NY to raise smoke taxes $1.60 pack, rich people most affected. Not.

[The Straight Story]

Planned New York Tobacco Tax Increase is Great News for Health, But State Must Maintain Funding for Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Programs




WASHINGTON, June 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Statement of Kevin O'Flaherty, Northeast Regional Director, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids:

It is great news for New York's health that state leaders are planning to increase the state cigarette tax by $1.60 per pack, while also increasing the tax on other tobacco products and ensuring that taxes are properly paid on cigarettes sold by Native American tribes to non-tribal members. Increasing the tobacco tax is one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking and other tobacco use, especially among children. The planned tobacco tax increase is a tremendous victory for public health that will prevent kids from smoking, motivate smokers to quit, and save lives and health care dollars.

However, it is also critical that New York adequately fund programs to help smokers quit and prevent kids from starting. It would be unconscionable for New York to cut back on these already underfunded programs at the very same time that smokers will be motivated to quit and seek help in doing so. New York must do everything it can to help smokers quit successfully and prevent kids from starting to smoke.

New York already cut funding for its tobacco prevention and cessation programs by more than 30 percent last year. Any further cuts would devastate a highly successful program that has reduced youth and adult smoking rates to well below the national average. New York's program not only saves lives, but saves money as well by reducing tobacco-related health care costs. Cutting the program is penny-wise and pound-foolish.

http://markets.dispatch.com/columbusdispatch/?GUID=13521275&Page=MEDIAVIEWER

I know some here love to raise taxes on everything they hate or don't do (Kind of like fundies would love to raise taxes for sins) - and hey, people could quit doing something they love right?

Raise prices on tea, coffee, anything not lettuce, etc, so high that only the wealthy can enjoy it - because, well we need to control the lives of others one way or another - for the children!

Raise taxes, control behavior, rule those with less money. Justify it by tagging it as 'for kids'. And freedom loving people will rush to tell you how great it is to have less choices (especially those evil poor people, if they just lived their lives our way, went to church, worked harder, etc they would be good people).

[Tesha]

1. When a cup of Earl Grey, hot, kills thousands of people a year, then your analogy will have a point.

But right now, Tobacco and Alcohol are the deadliest drugs on the market
and we should be doing everything we can to convince people to quit using
the fist and abusing the second.

And if good sense doesn't work, then maybe making their use uneconomical
will work.

Tesha

[The Straight Story]

3. Their body, their choice - I don't stand by that on just one issue, I really believe it (nt)

[krabigirl]

10. +1

[KonaKane]

27. Are you aware of the massive cost to the taxpayers to treat smokers?

It's not so single choice as you think. 72.7 billion dollars and that was clear back in 1998....

http://berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/0916/smoking.html

[Hannah Bell]

39. That would be 1% of 1998 GDP. And that's bullshit. Phoney stats -- they're everywhere.

http://www.nationmaster.com/time.php?stat=eco_gdp-economy-gdp&country=us-united-states

[KonaKane]

40. Prove they are phoney, please.

[Hannah Bell]

41. you'd even buy that treating smokers is close to 9% of gdp...

[KonaKane]

65. So you cannot prove your contention? OK then.

I didnt think so.

[fishbulb703]

68. lol right. 9% of gdp? sounds pretty moronic nt

[Synicus Maximus]

92. Don't you realize that 73.4% of statistics are made up?

[aikoaiko]

43. I remember some economist saying smokers actually saved the taxpayers money by dieing young

:shrug:

No citations, sorry.

[madinmaryland]

61. That's the Republican Health Care Plan!!

Get sick and die!

[Hannah Bell]

110. Journal of the Am Med Assoc, etc

JAMA. 1989 Mar 17;261(11):1604-9.

The taxes of sin. Do smokers and drinkers pay their way?
Manning WG, Keeler EB, Newhouse JP, Sloss EM, Wasserman J.

Department of Health Services Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 48109.

Abstract

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://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2918654


J Health Econ. 1986 Mar;5(1):63-80.

Tobacco taxes and health care costs. Do Canadian smokers pay their way?
Stoddart GL, Labelle RJ, Barer ML, Evans RG.

Abstract

Through their health care utilization, smokers are generally perceived to be imposing a financial externality on non-smokers within health insurance systems. To investigate the empirical basis for this view, we estimated publicly financed health care expenditure attributable to smoking for the Canadian province of Ontario and compared it to tobacco taxes paid by Ontario smokers. Both initial estimates and the results of sensitivity analyses performed on key assumptions and parameters of the estimation methodology rejected the hypothesized existence of a financial externality arising from smokers' health care utilization.



Aust N Z J Public Health. 1996 Dec;20(6):607-11.

A cost-benefit analysis of the average smoker: a government perspective.
Doran CM, Sanson-Fisher RW, Gordon M.

New South Wales Cancer Council Cancer Education Research Program, Newcastle.

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to compare the benefit and costs of cigarette smoking from the government's perspective during a one-year period. This was undertaken by estimating, among other things, the publicly financed health care expenditure attributable to smoking and comparing it with tobacco taxes paid by smokers. This comparison of benefits and costs may provide a yardstick from which to measure the relative worth (in financial terms) an average smoker is to the government, an assessment that may be important when assessing health priorities and any level of commitment to reducing smoking rates. It is estimated that in 1989-90 an average smoker cost the government $203.57, while benefits received totalled an average of $620.56 in the same year. If the government were serious about addressing cigarette smoking as a primary health objective its efforts would portray this. The results of this analysis suggest that the objective of raising revenue from smoking is more of a priority than reducing smoking rates.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9117967


