Cigarette Tax’s Unintended Consequences That EVERYBODY Saw Coming – Except Libs

[Skylar]

Were liberals the only ones who didn’t see this coming?

When New York raised their cigarette taxes to the highest in the nation – $4.35 per pack – not only did revenue decline by $1.3 billion, but organized crime and the smuggling of cigarettes across state lines is now rampant in the Empire State.

Over the last ten years, while state lawmakers raised the tobacco tax by190 percent, smokers switched to cheaper alternatives – like going to nearby Indian Reservations – quit smoking altogether or bought them on the rampant black market, The Daily Caller is reporting.

In fact, now 58 percent of all cigarettes are supplied from out-of-state and the number of packs bought at “full price” has dropped by 62 percent.


Snip

High cigarette taxes not only assist global crime networks but also have a disproportionate impact on the poor. According to the New York State Department of Health, low-income smokers, defined as individuals in households earning less than $30,000 a year, spent 23.6 percent of the annual household income on cigarettes in 2010-2011. That number is up from 11.6 percent in 2003-2004.


Read more: New York Loses $400 Million After Imposing The Nation’s Highest Cigarette Tax

More folks quit smoking?

Say it ain't so!

 

[gtopa1]

Were liberals the only ones who didn’t see this coming?

When New York raised their cigarette taxes to the highest in the nation – $4.35 per pack – not only did revenue decline by $1.3 billion, but organized crime and the smuggling of cigarettes across state lines is now rampant in the Empire State.

Over the last ten years, while state lawmakers raised the tobacco tax by190 percent, smokers switched to cheaper alternatives – like going to nearby Indian Reservations – quit smoking altogether or bought them on the rampant black market, The Daily Caller is reporting.

In fact, now 58 percent of all cigarettes are supplied from out-of-state and the number of packs bought at “full price” has dropped by 62 percent.


Snip

High cigarette taxes not only assist global crime networks but also have a disproportionate impact on the poor. According to the New York State Department of Health, low-income smokers, defined as individuals in households earning less than $30,000 a year, spent 23.6 percent of the annual household income on cigarettes in 2010-2011. That number is up from 11.6 percent in 2003-2004.


Read more: New York Loses $400 Million After Imposing The Nation’s Highest Cigarette Tax

More folks quit smoking?

Say it ain't so!

It is indeed something I would encourage but not something I would DEMAND!!

Greg

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If he has health insurance which he is now required by law to have then he is paying higher premiums because he smokes

As do all smokers

So your point is moot

Those higher rates do not cover all the extra costs for smoke related illness and for second hand smoke related illness.

The insurance companies seem to think they do and their bean counters are probably better at it than you

Smoking contributes to a myriad number of illnesses, such as heart disease and stroke, as well as lung diseases. It weakens your immune system. It makes you look older, damages your skin and teeth, lowers your quality of life, and leads to a painful and expensive early death.


No way does the extra bit a smoker pays on his/her premium cover all the problems of smoking, much less the problems caused by second hand smoke.


You smoke? You lose. It's your problem, your choice: don't force others to pay for it.

So should we do the same thing for fatty foods too........say your bacon in the morning? How about sausage too? Maybe a 100% tax on ice cream and milk shakes. You do realize butter is no good for you either, don't you? In fact, anything that doctors claim cause your arteries to plug up, that should be taxed as high as cigarettes which is around 150% of the cost.

More than 4 points on your drivers license, you should have to pay an auto tax. Do you realize how many thousands of people die every year in auto accidents because of bad drivers; how many people end up disabled for the rest of their lives or spend weeks in the hospital recovering?

So if you're not a good driver, eat unhealthy foods, it's your problem, your choice. Don't force others to pay for it.

The difference is that nicotine is an addictive drug. It should be outlawed, completely outlawed.

People who are bad drivers and get in lots of accidents pay extremely high auto insurance.

There has be a lot of talk about raising taxes on junk food. I would support that.

As far as butter or bacon--those items are not addictive and are mainstays of many Western diets. If the government thought it was a good idea to tax them as they are unhealthy, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I bet you wouldn't. But real Americans don't believe that government should be taxing people into submission. This is 1984 thinking.

