Federal Exise Tax on Cigerettes and Cigars

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

If it was regulated solely for money, Dave, there'd be manure in them instead of tobacco.

As a matter of fact. I can't say about manure specifically but I would not be surprised.

I do know they put all kinds of crap filler in such as catnip.

It's true, the Chinese knockoff cigarettes have been found to contain manure (there was a story about this in newsday, but that article looks to be gone already). And they unfortunately seem to be more popular here not only because they are cheaper but because they stay lit when being held not smoked, so there are lots of lit cigarettes on the ground all over the city. (The "safety" standards on normal cigarettes say they have to burn out if not puffed).

The fakes look to be healthier though!

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08...what_in_tar_nation.htm

 

[Saint Michael]

Illegalize cigarettes and alcohol or legalize marijuana and whatever else. I see no difference.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael
Illegalize cigarettes and alcohol or legalize marijuana and whatever else. I see no difference.

Our elected leaders don't have the balls to legalize MJ so make cigs & booze illegal, too. I wonder if I will ever see MJ legalized in my lifetime. TBH, when I was a younger man I thought for sure by the year 2000 it would be..

 

[Gaard]

Are there any positives to smoking? (Just wondering)

Mind if I toot my own horn? I smoked a pack a day for 20+ years and quit cold turkey.

BoberFett - Are you really an asshole or are you just 'playing on the internet'?
The guy's grandparents died of lung cancer (it's not a pretty way to go) and you seem intent on insulting them (and everyone).

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: Harvey
I truly hate the tobacco companies. I think every tobacco exec for the last fifty years should be tried for crimes against humanity for the killer products they continue to market. I watched those lying assholes raise their hands before Congress and swear that tobacco was not addictive or carcinogenic.

If those lying FIG PUCKERS believed 1% of the saccharine crap they put in their commercials about helping to stop kids from smoking, or any of their other BS, they'd simply stop manufacturing tobacco products. You can get a better idea of their true motives and intentions from these remarks by Louis C. Camilleri, Altria's chairman and chief executive officer at their 2004 annual shareholders meeting:

All in all, we had a solid first quarter that met our expectations. PM USA had a strong quarter with robust retail share growth, driven by Marlboro. Philip Morris International (PMI) delivered market share gains in many top markets, although total volume growth was adversely impacted by declines in France, Germany and Italy. Kraft is making investments to improve volume and share trends -- and its Sustainable Growth Plan is on track.

A few years ago, California passed an initiatiative that is one of the strongest anti-smoking laws in the country. Despite the tobacco lobby spending a record amount for a private interest to defeat this initiative, it passed by a record margin of 80% - 20% margin. In the very next session of the state legislature, our elected representatives in the State Assembly passed a bill to overturn that initiative. Fortunately, the media stink that followed caused the State Senate to think better of the idea and kill it. I still have to wonder how much money it takes to get over half of a state legilative body to overturn a law passed by 80% of the voters.

To hide the association with their other products, they now call the parent company, Altria. From their site

Marketing Excellence and Innovation

Philip Morris International?s brand portfolio includes seven of the top 20 international brands, including Marlboro, which has been the best-selling international cigarette brand since 1972, and L&M, which is now the No. 3 brand in the world over the last decade. Other

brands include Philip Morris, Chesterfield, Bond Street, Lark and Parliament.

Can you say lying, two faced mofos, boys and girls? :|

If you don't smoke, your buying decisions about tobacco are irrelevant to them. However, you, and those with whom you share the info, below, can have an effect by boycotting tobacco-owned food products, depriving them of income from those sources.

Here's a list from Philip Morris' Altria/Kraft Foods site:

Altoids mints
Athenos Cheeses
Baker's Chocolate and Coconut
Breakstone's Sour Cream, Cottage Cheese, etc.
Breyer's Ice Cream, Yogurt, etc.
Bull's-Eye barbecue and grilling sauces
California Pizza Kitchen pizza
Callard & Bowser Toffees
Calumet Baking Powder
Campbell Soups
Capri Sun
Churny Cheeses
Claussen Pickles
Comet Cups Icecream Cones
Cool Whip
Country Time (pseudo) Lemonade (They really should call this a kit, instead of a mix.)
Cracker Barrel cheeses
CremeSavers
Crystal Light
D-Zerta
Di Giorno Italian foods
Easy Cheese Process Cheese Spread
General Foods (all products)
Good Seasons Salad Dressing Mixes
Grey Poupon
Handi-Snacks
Harvest Moon cheeses
Hoffman's cheeses
Jack's Pizza
Jello
Jet-Puffed
Knudsen dairy products
Kool-Aid
Kool Stuf Toaster Pastries
Kraft Foods
La Vie De La Vosgienne candies
Life Savers
Light n' Lively cottage cheese
Louis Rich lunch meats
Lunchables
Maxwell House Coffee
Milk-Bone Dog Biscuits
Milka L'il Scoops
Miller Beer
Minute Rice
Mirácoli pasta
Nabisco products
Oscar Meyer
Oven Fry Coatings
Polly-O Cheeses
Post Cereals
Ragu Sauces, etc.
Sanka Coffee
Sather's Candies
Sauceworks
Sealtest dairy products
Seven Seas Salad Dressings
Shake 'N Bake
Starbucks coffees (Packaged products in stores)
Stove Top Stuffings, etc.
Taco Bell dinner kits, Salsa, etc.
Tang
Temp-tee cream cheese
Terry's candies
Toblerone and Tobler Candies
Tombstone Pizza (appropriate, don't ya think?) :roll:
Trolli Candies
Woody's Cold Pack Cheese
Yuban Coffee

I've lost far too many friends in far too short a time to tobacco related illnesses. And before any of you children go off on me about my friends making their own choices, remember, they target their ads at kids. I'm 65, and when my friends and I were kids, there were no warnings on cigarette packs. However, there were lots of ads on radio and TV glamorizing smoking, including ads that said strange things like, more doctors recommend one brand over another.

They still target kids.

Death to the tobacco murderers! :| :| :|

Like anything else, legal or not; if there wasn't a market for the product, the product would go away.

People are spending / have spent their money as they see fit. The "tobacco murderers" were marketing and (still are) selling a legal product.

I think the real villans here are the governmental (fed, state and local) money junkies who make more profit on the sale than the growers and manufacturers do (same for gasoline). If the government wasn't making big bucks outta the deal, you can bet it'd be illegal (with a growing bootleg / smuggling industry/ black market).


They still target kids.

If parents in general did a better job at tending their offspring, they could market to 'em till the cows came home and they still wouldn't pick up smoking (drinking, irresponsible sex, jumping from railcar to railcar , etc ...).

As long as there's good money in it (for the government) it'll be legal.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: glugglug

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

If it was regulated solely for money, Dave, there'd be manure in them instead of tobacco.

As a matter of fact. I can't say about manure specifically but I would not be surprised.

I do know they put all kinds of crap filler in such as catnip.

It's true, the Chinese knockoff cigarettes have been found to contain manure (there was a story about this in newsday, but that article looks to be gone already). And they unfortunately seem to be more popular here not only because they are cheaper but because they stay lit when being held not smoked, so there are lots of lit cigarettes on the ground all over the city. (The "safety" standards on normal cigarettes say they have to burn out if not puffed).

The fakes look to be healthier though!

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08...what_in_tar_nation.htm

8-16-2007 Not only did the fake cigarettes have higher levels of harmful tar and nicotine, but in some cases they were also filled with manure and other vegetation.

Dangerously, the counterfeits don't conform to state safety laws, which require that cigarettes burn out if they're not puffed.

The case will be prosecuted by Queens District Attorney Richard Brown, but there is a big role for federal authorities, and it shouldn't end with the deportation of a handful of illegal operatives.

What needs to be answered are the more troubling questions of where this cargo entered the country, how it got through customs and whether, as security experts contend, the huge profits made by smuggling cigarettes support terrorist activities.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: glugglug

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

If it was regulated solely for money, Dave, there'd be manure in them instead of tobacco.

As a matter of fact. I can't say about manure specifically but I would not be surprised.

I do know they put all kinds of crap filler in such as catnip.

It's true, the Chinese knockoff cigarettes have been found to contain manure (there was a story about this in newsday, but that article looks to be gone already). And they unfortunately seem to be more popular here not only because they are cheaper but because they stay lit when being held not smoked, so there are lots of lit cigarettes on the ground all over the city. (The "safety" standards on normal cigarettes say they have to burn out if not puffed).

The fakes look to be healthier though!

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08...what_in_tar_nation.htm

8-16-2007 Not only did the fake cigarettes have higher levels of harmful tar and nicotine, but in some cases they were also filled with manure and other vegetation.

Dangerously, the counterfeits don't conform to state safety laws, which require that cigarettes burn out if they're not puffed.

The case will be prosecuted by Queens District Attorney Richard Brown, but there is a big role for federal authorities, and it shouldn't end with the deportation of a handful of illegal operatives.