With a simulation model, lifetime health-care costs were estimated for a cohort of obese people aged 20 y at baseline. To assess the impact of obesity, comparisons were made with similar cohorts of smokers and “healthy-living” persons (defined as nonsmokers with a body mass index between 18.5 and 25). Except for relative risk values, all input parameters of the simulation model were based on data from The Netherlands. In sensitivity analyses the effects of epidemiologic parameters and cost definitions were assessed. Until age 56 y, annual health expenditure was highest for obese people. At older ages, smokers incurred higher costs. Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers. Obese individuals held an intermediate position. Alternative values of epidemiologic parameters and cost definitions did not alter these conclusions.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029


Publisher(s): Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Topic: Health (Health care financing)



Abstract:

One of the issues raised in the consideration of the proposed tobacco settlement is the compensation of various parties that might pursue lawsuits to recover the health costs of smoking. These parties include states, tentatively allocated $5 billion per year in the agreement reached in June 1997, and individuals. Popular estimates of the annual medical costs of smoking range around $50 billion, with the states accounting for slightly under $4 billion, individuals about $10 billion and the remainder paid for by the federal government and private entities. Some recent estimates have reported higher costs.

A more complete accounting of the health costs of smoking not only increases the size of the costs, but also reallocates costs -- and implies net financial benefits for some parties. Governments save on the costs of old-age medical care, social security, and nursing home care due to the earlier death of smokers. (This result does not mean that it is desirable that people die early; it means that in determining financial cost, if that is the justification for a payment, a correct measure of the loss will only be calculated if these effects are included.)

Smoking has apparently brought financial gain to both the federal and state governments, especially when tobacco taxes are taken into account. In general, smokers do not appear to currently impose net financial costs on the rest of society. The tobacco settlement will increase the transfer of resources from the smoking to the nonsmoking public. (This report will be updated periodically.)

http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/347


Results

There was no difference in sickness absence between smokers and non smokers, however there was an increase in sickness absence with increasing Body Mass Index (BMI) (correlation coefficient 10.9 %-p=0.005) and perhaps surprisingly there was an increase in sickness absence with increasing exercise participation (correlation coefficient 7.7% p=0.045).

There was no difference in job satisfaction in relation to smoking, BMI or exercise participation.

http://www.facoccmed.ac.uk/library/index.jsp?ref=527

Display Settings:AbstractFormatSummarySummary (text)AbstractAbstract (text)MEDLINEXMLPMID ListApply
Send to:Choose DestinationFileClipboardCollectionsE-mailOrder
FormatSummary (text)Abstract (text)MEDLINEXMLPMID ListCreate File
1 selected item: 6419350FormatSummarySummary (text)AbstractAbstract (text)MEDLINEXMLPMID ListMeSH and Other DataE-mailAdditional textE-mail"SPAM" filtering software notice
Add to Clipboard
Add to CollectionsOrder articles


Soc Sci Med. 1983;17(23):1907-14.

Does smoking increase medical care expenditure?
Leu RE, Schaub T.

Abstract

The impact of smoking on medical care expenditure is analyzed, challenging the widespread belief that smoking imposes a large cost burden on health services systems. The results imply that lifetime expenditure is higher for nonsmokers than for smokers because smokers' higher annual utilization rates are overcompensated for by nonsmokers' higher life expectancy. Population simulation, taking into account the effects of past smoking on present population size and composition, suggests that 1976 expenditure would have been the same if no male born since 1876 had ever smoked. The male population would have been larger, particularly at older ages, increasing medical care expenditure, but this increase would have been offset by lower annual medical care utilization rates. Thus the results imply that smoking does not increase medical care expenditure and, therefore, reducing smoking is unlikely to decrease it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6419350


but there's no point in trying to actually discuss anything with the smoking nazis. they're convinced non-smokers drop dead without any fuss or expense, while smokers stay in hospital for years & years, draining the taxpayers of their precious bodily fluids.

[Mimosa]

16. Bring back Prohibition!

I don't smoke but the puritanical anti-tobacco, anti-alcohol attitude is annoying. :7

Weren't temperance movement types called teetotalers or something like that?

[KonaKane]

29. But not hyperbole, hopefully

.

[Tesha]

46. Nice hyperbole.

Note that I didn't, in any way, call for prohibition.

But smokers are harming themselves and imposing costs on
society, and we should take all reasonable steps to disincline
current smokers from continuing with their drug addiction
and, more importantly, prevent new folks from getting addicted.

Steadily raising the cost of smoking is an excellent step in those
directions.

Tesha

[Auggie]

2. With this increase what will the average pack price be now?

[Ruby the Liberal]

8. 3.5 years ago (before the last several hikes), I paid just short of $9

for a pack just off the FDR near 60th in east Manhattan.

[Jamastiene]

113. That is twice what I pay now per pack.

:wow:

[Donnachaidh]

4. Bloomberg and his fellow elite New Yorkers don't want to pay taxes -- let the poor pay more

New York really is turning into a cesspool of elitists who think it's perfectly OKAY to shit on the poor and working class. Not the city it used to be -- too bad.

[closeupready]

87. You are certainly correct there.

Doubly sad that he won/bought yet another term. I shudder to think how he and his ilk are going to destroy so much of what's good about the city.

[Fumesucker]

5. It will affect smokers the most..

When they start kicking people's doors in, throwing flash grenades and confiscating houses for tobacco I'll concede that tobacco users are being discriminated against.

[beyurslf]

6. While I don't disagree with raising the taxes on cigs, I have to wonder if it really

stops kids from smoking. One of my kids smokes. He turns 18 next week and I told him he can finally buy them legally. He said he doesn't want to buy them and plans on continuing to ask around for a smoke. What kids actually buy them? The tax on free is still 0.

[Speck Tater]

7. You CAN quit smoking. You CAN'T quit lung cancer.

I'm 1 year 4 months a non-smoker as of next week.

Fools that waste their money on smoke deserve to be soaked with more taxes on their stupidity. I know smokers won't agree with me, but that's just more proof of how stupid they really are. Stupid is as stupid does, and burning money is stupid.

