It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dems press other drug stores to pull cigarettes.

page: 1
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Prepare yourselves for an 'inconvenient truth'.



Eight Democratic senators are urging leaders of the nation's drug stores to pull cigarettes and other tobacco products from their shelves.


So a 'voluntary' act set's off a 'chain' of events that the party of never letting a good crisis go to waste, isn't.



“We write to urge [you], as a company committed to the health and wellness of its customers, to follow CVS Caremark’s plan to stop selling tobacco products and promote cessation efforts in all stores,” the senators wrote. “We recognize the legality of selling and profiting from tobacco products, however we also believe that you are in a position to have a major positive impact on public health.”




“By reducing the availability of cigarettes and other tobacco products and increasing access to tobacco cessation products, [you have] the power to further foster the health and wellness of [your] customers and send a critical message to all Americans — and especially children — about the dangers of tobacco use.”



thehill.com...

Yo what are you going to do for cash if they pull them eh Democrats ?

What ?





Here are some of the facts about tobacco taxes today:
Since 1998, governments at all levels have collected more than $484.6 BILLION in cigarette taxes (including sales tax) and payments from smokers.
Settlement payments, federal, and state and local taxes on cigarettes for fiscal year 2012 amounted to more than $43.3 BILLION.
- Federal excise taxes - $14,870,000,000
- State and local excise taxes - $17,446,492,000
- State cigarette sales taxes - $4,207,463,000
- Tobacco settlement payments - $7,190,051,472





The government per-pack profit from cigarettes in 2012 was $3.78 (or 66 percent of the cost of a pack of cigarettes); almost ten times the profit of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company


www.rjrt.com...

But wait there's more!

www.taxpolicycenter.org...




posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
blog.turbotax.intuit.com...



For those who hate cigarettes.

Who covers the tax difference ?

Who gets hit to make up for that revenue shortfall ?

edit on 10-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Isn't it outside Congress' authority to suggest to a privately owned company what they can and cannot sell?



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Well, it could be argued that the ensuing health savings, would cover the long term loss of tax revenue.

The only issue I give a crap about here though, is simple.

The government, should not be protecting people from stupid choices.

Who doesn't know cigarettes are bad by this point?

Nanny state bs.

That goes for anything to me btw, Soda, and other things.

The state needs to mind the states business and not branch out into our personal choices.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



This is an outrage! 5th generation tobacco farmer here and ive got shares in a few of the companies, this is a total trampling of the free market, if people and kids want to slowly kill themselves that is their freedom! When they maybe come around to their senses when they are sick and need to pay all those health bills, well ive got some shares in those cancer medicine companies too



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
It's the first of many other steps to an all out ban.

Long ago, can't smoke in buildings. (makes sense)
Can't smoke in government property. (makes sense)
Can't smoke in public. (wait what?)

Then we move to,

Billboards and other media banned, including ads directed towards kids, (ok, makes sense)

So everyone should be happy?

Then,


President Barack Obama, the Tobacco Control Act became active on 22 June 2010. This act not only placed new restrictions on tobacco marketing but also extensive constraints concerning the circulation of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to minors. Newly effective with this act, “audio advertisements are not permitted to contain any music or sound effects, while video advertisements are limited to static black text on a white background. Any audio soundtrack accompanying a video advertisement is limited to words only, with no music or sound effects.”


Wait what?

Then…

We encourage companies to stop selling cigarettes.

While will eventually change to,

"No one is allowed to sell cigarettes."

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

While a lot of it is state based, and varies greatly, the push is all going in one direction. This is like grass roots idiocy. The same thing creating prohibition.

While I don't smoke anymore, I think people ought to be able to.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





While I don't smoke anymore, I think people ought to be able to.


Indeed.

They have a slobbering love affair with that other 'toxic' stuff why can't the party of 'pro choice' be the party of 'pro choice'.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Government already tried to ban substances twice, and it's failed, twice. First with alcohol, that didn't go over very well. And then with war on 'drugs' which has been forgotten that even exists since the whole 'war on terror' happened, and it failed.
The best you can do is just put certain sanctions on the stuff, just like alcohol, but let people make the decision for themselves.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


So instead they have to travel half a mile down the road to a gas station instead?

Yes intelligent tactics to stop people smoking...



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

iRoyalty
reply to post by neo96
 


So instead they have to travel half a mile down the road to a gas station instead?

Yes intelligent tactics to stop people smoking...


They already do see the graphic in the second post.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   

neo96

iRoyalty
reply to post by neo96
 


So instead they have to travel half a mile down the road to a gas station instead?

Yes intelligent tactics to stop people smoking...


They already do see the graphic in the second post.



yep, youd be surprised the lengths people go to avoid taxes.

Having moved to a state with NO sales tax, ill tell you this much Ill never go back, the less the government gets the better.

