the months and years I quit. I'm just hoping my genes save me since my mother smoked heavily and died at 87 from something totally unrelated.

I'm with the OP - I'm tired of paying the sin tax while drinkers and overeaters get off scot free. We're an easy target because of all the anti-smoking PR, some of which is hogwash.

Edited to add that the Rethuglican economy has hit a lot of people hard and caused major stress. That's not a good time to have to choose between food and cigarettes, because under stress I know I would choose the latter.

[liberalhistorian]

215. Look, I'm an ex-smoker, I know full well just how addicting

it is and how hard it is to quit, believe me. I have little patience with those who've NEVER smoked who think it's just a matter of "just quitting", which it isn't. But I also know that it CAN BE DONE. It may take several tries (it took three times before I quit for good nineteen years ago), but it CAN be done. It is not a necessity or a need.

[readmoreoften]

254. I'm getting tired of selfish, judgmental scolds pissing all over poor people.

You know why poor people smoke? Because they can't afford ANTI-ANXIETY DRUGS like the yuppies do. You do know that nicotine actually HELPS people with schizophrenia. And as someone who has a schizophrenic father who has smoked for 40 years and can't possible quit, I loathe people like you. I wish they charged you extra on your insurance for every fat-loaded carmel macchiatto you buy.

People like you who call themselves "liberals" feed the Republican fantasy that their enemies are nanny-state assholes.

I quit cigarettes about the same time you did. So you have no excuse.

[Lorien]

187. Agreed. I can't afford to eat many of my favorite foods because I can NEVER

afford to be sick. If you are poor, you're in the same boat. As tough as it will be (and it will be tough) giving up the GOP enriching cigarette habit is the only sensible choice here. Until we have universal health care none of us can afford to consume anything that poses a direct risk to our health without any additional benefits (a glass of red wine on your BD; OK. A six pack of Bud a day; bad).

[XemaSab]

206. Word

n/t

[Kalyke]

2. Actually, I've been ranting about the point of diminishing returns since

they first started talking about S-Chip.

What's the point of taxing a dwindling subset of people to the point that they either quit or buy tax-free off the black market? Then the S-Chip program suffers financially.

Why didn't they tax the fat in food? Everyone has to eat.

[karynnj]

117. Has this actually happened?

SCHIP has been a real program for 10 years and this doesn't seem to be a problem.

[catnhatnh]

143. It happened this week when the enlarged SCHIP was approved.

And if the taxes of something you used were raised that much you would much more likely recognize it as a problem.

[karynnj]

151. I know SCHIP happened, what I was questioning was whether

there would be too few smokers - it hasn't seemed to be a problem.

[bobbolink]

203. "Why didn't they tax the fat in food? Everyone has to eat." WHY are you so tied to regressive taxes

???????????

THAT'S the real question.

What the hell has happened to "progressives" when all they can think of is regressive taxes???

REGRESSIVE TAXES ALWAYS HURT POOR PEOPLE MORE.

Why cannot any of you understand that?????????

PLEASE, I BEG YOU, read this and start to understand:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4800489

[dysfunctional press]

4. gosh gee- i have absolutely no sympathy for smokers...

:shrug:

[liberalhistorian]

126. I do have some because I've been there and I know how

powerfully addicting it is and how hard it is to quit, even with the best of intentions. What I don't have sympathy for are smokers who don't even try to quit, who ignore the damage they're doing to themselves and those around them, who ignore or get angry or downplay the needs of those with sensitivity to smoke, who are rude and nasty to such people (like a lot of smokers on DU), who resent not being able to smoke wherever they want anymore, and who cry poormouth while spending a TON of money each week on cigarettes. Some even put cigarettes ahead of necessities for themselves and their family. I've seen it time and time again.

[TahitiNut]

233. Well, at least you admit to your deficiencies.

:shrug:

[dysfunctional press]

235. not really- since i don't consider it to be a deficiency.

smokers are just...gross.

[TahitiNut]

237. Of course you don't.

Because antipathy towards human beings is so ... 'enlightened.' :eyes:

Sociopathic, too. :shrug:

[dysfunctional press]

238. one fly in that ointment...

smokers are really human beings...
in the classic sense.

[Baby Snooks]

246. gosh gee - i have no tolerance for intolerant people....

I am addicted. Have tried it all. I am very courteous to people who don't smoke. Not so courteous to people who aren't courteous to me.

Once you ban smoking, what's next on your list to create your perfect little world? You are exposed to carcinogens in the air you breathe in most if not all of the major cities in this country as well as in your own home. Every time you take a bath or wash your clothes or clean your kitchen you are exposed to carcinogens. They are everywhere.

How about banning alcohol next? How many people die of alcohol-related diseases each year? How many are killed by drunk drivers? How about raising the taxes on alcohol proportionately to the taxes on tobacco?

As for the excuse of trying to help people live healthier lives and cut down the cost of health care, why not tax fast food since it also kills quite a few people in this country? That will take care of the dollar meals. Of course many work two jobs and the dollar meals are all they can afford as they run from the day job to the night job.

Most of these "user taxes" unfortunately hurt the poor. But then most who want to create their perfect little worlds really don't want poor people intruding on it either.

I have no tolerance for intolerant people. Most of all for the pious anti-smoking propagandists.

What drives me up the wall are the number of anti-smoking zealots who smoke pot. Pot gives me migraines. Through the years I've noticed how some of them will complain about my smoking. But could care less about smoking pot around me. Hypocritical to say the least.

[readmoreoften]

255. You don't have sympathy for anyone.

[ejpoeta]

259. good luck, then, when they start taxing something you may buy.

pop? chips? baked goods? you know, this is a double edged sword. now, while I understand that we aren't allowed to stand up for smokers in this society, we must also look at our habits. because it only starts with the cigarettes. here in ny we have a governor who wants a fat tax on pop. i know, not diet pop. but where does it go from there? So, while we can all beat up smokers because it's easy, let's not hear the whining when that 'health' tax comes to a food product near you.

for the record... i am not a smoker, though I did smoke for a couple of years before I had my first child. I consider myself lucky that Emily helped me to quit smoking, as I was pregnant, and I couldn't even smoke one cigarette thanks to her. (I did not know I was pregnant at the time). I can't stand the smell of smoke, and I get to watch my husband try to quit. His insurance will not pay for the medicine to work towards quitting. over $100 for one month. He is really addicted. I don't think I was ever THAT addicted!! But hey, let's kick him and people like him because it's easy. and it is someone else and not us, right.

[prolesunited]

5. Stop smoking

It's a voluntary tax.

[catnhatnh]

74. Ok

Since we aren't going to discuss fairness or tax policy tell me which of the following is a good thing for you to do:

Never drive on a toll road. Those are voluntary.

Don't hold a drivers license. They charge fees for that that are easily avoided.

Registering your car is a scam. If you drive without doing this they can still figure out who you are. And driving is legal so no need to volunteer for that.

I found they have placed a voluntary federal tax on tires...you don't buy them,you don't pay. Go bald and flat.

In fact, drive until you run out of fuel and then stop. Turns out the fuel pump is one more "voluntary' place.

Of course this doesn't discuss fairness or "choosing" to drive. I'm just telling you that from a moral viewpoint all those taxes are voluntary. And you driving may pollute the planet more than my smoking. There, how do you like me judging your legal behavior?

[roguevalley]

111. there is a huge cost to society from the effects of drinking and

smoking. driving on a toll road maybe voluntary but it doesn't have debilitating side effects for society. try and find something that people do that does when you want to compare these. strawman arguments cut into the point you want to make.

I suspect you will do what everyone in a bind does: make do or give up the habit. I don't see much changing otherwise. Smoking is on the outs with the majority, a reversal of what it used to be. Non-smokers were the hated minority. Now we are the majority. That is how things go. I would suggest that you calculate the cost of your habit and delete something from your budget that is equal to the cost, perhaps dvds or something.

Fairness is not the issue here no matter how you spin this. It wasn't fair for non-smokers to be subjected to the side effects of smokers for 500 years. We had to put up with it. Now its smoker's turn to do the same. Either form a lobby that can reverse this or make do. That is what people with no power have to do.

Personally, I have sympathy for smokers only because it is an awful thing to quit. But I have zero sympathy for smoking. The graveyards full of my loved ones, including my grandfather and my beloved darling father make that impossible for me. Good luck.

[catnhatnh]

148. See below for a comparison of health cost from JAMA...

...May you someday BE a minority.

[liberalhistorian]

128. Nice try. But most of those are not truly voluntary,

not if people want to be able to work or do errands or actually live our lives. Smoking is, however, entirely voluntary and NOT NECESSARY IN DAILY LIFE.

[catnhatnh]

154. Of course it's voluntary, and work and errands are not addictive...

Check your spam for work from home and your local bus schedules. If you actually CHOOSE to, there is a life after cars. Sorry if that seems unfair. Are cars legal? Would increasing fees 2000% be OK?

[liberalhistorian]

160. You are really twisting yourself into pretzels trying to

justify this. I live in a very rural, isolated area where you MUST drive cars, there are no busses or taxis or anything like that. Are you seriously suggesting that work is addictive and voluntary? How do you think most people get the money to live? Work is not voluntary, for the most part, and neither is driving, not the way the current social infrastructure in too many areas is set up.

Look, I know how addicting smoking is and how hard it is to quit and I agree that I can't stand it when those who've never smoked seem to think it's a piece of cake when they have no idea. But I also know that it IS possible to quit, that it IS voluntary in the long run, and that it is horrendously expensive and if you're on a fixed or low-income you cannot complain about its cost because it is not a required, involuntary expense. YOU CHOOSE IT.

[Codeine]

174. It's the addiction talking.

All the rage and anger that smokers express whenever the issue comes up, all the "smoking Nazi" epithets, all the lame justifications and strawmen -- it's pure chemical addiction talking. There's no logic, or reason, or rational thought involved at all; just pure desperation and need. Smokers are literally no different than heroin junkies shooting up while claiming they can "quit any time."

Sick, sad denial.

[Grinchie]

182. I agree with you on the Addiction talking

When I quit I turned into one mean sucker. If I didn't have dual sport motorcycle to disappear into the forest day after day, I never would have kept my relationship. It is a true chemical dependance, and it's much worse than Cannabis in my opinion.

[liberalhistorian]

217. Very true, and you would not have wanted to

have been around me for awhile after I quit for good. Those who've never smoked have no idea just how powerful it is and how hard it is to quit. It isn't a matter of just deciding to put down the cigarettes and that's it. But I also know that it CAN BE DONE. It is not impossible.

[DrCory]

210. A Necessity?

"I live in a very rural, isolated area where you MUST drive cars, there are no busses or taxis or anything like that."

Or a choice? Don't tell me you CANNOT relocate to an urban center where mass transit does exist.
As they say, where there's a will, there's a way.

[liberalhistorian]

218. LOL

Damn, some of you people are really hilarious.

[DrCory]

224. You Dodged...What a Shocker! N/T

[liberalhistorian]

244. What is there to dodge? Hubby's employment circumstances

dictate that we live here. People cannot just pick up and move wherever they want whenever they want. It's far less of a choice than smoking is, you're just attempting to twist things tortuously to justify it. And YOU are dodging the issue of the fact that driving and working are necessities in this society, whereas smoking is most certainly not. Smoking is far more of a choice than almost anything else.

[DrCory]

261. I Dislike Repeating Myself...

But as I said, you could relocate if the will existed. Driving is NOT a necessity, and there is more work to be found in urban centers than in rural areas at any rate. Whatever your husband's work, I'm sure he could find something compatible in an area where mass transit is available...if he/you really wanted to.

By the way, I did not say smoking wasn't a choice, and you are simply justifying your own negative environmental impact by claiming "necessity" where it does not objectively exist.

[Grinchie]

180. Have another cigarette catnhatnh

Your neurosis is starting to show.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Arkansas has a proposed $.50 a pack additional tax that will go to fund a

state 'trauma center' in Little Rock. Same thing ... let the smokers pay for it all. Why not an extra tax on guns and bullets that are the leading causes of trauma centers?

[Renew Deal]

10. Put a tax on cars for the same reason?

If your trauma centers are full of shooting victims, maybe the money should be spent on cops.

[Hannah Bell]

85. Tobacco taxes = scam

The Tobacco Industry

Despite a 20-year trend of declining tobacco consumption in the United States, tobacco sales remain highly profitable. The U.S. tobacco industry is led by Philip Morris and RJR Nabisco, which together controlled 70 percent of the U.S. market in 198878. In 1992, Philip Morris was the seventh largest industrial corporation in the United States, with $50 billion in sales. When these corporations were ranked according to profits, however, Philip Morris made more money in 1992 -- $4.9 billion -- than any other company in the United States, reflecting the large profit margin of cigarette sales79. This economic success in the face of declining U.S. cigarette consumption involved pricing that more than compensated for both inflation and the decrease in domestic sales. Aggressive advertising and marketing, as well as expanding exportation of tobacco, were also important factors.