[jp11]

9. Will you feel the same way when it is decided that something you do or like

is 'stupid' as well and should be taxed? Who needs personal decision when other people can enact laws to discourage you from doing things they think is stupid, nevermind your free will or personal choice, 'society' knows best.

I don't smoke, I rarely drink and think taxing those things is good but there comes a point where it might not be about the health risks but more about people that don't like people who do like that thing or because that thing is unpopular so makes an easy target for laws/taxes.

[Speck Tater]

17. I try very hard to eliminate stupid things from my life.

If I were taxed for something I do that's stupid, that would be a blessing, because anything that points out my own stupidity to me can only help me to become less stupid. So bring it on! Tax trans fats, tax high-sodium junk food, tax bottled water, tax soda pop, tax high fructose corn syrup, yes! Tax everything that's truly stupid! Hell, they should even tax a person for registering Republican. You can't get much more stupid than that!

[Pisces]

67. +1

[Andy823]

18. I agree

I stopped smoking when smokes were 50 cents a pack! Used to get them in the army for 15 cents at the PX in Germany. I stopped my alcohol abuse 25 years ago this coming Halloween. I know people who smoke and drink and it cost them a huger chunk of their pay check each month, but they won't stop, they are addicted! I have been there and I know what it's like, but I also know that when you spend around $6 a pack for smokes and smoke almost two packs a day, and you drink daily, it is going to cost you not only in the cash, but in bad health! My daughters best friend's parents both smoke, it cost them around $25 a day just for smokes, around $750 a month! They both are in poor health and have terrible coughs. They don't have health insurance because they "CAN'T" afford it. They have their own business, but are till paying the bank for the loan they got to buy it. He has to work at his own business, and at another job to make ends meet. If they stopped smoking they could be putting that $750 a month to much better use.

Now I agree that it's up to each person to decide for themselves what they waste their money on, but I am sure that the big tobacco companies, brewing companies, and distilling companies who make the hard stuff, all are making billions off those who are hooked on their products! No matter what the price those who are addicted will pay it for their drug of choice. Nicotine and alcohol are both highly addictive so once they get you hooked, the know you will continue to buy their products. My dad stopped smoking because of heart problems about 15 years ago. It's hard, but it can be done. I smoked for about 15 years before I stopped and drank alcohol from my teenage years till I was 34! I was addicted, but I stopped and it was the best thing I ever did to improve my life. If I were still using tobacco and alcohol, I would be spending money I now use to buy things for my family, a much better way to spend my money!

[elocs]

21. There's nobody with more self righteous zeal than a former smoker, anti-smoking zealot.

It puts the most fundamental evangelical Christian to shame.

Of course I doubt if your tactless tact is very successful in getting many smokers to quit, but congratulations on your 1 year and 4 months of being a non-smoker. As of next week of course, so there's still time to fall off the wagon :evilfrown:.

[Skittles]

31. I think people who cannot empathize should be taxed

yes INDEED

[Speck Tater]

36. I was stupid for over 40 years so I can empathize with stupid.

But empathize doesn't necessarily mean condone, encourage, or enable. Empathy is neither a free pass nor a blind eye. Empathy is not an antidote to stupid. If some idiot is practicing quick draw with a loaded pistol and shoots himself in the foot, I can empathize with his pain but still think he's an idiot.

I quit smoking the day a good friend found out she had lung cancer. She has been fighting lung cancer for almost a year and a half now, yet she is still smoking. I empathize with her like crazy, because I've known her for 47 years and I care very much about her well being. But that doesn't change the fact that she's an idiot for still smoking.

[Skittles]

37. I'll give you an example

I exercise every day - for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone who CAN exercise every day DOESN'T - but I don't call them STUPID

[Speck Tater]

38. There is some legitimate debate among medical experts on how much exercise is beneficial.

I wouldn't call anyone stupid for a legitimate difference of opinion.

On the other hand, I don't ever actually call people stupid to their face, regardless of their stupid choices. I have more good sense than to alienate my friends that way. I respect a person's right to do stupid things, and in most cases, I do not ever openly question that person's choices.

But when there is an online discussion of stupid behaviors I feel that is a legitimate venue for expressing my opinion about what I believe constitutes stupid behavior. But that does not mean I go around all day looking for people at whom I can shout, "Hey, you're stupid!"

So let's keep context in mind before calling someone stupid for calling someone else stupid, or whatever.

[Hannah Bell]

112. exercise is associated with absence from work. you're costing us money! punishment must follow!

http://www.facoccmed.ac.uk/library/index.jsp?ref=527

Results

There was no difference in sickness absence between smokers and non smokers, however there was an increase in sickness absence with increasing Body Mass Index (BMI) (correlation coefficient 10.9 %-p=0.005) and perhaps surprisingly there was an increase in sickness absence with increasing exercise participation (correlation coefficient 7.7% p=0.045).

[NashVegas]

114. Only 16 Months And You're Already Sounding Like a Sanctimonious Hypocrite

So, what?

You put the smokes down, and that brought enlightenment, or something? It took you all of 16 months to turn people who still have the habit you had into the "other," and insult them.

Take a bow.

[votingupstart]

11. raise the price all you want - people will still smoke

either they will pay the taxes or buy the black market ones.

i personally don't smoke but i equate it with alcohol and marijuana - people want it and they will get it legally or not.

[bigwillq]

13. Good post.

:thumbsup:

[winstars]

45. People Do Quit Because $$$

I did. 25 YEARS smoking was always bad for me but between the non smoking signs EVERYWHERE now and like $10.00 per pack, it did become just to stupidly EXPENSIVE too smoke. Really.

