smokes

im glad im not a smoker :sick2:

Higher cigarette prices may be just the thing to get some people to quit. Unfortunately, there are some people who will smoke no matter how expensive they get.

What always amazed me was even after all the money the big tobacco companies have to pay from lawsuits and such, the severely reduced and regulated advertising, and the very active campaign to get people to quit smoking, they still make tons of cash. That's addiction for you, I guess. I'm sure glad I don't smoke!

I've always found it amazing that anyone under about 50 smokes. From the time I was a kid, it's been drummed into your brain how bad smoking is for you. I can excuse people who came of age before research conclusively proved smoking was bad. But anyone who has seen all those antismoking commercials, yet is dumb enough to try it anyway and then gets addicted, I just don't understand. The good thing is smokers are being marginalized more and more by society. You can't smoke in most workplaces, on public transit, in many restaurants, and so forth. Probably soon you won't even be able to smoke anywhere outside of your home or your car. While smokers may complain, making smoking inconvenient and/or expensive will in the long run help people quit who might lack the willpower to do so on their own.

"Nanny state" much? I have a different take, with all the taxes I pay to still partake of a legal substance I should get a corner office in any guvment building.

Just another item for crime both organized and unorganized to put on the black market.........the war on drugs has worked so well.

Tata from one of the "marginalized".

jtr1962 said:

I've always found it amazing that anyone under about 50 smokes. From the time I was a kid, it's been drummed into your brain how bad smoking is for you. I can excuse people who came of age before research conclusively proved smoking was bad. But anyone who has seen all those antismoking commercials, yet is dumb enough to try it anyway and then gets addicted, I just don't understand. The good thing is smokers are being marginalized more and more by society. You can't smoke in most workplaces, on public transit, in many restaurants, and so forth. Probably soon you won't even be able to smoke anywhere outside of your home or your car. While smokers may complain, making smoking inconvenient and/or expensive will in the long run help people quit who might lack the willpower to do so on their own.

Click to expand...

Let's see if I can put a different spin on this...

Two weeks ago, a 37 year old woman got in her pick up truck. She was drunk (BAC .26) and had taken several Class IV prescription drugs. She then crashed head on into another vehicle. The other vehicle flipped and burst into flames. Two adults were lucky enough to get out. A 9 year old child burned to death. Two weeks prior to this incident, this same woman was involved in another incident that involved driving where unfortunately no one was injured and her BAC at that time was a .32. (Full Story).

... and you're worried about people SMOKING?!?!?!?

i was at the store buying some cashews since they were on sale and since im not a smoker i was surprised to see the price for a carton

Beamhead said:

"Nanny state" much? I have a different take, with all the taxes I pay to still partake of a legal substance I should get a corner office in any guvment building.

Just another item for crime both organized and unorganized to put on the black market.........the war on drugs has worked so well.

Tata from one of the "marginalized".

Click to expand...

Even if cigarettes were cheap or free, the number of places you can smoke them is limited and decreasing. A black market isn't going to change that one bit. I personally don't care if someone smokes or whether or not they're taxed to the hilt to do so. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, make cigarettes free and let the smokers kill themselves off faster. Same line of thought for other, currently banned substances. Just don't smoke anyplace I'm likely to be.

Just don't be someplace I'm likely to smoke.........hmmmmm

I agreed with banning smoking in the workplace, on flights over 2 hours, but now the anti smoking crowd has gone way too far IMHO.

Greta said:

Let's see if I can put a different spin on this...

Two weeks ago, a 37 year old woman got in her pick up truck. She was drunk (BAC .26) and had taken several Class IV prescription drugs. She then crashed head on into another vehicle. The other vehicle flipped and burst into flames. Two adults were lucky enough to get out. A 9 year old child burned to death. Two weeks prior to this incident, this same woman was involved in another incident that involved driving where unfortunately no one was injured and her BAC at that time was a .32. (Full Story).

... and you're worried about people SMOKING?!?!?!?

Click to expand...

See my response to Beamhead. I couldn't care less if someone smokes. Just don't do it near me as it's a habit I don't care to share. Alcohol is another substance which of course causes problems. But we already tried prohibition and it didn't really work. Alcoholism actually increased under prohibition. Only answer I have for drunken driving is much stiffer laws. The current laws are a joke. First offense you lose your license for 5 years, second offense for life (really for life, not that it's reinstated after a period of "good" behavoir). Get caught driving with no license due to your license being suspended for drunk driving, and your car gets seized and auctioned off. That would mostly solve the problem-no car=no driving, drunk or otherwise. Of course, some well to do people might be able to afford to replace their car 20 times but not the average person.

