Comments on: AP Stretches Credibility On Obama Cigarette Tax Hike

By: Badger

Badger — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 06:22:24 +0000

Legislating morality is wrong, not to mention unconstitutional. Special taxes on tobacco. alcohol, and (in our near future) sugary drinks are nothing more than overriding personal choice and responsibility. Taxes are and have always been necessary, but they should be fair and never attempt to cause change in behavior.

By: t.rex

t.rex — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:47:30 +0000

Legalizing and taxing marijuana would bring in more tax dollars and SAVE millions on law enforcement budgets as well, not to mention NOT ruining millions of peoples lives with jail time and criminal records for the “crime” (my ass) of smoking a simple plant for pleasure or medical reasons.Pot prohibition is and was nothing more than big business trying to protect their massives profits in certain industries which hemp and pot would encroach upon.such as paper , hemp is more sustainable and cheaper than wood pulp for paper.And medicines pot is a better pain reliever than almost ALL prescription pain relievers which cause untold OD deaths every single day.Pot has NEVER EVER caused the death of ANYONE directly.To OD on pot, you would need to smoke nearly a TON of it in less than an hour.

By: t.rex

t.rex — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:34:15 +0000

one way for smokers to show their disgust with Obama’s deceptive poor man’s tax (RYO 2300% tax increase) would be to switch to ELECTRONIC cigarettes and cigars.I did and I now smoke for less than 50 cents per day AND breath better,can taste my food again,and am actually HEALTHIER than when I smoked tobacco.The E-cigar I bought cost me 90$ but now my only recurring expense is bottles of refill smoke liquid.the liquid is available for about 10$ for 15ml which is the equivalent of 1 and a half to 2 cartons of tobacco cigs.10 bucks for 2 cartons of smokes,can you beat that price by ANY type of tobacco smoking?I seriously DOUBT it.
Oh and just to let you know, I have been a pack a day smoker for over 25 years and cut back to less than 3 real cigs a day almost instantaneously when I switched to the e-cigar with ZERO withdrawal symptoms typical for cig smokers who try to quit.
The e-smoke contains less than 20 chemicals as opposed to over 4 thousand dangerous compounds found in tobacco smoke and there is ZERO partially combusted hydrocarbons (the most damaging part of regular smoke)Main ingredient in e-smoke is PG or VG polyethylene glycol or vegetable glycerin (both of which are WIDELY used in FOODSTUFFS such as vanilla flavoring and even Dr Pepper soda.You eat the stuff by the buttload daily so it must not be very dangerous.Certainly nowhere NEAR as dangerous as cyanide gas,methanol,ammonia and benzene (all found in tobacco smoke)

By: travis

travis — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:59:31 +0000

I guess it’s all right when it doesn’t affect you. Maybe someday there will be a tax on something that you like to do and then you might start to care about something.

By: JR

JR — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 07:20:25 +0000

The one aspect of this issue which bothers me is the tremendous hike on tax on loose tobacco. I had planned on trying the “stuff your own filtered tubes” method but that is not going to be any better now than buying manufactured smokes. If they really want us to quit then just outlaw manufactured cigarettes! But that would bring another black market illegal product into business. I think it should be illegal to smoke in the presense of children. If kids didn’t see adults smoking they would be much less prone to trying it.I’m getting seeds as soon as I can afford it.

By: cindy

cindy — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:39:41 +0000

I think they should tax junk food. There is so much obesity out there, I am sure they would get more money.

By: Sadres

Sadres — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:42:54 +0000

The only way for me is to quit smoking. This is the best for our pocket.

By: Marty

Marty — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:47:52 +0000

I smoke, have kids and insurance. Never smoked around the kids. Am trying to quit (5 days now) – doesn’t seem too bad at this point, maybe since a new aspect of the motivation is to not give the state or feds another cent! My corrupt state’s tobacco tax revenue has declined in recent years, and they will be losing much more – they just don’t get it.

What’s next? Up the taxes on “unhealthy” food?

By: Drearypilot

Drearypilot — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:43:49 +0000

Wow, you guys must not know _any_ poor people…
I know lots of smokers who make smallish incomes. Many of them have kids. It’s really swell that all this cigarette money is going to help get medical treatment for poor kids… that’s a good thing. Problem is, sadly (and disgustingly) that these same poor kids, who have smoking parents, will be sufferring as the direct result of this. If you smoke, you get cigarettes. Situations vary, of course, but poor or unemployed people who still smoke don’t usually strike me as the most responsible. And where will all the extra money come from to pay this new tax? Their grocery bills. They will feed their kids less, spend less money on them, directly because of this tax.
Aren’t people supposed to be seeking more individual accountability? Why are we relying on the govt to help us quit smoking? (incidentally, I smoke myself, and I’m not exactly rich. No kids, though, and I eat pretty well).

By: nick

nick — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:30:00 +0000

“Because taxes increased on an addictive consumable that people purchase by choice he broke a campaign promise.”

wow, you’re a moron. “addictive consumable” “purchased by choice”? seriously?

By: steve

steve — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:44:02 +0000

given obesity is a bigger problem than smoking these days, as more people are dying from weight related issues than from smoking issues, why not tax fatties and the foods they eat since those foods aren’t good for you? Why not provide tax deducation for people who actually use gyms and exercise equipment. For a smoker, I coud run circles around your average fattie while smoking a cigarette.

By: This is bad policy

This is bad policy — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:00:02 +0000

TylerPaul-
How is this policy going to make people healthier?

That would only happen if Obama took all the revenue from the increased taxes and used it solely to offset the health costs associated with smoking and for smoking cessation programs. Then as people started quitting, there would be reduced costs to society, so less need for the revenue.