In NY when they first jacked up the tax several years ago, they said that they expected to actually collect LESS tax $$$ yearly because people would buy them out of state or from the Indians, and from PEOPLE QUITTING BECAUSE IT THEY WERE TOO EXPENSIVE. And thats what happened I believe, together with the anti smoker laws and the $$$ rise, people smoke less now in NY.

This new tax will make them $11.00 and up depending on where you score... Some smokers will quit or just smoke less which is good right... Hey, I bought cigs as a kid for like 35 cents a pack...

Not smoking now I see how many people DON'T smoke these days. Less and less people smoke, some kids do but it seems to me that more don't than when I was a kid. And I get around so it's sort of a well rounded observation or I would not say it so matter of factly...

[SOS]

59. Black market will soon be the only market in NYC

Cigarettes in NYC are now $10.75 a pack.
This tax will bring them to $12.50.

That's $125 a carton.
$45 in Virginia.

Doing the math....

Buy in VA for $45, sell in NY for $85
That's a profit of $40 a carton, while giving the end buyer a discount of $4 a pack.

Assume that a large car trunk can hold 200 cartons.
That's an $8,000 profit for a weekend trip to VA.

For one weekend a month of driving, the bootlegger makes $96,000 a year (cash, no tax).

There will be so many people doing this, it's ridiculous.
NY State and City have created an Al Capone level of bootlegging with these taxes.

[winstars]

99. Cigs From NC (that's where they are the cheapest) ...

have been bootlegged by people in NYC for 50 years. It is a big bisiness... The new tax will create more incentive for more people to do that. But the vast majority of the public, IMHO, WILL NOT have the opportunity to buy bootlegged cigs so they will buy less or quit. They keep saying they believe that the tax collected on cigs yearly will actually GO DOWN in total; It's not a revenue thing completely, their rational is too get people to STOP or cut down smoking, thus having in the end healthier people... I am not completely certain they are right but lets see...

[Rex]

12. Ah yes shit on anyone but the wealthy elite

fucking assholes, pay some taxes on your shitty companies and stop taking corporate welfare! Bad enough the wealthy destroyed pensions and 401ks. The rich never let their money get to far away from their vaults. Poor people decide between heat and food.

[BelgianMadCow]

14. classic degressive tax n/t

[MellowDem]

15. Straight Story, I almost always like your posts...

and your logic, except when it comes to smoking threads.

I think there should be taxes on things that impart a cost onto society. For example, gas taxes. We have them, but they are not nearly high enough. What happens when we don't raise money for these extra costs imposed on society, not the companies that produce these goods? Just look at the oil spill. Private costs made public. Which we all know is what smoking does. Smoking is a HUGE public cost that the Tobacco companies don't have to pay in terms of health costs. But they profit off of it.

I agree that other things could be taxed similarly. Like certain unhealthy foods. It is the same thing then. But there is a difference. Food is necessary to live. Smoking isn't. Smoking is chemically addictive. Food isn't. That's the problem with imposing taxes on unhealthy food. That would really hurt the poor who need to eat, which happens to be everyone.

There should be a cost for carbon being paid. There should be a cost for unhealthy food being paid, but that one is a little bit more complicated to enact. Unfortunately, I don't think that that means cigarettes shouldn't be taxed to high hell. They hook people to an extremely addictive, harmful substance that is incredibly costly to their health and to society at large. I do agree that a lot of that money should go to programs helping smokers quit for free, considering they're the ones paying for it. But saying it shouldn't be done because it will hurt the poor who buy cigarettes is like saying Wal-Mart shouldn't be criticized because they help the poor afford more things. In the short term, that may be true. But the big picture shows that allowing these things to continue in the end only hurts the poor the most. Personally, I would like to see some of these taxes be imposed on the corporations who make these products rather than on customers. But as you said, this can conflict with ideas of individualism and "controlling behavior", which happens to be the argument companies used when they want to pass the cost of something on to the customer/society at large.

Personally, I think they could and should tax things like fast food, but they would have to subsidize healthy food and make sure that it is available to everyone, which currently it is not.

[Obamanaut]

19. Boycott tobacco products. Saves the base price as well as the tax expense. Win/win

for all concerned. People who cannot afford the increase will benefit through savings as well as improved health.

[blueworld]

20. The judgmental bigots, nannies & saints are always good for a laugh

It's common knowledge that fines, taxes, laws & arrests since the dawn of time have successfully eliminated human vice in many societies. I mean, look at the benefits Prohibition presented to us (& the Mafia) early last century, right?

Drug use, alcohol abuse, tobacco use, prostitution...all have been eliminated or minimized (except for the rich & powerful) by vigilant legislation, fines, taxes & imprisonment, right? I do have a few questions for NY though. If the obscene taxes DO make smokers quit, how will that provide you with revenue? If the obscene taxes simply lead to an increase in black-market untaxed tobacco products, how will that provide you with revenue?

Wouldn't it be more logical to levy a smaller tax on things EVERYONE uses thus providing a steady, reliable source of LEGAL revenue? Of course the whining of the anti-smokers could become deafening.

The police, postal inspectors etc. can't possibly monitor all sources of untaxed tobacco entering the city - that's patently ludicrous, so let's consider. Their salaries & benefits eat into the revenue stream, right? And what if you have to hire & train more of them? That's Nanny Bloomer's logic: spend millions to collect thousands. It doesn't seem to be working...oh well. At least we can all feel superior:)

[Pisces]

72. No one is calling for prohibiion. This should be federal tax everywhere, just like gas should be

taxed higher. Things that affect all of society like higher medical costs should be taxed. Second hand smoke is no joke. My grandmother had lungs of smoker even though she never took a puff, however, she lived with my grandfather who did. I am all for legalizing drugs with taxation. Do what you want to your body, I don't care, but I also don't care if you have to pay for your vice. A federal
tax is really what is needed to offset the medical costs that smokers place on society.