Sure, alcoholism is absolutely a bigger problem than smoking. In fact, if done where nobody can inhale second-hand smoke I don't consider smoking a problem at all (other than the public medical expenses when smokers finally get cancer).

Beamhead said:

Just don't be someplace I'm likely to smoke.........hmmmmm

I agreed with banning smoking in the workplace, on flights over 2 hours, but now the anti smoking crowd has gone way too far IMHO.

Click to expand...

Here's how I see it. It's bad enough already being forced to breathe air polluted by autos. But hopefully we'll clean that up to some extent in the next decade with EVs. Now when smokers add to this pollution it just makes a bad situation worse. It's been proven second hand smoke is harmful besides also being offensive to those who don't smoke. That's the real reason behind those "nanny-state" laws. Any person is free to do whatever they want with their own body. The law only steps in when you do something harmful to someone else. Now if second-hand smoke was just offensive but not harmful, then I would have a problem with the antismoking laws as well.

My mom is an ex-smoker. She quit is 1993. She said she never realized why people complain about smokers until she quit. You probably won't either unless you quit. While you're free to partake of your legal substance all you want, consider that you'll feel better and live longer if you quit. And you'll save lots of money as well. Just looking at those prices gives me sticker shock thinking of how much groceries the same money could buy.

jtr1962 said:

But we already tried prohibition and it didn't really work. Alcoholism actually increased under prohibition.

Click to expand...

Please define the difference between prohibition and taxing something out of reach/banning using said substance damn near anywhere.

jtr1962 said:

(other than the public medical expenses when smokers finally get cancer).

Click to expand...

We pay more in taxes and insurance premiums to only SAVE the taxpayer money by kicking off early.

And believe it or not my daughter of adult age doesn't smoke because I told her from day one I would kick her a$$. And I would never advise anyone start, but as long as I remain free I will continue. Dumb choice? Absolutely, but it is mine to make.

The topic of this thread is the price of smokes... not whether or not someone should or shouldn't smoke. Personally, I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else... and yes, that DOES include smoking. However... I have REAL issues with others trying to impose THEIR issues, opinions, sense of morals and ethics, or any other form of sanctimonious BS on me. Move on from the preaching. Back on topic... Yes... the price of smokes is VERY high! And according to alaskawolf... so are cashews!!

Beamhead said:

Please define the difference between prohibition and taxing something out of reach/banning using said substance damn near anywhere.

Click to expand...

Prohibition=not allowed at all.

The other things you mentioned are conditions. Hey, there's lots of laws I don't like myself. I don't like that I'm not allowed to cycle on the sidewalk. I still do once in a blue moon, but I'm not going to complain if I'm arrested for doing so as I know I'm breaking the law. I don't even agree with the rationale behind the law (i.e. it protects pedestrians but statistics on that are questionable at best) but nevertheless it's the law until such time as I can convince my representatives to change it. I also don't like the conditions required to operate a motor vehicle, especially the mandatory insurance part. Therefore, I don't do so.

Lots of things have conditions/costs associated with them. I'd love to live in a luxury building in Manhattan but I can't afford it. I'd even love to be able to buy some of the high-end lights I see here but again I can't afford it. For better or worse, society decided to make smoking less convenient and more costly. Some of it I agree with (mostly the restrictions on where you can smoke although proposals to ban smoking in your own automobile are going way too far). Some of it I don't agree with (mostly the excessive taxes on cigarettes). Bottom line is any law seeking to protect people from harming themselves is doomed to failure. I mostly agree with you that in many areas we've gone way too far with the nanny state mentality. Laws should only exist to prevent people from doing things which definitely harm others (as proven by studies), not things which others might just happen to not like.

We pay more in taxes and insurance premiums to only SAVE the taxpayer money by kicking off early.

Click to expand...

I was actually going to add that it's likely with the higher cigarette taxes that smokers more than pay for their increased medical costs. And by kicking off early, they save programs like Social Security a ton of money.

And believe it or not my daughter of adult age doesn't smoke because I told her from day one I would kick her a$$. And I would never advise anyone start, but as long as I remain free I will continue. Dumb choice? Absolutely, but it is mine to make.

Click to expand...

On that we agree 100%. Both my parents told me the same thing. Thankfully I never had any desire to smoke. Took a few puffs on my father's cigarette when I was about ten. Decided then and there this was a habit of no value to me.

