Smokers, we're getting $crewed again......

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: MarkC


So one thing has nothing to do with another, and no, it isn't ironic.


One has everything to do with the other, given the opening line:

Quote:
Well, if this is any future indication of the new president and his "no more taxes for those earning 250K or less," we're all screwed.


"the new president", and further along through the threads commentary on what is effectively the bad, bad government, etc., etc.

Well the president smokes. The tax that "he" apparently enabled to be put onto smokers was enacted by a smoker himself. Pretty funny.

Oh, that's right... he can afford it... but this is a tax on people who are effectively burning dollar bills while being very poor at the same time. Boy does that make no sense - the poor should be the last folks to burn dollar bills.

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Schmoe
so, your equating "stench," or smell, to cancer? Maybe your kimchi dish could have the same affect on me..........


Than dont eat at a restaurant that serves kimchi... I dont eat at restaurants that are smoky inside. Everyone has their freedom to do what they want.


No, they don't. Thanks to the widespread acceptance of mob rule it's no longer an option in most areas to eat in a restaurant that allows smoking.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: jsharp

Good luck staying in the larger group on every issue.



Absolutely... its tough to be in the 50.1 on everything. But then again, if something REALLY is SO bad, we can be proactive about it, or move to Mexico.

Still does not mean that we 'deserve' to smoke for super cheap... particularly if we are the poorest of the poor.

Its like me saying that they should reduce the costs of cable TV because I cannot afford it, but yet I deserve to watch TV.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: jsharp

No, they don't. Thanks to the widespread acceptance of mob rule it's no longer an option in most areas to eat in a restaurant that allows smoking.


Fair enough point. However, do the smokers boycott restaurants because they dont allow smoking inside, or do they just flock to the outdoor smoking area to feed their habit? Do they write their local regulators, write the restauranteurs, and take their business away?

Nah... they are addicted, so they have to go to smoke, but yet they "deserve" to eat out at restaurants too... dont want to give that up... so they dont vote with their pocketbooks - no smoking is fine, they still go back and give their business.

Do we know what percentage of the adult population smokes? Is it 49% or is it 10%? Big difference then too... I bet you will find FAR more people happy about smoking bans then those unhappy. And youll find that the group of smokers dont really do anything about their displeasure either, besides complain on internet forums

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: jsharp

Good luck staying in the larger group on every issue.



Absolutely... its tough to be in the 50.1 on everything. But then again, if something REALLY is SO bad, we can be proactive about it, or move to Mexico.

Still does not mean that we 'deserve' to smoke for super cheap... particularly if we are the poorest of the poor.

Its like me saying that they should reduce the costs of cable TV because I cannot afford it, but yet I deserve to watch TV.


We're not talking about the cost of cigarettes, we're talking about the taxes on them. Would you like the cost of your cable TV to triple via tax because the advocates of it managed to gain a .0000000000001% majority? How about anything else in your life?

You may be comfortable just letting the largest mob tax the smaller one at some rate based on whim but I'm not. Then again, I don't believe in just democracy since without some protection for individual rights and some restriction of government powers it becomes the tyranny of the largest mob.

AKA - 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

 

[Primus]

Friends, just one question: Camel and Kent, are they the same now as 10-20 years ago in your countries ? I liked them very much, but don't smoke them now because in Europe their blends have been drastically changed and they became a real [censored].

 

[Beehive_Poker]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Schmoe
so, your equating "stench," or smell, to cancer? Maybe your kimchi dish could have the same affect on me..........


Than dont eat at a restaurant that serves kimchi... I dont eat at restaurants that are smoky inside. Everyone has their freedom to do what they want.


I think this is the crux of the problem. Everybody is free to do what they want, until that freedom cuts into someone else's. Non-smokers, by and large, have this unwavering belief that since they do not smoke they somehow have more of a right to push their wants into legislation. I think it would be just as unfair if laws were passed that made every restaurant smoking only; it's unfair and should be left up to the restaurant owner. If you don't like the way that said restaurant runs their business, simply DO NOT GO THERE.