Tobacco Advertising and Marketing

Cigarette advertising and promotion, despite some government restrictions, have undergone unbridled expansion in the past 30 years...At what audience are the advertising and promotion by tobacco companies aimed? Recent data on the Camel-cigarette advertising campaign suggest that a principal target group is children.

...The U.S. tobacco industry, which is second only to China in tobacco production, has recently expanded its activity in foreign markets. Cigarette exportation has increased dramatically in the past eight years and has offset declining consumption in the United States such that domestic cigarette production has been maintained90.

Tobacco Subsidies

On the one hand, the Department of Health and Human Services discourages tobacco use among U.S. citizens, whereas on the other hand the Department of Agriculture uses taxpayers' dollars to subsidize the tobacco industry,109 and the Internal Revenue Service allows the tobacco industry to deduct 100 percent of its advertising and promotional expenditures110. Although this tax deduction is not unique to the tobacco industry, given the health consequences of the product and the focus of the advertisements on women, children, and minorities, the U.S. public should be outraged by the mixed messages from our government. Substantial government subsidies to allow conversion from tobacco to other profitable and needed crops would seem indicated.



So long as they recruit enough young smokers, they'll continue to be profitable - & the smokers not only pay for the profit, they pay the cost of their extra health care.

The anti-smoking lobby didn't hurt the tobacco corps one bit. They just pushed taxes onto poorer demographics.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/330/14/975

[liberalhistorian]

134. Maybe those "poorer demographics" shouldn't be wasting

what little money they do have on cigarettes, ya think?

[Runcible Spoon]

147. Why don't you write down everything you do so we can make value judgments

about how you spend your money. I fucking HATE IT when the poor are supposed to live to some higher moral code than the rest of the world. Should you be able to do whatever the fuck you want because you have money? That is the message this sends.

[liberalhistorian]

158. No, but when you're on a fixed income and smoking

is as expensive as it is and when it's dangerous healthwise not just to the smoker but to those exposed to his "choice" and when my kid has asthma and smoking sensitivity and has to deal with smokers not caring what their "choice" does to him, then, hell yes, I WILL judge that and I will not apologize for it. My son's father and his fiance smoked like chimneys despite having low incomes. He never had the money for child support but they always seemed to have plenty of money for cigarettes for them both. And they couldn't have given a shit how their smoking affected my son or their young son.

[Runcible Spoon]

161. This goes round and round and until you demand that

everyone quit driving your argument is completely groundless. You DO realize that the mentality you are using to chastize smokers is the SAME logic used by republicans to denigrate welfare recipients. They are all lazy, selfish, and a drain on the system.

[liberalhistorian]

164. People need money and assistance

sometimes to survive. They do NOT need or require cigarettes. Period.

[Runcible Spoon]

144. BEST POST IN THE THREAD.

Tax tabacco to high fucking heaven; just tax it at the corporate level. Sure, they might want to raise prices on smokers, but then competing markets will offer a cheaper product. Smokers might have brand loyalty but I guarantee you they will smoke another brand if it gets expensive enough.

[Hannah Bell]

168. It's a monopoly. that's the problem with your idea. competing producers

are bought off or run off.

[Runcible Spoon]

226. well I guess they need restructuring.

I haven't exactly thought at lot about this lol; about 2 mins.

[Hannah Bell]

239. i understand; just making the point: there's very little competition in the tobacco

industry, even on a global level.

[Statistical]

192. What competing market?

If all the tobacco producers are taxed heavily and EQUALLY there is no "lower cost competing market".

Every tobacco company would see their taxes go up equally which equals costs going up.
They raise the price of goods to compensate.

Since each company will be doing the same there will be no competing market.

Here is an idea:
Progressive should support PROGRESSIVE taxes not regressive ones.
A massive (as % of retail price) tax on tobacco is about the most regressive tax possible.

[Hannah Bell]

200. In a market of many non-colluding producers, tax hike = decreased profit margin & decreased use.

In a situation of monopoly, producers can hike the price to cover any tax increase nearly indefinitely: use goes down, profit goes up, tax burden shifted from producers to consumers.


Say cost = $1/pack, profit = 5% or $1.05/price/pack. 100 customers = 105 dollars & $5 profit.

Now add a 45 cent tax to make the price $1.50/pack.

25 customers go away, but the remaining 75 will be willing to pay $1.50 + 5 cents.

That breaks down:

Total sales: $1.05 v. $1.16

Total tax: $0 v. $33.75

Total profit: $5 v. $7.50


In market with many producers, all producers *might* pass on the tax, or some *might* cut profit to increase market share.

[marketcrazy1]

8. time to stock up!!!

going to buy 10 lbs. right soon!!! gotta figure out how to keep it fresh.....

[Marrah_G]

43. Freezer?

[madinmaryland]

103. No! That's for storing cash in!!

:D

[Mari333]

9. just warning you that

the anti smoking nazis are thick and deep on here, so come readied with a bit o wit..

:popcorn:

[Bill McBlueState]

24. Right, they're *exactly* like Nazis.

:eyes:

[Goblinmonger]

27. Rush? Is that you?

Oh, wait, it's the feminists that are Nazis in Rush's world. My bad.

[liberalhistorian]

137. Yeah, how dare we wanna be able to breathe

without choking on smoke or be concerned for the welfare of our friends and family who have sensitivity to smoke, respiratory problems, etc. How dare we even suggest to someone with little money that they quit wasting it on cancer sticks, quit polluting our air, and try to improve their health as well as those around them? Yeah, how awful we are. Get a grip.

[Mari333]

177. awww relax

[county worker]

11. I agree and I wish you would stop smoking.

It is not fair to take a program that everyone wants and make a few people pay for it. If we all think it is a good idea we should all pay for it!

To those holier than thou non smokers, you are not paying your fair share so I have no praises for you. (I don't smoke)

[roguevalley]

114. you are ignoring the costs to society from the effects of smoking.

by lingering on the 'fairness' of a tax, you are ignoring how all of us pay for the effects smoking have on smokers. We all pay for smoking one way or the other. this tax is piddling compared to the loss of productivity, the cost of medical and the suffering to people this VOLUNTARY habit exacts from people. Smoking nazis? What an evil thing to call people.

[liberalhistorian]

142. You should see how hateful, rude and nasty a lot of

the smokers on here are toward those with sensitivity to smoke or respiratory problems. I don't know which is worse from them, downplaying, minimizing and ridiculing smoking's affect on such people, or their hateful rudeness to them.

[county worker]

205. You have no right to pass your share of the cost of children's health care on to someone else

because you feel they are hurting you.

[liberalhistorian]

138. I do agree that it should not be on the backs of just a small

group and that we all should chip in for it, no question. I do not agree with coddling smokers.

[catnhatnh]

162. Yes...

Questioning a 2,000% tax increase on the lowest income demographic is coddling. As I said in the OP it is basically unfair. But I appreciate you recognize that putting SCHIP on smokers is unfair.

[liberalhistorian]

166. It is very unfair, on that

we can certainly agree.

[Venceremos]

12. If you can roll your own, you can grow your own.

Check out the link for heirloom tobacco seeds: http://www.newhopeseed.com/tobacco/varieties.htm. It's grows as far north as Alaska. It's as easy to grow as tomatoes, since it's in the same family. It will grow in containers or your backyard.

For a little extra income, you can let some of your plants go to seed and sell the seeds on ebay - with the new taxes they're becoming a hot commodity.

And for all you holier-than-thou non-smokers, as soon as the income dries up from tobacco taxes, your "sin" will be targeted next. I am in favor of children's health insurance, but the government needs to find a better way to fund it. Targeting one group won't work in the long run.

[Mother Of Four]

28. So true-

about the next "sins" that could be targeted.

Fast food restaurants, horrible for your health and makes care costs skyrocket- Tax it like cigs
Processed sugar, linked to Type II diabetes...Tax it like cigs
Alcohol, damages your liver and renal system...tax it just like cigs
Coffee, can lead to dependence on caffeine - insomnia - jitters...tax it like cigs
Chocolate, has both caffeine and sugar...double tax that baby.
Processed bread, it has chemicals and almost no nutritional value- carb paste. Tax it!
Any fatty meat...TAX IT!

The list could go on and on and on.
Tax bullets, arrows, hand axes, snares...after all it leads to damaging wildlife and/or people in some cases.
Tax cars that can go past 65...because it's POSSIBLE that it could go 120 and hit a little old lady means we need protection from it right? It's a proven fact, cars going 120 Mph hitting pedestrians are fatal.

If you didn't catch all the :sarcasm: in the text...here's just making sure people know I'm not REALLY saying tax it all at the same rate of cigs. I'm just saying targeting one group with a huge hike, while letting others not pitch in is insane. A tiny percentile raise in taxes for things I mentioned, and things using what I mentioned, would more than cover what they are trying to do with the Tobacco tax hike while still giving them the justification for doing it on items that can damage you. It also spreads the burden around some, and makes it easier for us to bear as taxpayers.

For the record,
Little cigars are smoked here.
I love me a Big Mac
I am a proclaimed chocoholic
I use sugar in my coffee
My husband has to carry bullets at work

:hide: now...I'm scurrying back into my safe lil hole in the ground.

[arikara]

47. I was going to suggest growing it too

Even if you're in an apartment you should be able to grow it in big pots on the balcony.

I sympathize with your addiction. I smoked too for 20 years and finally managed to quit for good 10 years ago. It took several attempts before I was successful, but what worked for me was to pick a date a quit date a couple months in the future and then work on my head. I stopped smoking entirely in the house and car and generally took most of the enjoyment out of it by not sitting smoking with coffee etc. And with every smoke I'd tell myself how much I hated smoking, how I hated the smell, what a filthy disgusting habit it is, how I hated giving so much money I could use to the government for taxes... you get the picture. When finished standing out in the rain with my smoldering butt I'd go wash every bit of odor off myself. By the time quit date came I was barely smoking and it was so easy. I don't think I even had any withdrawal.

If you do manage to quit, you will feel ever so much better, AND have way more money in your pocket which I am sure you could use.

Good luck!

[Jackpine Radical]

13. I'm an ex-smoker, and I know how hard it is to quit.

I'm not going to say "Just get over it." In fact, I raised the issue of a state tobacco tax increase as falling disproportionately on the poor with my state senator, whom I know fairly well, at a county party meeting.

25 years ago, when I was almost 40, I struggled through and quit. I hope you can do the same. If you wish to give it a try, PM me or something and I'll be happy to share what I learned in the process of my own struggle. In the meanwhile, let me just say I understand and have sympathy with your plight.

[Winterblues]

39. IMO if you can afford cigarettes you are not in any way poor

Cigarette are a luxury item. If you can afford luxury items how can you say you are poor?

[catnhatnh]

46. Yep...

That's just why they sell single cigarettes at convenience stores. To catch the interest of passing rich folk.

Please submit your purchasing details for the past year and I'll see if you spent a quarter I find morally reprehensible. Not that I'll be judgmental or anything.

[Hello_Kitty]

51. You're cute

Never been poor or around a lot of poor people, have you?

[Jackpine Radical]

57. Nor physiologically addicted to anything, I take it.

Go to an AA meeting sometime. You'll find a roomful of people who were able to give up drinking, but are still hooked on tobacco. Tobacco is one of the most addictive substances known.

[ret5hd]

78. You could say the same thing about movies...

or a subway ride, or a TV, or air conditioning, or a magazine.

Hell, anything that is not directly food clothing or shelter.

From now on, anyone that does not lead a life fitting of a spartan may no longer call themselves poor!
-By decree of Winterblues, Decree-er In Chief!

[Lorien]

194. Hey, I can't afford movies or magazines or heat right now either

because I actually AM poor! Buying something that could potentially kill me because I can't afford health insurance and would therefore die of any smoking related illness? Sorry, I don't hate myself that much.

[ret5hd]

220. So you are also of the opinion that someone who buys cigarettes, goes to a movie, ...

or buys a magazine has no business calling themselves poor?

[readmoreoften]

257. I don't think privileged people like you have a right to judge poor people.

And I know you're privileged because only a person who has never met a poor person in their LIFE would ever say the knuckledheaded BS you just spewed.

Are you telling me that a teenager in my neighborhood who lives 9 to a household because all the adults work at McDonalds or as maids or as busboys ISN'T POOR because he buys cigarettes with the money he makes selling weed?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Bryn]

14. I am looking into saving money on cigarettes also

I found a website where you can order cigarettes for $17.00 per carton including shipping charge. I am looking into it and will get back with you with a link to this website.

ooops! edit to mention that you can order cigarettes from Europe for $17.00 including shipping charge.

