Hey, buddy, wanna buy a carton of cigarettes?

Sassy · April 10, 2009, 01:21:57 PM

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TURNING CITIZENS INTO CRIMINALS

By NWV News writer Jim Kouri

April 8, 2009
© NewsWithViews.com

As the price of cigarettes rises -- in the New York City metropolitan area they now cost nearly $10.00 per pack or about $100.00 for a carton of ten packs -- and there are more and more government programs aimed at controlling sale and use, the US and state governments are creating a new organized crime enterprise.

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news138.htm

peternap · April 10, 2009, 02:11:38 PM

Yep...a whole new industry.

April 10, 2009, 03:20:01 PM

Just like when the government tries to restrict any addictive drugs. Organized crime fills the void.

StinkerBell · April 10, 2009, 03:32:13 PM

I do not smoke. I must admit I kinda find it disgusting. But I am sure some of my habits others probably find disgusting....

Anyways. I do not know how many cigs are in a pack, so for arguments sake I will say 24. The tobacco company could just make a big pack and put 48 in it.

glenn kangiser · April 10, 2009, 03:45:59 PM

You were sure smokin' in those curlers, Stink.

April 10, 2009, 03:55:55 PM

I don't smoke either & see a lot of patients with terrible health at the VA who are smokers... both my parents smoked & I hated it, but we don't need more organized crime, either. If someone wants to smoke, there are already pretty strict laws in place to keep them from smoking inside buildings, etc. We don't need anymore restrictive laws that monitor our everyday habits... before you know it, and I've read articles calling for it, those who eat dessert or steaks will have to pay more for health insurance

StinkerBell · April 10, 2009, 04:03:44 PM

Quote from: glenn kangiser on April 10, 2009, 03:45:59 PM
You were sure smokin' in those curlers, Stink.

I know! I am so hot in that pic!

ScottA · April 10, 2009, 04:20:46 PM

Yet another sucessful hijack.

glenn kangiser · April 10, 2009, 04:33:42 PM

How do they do it? hmm

April 10, 2009, 04:35:01 PM

I thought I offered a way to get around the tax. Make the pack bigger in volume, because the tax is per pack and if you make the pack bigger you buy less packs, hence paying less tax.

Makes perfect sense to me

peternap · April 10, 2009, 05:45:01 PM

You get around the tax by growing your own tobacco.

The irony is....we're making pot legal and tobacco illegal.

Jens · April 11, 2009, 02:26:15 PM

Quote from: peternap link=topic=6803.msg88079#msg88079 date=1239403501

The irony is....we're making pot legal and tobacco illegal.
/quote]

true that.

some of the companies are releasing roll your own tobacco labeled "pipe tobacco", which is not under the tax.

Quote from: StinkerBell on April 10, 2009, 03:32:13 PM
I do not smoke. I must admit I kinda find it disgusting. But I am sure some of my habits others probably find disgusting....

Not sure if we want to know. Have wondered where the screen name comes from.

"Anyways. I do not know how many cigs are in a pack, so for arguments sake I will say 24. The tobacco company could just make a big pack and put 48 in it. "

problem for them is, they are getting charged more on their end, and we all know that nobody is willing to lower their profit margin in this country...except Walmart.

20 per pack, BTW.

rwanders · April 11, 2009, 04:00:23 PM

I think the tax is actually based on $$ per pound or ounce and is just translated into a per pack rate----don't think you can get past the tax collector that easily. In an item of further interest---smokers actually cost society less $$ than non-smokers in health care costs since they don't live as long---a statistic no one likes to talk about.

MountainDon · April 11, 2009, 04:31:39 PM

I've read that someplace too RW.

April 11, 2009, 10:03:09 PM

Quote from: rwanders on April 11, 2009, 04:00:23 PM
I think the tax is actually based on $$ per pound or ounce and is just translated into a per pack rate----don't think you can get past the tax collector that easily. In an item of further interest---smokers actually cost society less $$ than non-smokers in health care costs since they don't live as long---a statistic no one likes to talk about.

Unfortunately, they don't have the decency to die quickly and quietly, and that last year of treatment for cancer is wicked expensive.

MountainDon · April 11, 2009, 10:29:21 PM

Some are too far gone by the time they are diagnosed there's not much to be done, not that much expense.

From http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/apr/08/health-care-costs-smokers-debated/

Smokers vs. nonsmokers

However, smokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs.

Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.

"It looks unpleasant or ghoulish to look at the cost savings as well as the cost increases and it's not a good thing that smoking kills people," Viscusi said in an interview. "But if you're going to follow this health-cost train all the way, you have to take into account all the effects, not just the ones you like."

and a recent article
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grPKdXZVlh6B19BSGvWKU7bQ_vQAD97DQ7D80

rwanders · April 11, 2009, 10:36:38 PM

Quote from: Pox Eclipse on April 11, 2009, 10:03:09 PM
.

Unfortunately, they don't have the decency to die quickly and quietly, and that last year of treatment for cancer is wicked expensive.
[/quote]

Too often cancer treatments seem to be only offers to 'cut, burn and poison you" in hope that your good cells will be able to survive the onslaught. It's a terrible choice for anyone to face and I am not sure what choice I would make but, the older I get(66 now), I think I may pass on the "treatments" and just try and enjoy what time I would have left.

MountainDon · April 11, 2009, 10:41:03 PM

Quote from: rwanders on April 11, 2009, 10:36:38 PM
...the older I get(66 now), I think I may pass on the "treatments" and just try and enjoy what time I would have left.

Yep, from what I've seen I'm not sure about which way to go when you reach 60's+. 63 coming up here.

Sassy · April 11, 2009, 10:57:55 PM

A large percentage of veterans are smokers or smoked for 30+ years, so I see 1st hand what smoking does to them. Emphysema, COPD, congestive heart failure, elevated blood pressure, ED (erectile dysfunction), lung, throat, mouth, bladder cancer... I would say that the largest % of what the VA treats are for smoking related problems. Yes, I've heard the argument "well, they gave me the cigarettes in the military; if I didn't smoke, I didn't get a break" - somewhat valid, but at some time or another, a person has to decide if they are going to take control of their life & choose to stop or suffer the complications of smoking while continuing to blame someone else...

You could say the same thing about being over weight - lots of complications there - arthritis, elevated blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease...

face it, living will eventually kill ya

considerations · April 11, 2009, 11:32:59 PM

Ok - so what we know is that no person is perfect and none of us get out of this alive.

Addictions don't seem to respond to logic. Some people can beat an addiction, some can't....and there are those that don't want to. So far, from what I've seen, the only one who can permanently clean up an addict is that addict.

I think one just has to decide for oneself what their own life is going to look like, and do their best to make it that way.

There are some really sad things that happen to people because of tabacco/drinking/drugs/overeating ad nauseum. I wish that suffering didn't happen. But I'm in no position to judge, other than to not allow persons who's behavior is not pleasant or appears dangerous to me or mine to be in my space.

I haven't found a way to legislate common sense.