[elocs]

22. My 18 year old daughter suffers from schizophrenia. Up to 90% of schizophrenics smoke.

Why? They are self medicating because smoking helps their thought process, to keep their minds straight and for somebody suffering from schizophrenia that is no small thing. Although at 18 she is not a long time smoker my goddaughter is absolutely addicted to smoking and craves a cigarette so she can think better. Can any of us actually appreciate how difficult that is?

Many schizophrenics struggle to survive on the small amount that SSI provides them, especially ones like my goddaughter who have absolutely no work experience and is still trying to finish school. Imagine the cost of cigarettes for somebody who is struggling to get by on $600 some a month. Well they can just quit, right? Hard enough for smokers without schizophrenia much less those that smoke to help them think.

I have never smoked so I am clueless as to how hard it may be to quit, but I will not accuse those who have trouble with quitting as somehow being morally weak or stupid. My father was a smoker and I have his letters home to his dad from WWII where he was a heavy machine gunner all the way from North Africa to Sicily and eventually on to Germany via Omaha Beach. His letters plead with his father: "Please send me cigarettes. I NEED cigarettes and I think somebody is stealing mine from the mail". I cannot even begin to understand what kind of hell that must have been for him.

My father died at age 49 of emphysema, just when I had turned 18 myself. So I know what cigarettes can do to people's health. But I do have compassion and empathy for those who smoke and those who try to quit, and especially those who fail in their efforts. I understand that smoking is highly addictive and I can understand how hard it is to quit. I also understand that high cigarette taxes unfairly impact poor smokers who probably have a harder time in quitting than the rich who will pay what they must. I also understand that the reason people smoke is not always simple and cut and dry.

[Skittles]

26. interesting

elocs, would nicotine gum / lozanges have the same effect on your daughter? They are pricey too but I wonder if they'd work.

I hear you about the soldiers - I don't smoke (although I still chew nicotine gum when stressed) but have sent cigs to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan

[elocs]

28. She tried the nicotine gum a few weeks ago and it didn't work for her.

She is currently in a residential school where the girls cannot simply leave and there is no smoking. When she entered a few months ago she was determined to quit, but unfortunately reality did not meet determination.

She had a home visit at her mom's house a few weeks ago that ended with disaster. Her boyfriend (who she was not supposed to have contact with because he gives her drugs) left cigarettes in a stash for her outside her mom's house. She fessed up to it and I took her to get some nicotine gum, but the next day she ran off and I found her outside a Walgreen's where she had bummed a cigarette from someone.

She absolutely just needed an actual cigarette and evidently it wasn't just about the nicotine.

[Skittles]

30. what about E-cigs, elocs?

I sympathize with your plight with schizophrenia :cry:

[elocs]

32. She did try them too. Got some from her mom for Christmas.

They won't allow them at her school so it's pretty much cold turkey for her and that ain't working. Unfortunately right now she is back in the psych ward for the 15th time in the last year and a half at 8 different hospitals. This is an intelligent, beautiful and talented young woman whose high school years have been lost as she tries to make her way through this hell.

[Skittles]

33. I wish they'd fund this disease more

it's absolute hell for those afflicted and their families

A long time ago I read a fascinating book written by a gal who described in detail what it was like - with and without drugs (the side effects were often worse than with no drugs) - it was truly an eye-opener but I don't recall the name of it now

[elocs]

35. It's a matter of finding the right drugs or combination of drugs

and for the person with schizophrenia to have the insight to realize that they need to take their medications forever. The problem is that the side effects can be so nasty (if you are an adolescent girl how would like like a huge weight gain and acne, or worse?) that they don't want to stay on them, especially if they get to feeling better and believe they don't need the meds anymore.

Our prisons are full of mentally ill people and many are homeless because some years back they were pretty much cut loose from institutions. The Law of Unintended Consequences struck big time when mentally ill people were pretty much set free. Really, in this country you have the right to be mentally ill.

The journey through schizophrenia can and often times is hell and those who suffer from it need all the people they can find to advocate for them and to love and support them.

[backscatter712]

78. I've heard of cigarettes and schizophrenia.

In this case, the benefits of smoking may literally outweigh the health hazards. Obviously, this is not the case for the 99% of the population that does not have schizophrenia, but my vote when it comes to people with schizophrenia is to let them smoke.

[eShirl]

82. I think schizophrenics should get some kind of a break on cigarette taxes

it really eats into the monthly disability payments

[elocs]

85. Certainly when you have a group where 90% smoke compared to 25% of the general population

something other than simple addiction to cigarettes is going on. You ought to see the patients on a psych ward who are not allowed to smoke because it is bad for their health (it is), but it sure helps to calm their minds in the moment.

[Tesha]

96. See, this is where we Americans fail by not addressing the "systematics".

The correct solution, systematically speaking, is *NOT* to hold
down cigarette taxes so your daughter can cheaply self-medicate.

The *CORRECT* systematic solution is to provide appropriate health
care that your daughter can afford with *REAL MEDICATIONS* while
also helping incite millions of smokers *TO STOP SHORTENING THEIR
LIVES* by their smoking while also preventing other millions of potential
smokers from ever taking their first drag and becoming addicted.

But we Americans love to ignore the big picture while focusing on
minutiae. And that lets huge corporations get away with what they
do best: making money no matter what the social costs of their
activities. Big Tobacco wants you and/or your daughter to keep
smoking and they couldn't give a shit whether she gets help for
her schizophrenia, especially if help for her would decrease the
probability that she'll keep smoking.

Tesha

[eShirl]

103. well, "*REAL MEDICATIONS*" don't magically make schizophrenia go away

My brother has been taking "*REAL MEDICATIONS*" for his schizophrenia for decades, yet even with the best balance of medications his doctors have managed to comeup with in all that time, when he smokes there are less voices.