This is my vice and my business as long as I don't smoke in public places. Funny thing is this: many of my non smoking friends are taking anti-depression drugs. I enjoy a smoke and relax with a cup of coffee or a glass of wine. I had xrays done on my lungs last May..they're in good shape since I don't inhale smoke in my lungs. I just like little cigars and cigarettes..I like smokes. Also many of my non smoking friends take drugs one way or another. I am wondering if some DUers who are smoke nazi are quilty of other things like overeating, drinking too much, etc. I don't think smokers should be judged unless you're perfect in all things. I am put off by non smokers' cheap cologne, stinky perfumes.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. So you're saying the loose tax is $23.53/lb, making about 20 packs

ie $1.18/pack - while the tax on manufactured cigarettes is $1.00/pack?

OK, you're paying slightly more. Seems you got away, for a long time, with a minimal tobacco tax. But your tax should still be $20/lb, by your own reckoning.

Seriously, don't eat less, unless you think you need to lose weight - smoke less, instead.

[marketcrazy1]

16. how about we increase taxes on alcohol

maybe 50 cents a bottle for beer, 2 bucks a bottle for wine and 10 bucks a quart for liquor!! we could pay for the whole fuckin stimulus!!! :sarcasm:

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. Tax on alcohol should be proportional across all forms, yes

so evening up the duty on all forms of tobacco makes a lot of sense, in a similar way.

Yes, I pay roughly 40 cents per bottle of beer, $2.30 per bottle of wine, and $11.90 per quart of liquor in excise duty. If I bought hand-rolling tobacco, the duty rate would be $77.92.

What's your point?

[catnhatnh]

169. The point is that any 2,000% increase in taxes is outrageous...

...and more so WHILE the US congress discusses cutting taxes and spending multi-trillions to "make things better". Which part of unfair do you not get while republicans discuss reducing existing taxes rates.

[muriel_volestrangler]

185. As I pointed out, and I thought you'd accepted in reply #17, its only 20% above the tailor-made

cigarette charge. I don't have much sympathy for your "2000% increase" complaint, when that's mainly an artefact of the incredibly low tax you were paying earlier. It ought to have been a 1900% increase. Happy?

[marketcrazy1]

207. I roll my own cigarettes,

it currently costs me about a dollar a pack, with this tax it will go to about 3 bucks ( the tobacconist I spoke with today expects loose tobacco to be selling for 60 to 70 a pound after wholesale and retail price increases are factored in plus the new tax ) how would you like it if a six pack of your favorite beer tripled in price from 6 to 18 bucks or your favorite Merlot went from 8 to 24 dollars a bottle..... Alcohol is a drug also and costs billions a year plus untold suffering!! I will be writing my congress critter to demand a 1000 percent tax increase on booze!!

[muriel_volestrangler]

212. You think a tax of about $1.20 in a total price of $3 is too much?

Part of your problem seems to be price gouging by your tobacconist (tax goes up to $1.20; price goes up by $2). $1.20 out of $3 is 40% of the price - which is exactly the same amount as the approximately 40p duty I pay on a £1 can (500 ml) of beer. So I don't think you deserve any particular sympathy.

[Hannah Bell]

88. Drinkers don't pay enough for costs associated with alcohol. Price needs to double.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/261/11/1604?ijkey=bb9f7aa518d87d99f3d435f9e5479537cb8defac&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

[Ioo]

116. Agreed - We should raise taxes on drinking - I would pay and not bitch..

I do not drink a lot, but when I do, I pay what it costs, and would be willing to pay more... but my 3 or 4 benders a year are not breaking my bank.

[liberalhistorian]

145. I wouldn't have any problem with that at all,

and I do drink a couple times a week or so.

[varelse]

228. True

The "second-hand" effects of alcohol use are quite often immediately lethal, too. Second hand smoke takes years to kill you, where a drunk driver can kill in seconds.

[Hannah Bell]

240. personally, i doubt second-hand smoke kills any significant number of people,

unless they live with a chainsmoker for years, but each to his own hobbyhorse.

[catnhatnh]

18. Gee,

I wonder what corporations "got away with" and for now many multiples of "a long time". I see no suggestion all corporate tax reductions should face a 2000% increase. But I guess they are morally superior to smokers.

[catnhatnh]

17. Some seem to miss the point that this post is about tax policy and fairness...

...not a morality play or discussion of my personal choices. 2,158% is not enough to get your attention? The fact this is deliberately targeted at the lowest income doesn't bother you? Well how about this?

While the more normal cigarette smokers you hate pay a new total of $1.00 per pack, I and others like me are now to be taxed at $1.17 per pack-that's right a near 20% surcharge because we took some profits from the cigarette manufacturers. Gee-I wonder how that happened...those who most directly profit big tobacco take a hit, but the low profit types are destroyed. Almost like someone in the industry wanted us punished.

I never asked you to support smoking. I asked you to support fairness.

[marketcrazy1]

22. I agree that this is an unfair tax

this tax does harm/impact those with low incomes the most but that is just par for the course unfortunately, target the segment of the population with the weakest voice. there was a time when a person could buy a pack of smokes for less than two bucks! with this tax the price in some places will be over 8 dollars!!! ( Manhattan ) ENOUGH!! this is getting out of hand!!

[TreasonousBastard]

19. I gave up smoking just because it got too...

expensive, but I'm not saying you should, too. I actually liked smoking a couple of cigs a day-- I just couldn't stop at a couple and smoked two to three packs a day.

A part of me hated giving it up because it meant I gave in not only to the health nazis but to The Man who decided to tax the poorest segment of the population. Last I heard, smokers are concentrated down here in the lowest 25% of income, and that's just the people who have the fewest resources to help them quit should they want to. And the fewest fun things to do to replace smoking.

So, along with state lotteries, cigarette taxes are as regressive as it gets and the people who support them are fools while politicians who support them are cowards.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Most don't mind tax increases as long as it isn't their own taxes

The problem for smokers is that they are a shrinking minority. As their numbers dwindle, the government will try to squeeze an increasing amount of money out of each smoker.

Why not alcohol? More people use it, and their numbers aren't shrinking. Raising the tax on booze will anger more voters than doing the same in tobacco.

[we can do it]

21. Grow Your Own

[marketcrazy1]

29. "grow your own" ???

not as easy as growing tomatoes you know!! you may not realizes this but growing tobacco is not all that easy, it can take over a year to cure properly! up to 3 years or more in fact!!! unless you can build a temp/humidity controlled curing shed! since this tax takes effect April 1st I have a little time to stock up. going to buy 5 pounds today ( 10/12$ a pound currently ) I expect prices to rise even before this tax is implemented..

[we can do it]

35. Forgot the Sarcasm Thingy

[Venceremos]

36. Actually it is as easy to grow as tomatoes,

they're in the same family. I grow it myself. But you're correct that it should be aged a year for best flavor but you can smoke it sooner. It will smell like burning leaves, though.

And Burley varieties are air dried - you don't need a controlled environment shed to cure it. It will cure just fine hanging from your garage rafters or the roof of your car port.

Here's a source for seeds and plants: http://www.newhopeseed.com/tobacco/varieties.htm

Again, try the Burley varieties for the easiest curing.

[Fireweed247]

105. I grew it too just because it is a beautiful flower

I completely ignored it and it thrived!

[Bonhomme Richard]

23. When does it go into effect?

[catnhatnh]

30. First of April N/T

[WI_DEM]

25. I'm happy four million kids now will have insurance, and hopefully this will help you quit smoking

just think of all the money you will save--or put some towards getting help quitting smoking such as the patch or joining a group to give you support.

[catnhatnh]

83. Think of the government taking $47 dollars a month from me...

...and people like me while $18 billion dollars INCLUDING these dollars will be needed to pay for subsidized Wall St. bonuses. And that if we were "sharing the sacrifices" among 300 million Americans the price to pony up is about $60 dollars apiece and instead I'm to be charged $500 per year for the rest of my life. I'm happy the kids are getting insurance. You should be disgusted how.

[Ioo]

95. Thank you

[Lorien]

196. You are giving them the money. They are not taking it from you

you can choose not to pay the tax by not feeding your habit. Kids can't "choose" to never have an illness that requires treatment.

[SOS]

219. Many choose not to pay the tax....

They buy their smokes on the new and flourishing black market.
That avoids the tax altogether.

People buy from Indian stores. They buy from runners who drive South and load up. They buy from Russia and Mexico.
Today, the #1 money maker for organized crime in NYC is counterfeiting tobacco tax stamps.

There should be fair taxes on things like tobacco and alcohol.
But there are limits.
Once those limits have been surpassed the black market takes over, defeating the whole purpose of the tax.

[WI_DEM]

208. I understand. But that's how I stopped smoking. I couldn't afford it anymore

and I feel much better because of it.

[Statistical]

195. If everyone quits then where will the tax $$$ come from.

The idea that we tax something to reduce usage is a lie.

Do we tax murder? No we make it illegal.
There still is murder but there is LESS murder because it is illegal.

Honestly which would result in less smoking:
* make tobacco illegal
* tax tobacco

nobody can honestly say massive regressive taxes are designed to reduce smoking.

[Javaman]

26. ...

"What it MEANS to me is making choices. 3.5% of my net annual income disappeared. I'll eat a little more poorly and do without a couple more "extras" and maybe even cut back on my smoking some."

so you would eliminate the "extras" or eat a little more poorly, BEFORE you would cut back on "smoking some".

way to prioritize there.

smoking before health. That always works out well.

[catnhatnh]

32. Way to fucking judge. N/T

[Javaman]

41. LOL

sorry if my opinion hits such a nerve.

LOL

You post. we judge. Or haven't you figured that part about DU, yet?

LOL

Cheers.

[marketcrazy1]

33. for some smoking is a pleasure..

me included! I enjoy a cigarette after a meal or to relax after a stressful day. for many low income smokers cigarettes are the ONLY guilty pleasure they can afford to allow themselves and it is STILL a choice. I choose to smoke and I pay the tax but when does it stop?? every freakin year we get more cig taxes!! it`s not fair!! if the tax on wine and beer went up every year there would be a revolt!! I for one am sick of being treated like a second class citizen simply because i smoke!

[Javaman]

42. LOL

So you agree then with the OP that it's okay to eat more poorly than cut back on smoking.

have fun with that.

[Ioo]

49. For some jacking off in public is a pleasure... still think you should not do it.

Sorry, piss poor excuse. If you choose to smoke, then you are willing to pay what the market will bear. You know why they tax the crap out of it... because you will pay it.

[catnhatnh]

54. I suppose I could explain to you about eating more poorly...

That it means a decent steak one less time a month. That I'll actually entertain friends a few times less a year. That whole grain breads will happen less often.

But your actual reply ignores the point of the post that a large portion of my discretionary funds, which are extremely limited, are being arbitrarily raided and that you find that OK.

It ignores completely my right TO prioritize. It doesn't address the question of the governments right to make tobacco legal while punishing the rights to use it.

But even were I to "choose" survive on a diet of ramen noodles and ketchup does not make your comments relevant. The post was about a government policy and you decided not to address that. Before you judge me why don't you judge the fairness of the policy? That would be a post I would enjoy seeing.

[Javaman]

66. No, I find it odd that you would rather cut back on food than cut back on smoking.

that is what I find odd.

I guess, even addicts have their priorities.

[catnhatnh]

113. Never mind If I am "odd"

address the increase. that is the question.

[Javaman]

183. I'll address what I want. so there.

You choose smokes over food.

To me that is the real issue here. regardless of what you choose to believe.

Addicts are so amusing when they try to explain away their addiction. :)

cheers!

[roguevalley]

122. its easier to quit heroin. My pa smoked for fifty years and had

lung cancer. they have to cut you in half to get to the lungs, removing a rib by clipping it off. they cut you from the belly button, around the side and to your backbone. they saw off the rib and cut out the affected lobe. then they stitch you up, dull (not ever kill) the excruciating pain and send you home too soon because the fucking insurance company figures this is probably an out patient procedure. that is the reality of smoking for too damned many people and for those who have no insurance, there is the choice of dying or being in debt forever. And hospitals have to eat costs which they pass on to all of us. This is not a habit that has few consequences. it is a horrible, terrible killer. Two aunts, two uncle, two of their sons, my grandpa and my father had this happen and they died anyway from it. This doesn't count the chemo and radiation treatments that contributed to the death of my father. The only insured people in this mix were my father and one uncle. The rest you and I ate.

Smoking may be a personal choice but it carries terrible consequences and fucks us all. I have no problem with the taxes. IF it somehow makes smoking harder to do then read the above and know I am personally deeply happy to know that won't be another person's fate. This shit haunts me to this day.