What needs to be answered are the more troubling questions of where this cargo entered the country, how it got through customs and whether, as security experts contend, the huge profits made by smuggling cigarettes support terrorist activities.

Thanks for proving my point, Dave.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
the huge profits made by smuggling cigarettes support terrorist activities.

Thanks for proving my point, Dave.

Well if China is supporting Terrists through the sale of fake cigarettes et al, it is all the more reason to cease all trade relations immediately.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Are there any positives to smoking? (Just wondering)

Mind if I toot my own horn? I smoked a pack a day for 20+ years and quit cold turkey.

BoberFett - Are you really an asshole or are you just 'playing on the internet'?
The guy's grandparents died of lung cancer (it's not a pretty way to go) and you seem intent on insulting them (and everyone).

His was a common tactic. During an argument, bring up a subject we're all supposed to respect with silent reverence so that if anybody argues against that point, they look like an asshole. I already know I'm an asshole, so I'm not afraid to say what everybody else is already thinking. If he doesn't want the death of his grandparents to be used in an argument, he shouldn't have brought them up in the first place. He used them as his argument for supporting measures again smoking, so they're fair game for me to attack. He used his grandparents as tools for his agenda, I see no reason to treat them as a hallowed subject.

Edit: In addition, he never answered my question so I'm assuming his grandparents continued smoking from the day the warning label hit cigarette packs until they day they landed in the hospital. His argument was an appeal to emotion, and I called him on it.

 

[Gneisenau]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: Wreckem
I felt this deserved its own thread.

Tucked inside the SCHIP Bill is this little, extremely regressive tax, on cigerettes. As passed by the House, the bill would increase the federal excise tax on cigerettes by $.45 and increase the taxes on cigars by 200%.

This is an extremely regressive tax, that will HURT the poor, who are vast majority of those who smoke. Some places in the country will be over $9 a pack as a result. Cigerettes are already the MOST taxed item in the country, when is enough, enough?

And no I don't smoke, but this type of tax is going to hurt the "working poor" as Dave likes to call them, more than anyone else. Its also highly discriminatory and IMHO just a bad idea offered up by the democrats.

It seems the the democrats have a penchent for adding tax increases to unrelated bills as of late(the farm bill and schip bills both have tax increases tucked away in them). For those who don't know the democrats managed to get a tax increase on foriegn companies operating and employing americans in the United States. And people say we have a problem with unempolyment, obviously the Democrats dont think so since they decided to increase the tax on foreign companies employing americans in the United States.

We have a government budget that is way, way out of wack due to your beloved GWB.

Far as I'm concerned increase this tax as high as possible. At a bare minimum, the governement's tax revenues from tobacco should-at a minimum-cover all the expenses we, the public, will have to pick up caused by tobacco. Health care is outrageously expensive in the USA and tobacco use contributes mightly to the "demand" (or more accurately, the need) for such increased levels of health care.

I don't agree with Shivetya that a ban of cigarettes is called for. It clearly won't work-look at Prohibition.

Nice idea to use the tax to offset health care for smokers. It's never happened before with taxes for smoking. CA's huge tax increase for just this thing didn't increase a dime to health care. It payed for a few commercials and the rest went into the general funds.

If by some stoke of luck, it does curb smoking, the politicians aren't going to let that lost revenue go away. They will simply raise some other tax to compensate. If you realize that and are still for it, I won't argue. Just don't expect the tax to disappear, and don't expect the money from here to actually be used for health care for smokers or anti-smoking campains.

 

[Gneisenau]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Shivetya
The government needs to ban cigarettes.

Nothing like freedom, eh comrade?

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I wasn't aware of candy causing cancer.

No, but if you eat $9 worth of a candy a day you're going to end up with diabetes and heart disease.

Got any more bright comments, moron?

Of course I do. You should know better.

You honestly believe that if cigarettes were invented now that the FDA would allow them to be unleahed on the general public???

nope, nor alcohol, nor asprin or about a thousand other items people use everyday. I suspect if cars were invented today the governement wouldn't allow them unleashed on the public due to safety reasons, or swimming pools, or matches...

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: SeaSerpent
All the government is doing is taking advantage of a person's addiction.

an addiction they can stop....no one is born with a

-smoke in their mouth
-a beer in their hand
-a lottery ticket in their pocket

those are all things people choose (and that is the operative word here) and if you choose to partake in those activities then you better be prepared to pay the price.


pretty simple really.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
the huge profits made by smuggling cigarettes support terrorist activities.

Thanks for proving my point, Dave.

Well if China is supporting Terrists through the sale of fake cigarettes et al, it is all the more reason to cease all trade relations immediately.