But he is not doing this. He is using the revenue to fund unrelated programs. So, where is the incentive for the government to really want people to quit? If they quit smoking, that revenue stream will disappear! Then where would they get that revenue? So, why would the government really want people to quit?

If he wants to fund social programs he should be spreading the burden on everyone, not singling out one group. That is not fair and really a conflict of interest.

By: ExiledIndependent

ExiledIndependent — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:49:57 +0000

Tyler, good point: one promise kept (”making people healthier” heheh yeah….) is another promise broken (tax relief for lower incomes) based on how Obama is making his presidential decisions.

By: TylerPaul

TylerPaul — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:20:38 +0000

If the AP paid attention they’d remember Obama pledging to do this if he became president. A major part of his healthcare plan was to take measures to make people healthier including taxing cigarettes. This isn’t a broken promise. This is quite the opposite.

By: Some Guy

Some Guy — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:02:59 +0000

Let me also raise the question of why the hell we tolerate government trying to control our behavior by manipulating the tax code?

The people are not the government’s to command.

By: Some Guy

Some Guy — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:59:35 +0000

Bitch all you want, but they’re right. Poor people smoke more, and tobacco taxes will hit them harder.

Incidentally, this is far from the only example of Obama exhibiting hypocrisy, and certainly not the worst.

By: TerenceC

TerenceC — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:18:23 +0000

Reformed smokers are the worst anti-smokers. It is hard to quit – I’m like Bob from FLA….Thought I could have just one after a 4 year hiatus and was back to a pack a day within 24 hours. It’s a horrible addiction – but I will quit again. The tax isn’t aimed at scalping the current smoker inasmuch as it is aimed at preventing the young from ever starting to smoke. If you don’t like the tax, don’t smoke in protest.

By: jbharshaw

jbharshaw — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 06:54:11 +0000

>Government and private research has found that smoking rates
>are higher among people of low income. A Gallup survey of
>75,000 people last year fleshed out that conclusion. It found
>that 34 percent of respondents earning $6,000 to $12,000 were
>smokers, and the smoking rate consistently declined among
>people of higher income. Only 13 percent of people earning
>$90,000 or more were smokers.

And someone mentioned “roll your own” (aka RYO) — well federal taxes on those increased EVEN MORE — some 2,000% (from a tax of approx $1 per 16 oz of to a tax of OVER $24 per 16 oz — and the same was done with the cigarette papers/tubes — essentially bringing the final cost of a “pack” of RYO tobacco UP to the equivalent of the major commercial brands).

Why does THAT matter? Because by far the GREATEST percentage of people who already were using RYO tobacco were the LOWEST income people.

So in effect not only did Obama just raise taxes significantly on the lower income spectrum, but the HIGHEST increase (more than DOUBLING the cost of the cigarettes).

End result of this is simple — poor people will cut back on other things.

The other result is equally simple — people will begin seeking ways AROUND paying the tax (meaning gray & black market).

Apparently you idiots have forgotten the lessons of the failures of both prohibition AND the failed “war” [sic] on drugs.

I agree with the person who stated sarcastically that the government should also begin taxing all of OTHER people’s “addictions” — perhaps a $10 per cup federal tax on Starbucks coffee would be a good start? Or how about a $3 per doughnut tax on everything sold by Krispi-Kreme? Maybe their should be a $25 per drink federal tax on all “top shelf” liquor at hotels and fancy restaurants? — I mean seriously if this is about making people HEALTHIER — then we DO have both an obesity AND a diabetes epidemic going on, as well as substantial problems caused (both directly and indirectly) by alcohol — all of which are dramatically (and needlessly) raising health care and insurance costs.

And the “rich” can certainly afford to pay taxes for their “sins” much more readily than the stupid (and yes POOR) smokers.

By: Rex Mundane

Rex Mundane — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 05:55:22 +0000

“To those smokers out there who are being hurt by the tax and donâ€™t want to quit smoking, I reccomend rolling your own. A rolling machine is cheap and youâ€™ll save a ton of money by doing it.”

In fact, no you won’t. Taxes have increased on rolling tobacco as well, and not by the same factor. My fiancee smokes, has a rolling machine, asked a clerk today what the smallest amount of the cheapest brand of rolling tobacco costs, and she would have saved money buying a regular pack of marlboro reds. The tax on Rolling Tobacco has quadrupled the price.

I don’t smoke, but she and many of my friends do. She has quit before, cold turkey every time and it has worked, but recent stresses with school for her and work for me are causing her to basically self-medicate to handle the stress. The tax increase at this point is basically making it so we can’t really afford it. Can she quit? I have every confidence that she can, as she has done before. Should she? Well the longterm health benefits are undeniable. Will she quit? Well, yes, because we don’t really have a choice in the matter right now. This “Voluntary Tax,” as you smirking nitwits pat yourselves on the back for calling it, is anything but for the people who are having the decision made for them.

She and I and just about everyone I know proudly supported Obama in the election (and I did as a Republican, for the record) and still do largely today, but this, being as it is part of our countries obsession with demonizing tobacco smokers, is utter bull$#it. I would have less of a problem with a blanket tax increase than I do with this crap, and all the people saying its a “voluntary tax” can go fornicate a shrapnel filled rock tumbler.

Not to derail the conversation, but how does this possibly raise more Govt funding than, say, stopping the war on Drugs? Lessing the burden on law enforcement who have to arrest harmless stoners, regulating and, yes, taxing marijuana, how does that not save and make more money than this, considering how many people are “voluntarily” forced into not smoking, which as I see it, renders the whole thing a bit of a wash?

By: Jared Lorz

Jared Lorz — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 05:32:53 +0000

I say tax blogging, if it cost money to spew garbage on the internet fewer people would do it.