The Cigarette Taxes

Originally posted by KSPigpen
I read that Swine Flu likes to get in your lungs deep. I think I read that on ATS.

(ATS as a source...works for me.

)

And I also heard about a cytokine storm here on ATS. A particularly nasty response to influenza that has the potential to be disrupted by the introduction of nicotine.

That made it all clear as mud to me. If we can't smoke, we'll just wither away from whatever flu they want to push on us.

'Smoke up, Junior!'

I heard as well that nicotine disrupts the effects of fluoride as well---nice little poison that baby is

reply to post by uk today


Yeah. Spot on!

The OP on THIS thread is very interesting, and got a good linky too!

Well remembered..

Originally posted by purehughness
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

This is true... But toxically speaking, alcohol is a poison, so is caffeine and cocoa. But the last two aren't taxed up the wazoo, but are consumed just as much, or so it would seem...

Man, there is noooo hope for me

Coffee, cigs ,booze AND chocolate

There seems to be a loophole, they are now selling cigars that look and taste like cigarettes for $1.25 a pack.

Im in florida and cigarettes are around $5.00 a pack. I hate smoking.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


i don't think that cigarettes should be classified as a luxury. most smokers are addicted smokers. if smoking lets them beat the cravings shouldn't it be labeled as a medical need?

i remember reading about a court case way back from the 20's or 30' were an addict of heroin was allowed to take it because he was addicted and therefore the court would be giving him a cruel and unusual punishment by forcing him to stop using it.

obviously cigarettes have no health benefits but most smokers would agree, a few days without one and your ready to kill someone for a smoke.

Originally posted by foremanator
Here is what I know
99% of all smokers start before the age of 18.

Uh, can you source that, please? I'd be willing to be *most* everybody who's ever smoked even a single drag off a cig did so as a kid, sneaking a smoke just to act mature. But actually, actively smoking? 99%? I call bullcrap.

If you want people to quit make them unavailible. At the very least the people that smoke should buy through a pharmacy with a prescription from a doctor.

Wow, ever hear of "freedom?" It's something we used to hold very dear in the USA... now, not so much.

People dont smoke to get high. They smoke because their body chemistry demands that the lower dopamine levels be raised by the substatute "nicotine"

Partly true, partly false. The chemicals in tobacco plus the oxygen depravation provided by a smoke makes for a very pleasant light headed feeling when you enjoy that first trip to flavor country right after waking up in the morning!

I can understand a little of the philosphy here in Canada. We have public healthcare so iys fair to say that if you smoke you will cause the taxpayer money. But in America you guys have private healthcare you already ready pay a tax in your cost of healthcare if you smoke.

Agree 100%. Socialized healthcare is crap. Of course, I also have to ask if you in Canada also charge special health care taxes for roller blading, fast food, risky sex, driving, walking, breathing, hell... everything in life carries risks and anything with risks might cost the taxpayers $$$ with socialized medicine. One more excellent reason why the US must NEVER travel down that road!

How about you just stop profiting from a drug that is more addictive than heroine and availible 24 hours a day in any city.

How about you and all other non-smokers mind your own damn business? I cannot argue the benefits and justification of banning smoking in enclosed public areas, I cannot argue the benefits of funding smoking cessation programs, but I sure as hell can argue that overtaxation used as a weapon of behvaiorial control is bullcrap. I also can argue strongly that this is a free country and NOBODY who smokes today can say they aren't fully aware of the risks and dangers of smoking and keep a straight face while saying so. My body, my choice... (no, choice isn't just for the women's convenience in the USA, either.)

I'm 43 and have been smoking since I was 14. My doctor's exact words were, "you have got to stop that sh*t!" I replied that if it were that easy, most people would indeed quit for which he agreed. He took xrays of my chest and expressed being amazed considering how much I smoke and for how long, that my lungs were clear.

I discussed different drugs that I had heard of to help quit but his explanation was most drugs are used for easing the withdrawal and that in order to quit a person has to truly want to quit.

