All other known carcinogens removed from possible exposure to humans, ie: asbestos, etc. Yet, the gov allows the continued sale and consumption of the most carcinogenic substance know to man. Hello, CIGARETTES! But hey, it's all ok. It's allowed because the tax it generates actually saves lives and is a boon to humanity! Wow, you gotta love that crazy, twisted logic. What the hell are you smoking, Busalacchi?

ladyinjanesville-I dont think anyone disputes the fact that smoking is nasty, smelly and bad for everyone around it. That said I am a smoker, I dont smoke around my children or in my house or restaurant or bar. The price is not going to make me quit, I have tried and will definately try again. Quiting takes practice. The last time I tried it cost me $500 out of pocket for help, that didnt even pay for itself before I was smoking again. The point of contention is the IMO blatant smoke up the bum about the tax not being about revenue, bologna. It is not only a matter of money but social control. Government treating the masses as children.

Divorce tax?

Why don't we all just pay for our own illnesses and be able to do what we want at a reasonable price? Honestly, its disturbing the ridiculous practices we have to keep people alive despite their own failures.

Um, you know this thread is like 2 1/2 years old right?

or a marijuana tax...MILLIONS in revenue instead of MILLIONS in expenditure...

How about a BOOZE TAX? Just think of all the revenue that would bring in.

how stupid are people we know, we know you care about us smokers you don't even no me don't you know i always go around caring for people i never met. Everyone talks but i want to know what are we doing about being robbed, controlled, lied to ect ect. If you live in New york and 2 people smoke a carton a week that is almost 200.00 a week or 800.00 a month. We as a people need to do something about this NOW!!! quit talking and act. Ok here it is they say it is not the money well if it is not the money then all give them my account and they can stick those billons of dollars right in my bank account becaue i don't care about them don't even know them im fed up but im more fed up with smokers talking and doing nothing about it. maybe those non smokers who care so much about us should smoke then they will quit being anal rententive, boaring, idiots that lie themselves that they care about our well being. Check it out i DON"T CARE ABOUT YOU!! can't care about people i don't know maybe we should start sueing the goverment for cigg tax return with as much as we pay into them don't you think we should be able to get a tax return at the end of the year we pay more then job taxpays.

Blue/EVHW/Optimus: Once again we are getting off the subject. I've said it in another posting and I'll say it again -- don't let EVHW get to you. Clearly she is bored and needs someone to belittle. A while back it was Chafertepe and now it is you two. Once you two wise up and quit playing into her little games she'll move on to someone else.

*Now you times that by tax dollars paid per year,thats what all the fuss is about here!!
If you die 10 years ealier they miss out on 10 years of bilking your hiney out of every penny they can get!!
Just the way George wanted it~~*

This comment makes no sense nor is it particularly funny, so I am wondering what your intent is.

The FEDERAL government doesn't make much money off the aged, so your assertion that George Bush wants to bilk the aged via FEDERAL taxation holds little water.

State governments might make some money off of "user fees" which are not income-based [i.e., DL renewals, etc.]--so you might want to change your nickname to AntiJim or somesuch.

You know, it's funny. The only ones who seem angry about me knowing something about a subject are those that are wrong, and stand corrected.
I LIKE being corrected- it gives me a chance to learn something. But when I know I'm when I'm being told bull, I call it as such. There's nothing shameful in learning, Blue, unless you are intimidated by the act.
Optimus has yet to point out a flaw in the study. He just calls it unsupported and cries foul when he can't disprove the Wisconsin Institute for Research in the Public Interest.
If you CAN disprove them, Optimus, you could make major bank on that talent.
But since you can't even tell the difference between name calling (a despicable act i do my best to refrain from) and sarcasm (something I indulge in quite freely) I doubt you'll be profiting from that aspect of your persona anytime soon.

Blue21,
you're right, it's not really name calling. I stand corrected

Not exactly name calling, just sarcasm and meanness. She can't help it. 'Wowwypop'? Please.

I can't imagine living my life thinking I know everything about everything, and telling people so. Betcha it keeps a lot of friendships going.

