RE: O/T: Damn Cigarettes

[Leon]

Over seas while on the ship my dad paid 4 cents per pack, 5 cents on land. 1946

Yes

[Bill]

On a slow day, I inquired about this to the cashier at Walgreen (Pharmacy), more than 10 years ago. But she didn't seem to understand what I was talking about, and she that she "only worked there part-time". So in case you have any questions about what some of these cashiers are really thinking about, I offer you that data point! ; )

[Leon]

Perhaps Lew, if you had given all of the details it would have made more sense the first time around.

And you call that move, giving up at fighting the law, a good will gesture???

[Bill]

I saw the "announcement" on the evening news.

[Lew Hodgett]

------------------------------------------------- Taken from the web on background for much of the day after the original post.

I'm just a parrot on this one.

Lew

[Swingman]

Meh. Damned progressives. If they can't constitutionally ban it, they will attempt to tax it to death, thereby increasing crime, and more excuses to fill the prisons:

Government blatantly chasing revenue under the guise of social cost is a sign of the times, another way to fool the ever increasing gullible, and another nail in the coffin of freedom of choice.

How soon that failed experiment in wielding 'social cost', Prohibition, is forgotten ... as if the current "war on drugs" isn't enough to foment crime and chaos.

[none]

Really? You're complaining that taxing cigarettes is increasing crime? You've got to be kidding. You're one of the smartest people I know, but your IQ just dropped twenty points.

Whatever crime and costs that might be attributed to taxing cigarettes is VASTLY overshadowed by the loss of lives and costs to the healthcare system from people smoking.

[Dave in Texas]

This morning's news say Walgreens is examining the policy contemplating a similar policy change.

"CVS cigarette move urges action by Walgreens, rivals" "Walgreen instead launches a free, Internet-based smoking cessation program"

Dave in SoTex

[Leon]

Government restriction of any form causes crime.

Think about prohibition.

You should move a little closer to the Texas Mexican border, you might change your mind. On a slow day dozens of people are killed in any given border town.

Now you might say that the drugs, which is the focus of all the violence, would not exist if the government was not restricting its use and or when cigarettes are eventually out lawed crime will increase even more.

The government should only maintain the infrastructure and protect our borders.

[none]

On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:30:02 -0600, Leon

Sorry, can't agree with that. While some of it maybe true, there are far too many benefits to regulating certain things that is ignored by your statement.

And, you're missing my point. Whatever crime that might be attached to restricting or taxing cigarettes is easily outdone by the devastating effects and costs that tobacco use has on society.

[Ed Pawlowski]

He is spot on. I see people going out of their way to circumvent that taxes. Buying mail order, buying out of state, and it is a hot item for thieves breaking into stores.

That may be true, but taxation has done very little to reduce the number of smokers. Some sort of education program may help. Taking away the "cool factor" for young teenagers would help a lot. I was about 13 when I started, just like the big kids, but was able to quite in my 20's.

>

[Leon]

Regulation and restriction are two different things.

I disagree, and those living in the southern US border towns that are being murdered because of the trafficking caused by government laws restricting any number of products would probably disagree too.

Granted cigarette smoking is harmful to your health but if warning labels and ads on TV and health education at the doctors office and in schools is not enough then adding taxes is not going to do any thing but prompt smokers to obtain their tobacco in another way, and that is typically is illegal.

[basilisk]

Much like Alabama's very high tax on alcohol, some 40% of the total retail cost, it doesn't seem to put a damper on peoples drinking habits.

It does make for a viable bootleg liquor market, both store bought and moonshine.

It is a short trip to Kentuckey where the price is low and a pickup load can net the bootlegger an easy $1000 dollar profit a trip. (that's a very conservative figure)

The price of cigarettes are even more grossly distorted from NC to the Nothern states, it's illegal but it is big business too.

None of this takes away from the fact that smoking does in fact kill millions, however we are Americans and should be able to choose our poison without much govt. interference.

basilisk

[Swingman]

No problem, just a drop in the bucket ... still got plenty left. ;)

Saving the life of someone willingly engaging in bad behavior is not my concern in the least.

It is a demand on the healthcare system only because progressive make it so.

Progressive thinking rarely takes into account the unintended consequences of their policies ... in this case rewarding bad behavior by providing healthcare for the consequences of same only encourages further bad behavior, of all types, including crime.

Look no further for the result of years of progressive policies by the rampant bad behavior exhibited in places like Detroit and Chicago.

Only one thing is absolutely unarguable ... all the above notwithstanding, a progressive politician can buy votes all the way to hell by promising to do so.

--

[none]

On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:20:29 -0600, Leon

So you're saying that it's a complete waste of time to tax tobacco and spend money on warnings and health education? I can't support that suggestion at all.

The vast majority of smokers would quit immediately if it was easy. No more bad taste in their mouths. No more sore throats, no more nicotine stained fingers. No more watching their money go up in smoke. All of these things made me quit smoking thirtyfive years ago. Smokers and non-smokers alike know that it's an unhealthy, dirty habit. Education about smoking has had a huge effect the masses.

The pictures and the ads of smoking caused cancer and other associated diseases have had an effect on people. If it was otherwise, everybody would be smoking and they're not. So how do you explain this? How do you explain people quitting smoking and people hating their smoking addiction if not for the education and the ads?

[Lew Hodgett]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frankly Mike, as far as education is concerned, everybody who is 25 or older is a write off.

You accept the fact these people are probably going to die of some form of lung disease regardless of what is done to get them to stop smoking and get on with life.

No the target market is the 10-18 year old group and there is where a real turf war is going on with the tobacco companies.

A war that education forces are SLOWLY gaining ground.

It's going to require a saturation advertising campaign to defeat the tobacco companies and I have no problem at all forcing the tobacco companies to pay for their own defeat.

As far as your rights to smoke when ever and where ever you chose, you have those rights as long as they don't foul the air I and other non smokers breathe.

When that happens, you no longer have the right to spew your tobacco smoke where ever you choose.

Speaking as an ex-smoker (25+ years), stopping smoking is probably the most difficult a human being will ever do, at least it was for me.

An ex-smoker who at one point or another in my life had a 2 pack a day or a box of cigars a week or a pound of pipe tobacco a week habit and all of which I inhaled, I can appreciate your addiction, but I don't tolerate it any more.

Today, I'm like stink on crap, when it comes to smoking.

I have no problem at all walking up to a complete stranger who is smoking and saying something like, "Aren't you're old enough to know better".

Very interesting the responses you get.

Lew

[none]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 16:55:40 -0500, "Mike Marlow"

Everything you've said maybe right. I can only argue my own experiences with smoking. I started at sixteen and quit when I was twentyfive as a pack a day smoker.

And to be honest, it was easy for me to quit because of the reasons I mentioned previously. I realized how tired I was of the sore throat, the bad taste in my mouth and the nicotine on my fingers. It was as if I'd just flipped a switch in my mind and that was it. If I could market that switch I'd become filthy rich overnight.

People have said to me that I wasn't addicted if I was able to quit so easily. Maybe so, and now I've grown to hate the very act of smoking. I lost both my parents to smoking related diseases and people like me may be flailing uselessly against this smoking addiction that people have. But, whether my actions are effective or not, I'll keep trying because just accepting the status quo means complete capitulation. I refuse to accept that.

[Swingman]

N In a nutshell, and as a former smoker of 30 years with a 3 pack at day habit the last ten ending 23 years ago, when a person continues to smoke despite knowing the very likely consequences to their health, they are on their own, and should have to live with the consequences of their actions.

The warnings and health education efforts are all admirable, and have made a remarkable dent in the number of smokers in this country. I'm all for continuing those efforts. And I'm fine with a company, like CVS, deciding to do business as they see fit and putting their money where their mouth/conscience is.

They are exercising freedom of choice.

But I am totally opposed to treating those who ignore the irrefutable data as a "social cost"; and who ignore the well known consequences of smoking because of a pleasurable experience they refuse to overcome because of an innate personal weakness.

Tough shit, Kemasabe, you want to be a victim, that's fine with me, but you live with it, and leave me and mine out of it.

[Swingman]

Rhetorical, for arguments sake "you", Dave, not you personally.

[none]

I'd be ok with that sentiment if that's where it ended, but it doesn't. As a society, we all pay for people who can't or won't change. We all benefit greatly being part of a society, but there's decided disadvantages too. You and yours are part of it whether you like it or not.