Years ago you could never compare other aggressive governments to ours. We always had more freedom than other countries. Today you could.

Do you really think that with all the control our federal government has over us today, that our founders would approve? Or do you think they would crawl right back into their graves realizing that they failed in protecting us from an over intrusive federal government?

 

[jon_berzerk]

which is odd since one can get drafted at 18

Yup...can't drink till 21 either

seems a little arbitrary dont it

Nope. In military service, the tendency of 18-year-old men to be reckless is a desirable trait. In the rest of life, not so much.

Reckless?? Not at all. That is indeed a myth. A reckless soldier is a danger to his own.

Greg

I didn't mean reckless in that sense. I was thinking more in terms of "You men storm that beach", and then they actually do it. You tell a bunch of people in their forties to storm that beach, and they're going to tell you you're insane.

not so sure of that

 

[Esmeralda]

Those higher rates do not cover all the extra costs for smoke related illness and for second hand smoke related illness.

The insurance companies seem to think they do and their bean counters are probably better at it than you

Smoking contributes to a myriad number of illnesses, such as heart disease and stroke, as well as lung diseases. It weakens your immune system. It makes you look older, damages your skin and teeth, lowers your quality of life, and leads to a painful and expensive early death.


No way does the extra bit a smoker pays on his/her premium cover all the problems of smoking, much less the problems caused by second hand smoke.


You smoke? You lose. It's your problem, your choice: don't force others to pay for it.

So should we do the same thing for fatty foods too........say your bacon in the morning? How about sausage too? Maybe a 100% tax on ice cream and milk shakes. You do realize butter is no good for you either, don't you? In fact, anything that doctors claim cause your arteries to plug up, that should be taxed as high as cigarettes which is around 150% of the cost.

More than 4 points on your drivers license, you should have to pay an auto tax. Do you realize how many thousands of people die every year in auto accidents because of bad drivers; how many people end up disabled for the rest of their lives or spend weeks in the hospital recovering?

So if you're not a good driver, eat unhealthy foods, it's your problem, your choice. Don't force others to pay for it.

The difference is that nicotine is an addictive drug. It should be outlawed, completely outlawed.

People who are bad drivers and get in lots of accidents pay extremely high auto insurance.

There has be a lot of talk about raising taxes on junk food. I would support that.

As far as butter or bacon--those items are not addictive and are mainstays of many Western diets. If the government thought it was a good idea to tax them as they are unhealthy, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I bet you wouldn't. But real Americans don't believe that government should be taxing people into submission. This is 1984 thinking.

Years ago you could never compare other aggressive governments to ours. We always had more freedom than other countries. Today you could.

Do you really think that with all the control our federal government has over us today, that our founders would approve? Or do you think they would crawl right back into their graves realizing that they failed in protecting us from an over intrusive federal government?

I think our founders were intelligent, cultivated and thoughtful men. If they were alive today, their main priority would be the health, safety and well being of the American people. Protecting us from self destructive behavior and from massive corporations whose only interest is in making money makes complete sense. Most of the harmful food sold in this country, as well as tobacco, is pushed on the public, just like drug pushers. I think our founding fathers would be against that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The insurance companies seem to think they do and their bean counters are probably better at it than you

Smoking contributes to a myriad number of illnesses, such as heart disease and stroke, as well as lung diseases. It weakens your immune system. It makes you look older, damages your skin and teeth, lowers your quality of life, and leads to a painful and expensive early death.


No way does the extra bit a smoker pays on his/her premium cover all the problems of smoking, much less the problems caused by second hand smoke.


You smoke? You lose. It's your problem, your choice: don't force others to pay for it.

So should we do the same thing for fatty foods too........say your bacon in the morning? How about sausage too? Maybe a 100% tax on ice cream and milk shakes. You do realize butter is no good for you either, don't you? In fact, anything that doctors claim cause your arteries to plug up, that should be taxed as high as cigarettes which is around 150% of the cost.

