Opinion Talk

By New Non Smoker

July 25, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this

Make cigerettes $10/pack. If I can’t smoke — no one should be able to. Obama should implement this change! Change! Change! Bring the Change!

By THE BANDIT

July 25, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this

Yes, raise the tax on that segment of society. They won’t be here long anyway, let’s get them while we can.

By Yes, yes

July 25, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this

This is a great way to raise revenue. Smoking is annoying, unhealthy, and those that do, appear not to be able to afford it anyway. It is an expensive habit and is a choice, rather than a necessity. Unlike alcohol, revenue from smokers does not have an effect on businesses, such as bars & restaurants. For example, if alcohol was taxed higher, restaurants may suffer from higher prices customer don’t want to pay. Smoking does nothing for the immediate economy or have a trickle down effect on others. Governments have to pay for things, and taxing smokers is a good start. It may results in some folks quitting or cutting back, making it better for all of us including the smoker.

By Joey

July 25, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this

No, I do not support an increase in cigarette tax from $.37 to $1.37. Most people will support this kind of sin tax.

I do not smoke. I do not allow smoking in my home. I do not allow smoking in my business.

By the time I was 7 years old, 1952, I knew that smoking was not healthy. They were called “cancer sticks” for a reason.

The proposed tax is soley for the purpose of raising money for our state to spend in their standard wasteful manner.

There are plenty of other sins out there to tax. If we want to really generate lots of tax money, then: Legalize prostitution and collect a tax on that; Legalize drugs like meth and coke and collect the tax on that; allow unfettered access to prescription drugs and tax that.

Place a tax on excessive eating, abuse of soft drinks, candy and ice cream. And a real income maker: The internet is abused every hour of every day, inclucing this post, let’s tax that.

By Tailgunner

July 25, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this

$9.02 per pack is the “cost” of smoking overall? I’d love to see the pseudo science that came up with that.

But let’s be fair here - yes, smoking is a health risk. But then again, so is being overweight. As soon as you slap an extra 50 cent tax on a Big Mac with roughly 550 calories in it, along with all the other similar fattening foods both from restaurants and grocery stores to cover all the costs of Diabetes, hip replacements, knee replacements, heart attacks, high cholesterol, stomach stapling, Weight Watchers memberships, damaged furniture - you get the picture - then more taxes on tobacco might seem somewhat acceptable. But not until then.

Addiction to food is just as unhealthy as addiction to tobacco. You want to raise taxes because of the “health care crisis”? Then do it equitably and across the board for all unhealthy things. Good luck…

By shannon

July 25, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this

What a joke

This used to be a free country; one used to be able to make their own personal decisions
I am so tired of being taxed into morality

Cigarettes like anything else should cost what it costs to produce them and the markup the company charges

Cigarettes have been demonized in this country for years

Look at the life expectancy in the United States vs. France

France Wins, and guess what a lot more people smoke in France

Let’s start Taxing Oreos too

How much lost productivity do obese people cost us??

By Glenn

July 25, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this

I got an idea, raise all taxes,Federal by 10%,state by 5%,booze $1.00 a six pack,cigs$2.00 a pack,gasoline .50 cents,food 20 per cent,ad valor em on car tags double it,yeah that’s the ticket we all will be so better off, then we can give it all away to illegals,unweded mothers,all the losers who suck us dry,to foreign countries,to wars that never end or make sense,you fleeced sheep!

By phil

July 25, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this

I don’t think we should increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.00. I’m in favor of increasing the tax by another $9.00. If cigarette smoking is costing the rest of us $9.02 per pack in lost productivity (I guess that’s smoking breaks, sick leave, etc., for businesses that hire smokers) and health-related costs, then let’s recover that cost from the source — the tobacco. By the way, once that cost is recovered do you think we can get lower cost health insurance here in Georgia. All of us can’t be government employees and get tax payers to pick up the tab so we need a little more help than we can get from a part-time job with no benefits. How about giving tax payers access to the same benefits that governments employees have access to. That would be a good first step.

By Works for me!

July 25, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this

I think this is a wonderful idea! The state can raise it as HIGH as they want to as far as I am concerned.

And, while we are at it, we should draw a line in the sand that says that if you are born after a certain year and you decide to smoke then you will have no access to government sponsored health care of any kind (No Medicare - NOTHING). Make it 2010 or 2015… I don’t care! Just make a date certain that says that if you are born after that date this is the rule.

Why should tax payers have to pay for people who are that stupid to begin smoking (or really continue smoking for that matter) in a world where there is so much information about what it does to you. You want to kill yourself, have at it! Just don’t show up in the emergency room and make me pay for it!

Have a smoke free weekend!!!!!!

By T

July 25, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

Ok, raise the tax. We all will pay for it, and here is how.

Notice the people who are addicted to cigarettes. Are they people of wealth? (People that can afford cigarettes won’t care) Now, do you think that people on welfare are going to quit smoking because of the increase? Maybe, they will switch to a cheaper brand.

Here is my idea to increase revenue:

ALCOHOL SALES ON SUNDAY

By Tailgunner

July 25, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this

I hate the fact that the government can force a restaurant or bar owner to ban smoking in their establishment.

It’s their place – they own it – and if they want to allow their patrons to smoke, it’s their sole right to choose as the owner. If a customer doesn’t care to go into a bar or restaurant because smoking is or is not allowed, that customer can go elsewhere. There are thousands of bars and restaurants from which to choose – let each owner institute their own smoking or non smoking policy if (but only if) they so choose, advertise it, and attract the smoking or non-smoking crowd.

By the way – what was wrong with the smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants that worked so well for all those years? I’ll tell you what was wrong with it – it didn’t eradicate smoking, and that’s what the government wants. Once again this is an issue where some government officials are convinced we’re too stupid to run our own lives so they have to “save” us – smokers and non-smokers alike.

But of course there have been “scientific studies” (their own term, certainly not mine) which have determined that breathing second hand smoke is more harmful than actually smoking a cigarette. Say what? I’d love to see the data that dredged up that conclusion. Yup – one little whiff of smoke from a cigarette, cigar, or pipe will kill you quicker than smoking and inhaling an entire cigarette. Sure it will. And using the same high quality “scientific principles” of data collection and observation, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has successfully concluded the Nazi Holocaust is a myth that never really happened. I’ll bet I could use the same “scientific principles” and manipulate and ignore data to prove that roosters lay eggs. The sad part is, there are millions of people who would believe me, and scores of legislators that would fund the project!

It’s not about health. It’s not about comfort. It’s not about public safety. It’s about control. You see, this is a textbook example of how the government gets away with taking our freedoms from us. First, they banned smoking on airplanes, then in government buildings, then in office buildings, then in restaurants, then in bars – and got each of these in turn to pass muster in court because they were “only a little inconvenience” – thereby setting a precedent in law for further attacking our other freedoms. Sort of along the lines of the fact that anybody can be fed an elephant a bite at a time, and sooner of later the elephant will be gone. Well guess what – we’re all chewing and swallowing and the government just keeps shoveling it in.

And now there are states that want to ban smoking anywhere in public – including in your car or sitting on your own front porch! Whether or not you agree, disagree, or are neutral on an issue such as smoking is irrelevant. It’s not the issue, it’s the principle. We all need to insist these government control nannies back off now – or we simply embolden and empower the government to intrude into our private lives and liberties even further. I shudder to think what the next law they’re going to pass to “save” us from ourselves will be. And so should you.

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in an opinion, “As night-fall does not come at once, neither does oppression. It is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become victims of the darkness.”

“I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.” - Ronald Reagan

“Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.” - P. J. O’Rourke

By Ron

July 25, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

I, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, AM IN FAVOR OF ANY TAX THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO ME. I VOTE FOR ALCOHOL AND BEER.

By Fruitless Objections

July 25, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

Well, Reagan, it’s not a government that protects us from ourselves, it’s a government that protects our economy from leeches.

Smokers are the #1 leeches on healthcare. Take away smoking, and this country could afford to pay for the entire northern hemisphere’s healthcare.

Smoking causes lingering disease. The treatment is outrageously expensive for smoking related diseases. Smoking and the pharmaceutical industry are bedfellows.

And they dont need no watermelon to get it on.

If you want to exclude a person from the national healthcare plan, then do it with a nicotine test. You fail, you get no healthcare. Period.

That should be the rule, and that one rule would solve all our healtcare problems. Period.

Period.

‘puff said.

By phil

July 25, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this

If someone wants to smoke tobacco and not pay the tax, then I see no harm in letting that person grown his own tobacco and roll his own cigars or cigarettes but he should be charged an equivalent of $9.02 per pack for all that he smokes if he wants the same health insurance coverage that I get as a non-smoker. Otherwise, let the smokers pick up the tab for the true cost of smoking and skip the tax altogether. I doubt that the tobacco companies really care anyway. After all, they have huge markets for the products in places like India and China where there are no stupid government regulations — yet.

“Giving brains to a tax paying citizen is like taking control over one’s own life.” - Me

By Willie

July 25, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

I think we should tax those so called green cars and alternative energy devices out the ying yang. If I can not have what I want in life, why should I let condescending left wing extremists have what they want in life. I have one life I want to live it my way not THE LEFT WING EXTREMIST WHACHO’S WAY. Be an American! b&*ch slap a liberal!!

By Kim

July 25, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

Great idea! A tax on stupidity always works for me! Can we tax lottery tickets, too??? My husband actually had a woman approach him at a gas station last week begging for “gas money.” She held a fresh lottery ticket in her hand. He was amazed at the stupidity! (And, no, he didn’t give her a dime.)

By rightytighty

July 25, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this

A cigarette tax is only logical if it goes enitrely into filling related health costs. As of today, it is nothing more than another perverse tax scheme to fill the coffers of a bloated bureaucracy.

By Tailgunner

July 25, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this

Fruitless Objections;

“Smoking causes lingering disease. The treatment is outrageously expensive for smoking related diseases. Smoking and the pharmaceutical industry are bedfellows.”

Do your research before you make false claims - the number one health problem in this country is obesity - hands down. The number two drain on our health care system is the 12 million illegal aliens.

By your standards, we would be infinitely farther ahead to require a height and weight comparison and ask for proof that a person is in this country legally would be the biggest benefit to health care.

Sorry - yes - smokers choose to smoke. But obese people choose to overeat, and illegal aliens choose to violate our sovereignty and trot their kid to the emergency room every time they have a sniffle. If you want to fix something, start at the top and work your way down. But I know that will never happen - look at some of the porkers that run our government. What? Outlaw being a lard butt? That would be passing a law against themselves!

By Tailgunner

July 25, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

“I have one life I want to live it my way not THE LEFT WING EXTREMIST WHACKO’S WAY. Be an American! b&ch slap a liberal!!”*

Wille - you’re my kinda guy!

By Rant

July 25, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

Tax the cigarette, tax sex… What is the difference if someone smokes a cigarette and takes away so many hours of his/her life, than someone sleeping around and spreading disease.

Why should one be punished for smoking a cigarette? If a person on welfare can buy cigarettes with the taxpayers dollar, then they should revise the rules.

I pay for people with STDs, illegitimate children, HIV, etc etc…. So why are these people any different?

Tax the peanut too, because people are allergic and can die from it, just the dust of the shell can cause a severe reaction….

By phil

July 25, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

Dang obese illegal aliens just need to give up smoking and that’ll fix everything except their addiction to Happy Meals. I think we ought to tax Happy Meals but not tax cauliflower. After all, how many people are likely to get addicted to cauliflower. But most importantly, we need a stupid tax. Tax anyone that does not have a minimum of a 4 year degree from an accredited school. The exit exam for the 4 year degree should consist of one question:

“Why should one be punished for smoking a cigarette?”

By StalledOut

July 25, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this

wille, you might have to slap Tailgunner.

By Mary Gilbert

July 25, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this

This is one of those “no-brainers” that all of our representatives-no matter what party should support 100%. It is a Win-Win for all GA citizens. Thanks to Rep Stephens for proposing a bill that will not only raise funds for the current budget crisis and years to come, but also prevent kids from smoking and SAVE LIVES!! Why wasn’t it passed this past session. Do our representatives care more about the support of smokers or the health of our children? That is the question we all need to ask each of our representatives. $10 a pack sounds good to me also.

By Robbylonia

July 25, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this

When Obama is elected president we can all smoke unfiltered cigarettes and eat super sized Happy Meals because he’ll find a cure for cancer and obesity! OBAMA! OBAMA! OBAMA! OBAMA!

By Fruitless Objections

July 25, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this

Well, Reagan, it’s not a government that protects us from ourselves, it’s a government that protects our economy from leeches.

Smokers are the #1 leeches on healthcare. Take away smoking, and this country could afford to pay for the entire northern hemisphere’s healthcare.

Smoking causes lingering disease. The treatment is outrageously expensive for smoking related diseases. Smoking and the pharmaceutical industry are bedfellows.

And they dont need no watermelon to get it on.

If you want to exclude a person from the national healthcare plan, then do it with a nicotine test. You fail, you get no healthcare. Period.

That should be the rule, and that one rule would solve all our healtcare problems. Period.

Period.

‘puff said.

By TNF

July 25, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

By Mary Gilbert : in regards to your statement, yeah make cigarettes 10.00 a pack but also make a 6 pack of beer ( alcohol-another deadly disease) 30.00 & legalize POT at 4.00 a pack ( a naturally grown herb, with no side affects, at least in my 20/+ years of knowing it ). Let’s all grow up & don’t let our evil government take away our rights or pretty soon they will tax everything 50% & you’ll have nothing

By COLE

July 25, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this

Let’s see. The government sued big tobacco a while back and rec’d hundreds of millions of dollars that they were going to use for healthcare. What did it get used for? Everything but healthcare. So, you want to give them more money and trust that they’ll spend it wisely. Who’s proposing this tax? Of course, it’s a gov’t employee!!!

By rd

July 25, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

While I detest smoking , I detest targeting segments of the population for new taxes more. Target smokers… drinkers… luxury items…. the “evil rich”…. anything that the other 80% of the population will go for. You can only do that just so long before the well drys up.

There is no golden goose. You are I have to tighten our belts during rough times, and so should the state government. If you are I dont get a raise this year, we make do even in the face of rising prices. So should the state of Georgia.

By rd

July 25, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this

Fruitless Objections wrote: “If you want to exclude a person from the national healthcare plan, then do it with a nicotine test. You fail, you get no healthcare. Period.

That should be the rule, and that one rule would solve all our healtcare problems. Period.”

And then what? Exclude people who are more than 10lbs overweight? Exclude people who contract STDs? Exclude people who drive more than 7 miles to and from work? Exclude mountain bikers and inline skaters? Exclude people who move to smog-laden cities? Where is the “risky behavior” line drawn? How nice of ALL of you who support this to draw this line. I’ll draw the next line after looking into YOUR risky behaviors.

p.s. I don’t smoke. But legislating morality or healthcare through taxation and exclusion, once begun, never stops until 49% are excluded/taxed to pay for the other 51%.

By Tailgunner

July 25, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this

Some of you folks just don’t get it. Take from someone else! Stick it to them! Grab, grab, grab!

Every time you encourage and permit the government to do that, you embolden them and more often than not give them your “permission” to go even farther.

Guess what - one of these days, they are coming to grab, grab, grab something from you. And do you know why? Because you will have spent years telling them that it is OK.

Be careful what you wish for - you just may get it.

By Whatever

July 25, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this

A tax and spend Republican. HAHAHAHAHA

By Matt

July 25, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this

Even if we tax cigarettes, the revenue stream is not stable. This is similar to the plan to raise taxes on cigarettes to fund SCHIP, which effectively means this. Most smokers are of the lower middle class, working class, & poor; we would effectively be taxing the lower classes in an effort to “help” them. In addition, lets increase the cost of cigarettes, more people will quit because of the additional cost, thus this revenue stream will stiffle out in 10 years. The Gov’t will become dependent on this revenue stream and will all of a sudden have a budget crisis and need to tax another “sin.”

Say No to ALL new taxes.

By phil

July 25, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

We should just be thankful that we’ve got all these fiscal conservative Republicans in office to protect us from more taxes and larger government and more taxes…I’m sure glad I voted Republican because I just dread to think what a Democrat would’ve done. At least with all these Republicans in charge of everything, we can count on seeing our state and local taxes go down and we can look forward to less government and less taxes…By the way, how many more years until all the Republicans that are in charge start doing what they promised.