Greta said:

However... I have REAL issues with others trying to impose THEIR issues, opinions, sense of morals and ethics, or any other form of sanctimonious BS on me. Move on from the preaching. Back on topic... Yes... the price of smokes is VERY high! And according to alaskawolf... so are cashews!!

Click to expand...

Anyway, getting back to the main topic, yes, the price of cashews is really high! I love nuts. Just wish I could afford them more often.

Well I am over 50 and I am a nicotine addict. I never realized just how addicted I was until I effectively quit once, maybe 15 years ago and then on a whim lit up again. I don't know if the smoking will kill me or if I will be a smoker when I die. Probably a good chance on both counts. There was a Fed Excise tax increase of about $6/ carton levied this month if I have the facts straight and it seems that this cost, to the manufacturer, was a cost that they added their margin to so the cost to the consumer is perhaps closer to $9/ carton increase. We are certainly at a point in price where crime is likely to be a factor in many levels. To gain the status of the war on drugs, we probably need to go the further step and outlaw tobacco in the US.

I would be real curious to know if there is any sense of real productivity and gain to GNP that can be measured or identified as a result of the tax revenue from the tobacco consumers. As a minority, smokers are an easy mark for exploitation and unlikely to be given any aid or support from the majority.

As an addict to a legal substance, it really pisses me off that the government is exploiting my weakness while I am also contributing in funding of their impossible war against illegal substances. They could legalize the other drugs and improve the lot of those addicted to those drugs as well as remove the costs of crime and punishment, reduce the street price and realize a giant boon in revenue with a reasonable tax levied on those drugs. I see this as a win for the addict, win for society and a loss to organized crime. I do suspect though that organized crime has the power now to keep the war on drugs as it is.

The cynic in me believes that both sides on the war on drugs have good reason for the war to continue and never actually be "won".

Smokers are a burden on society and should be taxed accordingly it seems. Well I believe obesity is a similar burden on society and wonder why this has not been addressed with similar taxes. It might be difficult to identify the obese and only tax their excessive food purchases so perhaps particular low on nutrition and high on "bobo" factor foods could be subject to excise taxes regardless of who actually purchase them? :nana: I look around in public places and see few fellow smokers but I sure do see a lot of people, typically the majority, who could afford to loose a few lb's! Heck, I have a spare tire on my waist that would be nice to loose.

While smokers may complain, making smoking inconvenient and/or expensive will in the long run help people quit who might lack the willpower to do so on their own.

Click to expand...

While the overweight might complain, making overeating inconvenient and/or expensive will in the long run help people quit who might lack the willpower to do so on their own.

jtr1962 said:

Here's how I see it. It's bad enough already being forced to breathe air polluted by autos. But hopefully we'll clean that up to some extent in the next decade with EVs. Now when smokers add to this pollution it just makes a bad situation worse. It's been proven second hand smoke is harmful besides also being offensive to those who don't smoke. That's the real reason behind those "nanny-state" laws. Any person is free to do whatever they want with their own body. The law only steps in when you do something harmful to someone else. Now if second-hand smoke was just offensive but not harmful, then I would have a problem with the antismoking laws as well.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't think it's as clear-cut as that. Different studies have shown that second-hand smoke is and is not harmful, and I'm really not sure what the truth is. But since many of the bans prohibit smoking rather more broadly than necessary to prevent substantial involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke, it's quite reasonable to suppose that protecting people from themselves (nanny-statism) is the motivation, and second-hand smoke is merely a justification, and I don't feel it's proven sufficiently to justify all, or even most, of the smoking ordinances.



I don't smoke or drink at all -- the only non-medicinal drug I have ever used is caffeine. (Fortunately, it's only "habit-forming", not "addictive". :thinking: I think that means if someone forcibly stopped me, I'd be in much better shape, but I'm not sure it makes any difference for the probability of quitting voluntarily... ) But I sometimes look at my pile of Dr Pepper cans and think how much flashahol/computer junk/etc. I could buy with the money I'm spending... and my dope's not even sin-taxed like smokes and booze.

But do I quit? I lay off once in a while, for about a week at a time. (Although I make up for it by going on 50-hour caffeine runs, with similar frequency...) But mostly, I keep buying and chugging. I understand why smokers make the "dumb choice", even if it doesn't make me any more rational.

I'm just glad cashews aren't habit-forming.

Is it more expensive than pot yet? That would be ironic.

