In other words YOU are for government subsidized personal regulation even when it is legal.
I'm just the messenger, so don't chastise me, just take a long look in the mirror.
You are hopeless. You have been mind controlled so bad by the anti's that you will never want to hear any other side but the side you desire to believe.
And smokers do NOT cost you anymore for health care. If you would take some time to read the links provided, you would understand more. But you are hidden deep inside your own skull and there is nothing else that can penetrate it.
And don't worry! You will never see me! Ever. Smoke or no smoke. Your kind I have no desire to ever meet.
Read the damn link. Maybe you will learn something!
ROTFLMAO!
I feel a "Bob and Tom" moment coming on.
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.
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
"I really don't care if you smoke."
It sure sounds like you do!
"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."
News flash for ya...I am not making you pay jackcrap for medicare for me, nor am I indigent, nor I have I spent all my money on "my habit" or its results, or the lack thereof. I am extremely healthy, haven't been to a Doctor in 18 years. That is probably why I am healthy. Also, I disregard all this bogus junk science.
"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."
I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING UP MEDICAL RESEARCH MONEY...that honor belongs to the money grubbers that are making more money on felonious "studies" instead of working on real cures for real diseases. Don't you know more mnoney can be made if people stay sick?
FYI: My cousin died of cancer 3 years ago at 53 years old. Her death bed words to her 24 year old daughter were: I never smoked, I never drank, I never did drugs, I never slept with anyone but your father, and here I am. Be safe, be happy, enjoy your life. (BTW, no one in her home smoked, & she was rarely around anyone that did.)
My aunt died at 44 years old of lung cancer. She, nor anyone in her family smoked. She was an RN in ICU. If she was not at home, she was at work or at church where she was very active.
Sorry, I missed these...
"There are dozens of studies that provide a definitive link between smoking and lung cancer as well as heart diease."
AND, there are dozens of studies that DO NOT provide a definitive link between smoking and lung cancer as well as heart disease. Why don't you check out the EPA study that started the "400,000 people die every year from 2nd hand smoke tirade"...oh, that's right...IT'S DEFUNCT, THROWN OUT, FRAUDULENT! Google SAMMEC.
"Why do you think health insurance companies charge smokers more?"
IT'S THE MONEY ... !