Ten Years Later, Tobaco Deal Going Up In Smoke

Ten Years Later, Tobaco Deal Going Up In Smoke

redtape.msnbc.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.burlingtonfreepress.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
tobacco ...maybe not as bad as we're led to believe

If you read the source article it will say something to the effect that the states are now in bed with the Tobacco industry. By borrowing against the funds they are scheduled to receive they are gambling that to Tobacco industry will stay alive and well. So they are in essence hoping people will continue to smoke. That also means that the funds which were suppose to be going to anti smoking campaigns will no longer be doing so, or the will more likely be a cheap, ineffective campaign just to satasify the public who would be ignorant to what has really happened.

redtape.msnbc.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Here you go, front page of AJC:
Georgia next to last in anti-smoking spending



www.ajc.com...


I have no commentary because I am not surprised.

Can we smoke enough to solve this? Yes We Can!
Can we all go buy a carton today? Yes We Can!
Can we get little Jane and Betsy and Tom started a year early? Yes We Can!
Can we all give that guy on the street a few extra when he bummed you for two already-probably because he doesn't try to find work and his welfare credit card is empty despite the fact this high-school dropout totally voted for Obama wantin' mo-a-dat gov chedda?
Yes We Can!
Who in the world would loan against future cig sales? These policy makers of today keep setting the bar a little higher.

Well i'll continue to smoke...tobacco companies can be sure i will be giving them my hard earned money...is that what this thread is about?

Thanks to the both of you for posting.
You said you were not surprised. I kind of was. When money is marked for specif programs, I was thinking the law was behind it being used on those programs, silly me I suppose.
It seems big tobacco will not be leveing any time soon.

reply to post by RedGolem

---

Not only are they not going anywhere but if I was a smart person I would buy stock in Big Tobacco, Big Beer, Big Liquor and Big Drug.
In an economic crapfest those are the winners, guaranteed.

reply to post by SEEWHATUDO

---

Seewhat
Thanks for posting.
I agree with you about the stocks. If I rember correctly both liquor and tobacco have been good stocks to have in the past. I truly do not know what impact the two hundred billion dollar ruling will have on them.

OK, flamethrowers at the ready, everyone.

I am actually glad to see this. Not because I like government corruption and coercion with big business. Not because I am against anti-smoking educational programs. Not because I want to see people die of cancer.

But because you all (the anti-smokers) went too far.

I cannot smoke in any public building in the country. I cannot smoke in any restaurant by law in quite a few states, and most larger cities. I can no longer smoke in truck stops by law in most areas of the country. I cannot smoke outside in some areas. In some cities, there are ordinances that prevent people form smoking in their own yard, and I have heard of legislation in a few that attempt to limit smoking in a person's own home if there are children in the household.

ENOUGH!

No one will get any sympathy from me on this subject. If I had my way, I would propose laws that required everyone in America to smoke at least two cigarettes per day... not from any desire to actually force that on anyone, but to let people know that this abuse of power can go both ways.

Go, Philip-Morris!

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

---

Redneck
First off I would not support any sort of legislation limiting your smoking on your property. That being said I still think tobacco use is on its way out. Perhaps not in the next ten years with the way the money is being used. Going deeper into the money, if there was not so much of it at stake, I think you could have your wish. Meaning, the reason this whole thing is happening is the money. It is what the health care is costing from the related desieses. I know there are the theories that tobacco use does not really cause any desies, but for the sake of this thread lets say it does. If there was a way where you could remove your self from any sort of government support, or sponsored program related to your health, you just might get your wish of lighting up in any public area. If everyone could do that there just might be enough money saved that the tax could be lowered on the tobacco, not that it would ever happen.

reply to post by RedGolem

I am still a bit confused on the social health care costs associated with smoking.

If we lived under a socialized health care system in the US, I could at least understand that argument. But we do not. I pay for my insurance. I pay the deductible. I pay the co-payments. No one else; me. If I do not have the money to pay, I do not get the care.

So, without all the arguments about whether or not the studies that have been done are skewed, there is still no reason why any company or group should pay for my health care, nor is there any evidence that anyone is doing so. On the other hand, I do have check stubs that show me paying for my health insurance out of my paycheck. That's not your money or anyone else's money that is being taken out of my pay; it is my money.

I could speculate that this arrangement (concern over society paying what I am obviously paying) is a way to bring in socialized health care, by planting the seed of thrift for the good of society in our collective minds. But the simple fact is still, at the present time, I pay for my health care. No one else does.

TheRedneck

New York is stupid to securitize theres. Even in small towns in upstate new york it costs $5 a pack.

I love to drink alcohol and i enjoy a good smoke here and there. I am responsible with it though; no getting drunk, no pack a day for me. I do not like the idea of a "sin tax" levied against certain demographics.