More than 4 points on your drivers license, you should have to pay an auto tax. Do you realize how many thousands of people die every year in auto accidents because of bad drivers; how many people end up disabled for the rest of their lives or spend weeks in the hospital recovering?

So if you're not a good driver, eat unhealthy foods, it's your problem, your choice. Don't force others to pay for it.

The difference is that nicotine is an addictive drug. It should be outlawed, completely outlawed.

People who are bad drivers and get in lots of accidents pay extremely high auto insurance.

There has be a lot of talk about raising taxes on junk food. I would support that.

As far as butter or bacon--those items are not addictive and are mainstays of many Western diets. If the government thought it was a good idea to tax them as they are unhealthy, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I bet you wouldn't. But real Americans don't believe that government should be taxing people into submission. This is 1984 thinking.

Years ago you could never compare other aggressive governments to ours. We always had more freedom than other countries. Today you could.

Do you really think that with all the control our federal government has over us today, that our founders would approve? Or do you think they would crawl right back into their graves realizing that they failed in protecting us from an over intrusive federal government?

I think our founders were intelligent, cultivated and thoughtful men. If they were alive today, their main priority would be the health, safety and well being of the American people. Protecting us from self destructive behavior and from massive corporations whose only interest is in making money makes complete sense. Most of the harmful food sold in this country, as well as tobacco, is pushed on the public, just like drug pushers. I think our founding fathers would be against that.

So you think that our founding fathers wanted a federal overlord to oversee every aspect of our life and personal activities? Do you know who I mean by Founding Fathers????

 

[Esmeralda]

Smoking contributes to a myriad number of illnesses, such as heart disease and stroke, as well as lung diseases. It weakens your immune system. It makes you look older, damages your skin and teeth, lowers your quality of life, and leads to a painful and expensive early death.


No way does the extra bit a smoker pays on his/her premium cover all the problems of smoking, much less the problems caused by second hand smoke.


You smoke? You lose. It's your problem, your choice: don't force others to pay for it.

So should we do the same thing for fatty foods too........say your bacon in the morning? How about sausage too? Maybe a 100% tax on ice cream and milk shakes. You do realize butter is no good for you either, don't you? In fact, anything that doctors claim cause your arteries to plug up, that should be taxed as high as cigarettes which is around 150% of the cost.

More than 4 points on your drivers license, you should have to pay an auto tax. Do you realize how many thousands of people die every year in auto accidents because of bad drivers; how many people end up disabled for the rest of their lives or spend weeks in the hospital recovering?

So if you're not a good driver, eat unhealthy foods, it's your problem, your choice. Don't force others to pay for it.

The difference is that nicotine is an addictive drug. It should be outlawed, completely outlawed.

People who are bad drivers and get in lots of accidents pay extremely high auto insurance.

There has be a lot of talk about raising taxes on junk food. I would support that.

As far as butter or bacon--those items are not addictive and are mainstays of many Western diets. If the government thought it was a good idea to tax them as they are unhealthy, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I bet you wouldn't. But real Americans don't believe that government should be taxing people into submission. This is 1984 thinking.

Years ago you could never compare other aggressive governments to ours. We always had more freedom than other countries. Today you could.

Do you really think that with all the control our federal government has over us today, that our founders would approve? Or do you think they would crawl right back into their graves realizing that they failed in protecting us from an over intrusive federal government?

I think our founders were intelligent, cultivated and thoughtful men. If they were alive today, their main priority would be the health, safety and well being of the American people. Protecting us from self destructive behavior and from massive corporations whose only interest is in making money makes complete sense. Most of the harmful food sold in this country, as well as tobacco, is pushed on the public, just like drug pushers. I think our founding fathers would be against that.

So you think that our founding fathers wanted a federal overlord to oversee every aspect of our life and personal activities? Do you know who I mean by Founding Fathers????

You have no room to talk when your side wants to oversee and take over the control women have over their bodies or the rights of homosexuals to marry. You want to impose your values on others at every turn, getting into their private life, their control over their own bodies, getting into peoples bedrooms, controling what children learn in school because it disagrees with your personal values or religious beliefs. You've got absolutely no room to talk about an overlord overseeing individual freedoms. It's just hilarious, the hypocrisy. As long as it is something you want, your choice is to dictate to the hilt. When it's something you don't want, you start whining about the government being a 'nanny state.' Too fucking funny.