So with that in mind, I would suggest that all these taxes go into researching a drug that will in fact counteract the addiction, not just treat the withdrawal.

The guy who runs the bodega I go to (here in NYC) told me the prices are going up yet again, hopefully it's only for the premade tax class and not the rolling tobacco class.

Also, Bloomberg wants to ban smoking in the parks, which makes me laugh, they cant even stop people from smoking marijuana in the park.

If the government really wanted to stop us from smoking then they would just make it illegal. They're making far too much money off of this to make it illegal

reply to post by Doc Tesla


I can see your point, however, it's a bit much to classify it as a medical need, since so many different alternatives exist to smoking, including not smoking.

It's not like it's impossible. I mean I haven't had the best of luck, but the reason is I kind of like smoking, so that's my biggest problem. However if I didn't like it and wanted to quit, it's a matter of using the right tools and having the will to go through with it.

Aren't prescription medications taxed? That would answer your question lol.

~Keeper

this is a post i had saved from a very long time ago. the first time i read it, i just said that about sums it all up.

i don't remember who wrote it but its from ATS. (been lurking for quite some time). any way here it is

This is not specifically directed at the OP, but at the legions of mewling anti-smokers who seem to take great pleasure in being a pain in my ass. Ban smoking? G'head - try it. If the purpose of your exercise is to create a new criminal class, and throw even more people in jail for victimless crimes then, by all means, ban smoking. The statistics you posted are EXTREMELY misleading. What they should say is that 5.? million smokers a year die from cancer, heart disease, and emphysema. Of those deaths, there is NO WAY to know how many would not have occurred if the person had not smoked. When a smoker dies from practically anything, it's a smoking-related death. Why is it that when water-drinkers die from cancer, it's not a water-related death? Because there aren't billions of dollars in play to try to get people to quit drinking water, that's why. Did you know that nicotine speeds neuron response, prevents Alzheimer's, and has been proven to improve brain function? No wonder the government wants it banned - the last thing they need at this juncture is thinking citizens... The cancer epidemic DOES NOT COINCIDE with the advent of smoking. It does coincide with the widespread adoption of plastic for use in food service and storage, and also the atomic testing of the cold war. Funny... I think the cancer rates have a lot more to do with Dow Chemical than they do with Philip Morris. Lung cancer kills droves of non-smokers every year. So, do yourself a favor, and save us some grief in the process, by dispensing with the eternal life fantasy you use to justify your discriminatory and condescending behavior. The non-smokers will say "someone must have smoked in the car with them once" or something equally stupid. Nevermind the fact that one forest fire throws up more carcinogens and harmful particulate than every smoker in the history of man; nevermind the fact that the EPA 'safe levels' for mercury and other toxins in our air are enough to cause permanent harm; nevermind the link between bacterial imbalance and the overuse/misuse of antibiotics and heart disease. Nevermind our toxic diet. It's all the fault of the filthy smokers. You want to reduce the rates of chronic illness in this country and around the world? Ban corporate greed, individual gluttony and stupidity, and natural causes. I'd bet my lungs that those three factors contribute more bodies to the ground than the humble cigarettes. Get it - I'm betting my lungs. That's the final nail in the coffin, excusing the pun. It's a personal choice. Once more - personal choice. How twisted do your priorities have to be when you care more about what another person is doing to their own body than you care about what you yourself are doing to the ideals upon which this country was founded - freedom, justice, liberty, self-determination. Stop worrying about what I'M doing to my body, and start worrying about what YOU'RE doing to our country. You want to entertain the illusion that our shopping malls and bars and restaurants will be healthy once all the smokers are gone, knock yourself out, but for God's sake, leave the policy-making to people with active, firing neurons.

Originally posted by Doc Tesla
obviously cigarettes have no health benefits

It bothers me when people spout off generalizations as fact only because they have bought into the MSM Propaganda hook-line-and-sinker.