[Tesha]

115. But tobacco does? Bullshit. And even if it did, then nicotine patches would do the same and safer.

It's just another *EXCUSE* to smoke.

Tesha

[johnnie]

23. I can't wait until it is all black market

At least then I'll save some cash. I like smoking, and because I can't smoke in 99% of the U.S. I'm not hurting anyone but myself. They will push this and the anti-smokers will continue to whine until it becomes a black market item and I will be able to buy packs for a buck and the billions of dollars in taxes that help build stadiums will become extinct. Then the whiners will be crying for tobacco to become ok again because they will have to pay a 50% tax on their fucking booze.

[RagAss]

106. Yup...me too.

[Curmudgeoness]

24. Tobacco taxes finance terrorism, so says an opinion piece

I read by Deroy Murdoch---don't freak out, I read all editorials that show up in my newspaper. He had several interesting statistics about how the higher the taxes, the more lucrative it is to sell illegal cigarettes. This was a spin on it I had never expected, but as a smoker, I know that the higher the prices get, the more interested I am in "alternatives". And anyone who thinks that all smokers can "just quit" has never had an addiction. These taxes are more than repressive.

Check out the op-ed piece for details.

http://article.nationalreview.com/435957/tobacco-taxes-finance-terrorism/deroy-murdock

[Taitertots]

25. The rights of corporate people to sell deadly and addictive chemicals shall not be infringed

We need to do what is best for the poor and make sure they have access to deadly addictive chemicals at a price cheap enough to maintain their addiction.

[eShirl]

34. about time to grow your own?

http://www.seedman.com/Tobacco.htm

[rucky]

48. Thanks for the link.

this is someone I'd want to do business with:

A note from Jim Johnson:

We first started selling tobacco seeds in 1992. Our price per pack was $2.20 back then. Today, our price is still $2.20 per pack and our seed count remains the same. No doubt we will probably sell out before the our next harvest due to the tremendous demand this season, but we do not think a company should raise prices just because the demand is suddenly higher.
We appreciate our customers and will never gouge them, thanks for your continued business.

[JPZenger]

42. When NJ raised cig taxes, their total revenue fell

I all in favor of cigarette taxes, but it is absurd to raise them too much. It is too easy to cross borders or buy them in other ways. A couple years ago when NJ did a big increase in their cig taxes, they became much higher than PA and Del. At that point, the total revenue that NJ received from cig taxes actually went down.

[aikoaiko]

44. How much is a pack of smokes in NYC these days?

When I was a teen in NJ, they were 10 bucks a cartoon for Marlboro.

[Dorian Gray]

47. I think that will make a pack

of Marlboro's about 11.50$ here. Something like that. Wow. So happy I quit 5 years ago!!!!!!

This tax will hurt the middle classes and the lower classes much more than the upper classes.

If they want to make smoking illegal, they should just do it. Though hopefully the tax will finally make my in-laws quit.

[lib2DaBone]

49. Wow... $11.50 a pack. I dont smoke.. but I noticed at the Farmers Market

on Saturday.. a booth selling 5 lb bags of cured cut tobacco mixture for rolling your own.

Maybe "roll-your-own" is going to make a comeback?

[Dorian Gray]

51. I'm shocked it hasn't already.

[Obamanaut]

50. The tax will not hurt anyone who chooses not to spend those $ on tobacco. nt

[Dorian Gray]

52. Well, it's a hugely excessive tax

the extra 1.50$ isn't the only tax on that pack of cigarettes. I think (though have no time to look it up) over 50% of the price is tax alone.

Of course I think everyone should quit. But people won't. And it's a hugely excessive amount for a pack of cigarettes.

[Obamanaut]

56. You buy your ticket, you take your ride. If folks don't want to pay the

price, don't buy the product and spend the money saved on food, housing, clothes for the kids, etc. There is an upside to the increased tax.

[melm00se]

53. to see the real impact of this kind of tax

one need only look to north of the border.

in the early 90's Canada raised their taxes on tobacco to approximately $16 a carton (or $1.60/pack) and this brought about an explosion of tobacco smuggling and a rise in organized crime surrounding it.

the Canadian government eventually lowered the tax rate in an attempt to curb smuggling and the enforcement costs of this crime.

[maryf]

54. The thruway will be shut down...

If they try to enforce taxes on non-natives in Western NY... The Seneca there are sovereign to the nation not to the state...

[lib2DaBone]

55. Once the politicians find a cash cow they will not quit....

.. they will milk it until every last penny is gone. This is what is happening with Tobacco or "Sin" taxes.

Politicians can smell easy money like a shark smells blood in the water. I know.. I watch my County Commission every week.. it's almost laughable escept when you have to pay up.

This week they were arguing about the reveune from the red-light cameras... like pigs at a trough.. they can't get enough.

[bigwillq]

60. I am not a fan of the red-light cameras

I don't think they work, either.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

57. Living in NY and being shockingly a smoker, I've been stuffing my own now for about

a year and half. I had used cigarette tobacco until it was highly taxed by the Fed Govt so I switched to "pipe" tobacco. I'm paying a little over $1 a pack this way. I do sometimes treat myself to "real" cigarettes but at $10 a pack, that will be another thing of my past.

[Greyhound]

58. Nothing like the prohibitionist's inability to see beyond their own noses.

Looking on the bright side, it is nearly profitable enough to cause a resurgence in black market tobacco sales.

Oh goody!
:applause:

[Tesha]

62. Nobody's trying to "prohibit" anything. We're just trying to encourage existing smokers to quit...

...and prevent potential new smokers from starting.

By the way, what are the *ADVANTAGES* of smoking? Why do so many
DUers so willingly defend a drug addiction that will sicken many and
kill some while providing so few benefits?