[Hannah Bell]

189. Meanwhile, the tobacco corps make more profit than ever, pay fewer

taxes, get write-offs for advertising & expansion overseas, & laugh all the way to the bank.

The addicts pay, the dealers prosper.

[liberalhistorian]

149. I know, it's really

amazing, isn't it?

[krabigirl]

250. wow, sounds like a bunch of fundies when sex is mentioned.

[Javaman]

260. Sex doesn't cause cancer and as a result raise the price of insurance across the boards. nt

[Romulox]

31. State as drug dealer. They have NO INTENTION of convincing people to quit.

The idea is to bring in more money from an addicted population. Just like a drug dealer.

[sufrommich]

34. I'm a smoker too,but I recognize it for what it is,an addiction.

Any other drug addiction would be just as costly. It's really no different than the cost of heroin going up,except that the government reaps the benefit instead of the drug dealer.I plan on quiting before the tax increase,if you choose not to then you'll pay the cost of that particular addiction willingly,no one is forcing you to continue.

[catnhatnh]

38. If I choose to continue a legal activity which "no one is forcing" me to continue....

Then a 2,000% tax increase is fair AND my own fault. The government using the tactics of a drug dealer is fine because they control the legality and tax policy.

I wonder what the reaction would be if the government capriciously hiked taxes that much on cable systems??? After all people "willingly" watch HBO? And Millions of children could be insured. Tell me why that would be a bad idea...cable viewing is growing.

[Venceremos]

44. The government isn't forcing anybody to smoke, but

they certainly need people to smoke more or start smoking to fund SCHIP. Tobacco tax funded health care doesn't make much sense when you crunch the numbers:

Tobacco sales already decline 2 – 4% a year, and will decline faster because of the massive tax increases. Health care costs rise 8 – 10% a year, so SCHIP cannot be properly funded through tobacco taxes. Either millions more people need to start smoking, or existing smokers need to smoke a lot more to prevent SCHIP from having devastating budget shortfalls.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/11761436.h...

[Hannah Bell]

188. Besides which, tobacco corps get to write off the cost of advertising,

promotion, & expansion of overseas markets.

Gov't-subsidized addiction creation.

[Moostache]

37. I used to think like you do...

I used to believe that cigarette taxes were a political catch-all, an easy way for politicians to squeeze money out of people...

I used to believe that it was monstrously unfair to raise revenues by taxing a segment of the population that was mainly the habit of a generally work-class segment of society...

I used to think that smoking was a personal choice and something that was an individual's right to do, regardless of the known risks...

Then I learned that I had contracted Renal Cell Carcinoma from my "choice". I learned that at the age of 37, with 20 years of smoking at my back, that I had been delusional for a very long time. My behavior and "choices" (to remain blissfully addicted to a substance that was actively killing me) had put my family's well-being at risk. There is nothing quite like a brush with mortality to change one's views...

I further studied the way the tobacco industry introduced the greatest evil ever known to man into the public discourse - and I do NOT mean their product! The tobacco industry introduced the philosophy of sowing doubt into scientific research into the public. They birthed the idea of the "wedge issue" and the "lack of credible scientific consensus" - irregardless of the fact that the only ones 'doubting' anything were the people they PAID to tell everyone about their doubts...

They introduced the playbook for how to slow-play findings, how to sow doubt in the minds of a scientifically illiterate nation and how to make that doubt enough to delay or prevent action. It worked for a very long time and led to the deaths of millions of people in the process...when Hitler used poison gas to kill 6 million Jews, the world vowed "Never Again...". When RJ Reynolds and Phillip Morris do it, we did nothing for a very long time. We allowed them to argue a case founded on deception in the court of public opinion that was designed only to obfuscate and misdirect and to prevent action from being taken against them sooner.

Worse still, their methodology, their nefarious playbook was then given over to other "issues" - first with crackpots and idiots in the "intelligent design" community - who have used the "wedge issue" and "controversy" white noise to get even perfunctory hearings and publicity for their pseudo-science nonsense. But worst of all is the way this EXACT SAME PLAYBOOK has been used by corporations and businessmen and others to cast dispersions on Global Warming and to delay or prevent actions on adapting to that reality. What started as a tobacco industry method of avoiding responsibility has morphed and become a threat to millions of species of plant, animal, insect and creature on this planet. Since we have never been able to contact life elsewhere (though the probability of it seems likely to myself and many others), we should treat the maintenance of life on this planet as the most essential of human tasks - yet thanks to the playbook and tactics of the tobacco industry, we have already killed millions globally and have set up the climate to potentially kill BILLIONS more. Smoking may not kill these people directly, but the evil industry itself has paved the way to ensure we move ever closer to the edge of the abyss collectively. THAT is the kind of evil I hold the industry responsible for unleashing, and it is for that reason that I advocate for any measure which would force more people to give up the habit (and quite frankly, for younger people the higher the cost of entry, the lower the numbers of new addicts every year).

I am sorry that you cannot find the door to freedom from the bondage of your addiction. I hope that somewhere in the law authorizing this their is a corresponding clause to offer more assistance to those who do smoke to get medical assistance in quitting if they need it. I sympathize, because until almost one-year ago i WAS you...I had no intention of quitting, I believed that I LIKED smoking, I would be damned in anyone was going to tell me what I needed to do and what I needed to stop doing. Fuck them all was my attitude. And, yes, I felt that it was a pain in the ass that taxes on cigarettes were singled out for EVERYTHING...and now I do not feel any of that.

Now I breathe easier, and even though the quitting and the surgery and the recovery have caused me to pack on an extra 30 pounds of weight that I need to shed, I no longer crave the cigarettes every day or plan my day around cigarette breaks or worry about the unfairness of it all. I no longer hide behind my cigarettes as a way to destructively take "control" of my life by showing everyone how my self-destructive actions were MY CHOICE DAMMIT and NO ONE WAS GOING TO DICTATE ANYTHING ELSE TO ME!! I was angry, very angry at the world around me and the powerlessness that often pervaded my life as a result. Smoking filled part of that void....it made me feel better in non-chemical ways and the nicotine addiction was just the physical hook...the psychological hook was at least as strong.

I hope that events allow you to find your own key to the prison and do so in a way that does not make you have your chest opened from the base of the navel to the midpoint of your chest or result in the removal of a part of one or more of your internal organs. I hope that to become free, you find a path other than mine...that to stop smoking you do not have to lose a physical part of yourself first. Since I am not religious in anyway, THIS response is that prayer. Hopefully, if and when you are free, you will take a different view of the taxation of cigarettes and tobacco...if not, then I wish you the best in all other aspects of your life, but I will personally support any measure that keeps as few as one other person from having to live through what I (and many others who have it far, far worse than I) have lived through thanks to cigarettes....

[catnhatnh]

40. I deeply appreciate your post.

You I will not even argue with. I will say I could respect a government that banned tobacco. This move is cynical and filthy. I will attempt to quit or reduce. Thank you.

[marketcrazy1]

45. Moostache: thank you for that.

I am an obstinate SOB! but i will remember what you have said..... thank you and be well!!!

[roguevalley]

123. sweetie, I wish you good health. I have seen this in my own family

and would not wish it on my worst enemy. welcome to DU and god bless and keep you well.

[Ioo]

48. Sorry, no sympathy from me at all.

You can quit smoking, nothing is stopping you other than you. Smokers are also a heaver burden on an already messed-up healthcare system, causing insurance hikes for those of us that don't smoke...

So no sympathy here buddy, I pay for your smoking every premium for my healthcare. I pay for your smoking in taxes too.

So, to be frank, I do not care if a pack of smokes cost $200 a pack.. it still would not recoup the drain on the system your kind cost us.

[Hello_Kitty]

52. Actually, smokers die sooner so they often require fewer health care dollars

OTOH, non-smokers living to be 98 and needed to have their butts wiped in the nursing home can run up some mighty big bills. As a very wise comedian once put it: "Not smoking adds 10 years to your life. The problem is, they're not good years."

[Ioo]

56. WRONG - Health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than..

The New England Journal of Medicine
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052

BOLD ARE MINE...

Background: Although smoking cessation is desirable from a public health perspective, its consequences with respect to health care costs are still debated. Smokers have more disease than nonsmokers, but nonsmokers live longer and can incur more health costs at advanced ages. We analyzed health care costs for smokers and nonsmokers and estimated the economic consequences of smoking cessation.

Methods: We used three life tables to examine the effect of smoking on health care costs — one for a mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers, one for a population of smokers, and one for a population of nonsmokers. We also used a dynamic method to estimate the effects of smoking cessation on health care costs over time.

Results: Health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for nonsmokers, but in a population in which no one smoked the costs would be 7 percent higher among men and 4 percent higher among women than the costs in the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. If all smokers quit, health care costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they would become higher than at present. In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs, but it could still be seen as economically favorable under reasonable assumptions of discount rate and evaluation period.

Conclusions If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.

---------------

So only true if everyone stopped smoking

[catnhatnh]

63. Ummm...

You just quoted a study that DIRECTLY contradicts you and then say it SUPPORTS you????

[Ioo]

64. ONLY is EVERYONE STOPS SMOKING. So because that is not going to happen

40% increase on healthcare costs... DO NOT PULL A GWBUSH AND PICK AND CHOOSE. READ IT AS IT IS.

[catnhatnh]

89. No...

Don't pull calling me a disgusting name. It's all there in the conclusion. There would be an intitial decline in immediate cost followed by an overall gain in costs. I SAVE you money and to thank me you have called me names, lied about the conclusion of your own study, and supported hosing my limited means.

[Ioo]

97. It is right there dude "If all smokers quit" - that is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN

Also read the other post, your untimely death also costs this nation un-realized productivity... fact is you cost us more per year, and you die sooner, meaning you do not give us all your "older and wiser" years...

It is simple, and you are fooling yourself to justify your argument.

[Hannah Bell]

115. Nope, you don't understand the study. Every smoker who quits, on average,

will wind up costing society more by surviving longer. Even if half of smokers quit, it costs society more.

But the additional cost doesn't show up until they're about to die. About 25% of total medical costs are incurred in the last year of life. Of "everybody's" life.

Hey, we're pushing 10% unemployment. That's a bigger drag on "productivity" than any amount of smoking. If tobacco disappeared tomorrow it would tank "productivity" too. That kind of statistic is just bogus.

[catnhatnh]

131. Appearantly while being all pc and anti-smoking...

you missed the part where my fixed income is from SS Disability...Are you so obtuse as not to recognize that a statement that if all smokers quit it will cost more is true, then each quitter costs some??? I'll give you some older and wiser-"Don't quote studies that contradict your point. Don't think because you dislike my behavior it is OK for the federal government to whip shit on a minority. Do think that when a behavior is that reprehensible to you and is legal you should work to get it banned but realize it is bullshit to punish it while leaving it legal. But before you do that remember other people think it is OK to ban things you think are OK." See-you can gain wisdom if you just read.

[Hannah Bell]

70. WRONG yourself: from the same study:

"However, the annual cost per capita ignores the differences in longevity between smokers and nonsmokers...

As Figure 1 shows, the nonsmoking population as a whole is more expensive than the smoking population. The area between the curves in which the smokers higher health care costs than the nonsmokers is smaller than the area between the curves in which the nonsmokers have higher health care costs than the smokers."


Lifetime costs average to make non-smokers most expensive.

Smokers already pay their cost; drinkers don't.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/261/11/1604?ijkey=bb9f7aa518d87d99f3d435f9e5479537cb8defac&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

[Zynx]

71. Lifetime cost is a poor measure considering how much shorter smokers' life-spans are.

It is better to compare through their terminal year versus a healthy person to that same year. So if a smoker only lives to 60, compare their cost to 60 versus a healthy person at 60.

EDIT: I poorly explained that

[Hannah Bell]

96. It's how much health care each person "costs" society. A non-smoker 'costs' more.

Smokers cost less & pay for every penny.

[Ioo]

101. I WILL SAY IT AGAIN. A SMOKER AT 45 IS MORE COSTLY THAN A NON-SMOKER AT 45.

Also

http://www.mit.edu/people/jeffrey/House_Testimony_Nov_1993.html


With no intervening increase in Federal cigarette taxes, I expect U.S. cigarette consumption in 1995 to be 23.7 billion packs <8>. At that level of cigarette consumption, the health-care financing burden imposed upon people who never smoked would amount to $2.32 per pack (with an uncertainty range from $1.27 to $3.38 per pack). The full health-care costs of smoking, including those costs borne by current and former smokers, would amount to $3.71 per pack (with an uncertainty range from $1.94 to $5.36 per pack).