 

[gtopa1]

The insurance companies seem to think they do and their bean counters are probably better at it than you

Smoking contributes to a myriad number of illnesses, such as heart disease and stroke, as well as lung diseases. It weakens your immune system. It makes you look older, damages your skin and teeth, lowers your quality of life, and leads to a painful and expensive early death.


No way does the extra bit a smoker pays on his/her premium cover all the problems of smoking, much less the problems caused by second hand smoke.


You smoke? You lose. It's your problem, your choice: don't force others to pay for it.

So should we do the same thing for fatty foods too........say your bacon in the morning? How about sausage too? Maybe a 100% tax on ice cream and milk shakes. You do realize butter is no good for you either, don't you? In fact, anything that doctors claim cause your arteries to plug up, that should be taxed as high as cigarettes which is around 150% of the cost.

More than 4 points on your drivers license, you should have to pay an auto tax. Do you realize how many thousands of people die every year in auto accidents because of bad drivers; how many people end up disabled for the rest of their lives or spend weeks in the hospital recovering?

So if you're not a good driver, eat unhealthy foods, it's your problem, your choice. Don't force others to pay for it.

The difference is that nicotine is an addictive drug. It should be outlawed, completely outlawed.

People who are bad drivers and get in lots of accidents pay extremely high auto insurance.

There has be a lot of talk about raising taxes on junk food. I would support that.

As far as butter or bacon--those items are not addictive and are mainstays of many Western diets. If the government thought it was a good idea to tax them as they are unhealthy, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I bet you wouldn't. But real Americans don't believe that government should be taxing people into submission. This is 1984 thinking.

Years ago you could never compare other aggressive governments to ours. We always had more freedom than other countries. Today you could.

Do you really think that with all the control our federal government has over us today, that our founders would approve? Or do you think they would crawl right back into their graves realizing that they failed in protecting us from an over intrusive federal government?

I think our founders were intelligent, cultivated and thoughtful men. If they were alive today, their main priority would be the health, safety and well being of the American people. Protecting us from self destructive behavior and from massive corporations whose only interest is in making money makes complete sense. Most of the harmful food sold in this country, as well as tobacco, is pushed on the public, just like drug pushers. I think our founding fathers would be against that.

I can't recall ANYONE forcing my pipe smoking on me at all. It wasn't main stream by any stretch of the imagination and the push, in fact, was that pipe smoking was for "old fuddy duddies". As I was just over 20 at the time I was definitely not in that target group. I can't recall even seeing an advert for pipe smoking at all. But I tried it, liked it and developed my taste for good quality tobacco. As for food? I cook. No one forces me to eat anything. What I do object to is that many people are too lazy to eat properly; me at times included. But to FORCE people or penalise people to "control" themselves is frankly insidious. On a personal note I am indeed into moderation in all things. But to FORCE that view on others would be wrong.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

So should we do the same thing for fatty foods too........say your bacon in the morning? How about sausage too? Maybe a 100% tax on ice cream and milk shakes. You do realize butter is no good for you either, don't you? In fact, anything that doctors claim cause your arteries to plug up, that should be taxed as high as cigarettes which is around 150% of the cost.

More than 4 points on your drivers license, you should have to pay an auto tax. Do you realize how many thousands of people die every year in auto accidents because of bad drivers; how many people end up disabled for the rest of their lives or spend weeks in the hospital recovering?

So if you're not a good driver, eat unhealthy foods, it's your problem, your choice. Don't force others to pay for it.

The difference is that nicotine is an addictive drug. It should be outlawed, completely outlawed.

People who are bad drivers and get in lots of accidents pay extremely high auto insurance.

There has be a lot of talk about raising taxes on junk food. I would support that.

As far as butter or bacon--those items are not addictive and are mainstays of many Western diets. If the government thought it was a good idea to tax them as they are unhealthy, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I bet you wouldn't. But real Americans don't believe that government should be taxing people into submission. This is 1984 thinking.