No, you proved my point that unregulated black market cigarettes would contain manure.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vic
No, you proved my point that unregulated black market cigarettes would contain manure.

It could be worse. They could contain tobacco. :frown:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Vic
No, you proved my point that unregulated black market cigarettes would contain manure.

It could be worse. They could contain tobacco. :frown:

Duh.

Yaknow, Harvey, I'm terribly sorry that some of your friends and family killed themselves with cigarettes, but that's no excuse for wanting to push your own brand of Puritanism on the rest of us.
And before you fly off the handle as usual, keep in mind that I'm an ex-smoker myself. I smoked a pack or more a day for 15 years. NO ONE and I repeat NO ONE who smokes doesn't know that it's bad for them, even killing them. The line that everyone thought they were perfectly healthy is total BS... "Smoking? Bad for you? *puff* *puff* *cough* *cough* Why these things are completely harmless *hack* *hack*"
Give it a rest. I know that flies with the never-smoked crowd but the ex-smokers know better. That's why we put ourselves through the heroin-like withdrawal agony of quitting.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Gneisenau

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: Wreckem
I felt this deserved its own thread.

Tucked inside the SCHIP Bill is this little, extremely regressive tax, on cigerettes. As passed by the House, the bill would increase the federal excise tax on cigerettes by $.45 and increase the taxes on cigars by 200%.

This is an extremely regressive tax, that will HURT the poor, who are vast majority of those who smoke. Some places in the country will be over $9 a pack as a result. Cigerettes are already the MOST taxed item in the country, when is enough, enough?

And no I don't smoke, but this type of tax is going to hurt the "working poor" as Dave likes to call them, more than anyone else. Its also highly discriminatory and IMHO just a bad idea offered up by the democrats.

It seems the the democrats have a penchent for adding tax increases to unrelated bills as of late(the farm bill and schip bills both have tax increases tucked away in them). For those who don't know the democrats managed to get a tax increase on foriegn companies operating and employing americans in the United States. And people say we have a problem with unempolyment, obviously the Democrats dont think so since they decided to increase the tax on foreign companies employing americans in the United States.

We have a government budget that is way, way out of wack due to your beloved GWB.

Far as I'm concerned increase this tax as high as possible. At a bare minimum, the governement's tax revenues from tobacco should-at a minimum-cover all the expenses we, the public, will have to pick up caused by tobacco. Health care is outrageously expensive in the USA and tobacco use contributes mightly to the "demand" (or more accurately, the need) for such increased levels of health care.

I don't agree with Shivetya that a ban of cigarettes is called for. It clearly won't work-look at Prohibition.

Nice idea to use the tax to offset health care for smokers. It's never happened before with taxes for smoking. CA's huge tax increase for just this thing didn't increase a dime to health care. It payed for a few commercials and the rest went into the general funds.

If by some stoke of luck, it does curb smoking, the politicians aren't going to let that lost revenue go away. They will simply raise some other tax to compensate. If you realize that and are still for it, I won't argue. Just don't expect the tax to disappear, and don't expect the money from here to actually be used for health care for smokers or anti-smoking campains.

I seem to recall these MASSIVE settlements between the states and the tobacco companies, where the money was supposed to cover health related expenses of smokers in their states.

Oh right its the govt, they dont know how to keep their dirty fingers out of the cookie jar.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
As long as there's good money in it (for the government) it'll be legal.

And exactly what makes that right? That attitude of acceptance, just because that's the way it is, now, is the same reason we continue to be stuck with the current Criminal In Chief and his cabal of traitors.

This CDC report for 1995--1999 isn't the latest report, but it's the one I found quickly for this post.

Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Economic Costs --- United States, 1995--1999

Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States and produces substantial health-related economic costs to society. This report presents the annual estimates of the disease impact of smoking in the United States during 1995--1999. CDC calculated national estimates of annual smoking-attributable mortality (SAM), years of potential life lost (YPLL), smoking-attributable medical expenditures (SAEs) for adults and infants, and productivity costs for adults. Results show that during 1995--1999, smoking caused approximately 440,000 premature deaths in the United States annually and approximately $157 billion in annual health-related economic losses. Implementation of comprehensive tobacco-control programs as recommended by CDC could effectively reduce the prevalence, disease impact, and economic costs of smoking.

That's a hell of a lot of deaths that could be prevented and a lot of money to save, even if the pols squander it elsewhere.

Originally posted by: Vic
Yaknow, Harvey, I'm terribly sorry that some of your friends and family killed themselves with cigarettes, but that's no excuse for wanting to push your own brand of Puritanism on the rest of us.

