Are You Smokers Looking Up?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KennyFlys
  • Start date Start date
New York and Maine smokers should be "Looking UP" at their respective tax charts.
New York, apparently, has increased the tax per pack of cigarettes; and Maine is primed to go to $4.00 Tax on each package.

HR
 
Lawreston said:
New York and Maine smokers should be "Looking UP" at their respective tax charts.
New York, apparently, has increased the tax per pack of cigarettes; and Maine is primed to go to $4.00 Tax on each package.

HR
Click to expand...
Grow it in your garden and enjoy organic cigarettes.
 
Lawreston said:
New York and Maine smokers should be "Looking UP" at their respective tax charts.
New York, apparently, has increased the tax per pack of cigarettes; and Maine is primed to go to $4.00 Tax on each package.

HR
Click to expand...

Wow. With our highest taxes in the US it's not that high because packs are selling for like $3.80-$5.00. I dunno. I don't buy cigs but I see that on signs at the gas stations. Illinois has a 13% surtax over the 10-12% sales tax after that, though.

I'm sure the taxes amount to $2-3 a pack or $20-$30 on a carton.

I'm old enough to remember that 25 cents bought a gallon of gas, a pound of chicken or a pack of cigarettes, when a bottle of pop was 10 - 15 cents.
 
KennyFlys said:
Owl Gore should be up in arms over this! After all, didn't his family fortunce come from producing this fine product? If sales drop due to taxes, Gore may go broke!
Click to expand...

Tobacco companies aren't worried... They've got a billion smokers in Asia, and people there just keep having more and more disposable income to spend on things like cigarettes. They're not going anywhere.

Back to the original topic, though: What I've always wondered is, do people really think those kinds of gimmicks work? As a recently-turned ex-smoker, I can tell you it's a pretty safe bet that those things (along with those obnoxious and cloying "Truth" ads and the like) have influenced practically no smokers to quit. What I think they do do is give people an opportunity to exercise some self-superiority; that "I think I'm going to live longer than you" is kind of the ultimate bit of smack talk doesn't make it any less juvenile, nor does it effectively influence people to quit.
 
They spent the settlement money in my state on those idiotic commercials. Cancer research might have been more appropriate. More taxes on cigarettes are good, smokers spend plenty of our dollars on their self-inflicted diseases.
 
steingar said:
They spent the settlement money in my state on those idiotic commercials. Cancer research might have been more appropriate. More taxes on cigarettes are good, smokers spend plenty of our dollars on their self-inflicted diseases.
Click to expand...


I have just as much rights to smoke as you have not to.
And while we are going after SELF INFLICTED DESEASES lets put a BIG tax on BEER :cheers:and WINE:wineglass: and WISKEY :drink:and cant forget Taxing Food more, that causes you to get FAT and have a heart attack.:yes:

Dave G.


P.S. Sorry about my post but i'm tired of all the Hollier then thou attitudes about smoking, and needed to vent
 
Shipoke said:
I have just as much rights to smoke as you have not to.
And while we are going after SELF INFLICTED DESEASES lets put a BIG tax on BEER :cheers:and WINE:wineglass: and WISKEY :drink:and cant forget Taxing Food more, that causes you to get FAT and have a heart attack.:yes:
...
Click to expand...

Move to Illinois, Dave. All done, expect the food gets a lower tax rate as long as it's not fast food - and they DID float the idea of a surtax on fast food. At one point they said it was because the wrappers were such a blight. There is a surtax on restaurants in downtown Chicago. County tax is $2(?) on six pack and $3(?) on a fifth and 25 cents on soda pop and water and....
 
mikea said:
Move to Illinois, Dave. All done, expect the food gets a lower tax rate as long as it's not fast food - and they DID float the idea of a surtax on fast food. At one point they said it was because the wrappers were such a blight. There is a surtax on restaurants in downtown Chicago. County tax is $2(?) on six pack and $3(?) on a fifth and 25 cents on soda pop and water and....
Click to expand...

Don't even get me started on foie gras!!
 
I'm a non-smoker. It's disgusting, can't stand the habit.

I'm in favor of banning smoking in workplaces, and bars. It's very intrusive. It's so nice to go out and not come home stinking.

That being said, the anti-smoking thing has gone waaaay overboard. It's a choice, and as others have mentioned, a few billboards exposing the threat of lung cancer won't stop them. As long as the smoke isn't affecting me, and I'm not picking up the health care tab, I say puff away.

My fear is that, having slayed the tobacco dragon, our friends in the trial bar will turn their attention to booze. They've already started the campaign, abetted by the witless national press, which willingly uses the trial bar's preferred term of "Big Liquor" to refer to the booze business.

One day they came for me, and no one was left to help me.
 
flyersfan31 said:
I'm a non-smoker. It's disgusting, can't stand the habit.

I'm in favor of banning smoking in workplaces, and bars. It's very intrusive. It's so nice to go out and not come home stinking.