Years ago you could never compare other aggressive governments to ours. We always had more freedom than other countries. Today you could.

Do you really think that with all the control our federal government has over us today, that our founders would approve? Or do you think they would crawl right back into their graves realizing that they failed in protecting us from an over intrusive federal government?

I think our founders were intelligent, cultivated and thoughtful men. If they were alive today, their main priority would be the health, safety and well being of the American people. Protecting us from self destructive behavior and from massive corporations whose only interest is in making money makes complete sense. Most of the harmful food sold in this country, as well as tobacco, is pushed on the public, just like drug pushers. I think our founding fathers would be against that.

So you think that our founding fathers wanted a federal overlord to oversee every aspect of our life and personal activities? Do you know who I mean by Founding Fathers????

You have no room to talk when your side wants to oversee and take over the control women have over their bodies or the rights of homosexuals to marry. You want to impose your values on others at every turn, getting into their private life, their control over their own bodies, getting into peoples bedrooms, controling what children learn in school because it disagrees with your personal values or religious beliefs. You've got absolutely no room to talk about an overlord overseeing individual freedoms. It's just hilarious, the hypocrisy. As long as it is something you want, your choice is to dictate to the hilt. When it's something you don't want, you start whining about the government being a 'nanny state.' Too fucking funny.

Ma'am; what women do with their OWN bodies is up to them. I really couldn't care less. And two "blokes" or two women does NOT make a married couple; but legal is nothing to do with morality. I say value each person in a Charitable and caring fashion; the rest is just activists, lawyers and politicians trying to exert their influence. As for schooling; reading, writing and arithmetic are the fundamentals of education. being told WHAT to think is garbage. Using education for propaganda purposes is not educating them; it's controlling them, and liberals seem to be the main jerks in that regard.

Greg

 

[Cecilie1200]

Those higher rates do not cover all the extra costs for smoke related illness and for second hand smoke related illness.

The insurance companies seem to think they do and their bean counters are probably better at it than you

Smoking contributes to a myriad number of illnesses, such as heart disease and stroke, as well as lung diseases. It weakens your immune system. It makes you look older, damages your skin and teeth, lowers your quality of life, and leads to a painful and expensive early death.


No way does the extra bit a smoker pays on his/her premium cover all the problems of smoking, much less the problems caused by second hand smoke.


You smoke? You lose. It's your problem, your choice: don't force others to pay for it.

So should we do the same thing for fatty foods too........say your bacon in the morning? How about sausage too? Maybe a 100% tax on ice cream and milk shakes. You do realize butter is no good for you either, don't you? In fact, anything that doctors claim cause your arteries to plug up, that should be taxed as high as cigarettes which is around 150% of the cost.

More than 4 points on your drivers license, you should have to pay an auto tax. Do you realize how many thousands of people die every year in auto accidents because of bad drivers; how many people end up disabled for the rest of their lives or spend weeks in the hospital recovering?

So if you're not a good driver, eat unhealthy foods, it's your problem, your choice. Don't force others to pay for it.

The difference is that nicotine is an addictive drug. It should be outlawed, completely outlawed.

People who are bad drivers and get in lots of accidents pay extremely high auto insurance.

There has be a lot of talk about raising taxes on junk food. I would support that.

As far as butter or bacon--those items are not addictive and are mainstays of many Western diets. If the government thought it was a good idea to tax them as they are unhealthy, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I bet you wouldn't. But real Americans don't believe that government should be taxing people into submission. This is 1984 thinking.

Years ago you could never compare other aggressive governments to ours. We always had more freedom than other countries. Today you could.

Do you really think that with all the control our federal government has over us today, that our founders would approve? Or do you think they would crawl right back into their graves realizing that they failed in protecting us from an over intrusive federal government?

I think they'd shrug and say, "Well, we tried to warn you" when they realized that WE failed to protect OURSELVES from an over-intrusive federal government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yup...can't drink till 21 either

seems a little arbitrary dont it

Nope. In military service, the tendency of 18-year-old men to be reckless is a desirable trait. In the rest of life, not so much.