Vic -- Remeber the prime directive... When all else fails, RTFM (Read The Fscking Manual)! In my post, I said:

And before any of you children go off on me about my friends making their own choices, remember, they target their ads at kids. I'm 65, and when my friends and I were kids, there were no warnings on cigarette packs. However, there were lots of ads on radio and TV glamorizing smoking, including ads that said strange things like, more doctors recommend one brand over another.

That's why we put ourselves through the heroin-like withdrawal agony of quitting.

And that's a great reason to join my boycott. I'm glad you managed to quit. Now, you and others who are pissed at what they did to you can do more to deprive the blood suckers who are still trying to claim new addicts of money from their food products by simply choosing other brands. It's easy, and it costs you nothing. In fact, it will probably get you better products for less money.

Originally posted by: Wreckem

I seem to recall these MASSIVE settlements between the states and the tobacco companies, where the money was supposed to cover health related expenses of smokers in their states.

Oh right its the govt, they dont know how to keep their dirty fingers out of the cookie jar.

Same answer as I gave to ScottMac. The fact that it's that way doesn't make it right. It means we need to do more to change it.

 

[Vic]

Sorry, Harvey, I won't join your Puritanical of blaming nebulous Satans (who are actually just humans that you've dehumanized). What's next? Bring back alcohol prohibition? Stick it to those evil alcohol murderers?

Go join some fundie church. You'd fit right in.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vic
Sorry, Harvey, I won't join your Puritanical of blaming nebulous Satans (who are actually just humans that you've dehumanized).

Sorry, Vic, I won't join your willing blindness to the murder committed by absolutely defined tobacco execs for over fifty years of lies, deceit, and corruption of our legislative system to keep their poison legal. What's next? Eliminate the FDA, the CDC and other agencies charged with protecting public health and allow the unchecked spread of communicable diseases? Should we revoke laws against speeding on the public roads? How about saftey requirements for public air carriers? :roll:

Should I ask you to go back to smoking? If you do, please keep it to yourself... unless you'd prefer to share all your toxins with those close to you.

Go join some fundie church. You'd fit right in.

I don't think there are any fundamentalist churches for atheists. :laugh:

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Harvey
I don't think there are any fundamentalist churches for atheists. :laugh:

Really? I thought that's what this forum was.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Vic
Sorry, Harvey, I won't join your Puritanical of blaming nebulous Satans (who are actually just humans that you've dehumanized).

Sorry, Vic, I won't join your willing blindness to the murder committed by absolutely defined tobacco execs for over fifty years of lies, deceit, and corruption of our legislative system to keep their poison legal. What's next? Eliminate the FDA, the CDC and other agencies charged with protecting public health and allow the unchecked spread of communicable diseases? Should we revoke laws against speeding on the public roads? How about saftey requirements for public air carriers? :roll:

Should I ask you to go back to smoking? If you do, please keep it to yourself... unless you'd prefer to share all your toxins with those close to you.

Go join some fundie church. You'd fit right in.

I don't think there are any fundamentalist churches for atheists. :laugh:

Oh sure there are. A lot of fundies are atheists deep down. They're not in it for any God, they're in it to fight some group of humans that they're dehumanized into Satans. Yaknow, like gays, druggies, smokers, faceless tobacco execs, etc. Most religions are like that. See? You're just like them, you just have a different god.

And of course, Harvey, the only reason I want to prevent you from abusing our legal system is because I want to do away with the legal system entirely...
What you don't want to ban alcohol too? What do you want to do next? Legalize rape? :roll:

 

[Wreckem]

Just thought Id update this a little, bit since the Senate is yet to vote on their version but it should be soon.

The Senate's version calls for a 61 cent per pack increase.

With both bills there are also large increases on roll you own tobacco, rolling, papers, pipe tobacco, and smokeless tobacco.

If you go to thomas.loc.gov you can look up the text of both bills.

They ar H.R. 3162 and S 1893

The SCHIP Reauthorization Bill(s) of 2007.

 

[BoberFett]

Obviously this tax is necessary and proper, you should be in full support.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Obviously this tax is necessary and proper, you should be in full support.

*rolls eyes*

Ive never voiced an opinion one way or another in those other threads. I just merely said congress has the authority from the constitution.

They have the authority to increase this tax as well. Now is it right? No, atleast with income taxes, everyone pays income taxes, unless they well dont make squat. With taxes like these they only target specific groups which is slightly discriminatory.

 

[BoberFett]

It doesn't target a specific group. People can choose not to smoke if they don't want to pay the tax. It's necessary. And proper.