ECONOMIC LOSSES DUE TO SMOKING BANS IN CALIFORNA AND OTHER STATES

United Pro Choice ^ | 3-6-05 | David W. Kuneman and Michael J. McFadden

[Gabz]

I care if you subject me or my loved ones to your second-hand smoke. I care if you make me pay through my taxes that support medicare for indigent smokers who have spent all their money on thier habit and its results. I care if you are responsible for taking up medical research money that could be going to cure some disease that the sufferer can not prevent through a simple act of will.

You have not only drank it, but have completely inhaled the koolaid. Good Grief.

Stay out of smoker-friendly establishments and you will not be subjected to SHS. Smokers pay FAR more in taxes than you will ever, and the billions from the MSA were to go for indigent smokers, paid 100% by smokers - smokers can't help it that your elected representatives have chosen not to use that money for what it was for - take it up with them and not smokers.

As to medical research - the anti-smoker body-parts cartel spends more money on anti smoker koolaid that sheeple like you inhale than they spend on any kind of research - and the more they get smoker bans passed the more money they get to do more harm to small business.

Look in the mirror if you've got a problem - you antis are the CAUSE of the problems, not the smokers.

[EGPWS]

Open your own smoke-free place if it means so much to you an leave small business people alone.

Surely he can find a place somewhere with his self professed "worldly knowledge"!

[Gabz]

I live in a very smoker friendly area - and yet I can find a non-smoking establishment wihtout even trying. It's not a difficult thing to do.

In fact it is far easier to find a non-smoking establishment around here than it is for me to remain online any longer this evening.

Have a good one - FReep with you soon.

[Lucky Dog]

in other words, your selfishness has hurt a small business man.......I hope you are proud of yourself.

I am, thank you.

Open your own smoke-free place if it means so much to you an leave small business people alone.

In deed, I, now, do have my own small business. It is smoke free and that hurts it, so be it.

...typical liberal selfish socialists...

Exactly how is it that you can call someone a selfish socialist who merely wishes to breathe unpolluted air? How is it that it is not the smoker that is not being selfish?

[EGPWS]

I live in a very smoker friendly area - and yet I can find a non-smoking establishment wihtout even trying. It's not a difficult thing to do.

As do I.

I also have friends, one which has just left my home, who despises smoking.

He, however, puts common sense ahead of his personal dislikes, and disavows his feelings of "smoking disdain" and shows a friendship that is worthy of the definition of friendship and accepts my smoking in my home and his.

True friends in the finding are much more important than agenda's IMHO.

[Lucky Dog]

you antis are the CAUSE of the problems, not the smokers.

What problems? I don't have a problem with smoking bans.

[EGPWS]

Exactly how is it that you can call someone a selfish socialist who merely wishes to breathe unpolluted air?

Because only a socialist would have the mindset of breathing unpolluted and perfectly clean air could tote such a Utopian mindset.

[Lucky Dog]

Let's give Lucky Dog a commendation!

Thanks, but I already have enough.

[EGPWS]

Thanks, but I already have enough.

Your professions of such have proved to be enough to maintain your status.

However alfalfa sprouts don't produce "beefy sh!t".

[Lucky Dog]

However alfalfa sprouts don't produce "beefy sh!t".

Sorry, your comment is beyond my limited ability to comprehend. Perhaps, you could try ordinary English?

[EGPWS]

Sorry, your comment is beyond my limited ability to comprehend.

Case closed.

[ran15]

"Well, I don't consider it an addiction. I smoke because I enjoy it. I am not fat and I can't drink anymore. I have to have ONE bad habit! heh!"

Cigarretes are an appetite supressant. What happens to many women who stop smoking is they gain a huge amount of weight, and die at 45 of a heart attack.

[Garnet Dawn]

Way to go! You already posted the responses I was going to use. Great minds think alike! Also, great editorial in the most recent article of Smokers Club.