McGizmo said:

While the overweight might complain, making overeating inconvenient and/or expensive will in the long run help people quit who might lack the willpower to do so on their own.

Click to expand...

Don't laugh but Governer Patterson actually had a proposal to tax non-diet soda. Thankfully it was shot down. My theory on obesity is that we're focusing on the wrong side of the equation-namely intake. Most people have a given setpoint where they feel they've had enough to eat. Problem is with heavily mechanized society those calories aren't burned up as they were 100 years ago. And cutting down to something like 2000 calories a day to be more in line with calories burned leaves many feeling unsatisfied. Any law seeking to tax certain foods is doomed to failure. What about the active people who can wolf down a bag of Doritos and burn it up in two hours? I actually fell into this category when I used to cycle 20-30 miles a day. Now I'm 20-25 pounds heavier but actually eat less. Obviously my activity level has dropped somewhat.

Regarding the mention of caffeine by Benson, I'll have to say I agree it's not addictive in the strict sense. I drink 2 cups of coffee a day. When I had the flu in December I avoided it altogether (actually I lost 10 pounds in a week because I wasn't able to eat or drink much of anything). Anyhow, upon getting better I found my body wasn't craving caffeine or anything. Maybe I felt a little more tired than usual but it could have been just the aftereffects of illness. In any case, if at some future date it's proven caffeine or coffee is harmful I could give it up cold turkey with no problems. Not so if it were a true addiction like smoking.

Sure, taxes on tobacco are why the costs are so high. So I'd like to see the costs lowered by stopping all the tobacco taxes -- just as long as not one dime of public money, taxes, or from any part of the health care system (facilities or insurance providers) could go for the care of any tobacco related illness except maybe for second hand ones.

chmsam said:

Sure, taxes on tobacco are why the costs are so high. So I'd like to see the costs lowered by stopping all the tobacco taxes -- just as long as not one dime of public money, taxes, or from any part of the health care system (facilities or insurance providers) could go for the care of any tobacco related illness except maybe for second hand ones.

Click to expand...

What about public money, taxes, or from any part of the health care system (facilities or insurance providers) that go for the care of any OBESITY related illnesses? Or for that matter ALCOHOL related illnesses? I used to work in a pharmacy. I gave out more drugs that were paid for by the state for those types of problems than for those related to tobacco.

Greta said:

The topic of this thread is the price of smokes... not whether or not someone should or shouldn't smoke. Personally, I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else... and yes, that DOES include smoking. However... I have REAL issues with others trying to impose THEIR issues, opinions, sense of morals and ethics, or any other form of sanctimonious BS on me. Move on from the preaching. Back on topic... Yes... the price of smokes is VERY high! And according to alaskawolf... so are cashews!!

Click to expand...

+1.

I would consider myself a conservative person. Yet, on topics such as these, I almost always seem to be quite out of sync with whom many (not myself) would consider my compatriots. Frankly, when I hear of more and more of this type of regulation it makes me sick. I don't smoke, haven't for 7 years now, and don't intend to start again, but over taxing,censoring, or taking advantage of one group of people to fund or benefit someone elses view of what is right/wrong is completely unacceptable in my opinion.

I don't care what a person sees, hears, smokes etc., as long as there is no negative impact overall on our social well being, or as long as it doesn't harm someone who is powerless to help themselves, it is entirely up to that person whether the asociated risks are worth the reward. It shouldn't involve anyone else, because it dosen't affect anyone else. Sure, second hand smoke is harmful, but smoking is already banned in most public spaces, and as has been pointed out, many other aspects of society are just as harmful. Banning smoking in a persons home or outdoors in general is outright government control of a private individuals rights, liberties and choices.

And no, its not the same as other taxes and laws. A measure of laws and regulations are needed to insure the overall health and commerce of society in general, this is borderline exploitation when a government entity decides to overly tax one particular group of people who actions don't affect society any more negatively than many other societal aspects or personal habits.

I cringe when I hear people talk about censoring radio broadcasts, cable shows, and other material. If you don't like it, don't turn it on. Don't wan't your kids watching it? Its your responsibility to make sure they don't have access to such material in your home. You wouldn't leave a loaded gun laying beside the TV/computer would you?

My point is this, every aspect of society, every group of beliefs, no matter the size, has a measure of detractors. Think about your personal beliefs. Do you want to be told you can't believe that way just because someone doesn't agree? What will we do tomorrow when someone decides they don't like what we do or say, willingly censor ourselves?

I for one don't like where this road ends.

-Michael