Optimus-Please tell me what name I called you. Really. If I called you any derogatory name I'd like to know about it.
I'm having trouble finding what name I called you in my last post, unless, of course, you are doing anagrams. Then I could be calling you pustiom.

EVHW: What's really amazing, is that you still don't get it. You keep proving my post from last week over and over again. And now you result to name calling. Real mature. Whose skin is thin? Oh, BTW, how is sales tax fair to poor people that love to eat junk food?

roro: There IS an sales tax on snack foods. Buy a muffin, it's not taxed. Buy a cupcake, it's taxed.

I think I finally see where the GOV is going with the anti-smoking thing here. I found on the CDC website the figures about smoking related deaths and they put it as YPLL (years of potential life lost).
The figures show that from 1995-99 the were aprox 5.5 million years of potential life lost years.Now you times that by tax dollars paid per year,thats what all the fuss is about here!!
If you die 10 years ealier they miss out on 10 years of bilking your hiney out of every penny they can get!!
Just the way George wanted it~~

No, it does matter. Elect people who will not usurp power from the electorate. Russ Feingold are you listening?

I dont think so.

amen to pandow 77. i agree get off their butts and get a job. i have only run into a few people at jobs that get state aid and free groceries , free rent etc,and they WONT work 40 hours only their 23 or they wont get all there free stuff. theyre perfectly able and children are in school. they also have substancial money coming in from accident-settelment ever year. which gov doesnt adjust for and is spent stupidly. also have seen people make a poor wage at what they do and wont find or do something that pays better and still gets free stuff. they could get a better paying job and make more than free and wages combined but wont because they like the free aid. BTW all these people smoke too. i wish i could get free health care and then be able to afford to smoke . i think if your getting free health care you shouldnt be allowed to smoke. if smoke no free care if not then fine.

*Would you also support a confiscatory, retroactive or prospective tax placed on people whose family has a history of cardiovascular disease as well? This might affect just about everyone. Becareful what you wish for.*

It doesn't really matter. Once those in government who wish to do so foist socialized national health care on us, we'll all pay "confiscatory" taxes on these things whether we like it or not. Hurrah!

As a smoker for over 50 years, I and many of my friends are firmly addicted to cigarettes..all of us, seniors, all of us budgeting our way thru life. Come January, most of us will rebalance our food budget, that's how it is when you've smoked for a long time. We already got used to not eating out anymore and so I'm sure we will get used to less food on our tables. How about a dollar tax on each can of beer, each oz. of whiskey, for all the drunken drivers, each package of HO-HOs and bag of chips for the lard butts and at least 5 dollars per bullet sold. The Auto insurance co. increased our premiums the day we turned 75.
Sure is wonderful to reach old age. I still work 40 hours a week....but there is nothing to enjoy any more. Thanks Gov.

I never said all non-smokers and maybe the word trash was a little harsh in my description..fair enough. It's just how people look at you sometimes when you're smoking. Maybe I'm just being too sensitive about it, but there are some people out there who do believe that smoking can make you seem trashy.

blondeflutterby- Why do you think that people view you as trash? Just accept yourself for who you are, that you haven't mustered the ability to quit yet. Trust in your self that you CAN quit and you will, and go easy on yourself.I've never smoked, but that doesn't mean nonsmokers aren't sympathetic to your struggle of addiction.
For the record, adolescence is the period in which brain plasticity is geared towards developing addictions. It's easy to get teens hooked, because that's when they encounter internalized stress and self-identity, and they mold coping mechanisms around what goes on during that time. If smoking becomes a coping mechanism, it can be hardwired for life.

Optimus, I was quoting study hypotheses from what you called "unsupported claims". You haven't specified why the studies from Public Health are faulty or unsupported. I am telling you who did the studies, and the institutes are highly regarded for their research. I for one think the stats are more valid than false. I am not making claims, I am reporting study results. You are calling them unsupported claims. If you want, I can email you about 3 or 4 papers, but it'll be about 300 pages of reading.
As far as the Rush reference,I said that because he is a king of anecdotal science, and that is all you have given thus far. No real arguments, just that you don't see many people of color buying cigs in whatever wonderfully diverse area you hail from.
You've still failed to understand that there can be more white poor people than black poor people, but that black people as a population are poorer then whites in the US.
You still have failed to convince me I should rethink my position that poor people pay more for excise taxes, and that the people that this tax affects most don't have the political clout to overturn it.