That being said, the anti-smoking thing has gone waaaay overboard. It's a choice, and as others have mentioned, a few billboards exposing the threat of lung cancer won't stop them. As long as the smoke isn't affecting me, and I'm not picking up the health care tab, I say puff away.

My fear is that, having slayed the tobacco dragon, our friends in the trial bar will turn their attention to booze. They've already started the campaign, abetted by the witless national press, which willingly uses the trial bar's preferred term of "Big Liquor" to refer to the booze business.

One day they came for me, and no one was left to help me.
Click to expand...

That's one of the things that always bothered me... I mean how condescending is that? I may have made the stupid choice to start smoking, but I'm not a complete moron. I know smoking leads to cancer and emphysema, etc etc. Do the people behind these billboards really think they do any good? Like somebody driving along on the expressway, puffing on a Camel sees one of those billboards and is like, "What?!?! These things cause cancer?!?!? Why didn't somebody tell me? My God!"

I mean come on. And the ceiling mural in the original post is the same thing: "You're going to get cancer and die and I'm not. Nyah-nyah!"
 
I wounder what the federal, state and local governments are going to do if everyone does quit smoking? What will the tax next? Oh that's righrt thery are already trying to tax fast food and sodas.
Ron
 
smigaldi said:
I was in the city this weekend and refused to buy any bottled water. Two cup of Starbucks instead. I felt like throwing the empty cups in the river as a protest.
Click to expand...
Well in Chicago you don't really need bottled water. Their tap water actually tastes okay!

And as for smoking, I'll say that we just added a restaurant to our flyout list (www.shannonslanding.net at KIGQ), partly because they no longer allow smoking. In the past, I literally had trouble breathing when I approached the door, so we just walked away. So yes, I exercised my choice. However, it was influenced by others' exercising their choice to smoke. Had it been liquor, it wouldn't have been an issue because it wouldn't have detrimentally affected me, unless the others were so loud and boisterous they were creating a disturbance. That's the difference between drinking and smoking.
 
So I've been an off-and-on smoker for the past few years. Currently, the better half and I each have one Ultra-Light cigarette when we get home from work at night. About 3-4 years ago, Houston banned smoking in all restaurants, but still allowed it in bars (defined by having x % of your total revenue coming from alcohol sales). They even allowed it in the bar areas of restaurants, provided that it was separated from the restaurant section and well-ventilated. Then, about 1 1/2 years ago, they extended the ban to all bars.

I have mixed feelings on all of this. The only time I really chain smoke is when I'm drinking. Now, if the bar has a set patio area where I can smoke and drink, no problem. But I can't say that I've spent much time in bars where you can't bring your drink with you to the smoking area. So that's one negative.

I'm also not sure that I like the government being able to tell privately-owned businesses what they can and can't do in their private business. Now, I'm not advocating that people be allowed to sell illegal drugs or engage in other nefarious activities, but if a business owner wants to allow people to smoke in their privately-owned business place, then they should be able to. If they want to ban smoking, that's their choice. I feel the same way about strip clubs - if the owner of the business wants to allow people to be completely nude within the confines of their private business, then they should be able to. The government has no business saying that it's indecent and that pasties and underwear need to be worn. If members of the public don't like the smoke, or they are offended by someone being completely nude, they can choose not to patronize those private businesses.

Last negative is that this Houston example is another argument why we should oppose user fees on turbine aircraft. Once the foot is in the door (restaurants in Houston), then it's easier to expand it to everyone (bars in Houston too).

All of that being said, I do see the value of being able to go out for an evening and not coming back reeking of cigarette smoke (or smelling it in the girlfriend's hair all night).

Okay, off my soap box.
 
yea PJ, governor of Iowa just signed a similar bill, takes effect July 1 for the whole state. i dont smoke but am not sure if I feel its the right approach to the problem. When I go out to the bars I know that Im going to inhale second hand smoke and come home smelly. thats part of the decision i make.
 
Drifting into politics here...if you want the thread to stay in Hangar Talk, might wanna drift it away again. :)
 
t0r0nad0 said:
I'm also not sure that I like the government being able to tell privately-owned businesses what they can and can't do in their private business.
Click to expand...
I don't want to drift much further into it. But ask you think how is it any different than OSHA? That is the government telling private business how to run their company. Or to keep it in a aviation focus. How is it any different than a part 135 or 121 operation? Again that is the government telling how a private business will be run.

If you really want me to rant though bring up the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Greebo said:
Drifting into politics here...if you want the thread to stay in Hangar Talk, might wanna drift it away again. :)
Click to expand...
roger, turning left (wait that could be political).. turning right (nope can't do that either). ascending to FL250 to avoid political fall out. :D
 
Yeah, Scott... point taken. It's definitely a fine line, and a very subjective one. Not going to take this any further so as to keep it out of the Zone, which I try to ignore as much as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top