--------------

The death and disease caused by smoking results in a loss of American productivity. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 1990, the death toll from smoking caused an annual loss of 1.1 million person years of life before the age of 65 <9>. This loss of productivity has numerous macro-economic consequences-- for example, reduced international competitiveness-- that are real but difficult to quantify.

In a May 1993 report, the Office of Technology Assessment estimated that premature deaths from smoking (along with lost work-days and productivity) caused a loss of $47.2 billion in personal income in 1990 <10>. At current inflation rates, that amounts to $56 billion in 1995. At a 25 percent marginal tax rate, OTA's estimated productivity loss would mean foregone income taxes of $14 billion, which might otherwise help to pay for national defense, environmental protection, drug enforcement, crime control, and other needed Federal services. As a "warm" economist, I cannot brush aside these hard-to-quantify external costs <11>.

[roguevalley]

127. how can I as a non-smoker cost more? That doesn't appear to

make sense. data?

[Ioo]

136. the (dumb) argument is it cost more for a person to live to 85 than 45

and that is true... but in order for the equation to work, you have to assume NO ONE IS WORKING... because that 89 year old may be OLD and costly... but they were PRODUCTIVE members of the workforce for a lot longer, meaning more taxes on income, more productivity and more GDP. Smokers die sooner, but in doing so also rob the nation of the lost income taxes, less payoff on education, less payoff on GDP.

So for this argument to work... you have to close your eyes to a lot of facts.

[roguevalley]

146. ah. thank you. I am old and I am working. I will have to continue

until things get better, if ever. I will be productive until I die and because I have to move, I am healthier. I seldom use the doctor and I suppose zillions of us are in the same boat. Thank you for the post, hon.

[Hannah Bell]

184. First, most people over 65 don't work. Second, most smokers pay 3-400%

the taxes their non-smoking counterparts in the same income brackets do.

Third, most smokers work just as long as non-smokers.

Fourth, if you're dead you don't contribute to society, but neither do you draw from it, so it's a wash. You're really reaching. I guess dead premature babies should be chastised for using up so many of societies resources without working 1 day to "pay them back". This is the idiotic end of the "pay your social cost" line of thinking.

Smokers more than pay for everything they "take" from society. Period.

[Hannah Bell]

178. First, it's not talking about *you* or *me*, but about populations &

*average* individuals.

Second, contrary to myth, *most* smokers don't get lung disease, heart disease, etc. The *population* of smokers gets those diseases at a higher rate than the general population, but most individuals *in* the population don't get them.

The folks who get those diseases have higher medical costs. They also die young.

The survivors (smoking or non-smoking) live to incur equivalent medical costs from the same, or other, diseases, frailities of old age, etc.

Result? Pretty much a wash. 25% of medical costs are incurred in the last year of life.

The smoker gets treated for lung disease, but dies before he can break both hips. Etc.

[roguevalley]

125. I read that every cig is eleven minutes you don't live on average

[catnhatnh]

197. Yes

But they are my 11 minutes. If I ride a motorcycle without a helmet (which is legal in my state) a traumatic brain injury may cost millions. yet no one here is discussing a large tax increase on all risky behaviors that "may" incur public costs.I rode and wore a helmet. Am I owed a rebate?

I shouldn't ever have to argue safety or costs. A behavior is legal or not. No one proposes huge tax increases on skydiving but I doubt a poster here would argue that repetitive skydiving carries a higher risk of increased non-insured medical costs for all.

Certain things are wrong, and regressive taxes targeted at smokers with the least income AT THE BEHEST OF INDUSTRY, which is just how this happened are wrong. There is no other explanation for the increase. The tiniest percent of smokers who least profit the big producers get a huge tax increase that negates-no, actually punishes reducing industry profits and many here instead of seeing it as an abridgment of rights think it is a good social policy and that preying on the poorest to the advantage of an industry they hate is a good thing.

[Hannah Bell]

202. Yes, that's the ironic thing. The tobacco industry is fine with higher taxes on its product;

it loses nothing in profit & pays less in taxes (because smokers pay the freight for uninsured kids instead of industry).

And since everyone *hates* smokers, & they tend to be poorer on average - win-win! no flak for tax hikes!

[Ioo]

73. costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for nonsmokers

There it is... first sentence.

[Hannah Bell]

76. But lifetime costs are higher per capita for non-smokers. Plus, smokers already

pay for their higher cost "at a given age".

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/261/11/1604?ijkey=bb9f7aa518d87d99f3d435f9e5479537cb8defac&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Drinkers don't. The price of alcohol would need to double.

[Ioo]

87. Yes - Nonsmokers live longer... but 2 people at the same age. Smoker cost more...

If you take the TOTAL COST of care for a person and divide it over the life span of the person, a smoker will be higher...

Yes a non smoker will live longer, and cost more at the end, but they also were ALIVE and contributing to society (a net positive). A non-smoker will be cheaper when you AVG out the healthcare costs than a smoker... who cost more for the time they were alive, and not that they are dead, NOT adding to the GDP.

There is a whole other topic of the economics of smokers outside of taxes...

[Hannah Bell]

102. doesn't matter, non-smokers cost more. smokers contribute to society while

alive also. for example, they contribute the cost of their higher medical care, & now the cost of uninsured childrens medical care.

meanwhile, tobacco corps' profits are higher than ever & they get to deduct their promotion & marketing costs from *their* taxes.

big scam, you fell for it.

[Ioo]

109. You are being intellectually dishonest at best.

I have posted links to very smart people... the big scam here is that smokers allow themselves to be fleeced by the government and they have the power to stop them. They feel they are somehow being cheated when in fact they are allowing it. The government is telling you in clear language, IF YOU SMOKE WE ARE GOING TO SCREW THE SHIT OUT OF YOU, and you say "Okay" every time you buy a pack of smokes. Smoke, I do not really care, but shut up about being taxed for it... it is not like they FORCED you to smoke... I am going to use a word that is very foreign to many... responsibility....

You know how much the government takes out of my taxes extra to pay for SCIP... NOTHING!!!!! You know why? BECAUSE I CHOOSE NOT TO SMOKE!!!

[Hannah Bell]

120. I've posted links to some very smart people too. I don't disagree that

smokers *could* quit, but as with most addictions, only some predictable % *does* quit.

However, smokers don't cost *you* anything, in fact, they *subsidize* you.

That's where my beef is, that folks like you continue babbling about smokers costing society when in fact it's the opposite.

[Ioo]

132. Not really, My point has been I DO NOT CARE IF YOU SMOKE - STOP BITCHING ABOUT THE TAXES...

You do cost more... that is been shown. if you look at a non-smoker and a smoker at the same age, SMOKERS cost more... also, we loose your years of wisdom when you die at 52...

Yes, you are right, that smokers are great for me and my SOCIAL SECURITY, because there is a greater chance of me really using it, for years...

So if you just want to carve out one way of looking at it, sure you can make your argument... but when you add the micro-economics to the issue, smokers cost more year over year they are alive, and yes, they do not get to enjoy SS as much as I will (if it were to be around), but the missing productivity of a mature member of the population, when smokers die long before they retire from the work force, smokers are a net neg to the nation. You get to the point where you are a peek earner (40 and 50's) and die... we as a nation lose the productivity, taxes on income, and other goods that come from living, working people.

Back to the original argument, I DO NOT CARE IF YOU SMOKE... I also do not care that they are taxing you out the ass for it, because YOU CHOOSE IT. THAT IS MY POINT. That simple... if you do not want to be taxes when you buy smokes, then don't buy smokes... simple.

[Hannah Bell]

193. I'll bitch all I want. Smokers pay, the corps profit.

[catnhatnh]

211. Why should I ever stop "bitching" about a 2,200% tax increase?

Are you mentally deficient? In point of fact studies upthread say that I cost less. Why do you even assume that my "dying early" and depriving you "productivity" will occur. Back to your statement....and here an exact quote:"I DO NOT CARE IF YOU SMOKE" Followed by "I don't care that they are taxing you out the ass for it".

And wasn't that the whole point? If I were to sit here and see a poster on this board hurt by an unfair tax increase on their behavior I would hope I would respond to the unfairness rather than to judge them. And if 2000% on a legal product, to the benefit of tobacco corporations, gets your reply you are a helpless clown.

[Ioo]

230. Easy QUIT SMOKING, ISSUES SOLVED... YOU ARE TAXING YOURSELF

I do not give a shit if they tax it to levels in the 100,000% range... you can choose not to pay it... I do not understand why you don't get it, MANY OF US ARE UNSYMPATHETIC to a SELF IMPOSED TAX. Period. I am done here... if you want to smoke, you are going to be taxes out the ass, and if you choose to stop, all of the sudden you will find that you have a lot more money!!

If you do not understand the links I posted to NEJM and congressional testimony, I can not help that... if you do not see how early self induced death does not cause a lost in productivity to the nation (not my words, again, the links state it clearly) then it would explain why you are so hell bent on this dumbass argument that you are are being unfairly taxes for something you choose to do...

Your statement right here shows you just do not get it "poster on this board hurt by an unfair tax increase on their behavior", it is not unfair, it is a tax on something you CHOOSE to do, you can change your "behavior" if you wanted to... so dude, the ball is in your court.. to pay it or not to pay it is all up to you...

You know how much of this "unfair" tax I pay... NONE!

[Ioo]

90. From the Clinton Years - death toll from smoking caused an annual loss of 1.1 million person years..

http://www.mit.edu/people/jeffrey/House_Testimony_Nov_1993.html

Cigarette smokers represent 18 percent of the entire U.S. population (including infants and children.) Former smokers make up another 19 percent of the population. Sixty-three percent of the population has never smoked <7>. Accordingly, under universal health coverage, I estimate that in 1995, people who never smoked will contribute $55 billion toward the health-care costs of cigarette smoking. (The uncertainty range is from $30 to $80 billion). Current and former smokers will pay the remaining $33 billion. (The uncertainty range is $17 to $47 billion.)

With no intervening increase in Federal cigarette taxes, I expect U.S. cigarette consumption in 1995 to be 23.7 billion packs <8>. At that level of cigarette consumption, the health-care financing burden imposed upon people who never smoked would amount to $2.32 per pack (with an uncertainty range from $1.27 to $3.38 per pack). The full health-care costs of smoking, including those costs borne by current and former smokers, would amount to $3.71 per pack (with an uncertainty range from $1.94 to $5.36 per pack).

-------------

The death and disease caused by smoking results in a loss of American productivity. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 1990, the death toll from smoking caused an annual loss of 1.1 million person years of life before the age of 65 <9>. This loss of productivity has numerous macro-economic consequences-- for example, reduced international competitiveness-- that are real but difficult to quantify.

In a May 1993 report, the Office of Technology Assessment estimated that premature deaths from smoking (along with lost work-days and productivity) caused a loss of $47.2 billion in personal income in 1990 <10>. At current inflation rates, that amounts to $56 billion in 1995. At a 25 percent marginal tax rate, OTA's estimated productivity loss would mean foregone income taxes of $14 billion, which might otherwise help to pay for national defense, environmental protection, drug enforcement, crime control, and other needed Federal services. As a "warm" economist, I cannot brush aside these hard-to-quantify external costs <11>.

[Hannah Bell]

107. From 1989:

The taxes of sin. Do smokers and drinkers pay their way?

W. G. Manning, E. B. Keeler, J. P. Newhouse, E. M. Sloss and J. Wasserman
Department of Health Services Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 48109.

We estimate the lifetime, discounted costs that smokers and drinkers impose on others through collectively financed health insurance, pensions, disability insurance, group life insurance, fires, motor-vehicle accidents, and the criminal justice system. Although nonsmokers subsidize smokers' medical care and group life insurance, smokers subsidize nonsmokers' pensions and nursing home payments. On balance, smokers probably pay their way at the current level of excise taxes on cigarettes; but one may, nonetheless, wish to raise those taxes to reduce the number of adolescent smokers. In contrast, drinkers do not pay their way: current excise taxes on alcohol cover only about half the costs imposed on others.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/261/11/1604?ijkey=bb9f7aa518d87d99f3d435f9e5479537cb8defac&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha



Do you know how much tobacco taxes have risen since 1989?

Smokers pay their share & then some.

[roguevalley]

129. since tobacco companies are losing market share here, they are

going to Asia and Africa to make it up. THey expect smoking to be the leading killer there in short order because of it. Smoking allows killers to make money. They know they are killing people with their product. I wouldn't pee on their graves.

[Hannah Bell]

165. They're more profitable than ever, even in the US. In a situation of monopoly,

taxes are always paid by the consumer. Producers can hike the price to cover any tax increase nearly indefinitely.


Say cost = $1/pack, profit = 5% or $1.05/price/pack. 100 customers = 105 dollars & $5 profit.

Now add a 45 cent tax to make the price $1.50/pack.