If you think my last post to you was full of venom, you sure have a thin skin. Do you need a hankie for this one, sweetie? How about a wowwypop? Or are you just used to women who tilt their heads and giggle?

BI,
that was the funniest post I've read all week.

Bravo!

Well put blondeflutterby. I quit (cold turkey) when I became pregnant with my last 3 kids. Yes, I quit 3 times! Stupidly I decided to "just have one" after each were born and found out that you can't "just have one" (3 times!). You'd think I would have learned the first time. I plan on quitting again soon. My husband and I both smoke. He just quit (again) so as soon as my carton is gone I am going to try again too.

First of all, I am not personally attacking anyone on this forum..I am just making some general observations from my own experiences. I am truly sick and tired of being viewed as a piece of trash simply because I smoke. I am addicted and have tried almost everything (waiting for chantix) and I have not been successful. I regret ever starting smoking, but that was a stupid choice I made when I was 12..and again when I was 16..only at 16..I became addicted. I am only 25 and want to quit so that I can live a longer, healthier life. I would have quit already if it was that easy. I remember reading somewhere that nicotine is more addictive than heroin. I do not have any "statistical evidence" to support either position of that theory, but I would put my money on it that it's true. Sure, some people quit cold turkey and have no problem...but we are all individuals who are affected by things differently. I consider myself a polite smoker also and try not to bother people with it. I will try my hardest this time when I try to quit, because I feel that my quality of life will depend on it. I just wanted to say to the non-smokers who find us disgusting: Please don't look at me like I'm a disgusting piece of trash just because I smoke. Also, please don't stop me on the street and lecture me about the effects of smoking. I know about them..thanks. I wish anyone who is trying to quit the best of luck and I commend those who never started.

No,

What you wish for, namely confiscatory taxes on food or habits that you disgust, are not likely to happen. If you chose to not drink soda, or eat potato chips, or meat, or diary, etc, you dont have to.

Just about anything in excess can be harmful. However, that which is harmful does not directly or indirectly necessarily affect or impact insurance rates.

Would you also support a confiscatory, retroactive or prospective tax placed on people whose family has a history of cardiovascular disease as well? This might affect just about everyone. Becareful what you wish for.

*When you smoke it can affect others. When you drink a soda or eat a cheeseburger it only affects you.*

Unless of course, you do it to excess...then it affects me because I have to pay more taxes to pay for your triple bypass [or whatnot].

And if you counter with the fact that you have health insurance at work, well, then I pay for more my premiums or I pay more for the products your company produces in order to cover your triple bypass.

If society is going to tax alcohol and tobacco, I want to see a similarly egregious tax on foods that have no nutritional benefit whatsoever--the entire line of breakfast cereals, soda, salty chips, etc. should have at least a dollar per pack tax on it.

Then let's see how the "people" howl.

EVHW,

First of all you've just proved my point in my last post. Thank you.

Secondly, you make some pretty broad assumptions- I never said that I lived in Janesville, and you are the one bringing up Rush Limbaugh. Personally, I cannot stand that gasbag, so to put me in bed with him, makes further assumptions that I take issue with. I also, for the record never mentioned "the Wisconsin Institute of Public Research" in any one of my posts. Check your facts before you spew. The fact that you attach items that aren't associated with the people responsible for bringing them up makes you a poster of the worst order. I am going to play nice and ask you to please stop at the very least associating me with things that you may NOT necessarily know to be factual. If the writing that you get "paid" for drips with the venom that you post on these boards, I'm sure you're a real fun read.

you got it

tjncj your math stinks also. The ratio is 72/1 (93.9/1.3)

Actually, without rounding the ratio is 72 whites to every one black person.

EVHW-Good thing you write for a side job because tour math stinks. I hope you aren't a math teacher in your main occupation.

For every 94 (93.9% rounded)of whites who walk in there is 1( 1.3% rounded) black person.