I was living in Austin when the smoking ban there passed by a very narrow margin. The only thing that was accomplished was empty bars. The action was transferred to the open air areas out back. The same people that wanted to ban smoking from bars found themselves sitting alone at the bar because all the people were in the back, smoking, drinking and carrying on as if they were in a tavern of all places. So the non-smoking pundits started wanting tougher legislation on OPEN AIR designated smoking areas in BARS.

It just seems to me like the majority of non smokers are in effect anti-smokers. If you honestly think that sitting in your car with the windows rolled up and the A/C on is grabbing carcinogenic air from the smokers car next to you, you have some sort of agenda. I can pick a million better things to irk me while idling in traffic, including the exhaust fumes, that render whatever microscopic trace amounts of cigarette smoke you may unlikely breath in, quite trivial.

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: jsharp

No, they don't. Thanks to the widespread acceptance of mob rule it's no longer an option in most areas to eat in a restaurant that allows smoking.


Fair enough point. However, do the smokers boycott restaurants because they dont allow smoking inside, or do they just flock to the outdoor smoking area to feed their habit? Do they write their local regulators, write the restauranteurs, and take their business away?

Nah... they are addicted, so they have to go to smoke, but yet they "deserve" to eat out at restaurants too... dont want to give that up... so they dont vote with their pocketbooks - no smoking is fine, they still go back and give their business.

Do we know what percentage of the adult population smokes? Is it 49% or is it 10%? Big difference then too... I bet you will find FAR more people happy about smoking bans then those unhappy. And youll find that the group of smokers dont really do anything about their displeasure either, besides complain on internet forums

That's incredible. Not being a smoker yet you seem to have some expertise and insight in how they behave on a personal level.

Actually to some degree smokers do all of the things you mentioned in your first paragraph. Your opinion that they don't doesn't change anything. Nor does your feeling of superiority by belonging to the largest mob.

Here's something else a lot of people in bars are doing not just in this area but in many - Ignoring the law.

How's that suit your sense of what's right, and the power of the largest mob? Knowing that in the end you can do absolutely nothing to stop them?

 

[JHZR2]

Quote:
We're not talking about the cost of cigarettes, we're talking about the taxes on them. Would you like the cost of your cable TV to triple via tax because the advocates of it managed to gain a .0000000000001% majority? How about anything else in your life?

You may be comfortable just letting the largest mob tax the smaller one at some rate based on whim but I'm not. Then again, I don't believe in just democracy since without some protection for individual rights and some restriction of government powers it becomes the tyranny of the largest mob.

AKA - 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.



Well the taxes are part of the overall cost out the door. So therefore they are part of the "real" cost.

I stopped buying cable TV because the costs became too high - I voted with my pocketbook, despite being a member of the minority. I didnt just "deserve" to have cable TV without caring for my financial situation.

There still is only a minor injustice in this taxation - the fact that it goes for uninsured children instead of subsidizing the statistically hgher healthcare costs for smokers.

That I have a problem with... I shouldnt have to pay for smokers' health issues. And smokers shouldnt have to pay a higher burden for uninsured children than the rest of the population.

But again, to state bloody murder because the users of the product are "poor" is ridiculous. Again, if youre poor, you cannot afford to burn dollar bills, period. Even if the cigarettes were 10c each, if you are poor, you cannot afford to burn money. No way around that.

The fact that it is taxed highly should be an indicator to the poor folks that they really cannot afford it. Somehow this message does not get across, other than in failed mortgages and people with no retirement savings. Taxes induce people to do things. Right or wrong, it should induce those who cannot afford it to give up on the habit.

Im an advocate of fiscal responsibility first and foremost. The basic starter of this whole thing was that this is a tax on the poor. Again, my point is that the poor shouldnt be burning dollars in any way, shape or form. Smoking is a luxury.

I cannot argue your point of protection of one's individual rights... but then again I see no correlation between the luxury of smoking and true, basic, inalienable rights that we are guaranteed.

 

[Beehive_Poker]

Originally Posted By: Primus
Friends, just one question: Camel and Kent, are they the same now as 10-20 years ago in your countries ? I liked them very much, but don't smoke them now because in Europe their blends have been drastically changed and they became a real [censored].