There are actually a lot of health benefits to smoking Tobacco, even though all we hear about are the negative health benefits.

Some of the health benefits include:

* Tobacco decreases appetite
* Tobacco promotes digestion and regular bowel movements
* Tobacco can deter digestive parasites
* Tobacco raises metabolic rate
* Tobacco can deter diabetic shock (although it is not a recommended use of treating low blood sugar, although if one chain smoked, it would suffice until one got to their insulin supply)
* Tobacco greatly reduces the risk of ulcerative colitis
* Tobacco stunts the development of Kaposi’s sarcoma
* Tobacco has been proven to prevent and protect against sarcoidosis
* Tobacco has positive effect on short-term memory and quickens memory recall.
* Tobacco increases reaction time.
* Tobacco may prevent, or at least slow, certain brain ailments such as Alzheimer's
* Tobacco has been found to prevent Parkinson's disease
* Tobacco is useful in the treating symptoms of Tourette's disease.
* Tobacco has been found to aid in treating Sleep Apnea

As far as the health risks of Tobacco, most of them are not related to Tobacco itself (especially heritage Tobaccos prior to the Y1 Strain which is now the most commonly used Tobacco in Tobacco products that was engineered and designed to maximize the Nicotene content). For the most part the risks of modern Tobacco (especially that grown in the United States) come from the use of Apatite for fertilizer as this substance contains Radium, Lead 210, and Polonium 210, all of which are carcinogenic.

Also the other 598 ingredients commonly found in Cigarettes are contributing causes to the health risks involved with smoking Tobacco. Things like Arsenic, Formaldehyde, Ammonia, Hydrogen Cyanide, DDT, Benzene, Butane, Cadmium, Ethyl Furoate, Lead, Methoprene, Megastigmatrienone, Napthalene, Methyl Isocyanate, and the radiocarbon Polonium, among many others, aren't a very smart thing to be exposing one's internal body to!

Of course, what HR 1256 did was effectively got rid of Tobacco and Cigarette imports from Indonesia, Russia, Brazil, and Turkey to ensure that only Y1 Strain Tobaccos are contained in cigarettes sold in America and that they contain those wonderfully yummy carcinogenic ingredients listed above.

Still, despite that, there are health benefits to Tobacco.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by fraterormus]

Originally posted by Shadowflux
The guy who runs the bodega I go to (here in NYC) told me the prices are going up yet again, hopefully it's only for the premade tax class and not the rolling tobacco class.

Also, Bloomberg wants to ban smoking in the parks, which makes me laugh, they cant even stop people from smoking marijuana in the park.

If the government really wanted to stop us from smoking then they would just make it illegal. They're making far too much money off of this to make it illegal

He's right. I work in the industry. The FED is hitting us with a daily user fee. $3600/day to sell cigarettes in the US. It's getting ridiculous, when I started working for my company cigarettes were $10.49/carton to retailers, now it's close to $30.

They will never ban smoking. From the figures I have heard this country would shut down in a few months if they were not collecting taxes from us. We provide almost all the spending money for the Govt'.

reply to post by fraterormus


my post was written in haste. i was aware of some of those things but not all of them. i simply meant it does not have any well known health benefits or ones that would entice non smokers to start

Originally posted by fraterormus

* Tobacco can deter digestive parasites

*Truth* (always wanted to use that in a pro-tobacco sense after having to watch all those annoying TV spots that end with *Truth*)

When I was a kid on the ranch every few months we'd preventatively worm my blue heelers by taking a plug of Day's Work, cutting it in half, and dipping it in sorghum molasses. Throw one half of the bar to each of the two dogs, they chomped it right down, and not once do I ever recall seeing either dog dragging butt across the porch.

Tobacco is also a powerfull stimulant. Unless you are allergic to the smoke, you can frequently cure a bad headache by getting some nicoteine into your system.