I get your gist, but had to correct this before the debate continued.

jonztwo- I wish you all the luck with your attempt in quitting. I hope you make it.

BlackIrish- I agree.One of the greatest factors in dental health is smoking. My dentist said that in his practice, smokers lose teeth at the rate of 80% greater than nonsmokers. The hindered circulation in the gums causes root death, and the tar and acidic smoke causes brittle enamel.

OptimusPrime, if you don't like it, don't read it. Writing is a side job for me, and it's paid off well. So if you don't mind, I'm keeping my ways.

What you don't understand is the issue of anecdotal evidence vs. controlled studies that have gone statistical analysis. It's swell and all the YOU don't see a lot of people of color buying cigarettes in Janesville, but that's because we have a LOW MINORITY POPULATION.
Races in Janesville:

* White Non-Hispanic (93.9%)
* Hispanic (2.6%)
* Black (1.3%)
* Two or more races (1.2%)
* Other race (1.0%)
* American Indian (0.6%)
Taken from City Data.
So for every 130 whiteys that walk into Janesville Kwik Trip, there's 1 black person. Do you see why you might have a skewed impression of the effects of smoking on black people? You are at a Kwik Trip for maybe ten minutes- twenty or so people total? Not exactly a representative sample size.
As far as "unsupported" studies, it's a shame you count on Rush Limbaugh as your scientist of choice. Calling the Wisconsin Institute of Public Research a producer of unsupported studies is like calling the Middle East a great supporter of women's rights.
The data on graduation rates came right from MPS's own records, 2005. But I guess you might have seen a black guy walk across the stage, so the grad rates are BS too, right?

I'm a smoker. What about the alcohol issues!!! How many people die at the hands of someone else for drunk driving!!! Raise the tax on alcohol, kids are drinking more today then smoking cigarettes. As far as second hand smoke goes, you have the ability to walk away from it, so stop your whining.
As far as doyle goes whats up with that is your vacation fund dwindling or your jet is to expensive to fly, why not get down on the oil companies and get us better gas prices!!!!!
Lets worry about the serious issues here like the gas prices,or the war in Iraq. If you people want to saves lives lets think about or servicemen who are dying everyday and get on the bus about bringing our boys HOME!!!!
Smoking is a choice and that is a freedom we have, what other freedoms are you all willing to give up!!!!
Worry about other things and leave us smokers alone!!!

jonztwo, I, too, am a smoker. And I consider myself as considerate as I can be about it. If I am driving and there is a non-smoker in the car, then I simply don't smoke.

hello fellow commenters,i am a smoker a with the tax increase and the health problems smoking causes i will be {trying} to quit soon {again}. But i would like to comment to the people who complain about second hand smoke. personaly i will only smoke where it's allowed or I will ask for permission if i'm not sure.but no one ever ask about how i feel about them driving a car which gives out the same but more cabonmonoxide.both driving and smoking are a privedge not rights.i feel the tax is wrong and if it doesn't generate the money they want who's next to feel the governments greed.

EVHW,

Is there a need to take such a condescending and patronizing tone with others when someone questions one of your posts? Your first post, whether you care to admit it or not, sounded very discriminatory. Back it up with all of the unsupported claims you want, but your tone and implication indicated that the smokes tax is biased against the poor and minorities. So if your poor and a minority, it's double jeopardy for that unlucky soul.

Let's face facts, tobacco use is an addiction. The government knows it, and knows that most people, regardless of income, cannot control their addiction to it, so they can tax it knowing full well that it will help fill the state's coffers. Like it or not, every time I'm in a convenience store, I see many people buying cigs. The majority of those people are not "people of color" that you so eloquently posted. I couldn't even begin to guess at income of these people, and to do so based on looks would be extremely prejudiced. I bet, that if you really dug into it, you just might find that there are more low income non-minorities that smoke, than "people of color". I am not speaking slowly to you now, because I know that you are able to get the gist of what I'm saying. Your posts speak for themselves.

TCB writes: If this is about saving lives why not outlaw cigarette smoking?