25 customers go away, but the remaining 75 will be willing to pay $1.50 + 5 cents.

That breaks down:

Total sales: $1.05 v. $1.16

Total tax: $0 v. $33.75

Total profit: $5 v. $7.50


Monopoly businesses for essentials or addictions can *make* money through taxation unless it cuts their customers by more than half. The oil biz = same.

It's a scam.

[Hello_Kitty]

75. To me, the whole argument over which types of people are more "expensive" is offensive at its core

It illustrates how profoundly sick and whacked out our priorities are. What we need to be asking ourselves is do we want to keep people healthy and living longer because it's a good in and of itself, or because we crunched the numbers and did a cost-benefit analysis and found that keeping X population alive longer is "cost effective".

[Ioo]

79. I would agree for things we do not have control over... Self Poisoning.. Sorry

Do you think it is fair that you should have to pay for my health care because I like to ride motorcycles at 200 MPH without a helmet on Ice? Do I, the person who likes this activity have to take responsibility for my own actions?

What about a drunk driver with no insurance, he wraps his car around a poll, you think it is okay for you to have to pay for his choose (note I did not say mistake or accident, because they are not mistakes or accidents)

I am so tired of everyone UNWILLING to take responsibility for actions that they have direct control over.... IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE TAXED OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND ON SMOKES, WILL THEN CHOOSE NOT TO BE.

[Hello_Kitty]

77. Don't you want everyone to stop?

Or do you want some people to keep smoking to keep those health care costs stabilized?

[Ioo]

81. I do not really care if you stop... I was pointing out what the study says.

I want people to stop bitching about the taxes they pay, and I want them to be charged MORE (something more and more companies are doing BTW) for making self-destructive chooses.

The fact is, that DAY FOR DAY it is more costly for a smoker... they my die sooner, but we have spent more money in the 49 years that we have for a non-smoker at 49 years....

[roguevalley]

133. in the end its about free will and choices. smoking is a losing game

[Hannah Bell]

241. life is a losing game, & free will has not so much to do with it.

[catnhatnh]

59. You are actually correct....

I wonder how much the poster above would enjoy being referred to as "you people"?

[Ioo]

62. I am gay, I am called "You people" all the time... Also did not use "You people" so...

Also looked at my post, and I am not sure I said you people, but I will relook

[Venceremos]

80. "Your kind" is better than "you people"?

You must be joking. You said "your kind" which I personally find much more offensive than "you people". And for reference, back in the 70's gay people were often referred to as "your kind".

[nichomachus]

53. Actually, smokers put less of a burden on the health care system

Oddly enough.

You have to measure lifetime costs and not per-year costs of any health burdens.

Everyone dies sooner or later. The average person consumes the greatest proportion of their health care costs in the final year of life.

Smokers tend to die younger than non-smokers, meaning they contribute to the system all their lives and then die before consuming too many additional resources.

The ones who put the greatest burden on the system are the people with healthy habits who live to be 95 and spend the last 30 years of their lives going to doctors and hospitals, while not contributing to the system.

[Ioo]

58. Myth...

[nichomachus]

65. Stupid remark

What part is the myth -- that smokers die younger? They do.

That healthier people live longer -- they do.

That people consume the greatest proportion of health care costs in the final year of life -- they do.

It's so easy to spit out the word "myth" with nothing to support it.

[catnhatnh]

67. Well DAMN your RIGHT!

Should we charge non-smokers extra for insurance or cancel taxes on all tobacco products and offer tax rebates to those who smoke? Because either policy would be de facto fairer.

[Ioo]

72. YOU CHOOSE TO BE TAXED FOR THIS... That is the point, SO STOP BITCHING.

So NO, I am already paying for your smoking thank you. If you do not like being taxed for it, you can make it go away... the government is not forcing you to pay that tax, you are...

So as I said before, DO NOT CARE IF THEY CHARGE YOU $300 A PACK.. YOU HAVE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS...

[Lorien]

199. Not so:

Smoking 101 Fact Sheet

August 2008

Cigarette smoking has been identified as the most important source of preventable morbidity (disease and illness) and premature mortality (death) worldwide. Smoking-related diseases claim an estimated 438,000 American lives each year, including those affected indirectly, such as babies born prematurely due to prenatal maternal smoking and victims of "secondhand" exposure to tobacco's carcinogens. Smoking cost the United States over $193 billion in 2004, including $97 billion in lost productivity and $96 billion in direct health care expenditures, or an average of $4,260 per adult smoker.1

* Cigarette smoke contains over 4,800 chemicals, 69 of which are known to cause cancer. Smoking is directly responsible for approximately 90 percent of lung cancer deaths and approximately 80-90 percent of COPD (emphysema and chronic bronchitis) deaths.2
* About 8.6 million people in the U.S. have at least one serious illness caused by smoking. That means that for every person who dies of a smoking-related disease, there are 20 more people who suffer from at least one serious illness associated with smoking.3
* Among current smokers, chronic lung disease accounts for 73 percent of smoking-related conditions. Even among smokers who have quit chronic lung disease accounts for 50 percent of smoking-related conditions.4
* The list of diseases caused by smoking includes chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema), coronary heart disease, stroke, abdominal aortic aneurysm, acute myeloid leukemia, cataract, pneumonia, periodontitis, and bladder, esophageal, laryngeal, lung, oral, throat, cervical, kidney, stomach, and pancreatic cancers. Smoking is also a major factor in a variety of other conditions and disorders, including slowed healing of wounds, infertility, and peptic ulcer disease.5
* Smoking in pregnancy accounts for an estimated 20 to 30 percent of low-birth weight babies, up to 14 percent of preterm deliveries, and some 10 percent of all infant deaths. Even apparently healthy, full-term babies of smokers have been found to be born with narrowed airways and reduced lung function.6
* In 2005, 10.7 percent of all women smoked during pregnancy, down almost 45 percent from 1990.7
* Neonatal health-care costs attributable to maternal smoking in the U.S. have been estimated at $366 million per year, or $704 per maternal smoker.8
* Smoking by parents is also associated with a wide range of adverse effects in their children, including exacerbation of asthma, increased frequency of colds and ear infections, and sudden infant death syndrome. Secondhand smoke causes more than an estimated 202,000 asthma episodes, 790,000 physician visits for buildup of fluid in the middle ear (otitis media, or middle ear infection), and 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) cases each year.9
* In 2006, an estimated 45.3 million, or 20.6% of adults (aged 18+) were current smokers. The annual prevalence of smoking declined 40 percent between 1965 and 1990, but has been virtually unchanged since then.10
* Males tend to have significantly higher rates of smoking prevalence than females. In 2006, 23.6 percent of males currently smoked compared to 17.8 percent of females.11
* Prevalence of current smoking in 2006 was highest among American Indians/Alaska Natives (32.2%), intermediate among non-Hispanic whites (21.8%) and non-Hispanic blacks (22.6%), and lowest among Hispanics (15.1%) and Asians (10.3%).12
* As smoking declines among the non-Hispanic white population, tobacco companies have targeted both non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics with intensive merchandising, which includes billboards, advertising in media targeted to those communities, and sponsorship of civic groups and athletic, cultural, and entertainment events. In 2005, advertising and promotion by the five major tobacco companies totaled $13.1 billion.13
* Tobacco advertising also plays an important role in encouraging young people to begin a lifelong addiction to smoking before they are old enough to fully understand its long-term health risk.14 Ninety percent of adults who smoke started by the age of 21, and half of them became regular smokers by their 18th birthday.15
* In 2007, 20 percent of high school students were current smokers.16 Over 6 percent of middle school students were current smokers in 2006.17
* Secondhand smoke involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers from other people's cigarettes is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a known human (Group A) carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 (ranging 22,700-69,600) heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers annually in the United States.18
* Workplaces nationwide are going smoke-free to provide clean indoor air and protect employees from the life-threatening effects of secondhand smoke. Nearly 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke free policy in 1999, but the percentage of workers protected varies by state, ranging from a high of 83.9 percent in Utah and 81.2 percent in Maryland to 48.7 percent in Nevada.19
* Employers have a legal right to restrict smoking in the workplace, or implement a totally smoke-free workplace policy. Exceptions may arise in the case of collective bargaining agreements with unions.
* Nicotine is an addictive drug, which when inhaled in cigarette smoke reaches the brain faster than drugs that enter the body intravenously. Smokers not only become physically addicted to nicotine; they also link smoking with many social activities, making smoking a difficult habit to break.20
* In 2006, an estimated 45.7 million adults were former smokers. Of the 45.3 million current adult smokers, 44 percent stopped smoking at least 1 day in the preceding year because they were trying to quit smoking completely.21
* Quitting smoking often requires multiple attempts. Using counseling or medication alone increases the chance of a quit attempt being successful; the combination of both is even more effective.22
* Nicotine replacement products can help relieve withdrawal symptoms people experience when they quit smoking.23
* There are seven medications approved by the FDA to aid in quitting smoking. Nicotine patches, nicotine gum and nicotine lozenges are available over-the-counter, and a nicotine nasal spray and inhaler are currently available by prescription. Buproprion SR (Zyban) and varenicline tartrate (Chantix) are non-nicotine pills.24
* Individual, group and telephone counseling are effective. Telephone quitline counseling is widely available and is effective for many different groups of smokers.25
* Nicotine replacement therapies are helpful in quitting when combined with a support program such as the American Lung Association's Freedom From Smoking (FFS), which addresses psychological and behavioral addictions to smoking and strategies for coping with urges to smoke.

For more information on smoking, please review the Trends in Tobacco Use report and Lung Disease Data in the Data and Statistics section of our website at www.lungusa.org, or call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872).

Sources:

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses United States, 1997-2001. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report . July 2005. Vol. 54;25:625-628 .
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Tobacco Information and Prevention Source (TIPS). Tobacco Use in the United States. January 27, 2004.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette Smoking Attributable Morbidity - U.S., 2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2003 Sept; 52(35): 842-844.
4. Ibid.
5. U.S Department of Health and Human Services. Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General, 2004.
6. U.S Department of Health and Human Services. Women and Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General, 2001.
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. National Vital Statistics Reports. Births: Final Data for 2005. December 5, 2007; (56)5.
8. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. State Estimates of Neonatal Health-Care Costs Associated with Maternal Smoking U.S., 1996. Vol. 53, No. 39, October 8, 2004.
9. California Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. June 2005.
10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Interview Survey, 2006. Analysis by the American Lung Association, Research and Program Services Division using SPSS and SUDAAN software.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Cigarette Report for 2004 and 2005. April 2007. Accessed on February 8, 2008.
14. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General, 1994.
15. Mowery PD, Brick PD, Farrelly MC. Legacy First Look Report 3. Pathways to Established Smoking: Results from the 1999 National Youth Tobacco Survey. Washington DC: American Legacy Foundation. October 2000.
16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance � United States, 2007. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. June 6, 2008; 57(SS-04).
17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Office on Smoking and Health. National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS). 2006 NYTS Data and Documentation. April 18, 2008. Accessed on April 30, 2008.
18. California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. June 2005. Accessed on 4/30/07.
19. Shopland DR, Gerlach KK, Burns DM, Hartman AM, Gibson JT. State-Specific Trends in Smokefree Workplace Policy Coverage: the Current Population Tobacco Use Supplement, 1993 to 1999. J Occup Environ Med 2001; 43:680-686.
20. National Institute of Drug Abuse. Research Report on Nicotine: Addiction, August 2001.
21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Interview Survey, 2006. Analysis by the American Lung Association, Research and Program Services Division using SPSS and SUDAAN software.
22. Fiore MC, Jaen CR, Baker TB, et al. Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update. Clinical Practice Guideline. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. May 2008.
23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking and Tobacco Use. You Can Quit Smoking. Accessed on October 2, 2007.
24. Fiore MC, Jaen CR, Baker TB, et al. Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update. Clinical Practice Guideline. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. May 2008.
25. Ibid.

[Occam Bandage]

50. So stop smoking. Problem solved, and you'll be healthier and feel better.

[cobalt1999]

61. You really can't bitch about taxes on discretionary spending items

Think smoking is expensive, try boating with all the taxes on boats, marine fuel, and parts. It's far more than you'll ever pay for cigarettes.

I don't bitch because I CHOOSE to pay it for the pleasure it brings me. You CHOOSE to smoke for the pleasure it brings to you.

Some people have other hobbies or entertainments that cost a lot and are taxed too.

[roguevalley]

135. true as can be. choice brings consequences. most of the people

in my family lived to be nearly 100. they hardly went to the doctor. Count me out as a drag on society because I don't smoke, eat well and exercise. that is my choice. People should try it as best they can. Taking a deep breath and feeling happy is awesome.