Garnet

[BADROTOFINGER]

My counter is just as simple: if you don't like living in a state that restricts smoking in any business open to the public then stop whining and move to a different state. The states where the people's representatives have passed a law for the safety, and enjoyment of the public of that business have acted for the majority of the public.

At the expense of the property rights of the owner of the resturant. You seem to delight in trampling on their rights. Care to tell us why?...JFK

[Lucky Dog]

Case closed

In deed...

[Lucky Dog]

At the expense of the property rights of the owner of the resturant. You seem to delight in trampling on their rights. Care to tell us why?...

Any business owner (and I am one) who does business with the public surrenders certain "property rights" for the privilege of "public" business. Among these "surrendered rights" are the right keep unsanitary food storage and preparation areas, to keep fire hazards, to refuse service to patrons because of race, to refuse keep accurate books, etc.

The government of the people, by the people and for the people has the the right through their freely elected representatives to set reasonable restrictions upon property rights of anyone who holds himself or herself out as doing business with the public. The Bill of Rights clearly delienates those protections of individual and property rights which are inviolate. All others are subject to legal restriction.

If this is "trampling rights" in your opinion, your concept needs some modification. Until, and unless, you get an admendment to the Constitution passed, you will have to live with the current system.

[Ditter]

Gabz, I must step in here and make a comment. I hate to, because I have been getting along with my smoking freeper friends pretty well lately, but I must. You said "in other words, YOUR (meaning non smoker) selfishness has hurt a small business man". How can you say that, it is the smoker who has abandoned his friends in the bars and restaurants in affected areas. I have heard all of you say "I'm not spending my money if I can't smoke there, I am going to eat/drink/socialize at home". The bans weren't your idea to be sure, but it is you who have stopped spending money and the small business men are going broke in your states. You could still eat out, even if you can't smoke there to keep these business open. You can't do without a cigarette long enough to eat? Don't blame the non smokers for the downturn, we are eating out all the time.

[Just A Nobody]

I thought Gov. Arnold was a big time cigar smoker. Did he not create a smoking area in Sacramento? Are cigars the only smoking allowed?

[Garnet Dawn]

You seem to be under the false impression that smokers are a financial drain to Medicaid (it's not Medicare). As one example of how false this assumption is, I took time to do the math on a proposed tobacco tax increase in Wisconsin (to supposedly dig Medicaid out of bankruptcy) and composed this letter for the Wisconsin newspapers and government representatives.

If you dare to take the time to read it, you will see the real economic purposes for tobacco tax dollars. This is only one example of many states' proposed new extortion taxes, now being called "user taxes".

-------------------------------------------------------

Sent January 28, 2005:

"Thank you for your informative story on the proposed dollar per cigarette pack tax increase in Wisconsin. I have read two other news stories on this subject and would like to know how anyone with a conscience can possibly attempt to justify this new attempt at taxation without representation.

It has already been printed that State Rep. A.J. "Doc" Hines, Republican-Oxford, who heads the Assembly Health Committee, is planning to introduce the proposal next month. Also, Governor Jim Doyle has indicated in the past that he opposes a cigarette tax increase, and Assembly Speaker John Gard opposes this plan.

Quoting your story, "The statewide group (Smoke Free Wisconsin) says increasing the tax to $1.77 a pack from 77 cents a pack will keep 72,000 children from starting to smoke..."

If tax increases stopped "children" from smoking, there would be no smoking "children" left in the United States and Canada today. This exploitation of the word "children" is meant to draw a mental picture of curly headed tots smoking cigarettes and represents social engineering tactics in their most disgusting form. The "kids" being referenced are almost adults..and many are old enough to fight for their country. Also, legislation and tax increases have never helped anyone to stop smoking.

The Wisconsin state revenues from this proposed tax have already been estimated at $251 million annually, according to Smoke Free Wisconsin, with fifteen million dollars going towards tobacco use prevention efforts and the rest to offset a $121 million deficit in the state's Medicaid program. Using simple mathematics, that means that about 6 percent of the anticipated annual revenues would be "used to prevent the children from starting to smoke."

The remaining additional funds of $235 million would be applied to the Medicaid state deficit. State Rep. A.J. "Doc" Hines, R-Oxford, who heads the Assembly Health Committee was quoted as saying that the tax makes sense because 15 percent of Medicaid costs are caused by smoking. That means smoking has been "guestimated" as being responsible for $18,150,000 of the Medicaid deficit, leaving the other 85 percent of the $102,850,000 balance to also be paid out of smokers' pockets with the $1 dollar per pack additional tax.

The state would still have a projected $114,000,000 balance remaining for various "other" places. Not bad profit for a supposedly "for your own good" sin, er...excuse me, user tax. I wonder how much of that amount will be applied to additional funding for Smoke Free Wisconsin and the American Cancer Society?

Sincerely,
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Group - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoissmokers/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!

-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/wdhlocal/334268386035837.shtml

Groups support idea of cigarette tax raise
Many smokers see proposal as forcing a change in behavior

By Kyle Gearhart
Wausau Daily Herald

SmokeFree Wisconsin launched an effort Thursday to more than double the state's cigarette tax.

The statewide group says increasing the tax to $1.77 a pack from 77 cents a pack will keep 72,000 children from starting to smoke and offset smoking-related Medicaid health care costs by raising $251 million.

"Studies have shown that any price increase deters kids from smoking," said Judy Omernik, the group's president and organizer of the group's central Wisconsin anti-smoking efforts. "Kids are sensitive to price, so if the price increase is enough, it will keep kids from smoking." State Rep. J.A. Hines, R-Oxford, proposed the legislation, and Senate Majority Leader Dale Schultz, R-Richland Center, spoke in support of it Thursday at a Madison news conference. Gov. Jim Doyle has not said whether he would support such an effort.

Public reaction to the proposed $1 a pack tax increase is mixed. Nonsmokers generally support the proposal, but smokers are passionate in their opposition.

"I know people who smoke, who say they started when they were younger," said Manee Yang-Vongphakdy, 26, of Wausau, a nonsmoker. "So it could be helpful to stop more kids from smoking sooner."

Some of the money from the increased tax would go toward teen tobacco prevention programs, a purpose Yang-Vongphakdy said is a "good cause."

But not everyone agrees. Some see smoking as a personal choice and question using tax policy as a means to change people's behavior.

"I don't think that's right," said Yvonne Brandt, 70, of Wausau. "Why don't they do that to drinking? If they did, there would be an uproar. They are just taking our choices away."

Brandt said smoking already is "getting too expensive." As a smoker, she said, she can work eight hours without wanting to smoke but enjoys smoking outside of work. If prices go up, she is afraid, smoking will become a luxury she can't afford.

Wisconsin now has the 25th-highest cigarette tax in the country. In 2003, the average state cigarette tax was 84 cents. An increase to $1.77 a pack would move Wisconsin into the top five.

Advocates of the proposed tax increase, including the state's chapter of the American Cancer Society, say the benefits far outweigh any harm to individual pocketbooks.

"It's a statewide problem, and we have a statewide solution," Omernik said. "I'm hopeful that the proposal will start a discussion. If you look at the evidence, this is a good option and will benefit everyone."

______________________________________________________
I really don't care if you smoke. I care if you subject me or my loved ones to your second-hand smoke. I care if you make me pay through my taxes that support medicare for indigent smokers who have spent all their money on thier habit and its results. I care if you are responsible for taking up medical research money that could be going to cure some disease that the sufferer can not prevent through a simple act of will. 50 posted on 03/06/2005 6:00:53 PM PST by Lucky Dog

[Just A Nobody]

"A statement no longer worth contemplation to the wise."

I understand, however, I felt it was a fitting retort to the Bloomingidiot comment. I am sorry I had to step out. Things got exciting later in the thread. I am truly in awe of your comments. Great job!!! ;-)