What a concept!
Visited a hospital, department store, grocery store, public school, private school,College, NYC, all franchised US restaurants, or workplace employing over 20 people lately?
(Hint: You can't SMOKE in them without getting a hefty fine. Communist bas*tards! )
How I pine nostalgically for the days when I could pop out one of my many children in the Maternity Ward and light up a nice cigarette afterwards!
Of course, like Pandow, I make sure to tell my kids not to do what i'm doing as I'm doing it, because that way they'll know it's not OK to do it. And they won't do it either,because the best way to show kids a good example is to point out a bad behavior and then do it yourself, to show them you really, really mean it.
Those stupid pediatric ENT and pulmonary specialists don't know what they're talking about. Just the other day, I saw a lady smoking through her tracheotomy and SHE seemed just fine.

Ok. Read slowly. Pandow, get someone to read this to you and draw a little picture if you don't understand,
In the USA- throughout urban and rural populations- people of color are disproportionately of low income. In Milwaukee, there is a graduation rate of 31% for Black males, 36% for Hispanic, and 66% for white males. That is not an opinion, that is a fact, and I am not racist for pointing out inequities between racial groups. It was reported by the Wisconsin Public Research group. The National Research Group of Public Health has many studies supporting the hypothesis that people of color are more likely, by percentage of population, more likely to use tobacco products AND be more affected by its use.
in many sociological journals, studies have been published supporting the hypothesis that people of color are more affected by firsthand tobacco use than white people.

Now, if you can understand that, see if you can tackle this: a person who makes $10,000 a year and a person who makes $125,000 a year both pay the SAME AMOUNT of tax per pack of cigarettes. Got that? They don't ask for your W-2 when you buy a pack of cigarettes, you pay a FLAT RATE. However- get this, you can do the math- the PERCENT TAX paid by the person with lower income is HIGHER than the person with high incomes.
If that is too hard for you to grasp, look at it this way, A poor person has 2 apples. A rich person has 10 apples. The tax is 1 apple.
Who does the tax affect more? These are called excise taxes. Sales, gas, and cigarettes are all examples of excised tax products.
Get it yet?
Thus, my OPINION that one if the biggest reasons this legislation passed is that the people it affects most- people of lower income and people of color- don't have the political clout to overturn it.

OptimusPrime: Maybe EVHW is trying to say that only poor people and people of "color" smoke and therefore are the only one's paying the high taxes. I guess, maybe rich people are too good or too smart to smoke. Maybe the reason they are rich is because they don't waste money on cigarettes;) Is it just me or did EVHW sound slightly racist in her last post?

we should legalize pot then they could tax that too

EVHW:

You're kidding right. Did you really just post that? That you think that the tax on cigs is just another way for our State Gov't to tax the poor and people of color? Are you implying in any way, shape or form, that the cig tax does not apply to rich white people? "Studies have shown that those who pay more taxes on cigs are lower income...,and people of color." Are you suggesting that we consumers have a choice on whether or not to pay the cig tax at the point of sale? I didn't know that the cig tax was discriminatory- yet according to your post, it appears that it does. Sounds like a huge civil rights case to me, and I'm surprised that no one else in the country has picked up on that and pointed that out to the rest of us knuckleheads. Sheesh... I don't know if I should thank you for the public service you just posted, or clobber you for that thoughtless morsel. I guess I choose thank you...

Yes, it's about taxing but about taxing WHO?
Studies have shown that those who pay more taxes on cigs are lower income.
It's really Wisconsin's Very Politically Correct way of taxing the poor and people of color.

It's quite simple go to Il for your cigarettes and Wi will get none of our money . Those who can go to Mi and any other state ya can.. no biggie.....go go gog go while your add it raise the price of a beer it kills kills kills also ........

Look:
I'm not trying to convince you or anyone to quit. I really could care less. I do care about second hand smoke and the fact that if I am in a room with smokers, I have no choice but to breathe that second-hand smoke. If I choose to stay, I choose to breathe that air. You're right, it's all about choices. I'd be willing to bet that your saying that you smoke is your choice. If it were a choice, then you should easily be able to choose not to smoke. This is NOT to be confused with my saying you should quit- as I said, I don't care. But, if at this point in your smoking life, if it were really a choice, you could choose not to smoke. However, it's not that easy, and that was my original point, about what is controlling who.

Also, as long as we're talking about choices, the gov't can only "control" you with a higher cig tax, if they are forcing you to smoke. Last I checked, there wasn't anything in the Bill of Rights saying that a citizen had the "right to keep and bear smokes that shall not be taxed at an exorbitant rate, nor shall the government impede in any way, the ability of any citizen to procure smokes". Stop thinking that you're entitled. For all you know, the gov't is raising the tax to pay for the labor to clean up all of the cigarette butt litter (that does not easily biodegrade) that people who smoke so indiscriminately flick out of their cars or toss wherever they see fit.

I have been reading everyone's posts on here and have a few comments of my own I would like too add. First, why does everyone assume that all smokers are on state aid and our tax money pays for their health problems due to smoking. Yes there are people who do smoke and are on state aid, but there are many who are like me who work, pay higher insurance premiums because both my husband and I smoke and pay out of our own pockets what the insurance does not cover. Secondly, yes our government is trying to control what we can or cannot do and every time they do that it is one step closer to communism. Third, I agree smokers do know the risks of smoking and that we are at a higher risk of getting cancer. I work in health care and I see more people getting cancer who don't smoke than people who do. Fourth and last, this is just another excuse to get more money out of people who are already taxed to death.

I know that if you smoke it highers your risk for certain cancers but alot of people in my family smoke and none of us have ever had cancer (knock on wood). Almost everyone in my husband's family has had some form of cancer or has died from cancer and none of them smoke (with the exception of my husand). I'm tired of hearing that smoking causes cancer. I do believe that if you smoke you put yourself at a greater risk for developing cancer but I don't believe that it "causes" cancer. Cancer runs in families. Some people are more prone to getting it than others. If cancer runs in your family and you smoke you are probably doubling or tripling your chances of getting it. Why does every non-smoker have to give us smokers lectures about how we should quit, how much it costs us to smoke, what the health risks of smoking are and how disgusting it is? Just because we choose to smoke doesn't mean that we are stupid. I can almost bet that everyone who smokes, and are of age to do so, knows the risks associated with it. I can guarantee every one of us that smoke, at one time or another, has sat down and figured out how much it is costing us (weekly, monthly, and yearly) to smoke. Do I try to talk other people into starting, hell no. In fact, I've told people they shouldn't start smoking.

Let's get right to the meat. I don't think that the gov't is trying to control behavior by raising the tax on smokes. I think it's just another revenue stream. If people will pay it, why not do it? More income means less taxes elsewhere. Raising the tax to $20/pack is no good either. Why? Bootlegging. It wouldn't take some enterprising individual very long to find a way to get smokes elsewhere for half that, mark it up 50% and make a bunch of money. Unless all states enact the same tax, it would be a simple as going a few miles south for their supply.
Pandow, you and I seem to find a way to argue... I will point out that it's unfair to make a comparison between cigarettes and caffeine, or cigs and booze. Yeah, all of them are "legal", but last I checked, I haven't seen any studies suggesting a link between caffeine and mouth/throat/lung cancer. Furthermore, smoking doesn't impair ablility to drive a vehicle as alcohol does; that is,unless you're a noob smoker taking your first few puffs and get lightheaded.
I have a theory on why smokers don't get sick: It's the very thing that makes smoking almost impossible to quit. Nicotine. Nicotine is a form of pesticide produced by the tobacco plant to help defend it from being eaten by insects. Maybe it's this poison that makes smokers less susceptible to illness. Now I know that I'm comparing insects to bacteria/viruses, but who knows? Maybe there's a correlation. Maybe the buildup in their systems makes their bloodstreams inhospitable. The big equalizer however, is the higher risk of the various cancers and heart disease that have been linked to smoking. Sure a smoker might not get a cold, but do the other risks inherent in smoking offset that? I'm guessing not.
Regardless of the amount of tax, the gov't will never be able to "control" smoking. It (govt) can make it difficult, and very inconvenient, but not "control" it. The only control exhibited in the smoking world, is the control the nicotine delivery system has over its user. The only way for someone to truly "quit", is to finally decide that they don't want to have nicotine controlling them anymore.