Reckless?? Not at all. That is indeed a myth. A reckless soldier is a danger to his own.

Greg

I didn't mean reckless in that sense. I was thinking more in terms of "You men storm that beach", and then they actually do it. You tell a bunch of people in their forties to storm that beach, and they're going to tell you you're insane.

not so sure of that

Well, admittedly, men are never terribly sensible and geared toward self-preservation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The insurance companies seem to think they do and their bean counters are probably better at it than you

Smoking contributes to a myriad number of illnesses, such as heart disease and stroke, as well as lung diseases. It weakens your immune system. It makes you look older, damages your skin and teeth, lowers your quality of life, and leads to a painful and expensive early death.


No way does the extra bit a smoker pays on his/her premium cover all the problems of smoking, much less the problems caused by second hand smoke.


You smoke? You lose. It's your problem, your choice: don't force others to pay for it.

So should we do the same thing for fatty foods too........say your bacon in the morning? How about sausage too? Maybe a 100% tax on ice cream and milk shakes. You do realize butter is no good for you either, don't you? In fact, anything that doctors claim cause your arteries to plug up, that should be taxed as high as cigarettes which is around 150% of the cost.

More than 4 points on your drivers license, you should have to pay an auto tax. Do you realize how many thousands of people die every year in auto accidents because of bad drivers; how many people end up disabled for the rest of their lives or spend weeks in the hospital recovering?

So if you're not a good driver, eat unhealthy foods, it's your problem, your choice. Don't force others to pay for it.

The difference is that nicotine is an addictive drug. It should be outlawed, completely outlawed.

People who are bad drivers and get in lots of accidents pay extremely high auto insurance.

There has be a lot of talk about raising taxes on junk food. I would support that.

As far as butter or bacon--those items are not addictive and are mainstays of many Western diets. If the government thought it was a good idea to tax them as they are unhealthy, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I bet you wouldn't. But real Americans don't believe that government should be taxing people into submission. This is 1984 thinking.

Years ago you could never compare other aggressive governments to ours. We always had more freedom than other countries. Today you could.

Do you really think that with all the control our federal government has over us today, that our founders would approve? Or do you think they would crawl right back into their graves realizing that they failed in protecting us from an over intrusive federal government?

I think our founders were intelligent, cultivated and thoughtful men. If they were alive today, their main priority would be the health, safety and well being of the American people. Protecting us from self destructive behavior and from massive corporations whose only interest is in making money makes complete sense. Most of the harmful food sold in this country, as well as tobacco, is pushed on the public, just like drug pushers. I think our founding fathers would be against that.

I just heard, "I always assume that I'm smarter and better than everyone else, and therefore the only 'good' position is to agree with me".

And since I already knew you were insupportably arrogant and conceited, your post was a repetitive waste of space.

 

[jon_berzerk]

seems a little arbitrary dont it

Nope. In military service, the tendency of 18-year-old men to be reckless is a desirable trait. In the rest of life, not so much.

Reckless?? Not at all. That is indeed a myth. A reckless soldier is a danger to his own.

Greg

I didn't mean reckless in that sense. I was thinking more in terms of "You men storm that beach", and then they actually do it. You tell a bunch of people in their forties to storm that beach, and they're going to tell you you're insane.

not so sure of that

Well, admittedly, men are never terribly sensible and geared toward self-preservation.

18 year olds make better troops because they have better ability

just as i used to drag the deer out of the woods for my boys

they drag the deer out of the woods for me

 

[Cecilie1200]

Smoking contributes to a myriad number of illnesses, such as heart disease and stroke, as well as lung diseases. It weakens your immune system. It makes you look older, damages your skin and teeth, lowers your quality of life, and leads to a painful and expensive early death.


No way does the extra bit a smoker pays on his/her premium cover all the problems of smoking, much less the problems caused by second hand smoke.


You smoke? You lose. It's your problem, your choice: don't force others to pay for it.

So should we do the same thing for fatty foods too........say your bacon in the morning? How about sausage too? Maybe a 100% tax on ice cream and milk shakes. You do realize butter is no good for you either, don't you? In fact, anything that doctors claim cause your arteries to plug up, that should be taxed as high as cigarettes which is around 150% of the cost.