[Political Heretic]

68. Quit smoking.

I did.

[flvegan]

69. I'm sorry for your additional burden.

I'll not be jumping on the "so quit smoking" bandwagon. I've never smoked and have no clue how difficult it is to quit except from what I've read here and elsewhere.

[varelse]

82. I agree that a "sin" tax wasn't the right way to fund SCHIP

It's not really the best way to fund anything, other than (maybe) programs specifically in place to help people quit smoking, drinking, etc OR to help them deal with the resulting health problems.

A reinstatement of the progressive income tax and enforcement of tax collection on corporate entities which currently pay only a fraction of taxes they *should* be paying, would be the best way to fund goverment programs such as SCHIP.

It's definitely not fair to put the burden on one shrinking group of people who happen to be addicted to a single legally distributed substance (nicotine).

[Venceremos]

86. Thank you

although I'm not the OP, this thread has digressed into a smokers vs. non-smokers slug fest. As your post points out, the tobacco tax is not the best way to fund SCHIP. It's not even a good way because the sin tax funding cannot keep up with SCHIP costs. Health care costs increase 8-10% per year, while smoking declines 2-4% per year. They need to find a better way to fund SCHIP or it will go under.

[NNN0LHI]

91. I smoke but I am not going to eat more poorly to do it

I would give up smoking first.

It can be done. I know plenty of people who have done it.

Don

[smalll]

221. I smoke too, but if we were to QUIT, we'd be well advised to "eat more poorly" (or at least LESS) -

Everyone I've never known who quit got HEAVIER. And I'm not talking muscle weight.

[SoCalDem]

92. "Sin-taxes" are NEVER fair.. Pick an "undesirable" segment of society, and make THEM

pay "extra" for their sins..

I really would not mind this so much, if it were even-handed..

How about a 5-cent a bottle of beer tax? or a 25-cent a pizza tax..or a levy on potato chips or soda pop..?

Hating smokers is the safest thing going..

Berating them to "just say no", and "quit", while DEPENDING on their continuing, in order for poor kids to have health care is quite a passive-aggressive approach to the whole issue..

Take it a step further...say most of them actually did quit... poor kids get no health care?

[TwilightGardener]

93. "Grr! Voluntarily filling my lungs with soot and nicotine and harmful chemicals

is getting spendy!" Of all the ridiculous things I've ever heard.

[Vinca]

94. I would be happy to have an additional sin tax on booze and junk food.

Maybe, with luck, the increase in the price of cigarettes will be the final straw for some smokers and they'll quit. I realize it's an addiction, but it is possible to stop smoking. (Yes, I'm a holier-than-thou ex-smoker.) Think of all the extra money you'd have if you quit.

[Venceremos]

106. And how are they going to fund SCHIP if all smoker's quit?

The government must rely on more people to start smoking, or current smokers to smoke more in order to continually fund SCHIP.

And although you might be happy with a 2,100% tax increase on booze and junk food, there would be a massive public outcry if they tried it, and therefore no funding for SCHIP. They're targeting smokers right now because they're the new lepers, but the SCHIP program cannot survive on tobacco taxes alone.

[roguevalley]

140. they will find a way. to assume only smoking can do this is odd.

smokers have to live in the world we have now, just like us non-smokers did when we were the minority. i can remember people smoking in grocery stores. I had to put up with it. Now, put up with this. Funding this iniative will be found, smokers or now. If they can stop smoking will funding this good thing, more power to them. Maybe it will be the push some people need. When you can smell and taste and breathe again, you will feel better. Using outrage over a tax because you can't or won't quit smoking is an excuse, same as not quitting any bad habit that can kill you. You can find any excuse anywhere. I know. I used to be 70 pounds heavier.

RV, the queen of faux outrage.

[Vinca]

155. I'm sure they will find another funding source if a miracle happens

and all smokers quit. Honestly, I don't care if you want to live your days sucking oxygen through a tube . . . that's your business. It just makes more sense to tax something that's bad for you rather than something that's good for you. By the way, maybe you should try to observe an autopsy of a heavy smoker. That's what spurred me to quit and never start again. Nothing like hard, black lungs to get your attention and realize drowning in your own secretions isn't a pleasant death.

[Venceremos]

181. Platitudes don't address the real issue

"I'm sure they will find another funding source"

Okay, then please explain how they're going to properly fund SCHIP in five years considering that tobacco use declines 2-4% per year, and is expected to decline more rapidly due to the massive tax increase. Health care costs increase 8 - 10% per year. You do the math - either they need more smokers, or people who smoke now have to smoke more.

Here's one link concerning the tobacco tax funding lie: http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/11761436.html

And please, offer real-life workable solutions instead of preaching and platitudes like "It just makes more sense to tax something that's bad for you".

[Vinca]

204. Okay, how about a VAT tax to cover all healthcare, kids and adults?

I would gleefully pay a sales tax on virtually everything if we all had healthcare.

[marketcrazy1]

209. how about a 1000 percent increase

in the tax on alcohol!!!

[Fireweed247]

98. What's with all the smoking nazis at DU?

Why isn't alcohol taxed this way?

WE all know it is drunk drivers who kill people, not smokers.

And why don't we tax bacon, ice cream and other foods that are obviously cutting years off of people's lives?

I don't smoke but what the hell is wrong with people?

My suggestion for the Op...grow your own tobacco, it is really easy and a pretty flower to boot. Buy some rolling papers and be chemical free. I would be angry if I were you too. I think it is outrageous that smokers are treated this way especially considering the way that alcohol is constantly promoted in our society. It's bullshit! Alcohol is horrible for your body, makes people act like idiots and often brings out the worst in people. Alcohol is directly linked to domestic violence. How many deaths are caused by drunk driving every year? A hell of a lot more than died on 9/11. How would all the drinkers out there like to be taxed all to hell for their habit?

[cobalt1999]

100. Umm, have you seen the taxes applied to alcohol?

Liquor is "taxed all to hell".

[Fireweed247]

108. I don't think it is as bad as smokes

The annoying hypocritical difference that I keep seeing is that people are so mean and condescending toward smokers, but alcohol is promoted constantly.

[cobalt1999]

112. Two different topics.

1) The tax rate on alcohol. I'm not sure what state you live in but here in Florida the stateliquor tax is about $6.50/gallon vs. $0.34 per pack. Federal taxes break down about the same.

2) The attitude towards smokers. Both are choices and neither should be condemned. I promise not to spill my wine on any smokers as long as I don't have to breath their smoke. Live and let live.

[Hannah Bell]

124. Apparently not enough.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/261/11/1604?ijkey=bb9f7aa518d87d99f3d435f9e5479537cb8defac&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

The taxes of sin: Do smokers & drinkers pay their way?

[cobalt1999]

130. That study was from 1989

Since then taxes on both have increased dramatically.

Is there a similiar study that isn't 20 years old.

I don't disagree with the premise, I just would like to see if it's still valid.

[Lilith Velkor]

153. Shit, let's legalize and tax all recreational drugs

No, I am not being sarcastic. Not only is there revenue from it, but a reduction in the cost of enforcement and imprisoning people.

And btw, drunk driving is a huge red herring. Drinking should never have been an excuse for getting into accidents in the first place, and no unprescribed substance should ever be an excuse for negligent homicide.

[krabigirl]

251. This has always bothered me about Democrats. I can't stand smoking nazis.

btw, lol, i don't smoke

[MrSlayer]

253. The smoke nazis are everywhere.

They span the political spectrum. My brother is on the other side and says the same shit happens on the RW sites too.

I agree with your sentiments. Smokers are an easy target. They say half or more of the U.S. population is obese, smokers make up maybe 10-12% of the population as a whole. Who is more likely to "drain" our health care system?

[catnhatnh]

99. I'll argue my own point....

If you want to bash smokers, recommend the thread. If you want to discuss tax policy, recommend the thread. What ever you do I think this has importance. The sneaky part I hate is that while a tobacco product that pays high corporate profits was hit with a 61% tax increase the same product that lowers corporations profit was raised 2,000%. Why don't we discuss that? Is this a "loophole" being closed or a move between regulators and manufacturers to make limiting the profits of corporations less beneficial? Because each time "sin taxes" are raised a portion of those affected check less expensive alternatives. Do you approve of government policy being radically changed to benefit cigarette companies?

Anyhow go ahead and recommend. I think it is an important discussion.

[Venceremos]

110. I have no way to verify, but have read on various RYO blogs

that big tobacco lobbied politicians to increase taxes on roll-your-own, cigarellos and other tobacco products to equalize the market. The theory is that more people will buy their product (prepackaged cigarettes) since the prices on all tobacco will be equalized.

[AirmensMom]

104. We grew tobacco last summer.

Someone gave us some baby plants, so we stuck them in the garden for fun. They grew well and we pulled them up at the end of the summer and dried them in the barn. Only problem is that we can't find anyone brave enough to smoke them ... and the folks around here love their tobacco. I've heard it's very strong. You can have it if you want to come get it.

Or you could grow your own. :shrug:

[Mother Of Four]

118. Since people are moving into two separate ranks-

Non-smokers vs Smokers.....DING!

Lets talk about every day things that are simply terrible for you.

Flip Flops:

"The problem, foot doctors say, is that flip-flops offer little cushioning and no arch support, and they force their wearers into an unnatural, toe-gripping, foot-slapping gait.

Among the possible consequences:

•Sore arches and heels, which can progress to chronic conditions, including inflamed Achilles tendons and plantar fasciitis, inflammation of the connective tissue between the heel bone and the toes.

•Heel calluses (from the pounding).

•Hammer toes (from the gripping).

•Irritation between the toes (from the toe thongs), which can lead to nasty fungal infections. "

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/painter/2007-07-01-flip-flops-trouble_N.htm

How many people do you know that have NEVER once in their life worn flip flops? I can't think of one.

There's your answer right there, TAX the evil flip flop. After all it is a choice for people to wear these inexpensive shoes. It's proven that people who have to go to a podiatrist for issues end up spending more money than people who don't have to go to a podiatrist.

Do you see how silly that sounds? (The people who are cheering a tobacco tax) These things are a health hazard, it's been studied...and people still wear them driving foot issues up at the same time.

But gosh, on really hot days- or when you go to the beach they sure are comfortable and keep your feet from getting all sweaty.

Sin taxes do not reliably work, as has been stated ad nauseum in this thread. Tax a single "sin" and what will end up happening is that funding will start to dry up and go away as people gravitate to another government defined "sin" to make their lives just a little more bearable.

[WeDidIt]

119. PUT THE TOBACCO DOWN AND MOVE AWAY!

Seriously, I was a smoker for 25 years. I started before I turned 12 years old. At my height I was smoking 2.5 packs/day. Yes, that's right, 1.75 cartons/week.

On June 14th, 1999, I smoked a cigarette and went to bed.

I have not smoked a cigarette since.

The first 72 hours were complete and total agony. I thought I was going to die. I have never known anguish like those 72 hours.

Since then, it was a slow, downhill run to where I hardly miss the cigarettes today.

Hardly.

[LostinVA]

156. I smoked 2+ packs a day and quit April 1, 1996

It's an expensive, filthy, killing habit. And yes, it is mainly a habit, because the physical with drawl is gone after two to four shriekingly bad days, and most people can handle that. They don;t want to stop the habit. The amount of money I spent on cigarettes was insane, and this was in NC, where it was much, much cheaper.

You don't have to smoke. You choose to smoke. Unfairly taxing poor people is taxing food, clothing, medicine, etc.

Calling posters the "Smoking Nazis" may make some of you feel better, but it's really, really silly and ridiculous.

[DevonRex]

139. Get yourself an e-cigarette. They're not taxed that way. They don't have actual smoke

so no tar or carcinogens. You can get them in various levels of nicotine from strong to none.

[Mother Of Four]

150. THANK YOU!

I have been checking and checking back on this thread for a reasonable and well thought out alternative, but didn't want to be the one to give it. I was waiting to see how long it took. "Grow your own" sounds simple, and would actually be alot healthier than bought (Chems they put in it on purpose) But in practice it's really not feasable for many people.

"Well then QUIT" is a ridiculous as it sounds. Obesity has a worse effect on health care costs than smoking OR drinking...yet you don't see these same people screaming that others should be taxed for every lb they are overweight.