Heres an idea....how about lowering the cost of health care and then smokers could afford health care

Smoking is absolutely gross and on top of that it makes you smell like a nasty ash tray!! I don't know why people smoke! ew.

I agree with Pandow77~
I have smoked for 18 years and never get sick, except for an occasional cold. My child, who is 10, had to have antibiotics for the FIRST time, at 9 years old! My child is never sick either. Should my child decided to smoke as an adult, that is their choice, I have talked about the bad things that come with smoking (my child thinks it is gross anyway). BUT I have NON SMOKING friends/family that go to the doctor and ER for EVERY little thing. And some of them are on medicaid. I do not believe this theroy that non-smokers get sick more often. I am healthier than my non-smoking friends are!
Thanks!

This isn't an argument on whether or not smoking is harmful to the smoker and those around them. That's beating a dead horse.
It's about overtaxing people who do smoke, justifying it because of the health issues. The extra taxes raised are not going to offset any 'addition health care' that is spent on smokers. It's simply a revenue generator.
Kind of like the settlement with the big tobacco companies. Where did that money go? Nonsmokers will benefit even more from us.

TCB, there's nothing wrong with flying in private jets and going on vacations... What my point was is that if they're gonna raise taxes, they should put that money to good use and not just pocket it themselves. What I don't understand is why are they coming after smokers? If they are truely concerned with people's health why not focuss on bringing down the cost of health care. It costs, on average, $75 for a doctor's visit and that's just for approximately 10 to 15 minutes of seeing the doctor. That doesn't include any tests that are done or the cost of any prescriptions. To the people (non-smokers) who are complaining about having to pay extra because of smokers being sick all the time.... I smoke and I only go in once a year to see my doctor (my yearly pap smear, which has nothing at all to do with my smoking). My children (which are hardly ever sick) only go in to the doctor for their routine checkups and vaccinations. My mother, who has smoked for atleast 30 years now, hasn't been in to see a doctor in over 10 years. My husband, who also smokes, hasn't been in to see a doctor since 2004 and that was because he got his finger cut off at work. That's not to say that I don't know anyone who ever gets sick and goes in.... My brother and his wife (who are both NON-SMOKERS) are always running themselves and their kids into the doctor's for colds and things. As far as the impact of me smoking infront of my children, I tell my kids that cigerettes are bad and that mommy shouldn't smoke. My 14 year old thinks that it is a disgusting habit and swears that he will never smoke and my 5 year old says that cigerettes are yucky. Just because I smoke doesn't mean they will. Like I stated earlier in this comment, my mother has smoked for atleast 30 years so my brother and I grew up around it and I didn't start smoking till I was 20 and my brother has never smoked.

Smokers actually cost the government less than non-smokers. They die, on average, 10 years before non-smokers. Thats 10 years of not having to pay medicaid, medicare and social security "benefits".

Pandow

Whats wrong with flying in private jets? Whats wrong with going on vacation?

I agree with everyone else here that is stating that this is for money. They try to say this tax is to provide health care benefits and such for smokers, right? As a non-smoker I find this absolutely ridiculous. If it is that big of a deal to care for smokers on Medicaid, then do not provide health care for problems related to smoking. We as taxpayers should not have to pay more money for habits to provide for others. Smokers already pay higher premiums on thier insurance coverages (health and life) because they smoke. Now, to me it seems that they are already paying that extra on those things because they smoke, so why should they have to pay extra taxes to provide for others' habits? I do not feel that others (smokers) should have to pay extra taxes to provide health care for "smoking related" health problems (as we all know, today everything is blamed on smoking, so how is it determined what is or is not caused by smoking?).

I think some of you need to wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe I am being PRISSY LOL. I am reading several one sided opinions here. How many of you smoke in front of your children or spouse? Second hand smoke has been proven to affect people with ashma and other breathing problems. Think of your children. Do you want them to grow up and smoke? Discrimination against smoker's is different than other types of discrimination. When you smoke it can affect others. When you drink a soda or eat a cheeseburger it only affects you. Don't let cigarettes control your life.