Originally posted by Doc Tesla
this is a post i had saved from a very long time ago. the first time i read it, i just said that about sums it all up.

i don't remember who wrote it but its from ATS. (been lurking for quite some time). any way here it is

This is not specifically directed at the OP, but at the legions of mewling anti-smokers who seem to take great pleasure in being a pain in my ass. Ban smoking? G'head - try it. If the purpose of your exercise is to create a new criminal class, and throw even more people in jail for victimless crimes then, by all means, ban smoking. The statistics you posted are EXTREMELY misleading. What they should say is that 5.? million smokers a year die from cancer, heart disease, and emphysema. Of those deaths, there is NO WAY to know how many would not have occurred if the person had not smoked. When a smoker dies from practically anything, it's a smoking-related death. Why is it that when water-drinkers die from cancer, it's not a water-related death? Because there aren't billions of dollars in play to try to get people to quit drinking water, that's why. Did you know that nicotine speeds neuron response, prevents Alzheimer's, and has been proven to improve brain function? No wonder the government wants it banned - the last thing they need at this juncture is thinking citizens... The cancer epidemic DOES NOT COINCIDE with the advent of smoking. It does coincide with the widespread adoption of plastic for use in food service and storage, and also the atomic testing of the cold war. Funny... I think the cancer rates have a lot more to do with Dow Chemical than they do with Philip Morris. Lung cancer kills droves of non-smokers every year. So, do yourself a favor, and save us some grief in the process, by dispensing with the eternal life fantasy you use to justify your discriminatory and condescending behavior. The non-smokers will say "someone must have smoked in the car with them once" or something equally stupid. Nevermind the fact that one forest fire throws up more carcinogens and harmful particulate than every smoker in the history of man; nevermind the fact that the EPA 'safe levels' for mercury and other toxins in our air are enough to cause permanent harm; nevermind the link between bacterial imbalance and the overuse/misuse of antibiotics and heart disease. Nevermind our toxic diet. It's all the fault of the filthy smokers. You want to reduce the rates of chronic illness in this country and around the world? Ban corporate greed, individual gluttony and stupidity, and natural causes. I'd bet my lungs that those three factors contribute more bodies to the ground than the humble cigarettes. Get it - I'm betting my lungs. That's the final nail in the coffin, excusing the pun. It's a personal choice. Once more - personal choice. How twisted do your priorities have to be when you care more about what another person is doing to their own body than you care about what you yourself are doing to the ideals upon which this country was founded - freedom, justice, liberty, self-determination. Stop worrying about what I'M doing to my body, and start worrying about what YOU'RE doing to our country. You want to entertain the illusion that our shopping malls and bars and restaurants will be healthy once all the smokers are gone, knock yourself out, but for God's sake, leave the policy-making to people with active, firing neurons.

Yep, that about sums it up right there. My boss has said that if we wanted to we could pay a company to provide the testing results we want to show anything we want on them. Basically what he was saying is it's all about the benjamins baby.

Originally posted by KnoxMSP
Basically what he was saying is it's all about the benjamins baby.

that is true for everything. for the right price you can do anything. unfortunately these days it also applies to cigarettes.

Originally posted by KnoxMSP
They will never ban smoking. From the figures I have heard this country would shut down in a few months if they were not collecting taxes from us. We provide almost all the spending money for the Govt'.

That is absolutely true. Now that we have been weening ourselves off of Oil, Tobacco is the primary #1 source of Income for the Fed.

All of the recent legislation was not to deter smoking. It was to control the source of Tobacco as a form of Economic Protectionism under the guise of a Health Initiative. It effectively banned the importation of foreign Tobacco and Cigarettes into the United States without a Trade Embargo, snubbing foreign competition in the US Market and allowing US Tobacco Growers and Cigarette Manufacturers and Distributors to make up that deficit, increasing their Gross Revenue over 200%!

Let there be no mistake about it, HR 1256 was the Tobacco Companies Bail-Out from the US Government!