(exceprt from the paper)

"ABSTRACT: This paper compares the effects of obesity, overweight, smoking,
and problem drinking on health care use and health status based on national
survey data. Obesity has roughly the same association with chronic health
conditions as does twenty years’ aging; this greatly exceeds the associations of
smoking or problem drinking. Utilization effects mirrors the health effects.
Obesity is associated with a 36 percent increase in inpatient and outpatient
spending and a 77 percent increase in medications, compared with a 21
percent increase in inpatient and outpatient spending and a 28 percent increase
in medications for current smokers and smaller effects for problem
drinkers. Nevertheless, the latter two groups have received more consistent
attention in recent decades in clinical practice and public health policy."
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/21/2/245.pdf


Thank you so much for being one of the reasonable ones. Hubby was actually thinking of trying that because patches, gum, cold turkey ...even medication hasn't worked. It's the oral habit, a what to do with your fingers and mouth thing (No dirty thoughts folks) more than the drawing in the smoke itself.

[Venceremos]

167. Amen

The first time I stopped smoking I gained 40 lbs in two months. It took nine months to get it back off. I had more health problems from the extra weight than from smoking. So I started smoking again, stopped again because of the taxes and gained 30 lbs. I went back and forth like that for years, tried the patches, gum and everything else. But I gained a lot of weight every time I quit anyway.

We have an acreage so I started growing my own tobacco to reduce the cost. But you're right, in order to grow enough to smoke for a year, you need access to a large plot of land.

After reading DevonRex post, I'm going to try the e-cigarettes. It's refreshing for somebody to come up with a helpful alternative instead of sniping at each other.

[roguevalley]

172. try a fake cig to hold. A lot of people miss holding something and

a fake ciggie has less calories than a sub. :)

[DevonRex]

186. This is how I quit smoking. And I can still enjoy the sensation and even

the nicotine if I want to. But I'm now down to the zero nicotine level.

I could quit and have for years at a time. It was staying quit that was the problem. Now if I have a really stressful day I am not tempted to buy cigarettes. I can fix myself a nice cup of tea and put my feet up and have a few puffs of an e-cigarette - without putting myself in danger of starting smoking all over again or giving the tobacco people one red cent of my money.

Your hands and hair and clothing don't smell like tobacco smoke. The taste is similar but better and doesn't leave that icky taste in your mouth. You can even get flavors like mint or cherry or strawberry. I wish they had cloves, though.

There are several different companies and many are on Amazon.com. One that is made in the US:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html?ie=UTF8&marketplaceID=ATVPDKIKX0DER&me=A25QEMSZPJHJ0C

And the one I have is this from this company:

http://www.njoycigarettestore.com/

I have the pen style. They say the cartridges last longer.

[Venceremos]

152. Hey, thanks

I'd never heard of those before - I just looked them up. I'm on my way to buy a couple now.

[LSK]

141. Stop self inflicting death and disease on yourself

Smoking has been linked to disease and cancer for what? 50 years now????

I have spent a lot of time in the Hospital for a loved one in the past 2 months. You are a DAMNED FOOL to continue to smoke. A damned fool.

And to bitch because some HELPLESS CHILDREN are getting the help they need? Innocent children who have no way to pay for healthcare they will need???

Come on.

[LynneSin]

159. Didn't they dump tea into the boston harbor to protest the unfair taxes?

Well, dump the cigarettes. Not only is it the best way to protest the unfair tax but someone can help improve their health along the way too.

And I watched my father die of smoking related illness. It's tough for me to muster up sympathy.

And btw, I believe that Alcohol and Junk Food should be taxed too.

[Runcible Spoon]

157. I am SO SICK of this attitude that the poor should be held to some higher moral standard

People smoke, so what? I don't think many here would enjoy it if their habits were taxed to fucking hell while they are simultaneously black listed and ridiculed by fellow "progressives". Just because you have enough money to do whatever the hell you want doesn't mean you have teh right to judge what other people do. Unless you live like Gandhi I guarantfuckingtee that every Big Mac, pair of leather shoes, motorcycle, pedigree pet, single malt whiskey, WHATEVER, that you buy and enjoy has a social cost associated with it that society bears as a whole.

[Hello_Kitty]

163. Thank you.

There is nothing more tiresome to me than clueless privileged gits who ASSume everyone has the same lifestyle and opportunities they do. Being poor sucks, so poor people often find ways to cope that aren't necessarily healthy. If we want poor people to engage in healthier behavior the best way to do that is to help them stop being poor!

[roguevalley]

175. you assume people who are against this are rich and privileged

and have outlets because of it. we don't. I don't. I just don't want to see or hear about someone dying the way my family did. You only have to see it once. I saw it about seven or eight times now.

[Hello_Kitty]

190. I refer you to Rule Number One of the Intertubes

If a post isn't about you, then it isn't about you.

[roguevalley]

198. and I refer you to the second rule: broad strokes suck.

[roguevalley]

173. I have no problem with higher taxes on stuff that hurts people. Tax

junk food and booze and smokes. Fine with me.

[librechik]

170. I hope one day to pay taxes on legal marijuana

Cannabis helped me quit tobacco--and is not addictive. Pray God and Congress they will legalize it--as they did with a far more dangerous substance, nicotine.

[sister taoist]

171. You. are. serious.?! OMG!!!!!

Lemme wrap my brainpan around this: you are on disability (for what, may I ask?), and are fuming (pardon the pun) about not being able to afford CIGGIES?! Even given the irrefutable proof of the health risks to smoking? Which, may I add, will increase the chances of chronic illness for you on the public's dime.

If someone is on disability, it is only fair to do YOUR part. Which means cutting out habits that are destructive. I would rather rail against the alcohol being allowed than lobby for cigs to join the approved substances, but whatever...

[catnhatnh]

236. Wrap your brain pan around this...

I am indeed on lifetime disability and for your information for traumatic back injury on the job. The "dime" is in fact the insurance program (social security) that I began paying into when I was 14 and continued paying into up to and including the evening I was injured. So save your "Gosh O'Mighty, look at this bastard suck at the public tit!" bullshit for those feeble enough to believe it. I paid my dues in labor then and in pain now. I smoked through both. Address the fairness of the increase or move on because A. I AM serious and B.most "punning" moralizers are Real boring. And you are worse than most.

[Grinchie]

179. Quit smoking

You can do it. I did 11 years ago and it was one of the hardest things I ever did.

It takes 4 months for the toxins to leave your body. At that point, you will start to smell the smell that non-smokers have been suffering when you walk in the door. When you are a smoker, you don;t smell the funk that you carry around in your hair, clothes and pores. Believe me, you stink.

I recomend growing some marijuana as well. There are obvious and noticable side effects to Cannabis, instead to to insidious, "Pick me up" that is found with Nicotine. You will smoke less and less until you quit outright, mainly due to the fact that your productivity will be so low under Cannabis than Tobacco.

You control your future, do not feed a Corporate giant that is feeding on your addiction. Forget about emotions and do the hard work for yourself. Feed yourself better, drink more water, breath fresher air and live in a cleaner environment.

[billyoc]

214. I've decided not to pay for SCHIP if the non-smokers don't have to pay.

The black market tobacco tastes just as good.

[Bryn]

223. You don't have to go by black market

We can buy cigars/cigarettes tax free by ordering via

http://www.eurocheapcigarettes.com/

I am not going to support SCHIP, sorry

[LostinVA]

225. Why in the world would you be against SCHIP?

[Hannah Bell]

242. Is there some reason why only smokers should fund poor children's health care?

Particulary when they tend to be poorer than average themselves, & are already taxed up to $4+/pack?

If it's so important, why don't we all pay? why don't *you,* for example?

[Bryn]

227. because only smokers are targeted

not a good way to tax this way. It is not going to stop smokers from smoking. They will find another way to avoid paying taxes on cigars/cigarettes. I will stop because I want to, not because anti-smoking people tell me to.

[smalll]

222. Yes, and what about the boon to CRIMINALS and the black market that this is?

Live in a large city here -- I remember one bus I used to have to take a lot a couple of years ago, and at one busy street corner, there was ALWAYS the same guy standing out there in a big coat selling cigarettes tax-free.

New York and Pennsylvania law enforcement have spent a lot of effort in recent years busting people driving vans full of cartons from Virginia throug Penn to NY.

This increase in cig taxes AND in roll-you-own tobacco prices (I'm a RYO person myself!) is going to make black-market cirgarettes and RYO tobacco seriously rival illegal drugs as an income stream to gangs and other criminals.

An unregulated market (such as illegal drugs) leads to increased violence. Especially with times so hard right now, smokers are going to be doing whatever they can to cut their costs, and even criminals are not immune to economic downturns - they will be hustling hard to capture this new tobacco-based income stream. They'll start growing tobacco in Mexico and smuggling it across the border...

State governments will respond with increaing penalties and imposing "mandatory minimums" for selling illegal tobacco, putting street-level dealers in jail for 10 or even 25 years for selling tobacco products. And for each one of these people sent to prison, the rest of us (non-smokers included!) will be paying an extra $50,000 a year or so to the "corrections" industry to keep him locked up.

This is not only unfair,

it is absolute MADNESS.

But when it comes to privileged, bigoted people and their politics-by-personal-aesthetics, it doesn't really seem to matter, does it? Who cares that we ahve to pay more for our declasse habits. I can just hear them, murmuring over their Mac computers, "Let Them Eat High-Def, Digital, Premium Cable!" -- since these goddam latte "liberals" also have no patience for those of us who watch free TV on sets bought over five years ago (horrors!)

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED, RICHIES: take away our tobacco AND our TV, in the middle of a new Depression? Not EXACTLY the wisest of moves if you guys want to keep your heads.

[Venceremos]

229. Bravo

I switched from RYO to grow my own. Alot of work, but I'm fed up with paying for almost every government program out there. There's no such thing as free health care. The true cost is put on the backs of so-called sinners. Put it on everyone's back, not just a few.

[varelse]

231. Another good reason to grow your own - Radioactive fertilizer

http://www.acsa2000.net/HealthAlert/radioactive_tobacco.html

[Bryn]

234. Interesting

No wonder my great-grandfather who smoked lived to be 96. My Mom's grandmother, the "hillbilly" type (my great-grandmother) smoked and lived to be 94. So it has to be something in the ground. Back them they didn't use bad chemicals for tobacco.

[Mari333]

232. now, I intend to smoke even more. nt

[Zhade]

243. Uh, sorry, I have no sympathy for your choice to kill yourself via smoking.

NT!

[Juche]

245. Why would they do that

A 2100% tax increase makes no sense. Are they trying to force people into buying store cartons instead of RYO? What is the motive for that?

It is excessive, SCHIP should be funded via a variety of sin taxes (candy, tobacco, alcohol). I wouldn't mind paying some extra taxes on my alcohol or junk food. Sadly all those taxes are highly regressive too.

I agree, it is excessive to dump such a massive tax hike on such a small group of people. The tax hike to pay for SCHIP should be spread more evenly among us.

[Matariki]

247. I sort of find it ironic that someone who is collecting money from a social program

is complaining about tax money going to children's health care. :shrug:

[backscatter712]

248. Your choice...

Pay the additional tax or cut back. I can't say I have much sympathy for the "cut tobacco taxes" option.

Just how much is feeding your addiction worth to you?

[Two Americas]

249. it is absurd

So many people here are saying - "quit, problem solved." Bring up smoking and you can turn every liberal into an authoritarian right winger.

Using personal choice solutions to public problems is the right wing approach to politics, as is the punishment model, as is the use of regressive taxation.

Let's say that everyone quits. Then where will the tax revenue be? Obviously, people advocating this do not expect people to quit. Why would people tax an activity, with the goal of eliminating the activity? Is it for the purpose of raising revenue, or is it not? Ergo, they are promoting an extremely regressive tax - and they call themselves liberals and progressives. By going after smokers, people have cover for expressing what would otherwise be seen as clearly right wing and authoritarian. Smokers are unpopular - an easy target.

So the "quit" argument contradicts the "revenue" argument.

What will happen is that a black market will develop, and then we will have the same situation with tobacco that we now have with pot. Many people who favor the legalization of pot - or at least oppose the War in Drugs - will cheer the cops on when they go after tobacco users. In other words, my drug is OK, but yours is a crime. Of course, that is the problem with pot - the upper class likes alcohol, so that is accepted The working class likes pot, so that is made a crime.

So, to recap: the "liberal" position on this is founded on libertarian "personal choice" Reaganism; is authoritarian; promotes a regressive tax; is hypocritical; reflects an upper class bias.

Other than that - hey, go after those smokers you "liberals." Don't wonder then when you hear people from the general public calling liberalism hypocritical and elitist.

[MrSlayer]

252. I know some guys who soon will be "finding" smokes that "fell" off of trucks.

I expect this will begin happening soon. I'll keep you informed.

[eridani]

258. And then there's the obvious solution. Universal health care for EVERYONE

--which would of course include kids. HR 676--take the damned money from the private insurance asshats!

[Fireweed247]

262. Forgot to mention- Tobacco is a great organic pesticide

...just make a tea with the leaves and spray it...

Grow some to defend your plants from predators and pass the extra onto your friends and fellow DUers.