Tesha

[eShirl]

64. Talked w/ my schizophrenic brother today (who's tried to quit every day for 2+ decades)

told him I'd read that a much higher percentage of schizophrenics are smokers than non-schizophrenics. He asked, "Why's that?" I told him smoking seems to help some of the symptoms of schizophrenia.

He said, "That's true. I hear less voices when I smoke."

I told him I wanted him to know, I didn't think any less of him if he wasn't able to quit.
(I was able to quit almost 10 years ago, along with my husband, when he was told he had a better chance of getting a kidney transplant if he didn't smoke.)


Anyway, you had asked what were advantages of smoking. That's one.

[jp11]

71. Advantages of smoking are a 'high' or so I have been told.

I defend a 'drug addiction' as it is a personal choice what they want to put into their bodies, knowing the risks it has. It doesn't cause them to lose their jobs, or kill people unless you want to count a cancer risk % over your lifetime from being near a smoker smoking which is nearly impossible in many parts of the country unless you go out back by the ditch where the smoking section is, if it exists.

If the trend is to stop what is bad for people where will alcohol end up, it is bad for you and under the influence people can kill while driving. How about marijuana if it ever became legal, that may have some of the same cancer risks as smoking cigarettes? Smoking is unpopular and therefore an easy target, being unpopular, unhealthy and frowned upon how long until other 'behavior' falls in that category? That is *my* main issue with this, taxes on it are fine but where the line ends on taxing something because it is a health risk and we want to discourage people from doing it and when we are just taxing it more because 'those people won't learn damn them' is unclear to me.

I don't think that other people should be able to decide what is right for me or you to do with our lives so long as either one of us don't hurt other people, obviously there is more to it than that but that is where this issue falls for me.

[Tx4obama]

73. All of us smokers should ban together & get the non-smokers to stop their habits

Let's get non-smokers to:
1) Stop driving which causes air pollution
2) Stop using butter/oil which clogs their arteries. BAN BUTTER NOW! Put a huge tax on butter and fine people that are seen eating products containing butter in public
3) Ban sports. The injuries related to sporting activities drive up medical costs for the rest of us
4) Make it illegal to walk across a street. People that get hit by cars drive up medical costs for the rest of us ;)
5) Ban mountain climbing, sky diving, sailing, surfing, sking, etc. These activities can cause injury to the human body and costs must be picked up by taxpayers if the injured person in uninsured
6) Ban all airplanes. Flying can lead to death and the expense of crash investigations is too costly. And no one should have the right to have an accident that could result in their plane crashing into a person's house!
7) Ban all oil drilling and coal mining. Too hazardous to people and our environment
8)

There should be a law passed immediately that mandates that everyone must stay inside their homes in a rubber room for the majority of the day so the percentage of chance of injury will be reduced!

:sarcasm:

[Curmudgeoness]

74. Don't bet on this not being a prohitition attempt.

There may be few advantages, but where is the advantage to sugar and sugar-filled treats, chocolate, alcohol, soda, coffee, tea, sites like DU which can make your blood pressure go sky high? Are you suggesting that we ban (oops, not ban, just encourage people not to use it) everything that is not good for you. And you are missing the point, these regressive taxes just encourage more crime by making a black market lucrative. Seems to me that at one time this country was critical of USSR for the policies that allowed black markets to blossom. Go figure.

[Tesha]

93. Carbohydrates, unlike tobacco, actually serve a useful purpose.

They are the basic fuel your body runs on. Too much of them is
bad for you, but unlike tobacco, in the right quantities, they are
useful to your body.

And taking another of your proposals, how many people have
dies of "Chocolate-related diseases" this year?

As you try to defend your habit, you draw ridiculous analogies.

If we eliminated *ALL TOBACCO SMOKING* tomorrow, the world
would be a better, far-healthier place.

Tesha

[Curmudgeoness]

102. I doubt that banning tobacco will make the world a "better far healthier place"

You have got to be kidding me. Instantly all the ills of the world will disappear. If that is true, I will the first to agree to a ban.

[Tesha]

116. Nice strawman (having nothing to do with what I actually said). Light it up and smoke it. (NT)

[Greyhound]

109. The ADVANTAGE of smoking is the freedom to do something you enjoy.

This is what happens, you honestly believe that you know better than anybody else what is best for everybody else, so you get all worked up and go off on your righteous quest until everybody is required to submit to your will.

And you think it ends there, but it never does.

Now, thanks to that brilliant PR move of making this "all about the children", you have schools and child health care budgets all over the nation dependent on taxes from cigarettes, but fewer people are smoking (just as they were before you started this legislation fashion) and those revenues are shrinking so now "the children" have even less than they did before when legislatures had to budget these programs out of general funds.

So, keep raising the taxes and make life even harder for poor people (who cares about them anyway) and simultaneously increase revenues for organized crime. Bootlegging cigarettes was profitable enough at $3 a carton to attract them, imagine how attractive they are now...

[LanternWaste]

76. One person's prohibition is simply another man's tax.

One person's prohibition is simply another man's tax. I guess we all label those things we don't like with a dramatic flair to better validate our own beliefs...

I guess gasoline is undergoing a prohibition too-- it being taxed and all.

[Greyhound]

108. Your argument is so transparent it doesn't even rate a reply. This entire prohibition movement

has about imposing the wishes of a minority upon another minority since the beginning.

Behavior modification through economic punishment is simply using a different legal path that has the advantage of not hurting those with the ability to fight back. And in the end, as always, you incentivize lawlessness and give even more money to the worst people.

Gee, ya think that might cause some more problems down the road?

[timo]

63. ban ciggarettes

I am currently making a fortune of selling "legal" herbal incense to people who cant smoke real weed, I say ban tobacco as well it will increase my profit 1000 fold!!!

[Bluebear]

66. I don't see how this is Obama's fault!!

:cry:

[geek tragedy]

69. Taxing something that should be illegal okay by me.

How many people die from pot vs tobacco?