And why? Because US grown Tobacco earns the US Government more Tax Revenue than foreign grown Tobacco and Tobacco products. The US Government can tax the growers, the suppliers, the manufacturers, the distributors, and the resellers, along with every person that each of those employ. In addition, it ensures that Tax Revenue stream through Economic Protectionism by creating a Government imposed Monopoly on Tobacco since the Oil Revenue is quickly drying up and going the way of the dinosaur from which it came.

The following was given to me by my graphics instructor in high school in hopes it would make a difference. As gruesome as it is,it, of course, didn’t.

JAMA Nov. 23/30, 1984-Vol. 252, No. 20


Preparation
My teachers in medical school were responsible people who realized that students often have difficulty in dealing with the issues of death and dying. Thus, we had to read several papers and books on the subject and we all attended discussion groups. In these groups we talked a great deal about death. We discussed terminal illness, euthanasia, how we experienced death in our own families, and even how we felt about our own eventual death. These groups met weekly for a whole semester, and when all this scholarly work was done, we had a simple pass-fail essay examination. At the time it all seemed quite sensible and the course left us with that satisfying feeling of having reasonably mastered another subject. A year later, I met Mr. G.
He was a typical veteran, a middle-aged bachelor with no known family. He had come in very short of breath with almost constant hemoptysis-a legacy of 30 years of smoking. There was little we could do for him, since he had been through the whole gamut of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Yet, as usual, the tumor in his lung continued to grow. He spent the first two days in the hospital sitting up in bed gasping for air, coughing up bits of blood-tinged sputum. We all tried to comfort him as much as possible and he was always very appreciative. But he knew the end was coming soon and sometimes during a coughing fit, he would choke badly and I could see terror in his eyes. I stopped by his room as often as I could to check on him and ask how he was doing. He would breathlessly reply "Not good" and shake his head.
On the third day of hospitalization a nurse burst into the chart-room yelling for us to come quickly because Mr. G. was in trouble. We ran to his bed and found him sitting up with a wash basin in his lap already half full of dark, slithery clots. He was struggling terribly-drowning in his own blood. His face was deep purple and his eyes bulged out in stark terror. As the bleeding became worse, so did the struggle. There was less and less of real breathing but more awful choking. Violently he would attempt to take a breath only to have it cut short by choking and coughing. Great quantities of blood bubbled out through his mouth and nose, ran down his chin, and dribbled into his lap. He then would cough explosively, splattering us with blood. The sound was horrifying, like someone screaming under water. Meanwhile, the nurse and I were trying to help as best we could. I tried to keep the oxygen mask close yet emptied of blood. She tried to help him clear the bigger pieces from his mouth and throat. The intern was frantically working the phone trying to get some help. But it was hopeless; the blood just kept coming and the scene became more macabre. A beard of stringy blood clots swung heavily from the man's chin and nose. Between coughing spells he rocked back and forth, gasping "Oh please, oh please."

(cont.)
Suddenly it was quiet; it must have been a big clot. His mouth was open and his chest was heaving but no air was moving. He looked at each of us in turn, pleading with his eyes. We pounded him on the back but nothing helped. Still, he kept straining desperately to breathe, opening and closing his mouth like some strange, soundless imitation of a fish. During what seemed like an eternity he silently struggled. Finally his eyelids began to sag and we gently eased him back on the bed. He continued to make feeble respiratory attempts as he turned bluish grey. Then he had a seizure and lay there, twitching and quivering with the bed making little squeaks as if to keep time. It was a long time before that too finally stopped.
No one moved. The nurse looked stupidly blank, covered with blood. The intern was still holding the phone, weeping. I thought about my class on death and dying. They hadn't considered a terrified, helpless old man dying a horrible, gory, painful death. The books, the papers, the discussion groups-all seemed irrelevant and far away. But close at hand was fear, sadness, and futility.

Hugh F. Johnston
Madison, Wis.

reply to post by savageheart


didn't read fully what you said disregard

[edit on 25-9-2009 by Doc Tesla]