More than 4 points on your drivers license, you should have to pay an auto tax. Do you realize how many thousands of people die every year in auto accidents because of bad drivers; how many people end up disabled for the rest of their lives or spend weeks in the hospital recovering?

So if you're not a good driver, eat unhealthy foods, it's your problem, your choice. Don't force others to pay for it.

The difference is that nicotine is an addictive drug. It should be outlawed, completely outlawed.

People who are bad drivers and get in lots of accidents pay extremely high auto insurance.

There has be a lot of talk about raising taxes on junk food. I would support that.

As far as butter or bacon--those items are not addictive and are mainstays of many Western diets. If the government thought it was a good idea to tax them as they are unhealthy, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I bet you wouldn't. But real Americans don't believe that government should be taxing people into submission. This is 1984 thinking.

Years ago you could never compare other aggressive governments to ours. We always had more freedom than other countries. Today you could.

Do you really think that with all the control our federal government has over us today, that our founders would approve? Or do you think they would crawl right back into their graves realizing that they failed in protecting us from an over intrusive federal government?

I think our founders were intelligent, cultivated and thoughtful men. If they were alive today, their main priority would be the health, safety and well being of the American people. Protecting us from self destructive behavior and from massive corporations whose only interest is in making money makes complete sense. Most of the harmful food sold in this country, as well as tobacco, is pushed on the public, just like drug pushers. I think our founding fathers would be against that.

So you think that our founding fathers wanted a federal overlord to oversee every aspect of our life and personal activities? Do you know who I mean by Founding Fathers????

Apparently, she thinks two things:

1) Her position is, de facto, the position of intelligent, cultivated, thoughtful people. If one assumes someone is a "good" person, it automatically follows that they would therefore agree with her. QED, no evidence or discussion required, just accept it.

2) That for some odd reason, the Founding Fathers would have felt a compelling urgency to meddle and micromanage in individuals' lives over health and safety NOW, when they felt freedom was more important in a time when medical care was downright primitive and life expectancy was less than 40 years.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So should we do the same thing for fatty foods too........say your bacon in the morning? How about sausage too? Maybe a 100% tax on ice cream and milk shakes. You do realize butter is no good for you either, don't you? In fact, anything that doctors claim cause your arteries to plug up, that should be taxed as high as cigarettes which is around 150% of the cost.

More than 4 points on your drivers license, you should have to pay an auto tax. Do you realize how many thousands of people die every year in auto accidents because of bad drivers; how many people end up disabled for the rest of their lives or spend weeks in the hospital recovering?

So if you're not a good driver, eat unhealthy foods, it's your problem, your choice. Don't force others to pay for it.

The difference is that nicotine is an addictive drug. It should be outlawed, completely outlawed.

People who are bad drivers and get in lots of accidents pay extremely high auto insurance.

There has be a lot of talk about raising taxes on junk food. I would support that.

As far as butter or bacon--those items are not addictive and are mainstays of many Western diets. If the government thought it was a good idea to tax them as they are unhealthy, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I bet you wouldn't. But real Americans don't believe that government should be taxing people into submission. This is 1984 thinking.

Years ago you could never compare other aggressive governments to ours. We always had more freedom than other countries. Today you could.

Do you really think that with all the control our federal government has over us today, that our founders would approve? Or do you think they would crawl right back into their graves realizing that they failed in protecting us from an over intrusive federal government?

I think our founders were intelligent, cultivated and thoughtful men. If they were alive today, their main priority would be the health, safety and well being of the American people. Protecting us from self destructive behavior and from massive corporations whose only interest is in making money makes complete sense. Most of the harmful food sold in this country, as well as tobacco, is pushed on the public, just like drug pushers. I think our founding fathers would be against that.

So you think that our founding fathers wanted a federal overlord to oversee every aspect of our life and personal activities? Do you know who I mean by Founding Fathers????