JvlResident, Most of the people who can afford to smoke are working and paying just as much in taxes you are. Caffeine is bad for you so should we start raising prices of pop? What about alcohol? People can get drunk, drive and kill someone. You don't think that causes tax payers money? If the government has the right to try to control peoples smoking (which is completely legal) what else are they going to start trying to control? I figure it's my life and my body, I should be able to what ever I enjoy doing as long as it is legal and isn't hurting someone else. Now I don't want to hear the prissy people saying how second hand smoke does hurt other people. If we're going to get into all of that than we'd have to get into how the people who choose to drive automobiles are polluting the air and so on. Hey Ziz, I like that "smokers fund" idea. That's a good one! I'd rather do that than have the extra money going to the governments so congressmen and women can go on lavish vacations and fly in private jets.

If this isn't about the money, an how all tax payers pay for smokers health when they get sick (an this is supposably gonna make us all quit) ... then I think that all the money that is earned from this tax increase on cigarettes should be saved up in a "smokers fund" so people who do smoke and get sick don't have to use up all the other tax papers money, they have already some in the "smokers fund."

I was a smoker for over 20 years. I did not listen to my body or let the price of smokes make me stop. A true smoker will pay the price. I am talking about the money and about health problems they will face in the future. I think Doyle has a good plan. Health care is very expensive and smokers do get sick easier. The lungs can only take so much. Hopefully some people will quit.

This is a win. I don't think there are many smokers that wish they wouldn't have started. This isn't going to cause smokers to stop. It is going to help prevent children from starting. And what is wrong with passing on a bigger share of the health expenses to the smoker. Some of you say this is wrong, I would rather see the smoker pay more than more taxes out of my check!

OF COURSE it's about the money. Mr. Doyle is a little less than candid on that point. Moreover, it's also incorrect that "smoking costs taxpayers", at least in the long-term. That's because smokers die younger, ultimately saving taxpayers money. So they smoke and pay and smoke and pay all their lives, then they die early. If you don't believe me, ask a life insurance agent.

TCB, you are correct. I have to laugh when people say they are basically raising prices to cause people to quit. That is a hilarious statement. Many insurers have higher premiums for smokers, so to generalize that you're necessarily paying for a co-workers' insurance is not necessarily true.
The article also said that smokers could have become addicted to nicotine 'before they knew any better', so you're taxing someone who is addicted to a drug?

If this is about saving lives why not outlaw cigarette smoking?

This is not about saving lives, its about taxing a behavior that many find repulsive and disgusting. IF the governor is truly interested in saving lives and having people quit smoking, make it really tough, why not raise the tax per pack to $20 per pack?

If its not about the tax money, then refund the revenue raised.

exactly, it is all a money scheme. Here's the thing, I understand that people that dont smoke have rights, but also so do people who do smoke, do you think that is very crappy to drive up the prices of ciggarettes to try to get someone to quit smoking? How ridiculous!!! Come on, last time I checked we lived in a free country, and trying to make people pay more for ciggarettes so "they will quit", is not only a ridiculous, it is controlling.

I think this is rediculous... Everyone that I know who smokes isn't going to quit because of the higher prices. This is the governments way of making more money. If they were really concerned with our health they would lower the cost of things that help you quit smoking. When the prices get so high that people are forced to quit, I bet the crime rates will rise. If you smoke or know someone who does then you know that people can get rather cranky when they can't smoke. Give me a break. Why are they focussing on smokers? If they're so concerned with what our tax dollars are going for they should concentrate on cracking down on people who refuse to work, are living off of the state and keep having kids even though that can't afford to take care of them or the people who collect disability fraudulently.

this is one high and mighty stance. don't kid yourself ma'am. anytime taxes are raised it's for money.
if it were not so, why is the state counting on cigarette taxes to pay for expenditures?
if our fair gov was serious about our health, he would outlaw tobacco.
last i checked, he has not. nor do i think he plans on doing so.
that horse you are on is too tall.
when it comes to taxes, altruism does not exist.