I'm not sure about Kent, but Camel has changed in some ways.

Camel Regulars (Non-Filters) are the same as the day that they came on the market in 1913, except for the fact that the paper has been altered due to a federally mandated "smoke safe" law that forces the cigarette companies to make paper that will extinguish itself if it is not being constantly inhaled. (Smooth move, government- make a law that forces cigarette smokers to constantly puff on their burning cigarettes.) Despite company proclamations that say that the taste hasn't changed, I've found the new paper gives it a somewhat tangier taste.

The Camel Filter blend has changed a few times since the fifties. Each change involved altering the amount of Turkish tobacco in the cigarette to maximize profits. RJR bills each change as a "smoother" smoke, but in all reality they're just using cheaper Virgina tobacco which doesn't have the "spice" or "bite" of genuine Turk. Turkish tobacco costs a great deal to import, which is why a pack of unfiltered Camels usually cost twice as much as the filtered brand.

If you live in Europe, your Camels or Kents will taste nothing like what we have in the US. The Euro branches of Phillip Morris and RJR use tobacco that is grown native to them. IMO all of it for the most part is inferior to American tobacco- the climate in the Ukraine and Hungary, where a majority of it originates, just isn't conductive towards harvesting quality stalks.

For example, Lucky Strike is a popular, inexpensive brand in most parts of Europe. The foreign Luckies I've tried taste like camel dung. Here in the US, Lucky Strike uses premium Virgina gold leaves, which give it a one of an unparalleled taste.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: jsharp
Here's something else a lot of people in bars are doing not just in this area but in many - Ignoring the law.

How's that suit your sense of what's right, and the power of the largest mob? Knowing that in the end you can do absolutely nothing to stop them?

Hey, that's fine... if I want to go to the bar, and I want to be there, and it's smoky, I can stay or go - my choice.

And if the bar is empty, and the action is outside, I can go out there, or stay inside, or leave. Again, my choice.

And if the mob still goes there, and does not care that the smokers are there, then the mob has spokem hasnt it?

I have as much right and ability to speak wit my pocketbook as the next person.

And YET again - if the smoker truly is poor, they shouldnt be [censored] money away by drinking at the bar either. And if the person can afford to smoke a pack and drink at the bar, then either they are totally mismanaging their money, or can afford the taxes, can't they???

All these "taxes" on the poor are in reality luxuries, which if one is truly poor, shouldnt be taken. Nobody "deserves" to be able to drink alcohol either.

Interesting how things that are expensive luxuries become "deserved" and required for life somehow...

 

[Schmoe]

#ell, these days, just what exactly is not a luxury? Go over and look at Communist China and tell me about luxuries and government regulation and taxes. You don't like it, you speak out too much about it, suddenly, you just disappear. No questions asked. Is that where we're headed?
This whole SCHIP thing is designed to cover children that have parents that make more than poverty, but less than 83K. Think about it, 83K. How much do you make? I don't make that much but my kids are covered under a medical plan that I pay for. *** is that? You know what I should do, which is and already happening, is drop my children from my health plan and put them on the SCHIP plan. That way, I'll have more money because my premiums will go down. Can you smell what I'm cooking here? There is something desperately WRONG with that illogical thinking. Bush always vetoed that bill. As soon as PBO steps in, he signs it and then makes a speech on telling how thankful he is that his vision of universal health care is coming true. Universal health care? Where else is that happening at? Germany and England. Have you looked at their system? You have to wait about 3 months to see a doctor. You can't pick out your doctor. Their economies are failing because most of their GNP are going in to social programs. Our budget is headed the same way. Like that lady that had 8 kids, plus the 6 she already had. She has no job and lives with her parents, whom recently lost their home because of the economic conditions. She also recently received over 150K in cash from a claim she put in for getting hurt on the job and doctor said having kids will only make it worse, but yet she has the kids and still receives government money. PEOPLE, WAKE UP. I'm really scared for my kids down the road, tobacco or none.

 

[JHZR2]

Can't argue with those points!!!!!

 

[Primus]

Originally Posted By: Beehive_Poker
The Camel Filter blend has changed a few times since the fifties. Each change involved altering the amount of Turkish tobacco...


