New York Times:
Mississippi's tax on cigarettes, at 18 cents a pack the nation's third-lowest, has not been raised since 1985. Gov. Haley Barbour, a former tobacco lobbyist, has long opposed an increase.
But this year, state lawmakers have gone from giving little thought to a tobacco tax increase to arguing over how much the tax should go up and where the money should go.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Why haven't we banned NICOTINE, which is almost as addictive as h e r o i n e?
Here is some info on nicotine which may amaze even tobacco lobbyists:
http://bur
Nicotine isn't the problem. It's what cigarette manufacturers do to their products that's the problem.
I quit smoking when I started smelling ammonia, coming from me, and nobody else knew what I was talking about. Years later, I learned that cigarette manufacturers were putting ammonia in cigarettes because it made it more addictive.
The b@st@rds ought to be rotting in hell. That's unregulated, unrestricted American-style capitalism. It kills the goose that laid the golden egg.
Because it is pointless and stupid to ban addictive substances. It just plain doesn't work. Much better to just tax them.
so heroin should be legal?
I put up a longer post but it didn't make it through.
I basically said that the days of smoking are numbered. I smoked for forty years, a pack a day and enjoyed it. I quit over a year ago by using Chantix. This is not an ad, but I could not have done it without that drug.
For what that's worth...
I'm on something called Buproban right now. Just started it this week. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Congrats on quiting. Your situation sounds similiar to mine....ho
Yes, well I took Chantrix for 2 weeks and stopped because of the weird dreams, went in for a physical and my liver enzymes were off for the first time in 60 years and now they have reverted to normal...
Of course I am going to stop now.. the price is too high, the question is what to do for stress...
beat off!
Regarding constitutional rights and smoking, which I've seen several posters bring up:
I know this issue has been raised in multiple lawsuits against smoking bans. No judge has ever ruled smoking is a constitutional right and, in fact, several judges have *explicitly* ruled that there is *no* constitutional "right" to smoke, per se. You can claim that it's somehow a constitutional right, but until you get judges or courts to take that side, it don't make it so ... it's just complaining.
Where does it say that smoking is not a right? Smoking tobacco within America predates the US Constitution. How many of our founding fathers men who wrote the constitution and formed our government did so while smoking a clay pipe? Is there anything in the constitution that even remotely suggests that tobacco should not be enjoyed to the fullest by all Americans? That's what Washington, Jefferson, Adams etc. would have wanted.
I'm just telling you what judges have ruled.
And they liked hemp, too. Of course, that tobacco was raised by involuntarily employed workers living in substandard housing eating substandard food, who had no right to relocate to better conditions, but that's a minor detail. Oh, yeah, the Constitution did say something about them, too. Each counted in the census as 3/5 of a person.
You have a right to do everything until it is banned.
Government has thte right to ban smoking, just like it can ban almost any activity it dislikes.
The interesting thing is, people talk about "bans" but I've always thought the term "smoking ban" is kind of a misnomer. Nowhere has really "banned" smoking, at least not for about 90 years. What 33 states have done is establish regulations where cigarettes can be smoked -- such as not in bars and restaurants. When these cases have gone to court, judges have consistently ruled that the state has the right to regulate where cigarettes can be smoked, and that smokers don't have a constitutionally protected "right" to smoke -- at least not wherever they want.
It would be interesting to see if some state, say, oh, Utah, (not picking on Utah, just using that as an example) tried to actually make smoking illegal and the sale of tobacco illegal, whether that would hold up in court.
Well they took away opium and mary jane... Funny how Coke used to include Cocaine or Opium or whatever it is..
In Charleston SC, there is a fine museum that displays an apothecary shop from 1800 and the snake oil salesman..
It is time for the cigarette makers to stand-up. This is an unconstitutional practice.
When a smoker needs a lung transplant because of his long smoking habit, it's unconstitutional for him/her to demand that his insurance covers the entire procedure.
Bull, smokers are actually less a drain on the system than those who don't smoke. Can you guess why?
I wonder what you put into your body that I or someone else might not agree with. Didn't your mother ever tell you about people who live in glass houses?
Smokers only make up 1/4th of lung transplants, and insurance has nothing to do with the constitution.
Works for me! I have too many loved ones that have died, or are about to die, from smoking.
But, I also think we should reduce, or actually eliminate, taxes on essential items such as food, clothing under $100.00, public transporation and other essentials. Much higher taxes should be imposed on ALL luxury items above a certain price range and based on their non-essential character (such as $2,500 Jimmy Choo shoes, Lear Jets, etc.).
Our tax system is not working, it is not comprehensive. It is mostly based on "reactions" instead of a conserted well thought out plan of action. It should not be a punitive tool, it should be an intelligently designed part of our long term objectives for our society.
But what you are suggesting is a punitive tool, punishing people for buying something deviating from a certain "standard".
When you get rid of that deduction for being breeders, you can avoid all these other issues. Why should the OctoMom get the benefits of lower taxation (assuming she ever works again) because of having 14 children? Or those other groups who encourage massive breeding to increase the fold?
Children keep a civilization alive.
Overpopulation is a good thing?
Not really when in the next few decades the Earth will face increasing problems with overpopulation that are just as serious (and related to) the global energy crisis, global warming, and the nearly 1 billion people starving. I honestly don't understand why "overpopulation" or "resource depletion" isn't heard on the news just as frequently as any other problem we face. It really is that serious. Yet no politician wants to tell people that they can only have 2 children..
America currently has a population of over 309 million people. If we were at the level when I was born in the early 1950s (approximately 153 million) we could probably have good living for all. But continued population growth with the reduction in farm and manufacturing jobs, and the export of technical work to Third World countries, makes it so that more and more of the population has difficulty finding quality work.
Civilizations aren't judged by the size of their populations, but by the quality of their culture and heritage.
But not the dumb ones who think smoking is cool.
Right, but too many children destroy it
dumb idea on raising taxes.smok
But if we legalize mariquana then the increase revenue from the sale of snack foods and gas for that trip to Seven Eleven at three in the morning will surely stimulate the economy.
I quit going out to have a drink when they said I couldn't have a cigarette with it. I think I saved enough to pay those tobacco taxes!
I rarely go out to bars anymore. As I posted earlier, people who frequent bars aren't doing so to get healthy. They're going to kill some brain cells and to give their livers a workout. Ban it in restaurant
Unfortunately in my state (VA) they just passed a bill to ban smoking from bars. I understand banning it in restaurants, but it seems bars will lose a lot of money. And while I'm no conservative, I don't like the idea of a nanny state telling me I can't enjoy a cigarette with my beer. Don't get me started on the taxes. I spend more on cigarettes than gas and clothing. Thank god I don't live in NY.
Taxes on commodities should be a direct reflection on the costs that they incur on the population in general. All other arguments, for and against, aside, the one that fails to get mentioned is the costs, borne by municipalities, that are used to fight roadside fires. The cost of general fund resources, used to send out fire crews, is a noticeable drain on general fund coffers and should be offset by a tax for re-imbursing those monies that should be used for "common good" purposes..
that's a large can of worms to be opening.
We don't all throw lit cigarettes out the car window! I never, ever toss a cigarette out. It not only starts fires, it is littering. I also never smoke anywhere near children or places where children might be. Most smokers are pretty responsible people.
I smoked for forty years, pack a day, and enjoyed it. I quit on Dec 27, 2007 at 2pm and have not had a cigarette since. I used Chantix.
I have no problem with smokers and I even enjoy catching the odd whiff of tobacco smoke from time to time. I gave it up but I'm no fanatic and you guys can do what you like. Smoke 'em if ya got 'em. All I can say is that smokers are designated villians and every politician in America can do whatever they like with your former "rights." It is never going to get any better, and it's going to get harder and harder to enjoy a smoke in America.
You might want to start looking for an out. Find a way you can quit because sooner or later you'll have to. The upside is you'll get the last laugh when their tax revenues crater.
Two things came to mind while reading this.
1. If your turning to smokers to help you our of debt, you have to stop treating us like sex offenders when we light up.
2. Marijuana kills around 100% less people that Tobacco. Ending our foolish prohibition, legalizing and taxing marijuana would provide a new revenue source, rather than slightly increase an existing one.
I want to be able to smoke in bars and restaurants again if Im going to be taxed more for smoking.
I agree- at least in bars. People going to a bar aren't going there to get healthy. They are going there to kill a few brain cells and to punish their livers. If you don't like an unhealthy environment then go elsewhere.
Amen to that. And if my taxes are going to fix the economy, I want them to quit treating us like pariahs.
These taxes started as a way to "encourage" people to quit smoking. What if it had worked? What would they try to tax next if we all quit and cut off this stream of revenue. Texas raised their taxes $10.00 a carton a couple of years ago. To add insult to injury, we still have to pay sales tax on the increased amount. Paying taxes on taxes -- is that even legal?
Yes I don't mind paying taxes to support children's healthcare but I don't want to be treated like a pariah anymore. I live in Texas too and I will be paying close to $10 per pack a soon as SCHIP taxes are included. OK -- I'd like another reason to quit but in the meantime, please thank me for paying for children's health when you see me smoking instead of giving me your look of disgust. Besides, alcohol consumption causes, I believe, even more health problems to those who consume too much of it, to their dependents and co-workers, and anyone they put at risk on the highway. Tax that. And, even better legalize marijuana and tax that. We'll cut down on the huge costs of putting pot smokers in jail and we'll make money to pay for education and national health care.
they'd probably start taxing Nicorette.
You can smoke as much as you want. But I don't want your health issues to contribute to the raising of my health insurance costs in the price of premiums. And if you want to be stinky with cigarette smell, do so but please be very down wind from me.
My father died at 61 from, among other things, lung desease brought on by killing off two and a half cartons of Camel regulars per week, back when it was "cheap".
You should look at cigarette taxes, they range for the state tax of seven cents per pack in South Carolina to $2.75 per pack in New York. Guess where they're lowest. Where there are lots of poor people who don't have any health insurance, either.
data from http://tob
There is an option. You can get Snus online. Its a swedish smokeless tobacco product that's similar to dip but far better in that it has very few if any carcinogens and is spitless. Its in little pouches and its not really noticeable. Its been used in Sweden for a very long time, and since most people use that and not cigs, they have a very low death rate from tobacco. Just don't bother with the American snus made by Camel or Marlboro, its junk and not the real thing.
If Im going to be paying extra for cigs, I want the ability to be able to smoke in restaurants and bars again. You have already denied me the option of being able to smoke in my favorite local watering hole (I mean cmon, I know non-smokers who smoke when they drink) and then you want to tax me out the ass for it? Give me a break.
What happens if people stop smoking? Then what do they tax?
Hey, like the guy said earlier Tax coffee...m
This is getting absurd.
A tobacco tax is one regressive tax that is ok, because it serves the public interest in two ways. 1. It discourages people from smoking and 2. It brings in revenue to the states. Plus, it should make environmentalists happy because tobacco farming is one of the worst uses of land available.
if you are concerned about the health of the smokers, just ban tobacco outright.
or is it okay to have the stuff available to those addicted to it just as long as it brings in revenue to the state?
BINGO. It's good as long as they don't have to put out money for it, yet. It's great as long as it's something they don't do. Watch the tide turn as soon as it is something else that they like and watch them pitch a fit.
It will not bring in as much as they have budgeted. Many will quit, causing the existing taxes to decline. Others like me will start buying online from Europe where a carton of cigarettes costs less than $20 including shipping. They are not as good, but at 70% discount, thats fine with me.
I take it if you buy online from an overseas operation you can't get American brands?
Do you know what's in them? And do you know that to order them into the United States is the legal equivelant to bootlegging?
Just another tax on the poor, along with ethanol raising food prices, the coming energy taxes, and the cap and trade taxes that will raise prices on most consumer goods.
God forbid that people stop smoking and using fossil fuel. What will the government use as tax revenue, then?
Bibles? guns? ky jelly?
Pot, I hope.
Now there's a really good idea. And no, I am not being sarcastic.
The democrats are counting on the fact that the lower classes economically will not notice that the costs of a lot of things they buy will be going up in the near future due to the taxes. They're probably right as the MSM will give them cover. That $13 a week wont last 3 days.
did you read the article? it primarily mentions Southern states (you know, G0P strongholds) where the taxes are being raised....
Haley Barbour's starting with cigarettes
They will tax fat people by upping taxes on food!
Hey, they're already trying to tax soda.
Even the poor have a choice not to smoke.
Coming from an obvious nonsmoker who doesn't realize how difficult it is to quit.
And one thing I missed. People say tax pot, well I can grow the best pot in my own garage. So do you really think I'm going to pay taxes on it. Get real!!!
A fee for growing would be do-able and fair. Say, 50 dollars a year or something. Like the fees you have to pay when you have a yard sale or something.
- if they can tax it, they will.
But a system that allowed a certain amount to be produced for an individuals own consumption would be fair (IMO). Once you went over that limit it would be either taxable or illegal. I believe you're allowed to brew your own beer, up to a specific number of gallons, as long as it's for home consumption.
that's what 'revenuers' are for.......
Loading comments…
First Posted: 03-21-09 11:33 AM | Updated: 04-21-09 05:12 AM