You have no room to talk when your side wants to oversee and take over the control women have over their bodies or the rights of homosexuals to marry. You want to impose your values on others at every turn, getting into their private life, their control over their own bodies, getting into peoples bedrooms, controling what children learn in school because it disagrees with your personal values or religious beliefs. You've got absolutely no room to talk about an overlord overseeing individual freedoms. It's just hilarious, the hypocrisy. As long as it is something you want, your choice is to dictate to the hilt. When it's something you don't want, you start whining about the government being a 'nanny state.' Too fucking funny.

Are you drunk? Or did you grab the wrong med bottle this morning?

Seriously, this is the most pie-eyed bunch of delusional tripe I've read all week.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nope. In military service, the tendency of 18-year-old men to be reckless is a desirable trait. In the rest of life, not so much.

Reckless?? Not at all. That is indeed a myth. A reckless soldier is a danger to his own.

Greg

I didn't mean reckless in that sense. I was thinking more in terms of "You men storm that beach", and then they actually do it. You tell a bunch of people in their forties to storm that beach, and they're going to tell you you're insane.

not so sure of that

Well, admittedly, men are never terribly sensible and geared toward self-preservation.

18 year olds make better troops because they have better ability

just as i used to drag the deer out of the woods for my boys

they drag the deer out of the woods for me

There certainly is an aspect of them being stronger and in better health. But never discount the fact that young men WILL do things older men - or virtually any woman - would consider crazy, and are very susceptible to the "no guts, no glory" mindset, as part of military thinking on the subject.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Hawaii is first state to raise smoking age to 21

All states should raise voting rights to 21, as well.

And mandate an IQ test. Oh, wait, that would render the Democrats pointless for decades.

 

[thanatos144]

Were liberals the only ones who didn’t see this coming?

When New York raised their cigarette taxes to the highest in the nation – $4.35 per pack – not only did revenue decline by $1.3 billion, but organized crime and the smuggling of cigarettes across state lines is now rampant in the Empire State.

Over the last ten years, while state lawmakers raised the tobacco tax by190 percent, smokers switched to cheaper alternatives – like going to nearby Indian Reservations – quit smoking altogether or bought them on the rampant black market, The Daily Caller is reporting.

In fact, now 58 percent of all cigarettes are supplied from out-of-state and the number of packs bought at “full price” has dropped by 62 percent.


Snip

High cigarette taxes not only assist global crime networks but also have a disproportionate impact on the poor. According to the New York State Department of Health, low-income smokers, defined as individuals in households earning less than $30,000 a year, spent 23.6 percent of the annual household income on cigarettes in 2010-2011. That number is up from 11.6 percent in 2003-2004.


Read more: New York Loses $400 Million After Imposing The Nation’s Highest Cigarette Tax

Remember the first think Obama and a Democrat controlled congress did was increased tax on tabacco. This was his way of not taxing the poor. But don't worry the progressives will defend it because it isn't pot being taxed this high

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[thanatos144]

Helped cause me to quit smoking.

The government's job is to help you quit smoking?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[thanatos144]

Were liberals the only ones who didn’t see this coming?

When New York raised their cigarette taxes to the highest in the nation – $4.35 per pack – not only did revenue decline by $1.3 billion, but organized crime and the smuggling of cigarettes across state lines is now rampant in the Empire State.

Over the last ten years, while state lawmakers raised the tobacco tax by190 percent, smokers switched to cheaper alternatives – like going to nearby Indian Reservations – quit smoking altogether or bought them on the rampant black market, The Daily Caller is reporting.

In fact, now 58 percent of all cigarettes are supplied from out-of-state and the number of packs bought at “full price” has dropped by 62 percent.


Snip

High cigarette taxes not only assist global crime networks but also have a disproportionate impact on the poor. According to the New York State Department of Health, low-income smokers, defined as individuals in households earning less than $30,000 a year, spent 23.6 percent of the annual household income on cigarettes in 2010-2011. That number is up from 11.6 percent in 2003-2004.


Read more: New York Loses $400 Million After Imposing The Nation’s Highest Cigarette Tax

Meanwhile cigarette smoking has dramatically declined

No it hasn't. They just buy them illegally or smoke cigars now

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk