States Squandering Tobacco Settlement Money. Also Being Used To Help Elect Democratic Politicians

email | ABC - John Stossel

[SheLion]

I know, I've been fighting this for the better part of six months now.

Since we are talking about MO, I was hoping you would come along! :)

[Just another Joe]

Oh yeh. I check 'em all. I only post where I think I can do some good.

[Gabz]

The speaking out of both sides of the mouth is hysterical.

Especially about higher taxes will get more people to quit - yet in the next breath they claim that smokers are so addicted that they can not just quit without the help of the government and the pharacuetical companies.

And to thebig spenders - I had such high hopes for the firts female Governor of Delaware - even though she is a Democrat in all her years in the State Senate she was a majorly fiscally conservative person.

Here we are just through the 1st quarter of the fiscal year andalready there is a 95million projected shortfall.

When we faced on last spring her idea was a 35cent a pack tax increase so state employees could get a raise. Suddenly she got her smoking ban and then there was enough money---gee how convenient.

Now she's calling for a 50cent a pack increase to help cover the shortfall. I think she's got another thing coming to her come January.

Smokers are ticked and have woken up in Delaware - no way is it going to be easy to increase that tax and not any others.

[SheLion]

Smokers are ticked and have woken up in Delaware - no way is it going to be easy to increase that tax and not any others.

Well, you figure: if 25-30% of the people in the state smoke, why oh why is it fair to put the budget burden on the backs of the smokers? It's not fair! All the people in each state need to help carry the load. Not just one small group of people who choose to smoke a legal product.

[SheLion]

Oh yeh. I check 'em all. I only post where I think I can do some good.

You do a LOT of good, Joe. Even your rants are good.

[Gabz]

Not just one small group of people who choose to smoke a legal product.

Exactly - and when you figure a lot more people drink alcohol than smoke tobacco and then look at the discrepency between the 2 - it's even worse - in Delaware alone it is nearly 5 tto 1 (tobacco revenue 50 million; alcohol taxes 11 million)

And of course many smokers are also drinkers so are hit even more.

[Just another Joe]

Gee, you're making me blush.

[TC Rider]

North and South Carolina only entered the lawsuit so as to lessen its effect on the tobacco industry from within. So it should come as no surprise that North Carolina would spend it to help the tobacco industry. North Carolina is probably the only state not being hypocritical with the money.

Amen, NC was very up front about using the money to help tobacco farmers, who were only growing a legal crop.

Part of the problem for tobacco farms is that tobacco provided the greatest revenue per acre of any legal crop. Many farmers had sold off acreage, allowing their farms to shrink to the size of their tobacco allotments.

Now, if they give up their allotment, there is no legal crop that will provide them with the same revenue.

[Drammach]

Thanks for the RWJ info.

I hadn't even considered the anti smoking money from outside political forces.

[Drammach]

Thanks for the info.

Guess I'll have to get out the calculator and figure out the new, "combined" tax revenue.
But, that's why I buy bulk tobacco and roll my own.

[Just another Joe]

But, that's why I buy bulk tobacco and roll my own.

I do also. But the 20% will be on bulk tobacco too.

[SheLion]

I hadn't even considered the anti smoking money from outside political forces.

Yes, the war on the smoker runs deep. It's all about money and politics.