[name not needed]

83. Because prohibition worked so well every other time we tried it.

[Pisces]

70. This is not less choice. Smoking is not outlawed. 2nd hand smoke affects everyone. I don't

have a choice to breath in the smoke when I walk by a smoker in public. A smoker's choice affects me, so yes, I think I should have a vote on taxing the cancer sticks.

[Curmudgeoness]

75. Then you will have to just stop breathing. Pollution is everywhere.

Smokers are not intentionally blowing smoke at you, and I find it hard to believe that this happens all that often to you. Car exhaust is affecting you in much more dangerous ways. Outlaw automobiles.

[LanternWaste]

77. Aren't cars a practical necessity for millions of people?

Aren't cars a practical necessity for millions of people?

I imagine a cost/benefit analysis would throw your position into the garbage.

And, like cigarettes, I think cars are merely taxed rather than prohibited?-- but it does make for some dramatic flair

[Curmudgeoness]

80. I suppose non-smokers don't know that cigarettes are practical necessities to some

But I will not expect you to understand that. And from what I see of car use, people do not know the difference between "want" and "need" either.

[Pisces]

81. That is why no one is proposing outlawing them, just taxing them. This post makes no sense.

[Curmudgeoness]

84. Taxing too much is the same as "outlawing",

[Pisces]

86. No , not the same. You can still smoke at $11 a pack, you just can't smoke 10 packs.

[eShirl]

89. sure you can, if you've got the money to burn.

[LanternWaste]

94. I'm a smoker...

I'm a smoker. You could of course tell me with precision and relevance how a cigarette is a practical necessity, yes?

[Pisces]

79. Autos are taxed every year when we buy our tags. Unfortunately I do have to smell smoke everytime

I walk into a restaurant, airport, mall,fed building etc. Smokers stand right outside the door and puff away. They can't even stand 20 ft away to let people enter public places without being accosted by
nasty smoke. Pollution is terrible and I am all for a $10 dollar gallon of gas to cut down on emissions. Until something hurts you in the pocket our habits will not change ( not even fear of death by emphezima). Threat of global warming, oil shortages, paying the Saudi's for our oil addiction, nothing but higher prices regulates our addictions.

[Curmudgeoness]

88. Or we could all find ways to tolerate other people more.

I stay away from doorways, I never throw butts on the ground, I do not smoke around people who are not accepting of it. But I also would like a little respect from non-smokers. Instead all I get is thrown under the bus for killing everyone with smoke. As to the auto taxes, my state charges around $35 a year, big whoopie. Not quite the same.

[Pisces]

91. You are then one of the few polite smokers. You also must have high real estate taxes to

compensate for low auto, my state has high auto tags and lower real estate. Tolerating others is fine, until their decsions infringe on my health. We obvioulsy disagree and are on opposite ends of the
spectrum. I see this as the same as a gas tax. The rich will be able to drive more, but they are able to eat out more, buy bigger homes, etc. if they can smoke 10 packs a day and you only 1 or 2 you should be thankful for your health.

[LanternWaste]

95. No taxes on your gasoline...?

No taxes on your gasoline...?


" Not quite the same." Actually the difference is merely in degrees.

[Curmudgeoness]

101. I never said there were no regressive taxes here. Lots of them.

That doesn't mean they are right.

[LanternWaste]

98. No problem in tolerating people.

No problem in tolerating people. There may be a problem in tolerating allergens though... :shrug:

[immune]

90. I would like someone to tell me that if

non-smokers have to pay more for insurance and taxes to provide medical care for smokers, how can it be that after the initial non-smoking craze and tax increases drove millions of people to quit, insurance premiums and taxes went through the roof? Saved any money on it yet?

Another question: who are all these folks who are increasingly becoming addicted to SSRI's? Maybe depressed former smokers getting a new fix? Oh yeah, that's a big improvement, a pandemic of zombies instead of formerly happy puffers. And of course we all know all those pharma drugs are so much cheaper than tobacco, just watch out for the deadly second hand side effects, like homicidal and suicidal impulses.

And to hear the hollering going on, even non smokers are less happy than they were before the whole anti smoking shebang started. Why is that?

:crazy:

[LanternWaste]

97. If the person is weak-willed and has no strength

"a pandemic of zombies instead of formerly happy puffers."

If the person is weak-willed and has no strength, and finds happiness in nothing but smoking, I imagine that might be the case, but pandemic? More of the over dramatic flourishes to better validate a position.

[immune]

100. Your response is what was weak.

You didn't even attempt to answer the questions. So I'll ask you directly, have your insurance premiums or taxes dropped in line with the millions of quitters? How much money have you saved? Is your health better now that its against the law to smoke in any indoors area? Do you have any idea how many people are currently hooked on SSRIs as compared to ten years ago?

[RagAss]

107. By the way....with all the ex-smokers out there...have lung cancer rates declined?

[The Straight Story]

104. For me it does not matter - controlling behavior through health care is a bad bad road to be on

Soon we will have people telling us pre-marital sex is costing us more than sex within marriage - and I guarantee you 100% there will be people on the left who will suddenly be on the band wagon with the fundies against it, all over $$$$$$$$$$$$.

You bought a happy meal for your kid more than 5 times last year? We want to see all your receipts and how you spent money to feed your kids.

Some will march into a fascist state in the name of money, and then lie their asses off saying they are 'pro-choice'.

They are not - they are pro-control of others in any way they can be.

[immune]

105. Its hard to understand the power trips some people are on

to control others when most of them can't control their own impulses and idiosyncrasies. And as a result of these poorly thought out mob actions, no one has control of his life anymore. But yes, it will come home to roost.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

111. I don't see a down side here

Even if people are too fucking stupid to quit smoking because it is toxic they are probably not also oblivious to the financial cost.