Thank you a lot for so detailed info. Camel (filter) in the US was really better then in Europe (except, may be, Switzerland where their quality was nearly equal at least till the end of 90th) when the brand was still owned by Reynolds Tabacco, but I though they have been changed a lot too since a brand purchase by Japaneeses. Besides, cigarettes sold in US shop were better than those sold in Duty Free shop at US airport. So, I may ask my colleagues to bring me a couple of cartouches.

 

[Schmoe]

So, even though I smoke, it wasn't so much about raising the taxes as opposed what it's for. Every webpage you hit when you would Google "SCHIP" all say one thing...."it's for the children." Seemed to be the battle cry. Most people didn't even read the fine print to find out exactly whom is covered. If all of that would have been put out in the media, you still think we'd be the minority group opposing such legislation? I think not.

 

[moribundman]

Originally Posted By: Schmoe
Universal health care? Where else is that happening at? Germany and England. Have you looked at their system? You have to wait about 3 months to see a doctor. You can't pick out your doctor.


I can't speak for "England" (You mean the UK, I suppose), but what you say isn't true in the case of Germany. People with what you call "universal" (mandatory) health insurance can go to any doctor they want. Doctors are not tied to specific insurers/healthplans. An appointment is easier and faster to get than it is in the US. In an urgent matter there is practically no wait.

 

[Beehive_Poker]

Originally Posted By: Primus

Thank you a lot for so detailed info. Camel (filter) in the US was really better then in Europe (except, may be, Switzerland where their quality was nearly equal at least till the end of 90th)


I agree; I believe that Swiss tobacco is the finest European tobacco available. I love their snus! I'm curious as to how that will be affected tax-wise, being that it's not snuff.

 

[oilyriser]

GP's here only bill $71 per hour. Think of the quality you are likely to get at that price point. Car repair places start at around $85/hr, plus shop supplies. Doctors have to eat the cost of shop supplies.

 

[d00df00d]

Going to respond to a lot of posts here:


Originally Posted By: Beehive_Poker
I'll draw a line on this corner of the room with my Lucky Strike marker, and if you don't want to breath my smoke don't cross it, you big baby.

It's not about the non-smokers coming near you. It's about your smoke going near them. Do you seriously draw lines and expect smoke not to cross them? Please, I'm fascinated to know.


Originally Posted By: Beehive_Poker
I do deserve to do it, and I deserve to be able to do it without getting hit with a burdensome and unfair tax. Do you recall the Boston Tea Party, by any chance?

Could you elaborate on the comparison between the smoking tax and the taxation that led to the Boston Tea Party? I can't imagine how that would work except in the most superficial way; I don't see any moral, ethical, or political parallels.


Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
..but I think your tune will change when something you want to do ..and do routinely, gets taxed. Right now there is nothing that you do that is penalized beyond your ability to afford it.

Gary, I have the highest respect for your presence on these boards and your reasoned and reasonable opinions, so I hope you can forgive my candor here. I find it outrageous that you insist on drawing an equivalence between smoking and other habits or hobbies.

I also don't see the second half of that paragraph as meaningful. If something were penalized beyond my ability to afford it, by definition I wouldn't be doing it...


Originally Posted By: cven
It amazes me that some people think taxing stuff out of reach for your own good is a great idea

It amazes me that smokers think they are the only ones affected by their actions...


Originally Posted By: cven
soon only rich people will be able to live their life the way they want and the average Joe can live like others see fit.

That's pretty much already true, and will always be true. It's the nature of wealth in a capitalist society.


Originally Posted By: cven
This whole "I don't approve or like something so lets tax it out of normal peoples lives is CRAZY"!

Stop twisting motives. This is not a matter of simple disapproval, and calling it that is disingenuous.


Originally Posted By: jsharp
It's certainly not about some minimum level of air quality in public places or we would have seen people pushing for indoor air quality laws instead of blanket smoking bans.

Not true. The viability of a law depends on its enforcability as well as (or more than) its intended effect. Indoor air quality laws would be far more difficult to enforce than blanket smoking bans are.

 

[moribundman]

I'm with ya, fooddude!