People forget government must be held in check by the choke chain of limited spending.

If you don't we get this rabid dog we have now telling us what we can and can't do.

We all know what you do with a rabid dog...
edit on 10-2-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 




Eight Democratic senators are urging leaders of the nation's drug stores to pull cigarettes and other tobacco products from their shelves.


Doesn't make any sense to me except when looked at pro-nanny state perspective. Read somewhere else earlier that the CDC and some others were talking about a tobacco free America, er, make that Amerika.

Anyway, it's a drug store, nicotine is a legal drug what's the problem?

Oh yeah, nanny state.
edit on 917pm2323pm32014 by Bassago because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 





Doesn't make any sense to me except when looked at pro-nanny state perspective


Doesn't make sense to me either.

Since both the federal, and state governments DEPEND on that income. They will have to screw someone else over.

That is the biggest problem with the nanny state they always run out of someone else's money.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I have a feeling that with the rise of electronic cigarettes that don't contain tobacco, we will see the Feds try and tax nicotine itself.

It would make sense for them to try and do that, there's a potentially growing tax revenue stream that isn't being tapped.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I live in a state that doesn't allow carry out alcohol sales on Sunday. You can sit in a bar and grill to get hammered but you can't take any home. That's brilliant government at work.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Hoosierdaddy71
I live in a state that doesn't allow carry out alcohol sales on Sunday. You can sit in a bar and grill to get hammered but you can't take any home. That's brilliant government at work.


I had to look that archaic law up.

Seems the 'rational' for that was they didn't want people turning up drunk when they went to church.

Asinine law imo.
edit on 10-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   
omg, they are banning tobacco to be sold in drug stores?!! They can't do that..its a legal substance! How can they make laws deciding what they can and cant sell in this priva....oh...they are simply urging and not actually banning?

nevermind, more pretend outrage I see.

Good for the Dems then in pointing out the obvious regardless of how much the state profits off the disease and death of others...

Just to make sure, the complaint then is that people are using their right to free speech...gotcha.

As far as where the taxes will come from.
How much does it cost the taxpayer when a person on Medicaid requires some major operation due to smoking?
Lots. Lots more than that person paid in ciggy taxes
a 25 year smoker paying 4$ in taxes per day in ciggys = $36,500
That would barely cover the taxpayer covered medicine, much less the surgery.
We pay for that, we simply do, you can complain that there aren't enough poor people dying in the streets instead of being treated, but for now, being we aren't evil savages, this is how society is set up

So, by pushing a opinion that is both responsible and get this: fiscally conservative, I applaud the Democrats if this is their stance. Thanks Neo for pointing this out, it truly is telling of which party is both fiscally conservative, and helpful to the people overall.

I can only imagine the opposing argument to this would be something along the lines of pure corporate greed and anger with no actual logical base for their anger outside of pure bologna



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
ATS seriously, if the major commercial tobacco giants go down maybe all of the other evil corporations will go next? That's how I see it. Doesn't mean tobacco is outlawed. Commercial cigarettes are filled with so many chemicals anyway, you should buy high quality tobacco at a mom and pop smoke shop.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 





omg, they are banning tobacco to be sold in drug stores?!! They can't do that..its a legal substance! How can they make laws deciding what they can and cant sell in this priva....oh...they are simply urging and not actually banning?


Yeah I did ignore that fake outrage.




Good for the Dems then in pointing out the obvious regardless of how much the state profits off the disease and death of others...


And the Democrats are the biggest profiteers there, but who cares right ?




Just to make sure, the complaint then is that people are using their right to free speech...gotcha.


Bother reading anything in the op what so ever?




How much does it cost the taxpayer when a person on Medicaid requires some major operation due to smoking?


What does it cost the taxpayer?

The beneficiary of Medicare who is paying a pittance in, the employer matching that contribution, other people in the form of medicare taxation on their pensions,IRA'S and 401's. That still doesn't make up the revenue shortfall. Even blowing the revenue collected from income taxation still doesn't cover that shortfall, and neither printing or borrowing, and issuing treasuries cover the shortfall.

Costs the taxpayer quite a hell of a lot.

But hey who cares!



So, by pushing a opinion that is both responsible and get this: fiscally conservative, I applaud the Democrats if this is their stance. Thanks Neo for pointing this out, it truly is telling of which party is both fiscally conservative, and helpful to the people overall.


Yeah Democrat 'fiscal conservatism' has been pointed out especially with their social programs that don't pay for themselves, and that massive 17 trillion dollar deficit.

There is no such thing as 'Democrat fiscal conservatism'.

Not a single thing they push pays for itself.


edit on 10-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


These are the same dems that are supporting marijuana for recreational use right? No possible health hazards there.
On a different note, would you be opposed to a restriction on fatty food? Obesity causes more health issues than smoking.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join