Anyone who doesn't expect the state's (and cities') huge budget shortfalls to be partly absorbed by higher and brand new sin taxes is fooling themselves. I won't be surprised if a pack of smokes is running an additional $3-$4 by this time next year, booze will be an extra 20% a bottle at least, hell by then they'll probably have porno taxes and it certainly is in the pipeline to start special sin taxes for "junk" and fast food.

I also would like to shake the hand of anyone who believes that this war against big tobacco (or any other addictive or harmfull substance or consumable) had anything whatsoever to do with government worrying about our health & longevity because I've always desired to meet the most gulible, doe-eyed human being on Earth. It was purely a financial decision by the government. The insurance companies were riding the government's back because health care costs were going up, up, up thanks to smoking related illnesses and the insurance companies saw their profit margins from federal assistance dwindling because of that fact. They sold the idea to the governments that tobacco taxes could be raised to help offset the higher costs and, meanwhile, lawsuits and penalties could be levied against the tobacco companies, themselves, to sweeten the deal and put a little extra dinero into the government coffers.

Believe me, somewhere in Washington the plans are already being drawn up to take advantage of the fact that McDonald's corp. is successfull and posting big profits. As a smoker and a Dollar Menunaire, I gladly throw the middle finger up at anyone who thinks it is their right or responsibillity to "save me" from my own vices by taxing the hell out of me. I throw both middle finger into the face of anyone who taxes me under those false pretenses when in reality they're just looking to get more money out of my wallet and into their grubby little hands. Want to guess how many fingers I'm currently holding up?

Cigarettes are a bonanza for government. I don't know how true this is but I bet you government has made more money off cigarettes than the cigarettes companies have. I remember prior to suing them the government was heavily invested in these companies. Then the government sued them and made a collective group of lawyers rich. Then the government borrowed money now with the intent of paying it back later once they receive their money from th cigarette settlement. Money that is a non guarantee if the companies go bankrupt.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Umm... 7?

Great post, Starred.

TheRedneck

I disagree with the in bed thing.

In general the, for lack of a better word, NWO does not want you to smoke because Nicotine interferes with "their" program to make the masses complacent.

Nicotine neutralizes the effects of Fluoride. Nicotine makes you more alert, critic and rebellious. Check Psychoactive effects of Nicotine. Not to mention neural receptors not responding the way they like.

They try and try to kill smokers by putting all sorts of nasty ingredients in filter cigarettes, but the process is too slow. Fear works much better... But if they cannot kill´em nor scare them off they will for sure try to ban them out of existence. It won´t be long before you cannot smoke anywhere anymore in the world, including your own backyard, street or car.

For now just smoke a pipe using your own tobacco or pure rolling tobacco.

Puff Puff... Ah, I see now.

Since they first started taxing tobaco an army of actuarys have been busy figuring out just how much states can mortgage their budgets on tobacco taxes, and anything else they tax. They are falling short on maintaining the status quo though and raising the taxes only exacerbates their tax cost/profit margins.
Zindo

Redneck
yes I am sure you are paying for you health care insurance premiums now as I am also. However, at age 65, if I rember right, if you and I live that long, we will be going to government health care. That is where the long term effects of the tobacco will be costing the high dollars for the health care. That is why I say if you could voluntary decline any possibility of a government subsidized health care you just might be able to use all the tobacco you wish with out any government agency saying anything about it.
I know many things out there cause long term health problems if you were going to go that direction. Trans fats have already been banned in some places. So Tobacco might have been the first, but there will be many others.

reply to post by RedGolem

Medicare, as opposed to Medicaid, is a voluntary medical insurance program where people do pay for their participation in the program. It is partly subsidized by the Federal government, but not completely.

This is where the argument breaks down. The government provides partially-subsidized health care insurance for the elderly. Who in their right mind would oppose that? But once it is established, suddenly we have to give up some things because they are 'bad' for us, and anything 'bad' for us is taxing the system (pun intended) too much. So yeah, we get low-cost health care, but at the cost of freedoms.

Instead, we should have been looking at the rising cost of health care in general, and what we can do to lower it. But now we're concerned about who has medical insurance (as opposed to medical care). Meanwhile, nothing is done to slow rising health care costs, and the insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, and the doctors who play the system are getting wealthy and everyone else suffers.

As for me personally, it is my fervent hope that when the time comes for me to pass on, I am not forced into the indignity of lying in a hospital bed in a backless paper gown while idiots poke and prod trying to figure out how to fix this machine they can't even say how works exactly yet... I wanna go like my great-uncle went, lying in a bed in a home, smoking a cigar, drinking rum and eating fried food smothered in mayonnaise... THAT's how ya do it!

TheRedneck