SD: Senate Committee Snuffs Smoking Bill (We LOVE SD!)

keloland.com ^ | 02/15/2006

[SheLion]

The Senate Local Government Committee has defeated a bill six-to-two that would have allowed South Dakota cities and counties to regulate smoking.

The bill would have allowed local governments to set stricter standards than the state on tobacco use, distribution, marketing and sales.

Senator Stan Adelstein of Rapid City says the bill should have gone to the full Senate for consideration and revision.

Senator Mike Broderick of Canton says lawmakers spent more than enough time on the issue.

The state government will remain the only government in South Dakota that can regulate tobacco.

[SheLion]

The antis couldn't get South Dakota to give up their state pre-emption law:

[SheLion]

[wita]

Not a smoker, but appreciate what is on the books that means I don't have to smell it. I also believe that business ought to be able to regulate what goes on in their business, rather than government. Smoking has become a football for state governments to throw around and see what money sticks to it.

I live in SD. Until the overthrow of Tom Daschle, you would have never recognized SD as red, nationally, and you still might not, because our lone Congressperson, as well as our other Senator are members of the blue party.

State Legislature very red, Congressional delegation, two thirds blue. Still don't get it, except the eastern part of the state where the only large city is, and indian reservations tend to do the electing.

[Bender2]

An excellent call!

I couldn't have said it better!

A toast to South Dakota!

[SheLion]

The following information is how much smokers contribute to the SD state economy through the Tobacco Settlement Agreement:

South Dakota Information

Tobacco Taxes

South Dakota's excise tax per pack of cigarettes: $0.530
South Dakota's excise tax collection for the
fiscal year ending June 2002: $18,838,000

Sales tax on tobacco products: 4.00%

Federal excise tax per pack of cigarettes: $0.39
Total federal excise tax collections in fiscal year 2002: $7,512,700,000

Comparing Excise Taxes on Cigarettes, Beer and Wine

Number of six-packs of beer that must be sold in South Dakota to produce the same state excise tax revenue generated by one carton of cigarettes: 21.7

Number of bottles of wine that must be sold in South Dakota to produce the same state excise tax revenue generated by one carton of cigarettes: 17.9

South Dakota Smokers' Contributions to the State Economy - 2002

South Dakota smokers comprise only 22.4%¹ of the adult population in the state. Here is what they already pay because they choose to buy a legal product:

Smokers Pay Excise Taxes2	$	18,837,516
Smokers Pay Sales Taxes2	$	7,420,444
Smokers Pay Tobacco Settlement Payments3	$	24,942,579
	$	51,200,539

[NaughtiusMaximus]

If SD were to ban the sale of smokes, a $51 million budget hole would appear in the state budget. Solution: the shortfall would have to be made up by increasing taxes on income, property, and sales. In other words, everybody pays for the assault on smokers.

[SheLion]

If SD were to ban the sale of smokes, a $51 million budget hole would appear in the state budget. Solution: the shortfall would have to be made up by increasing taxes on income, property, and sales. In other words, everybody pays for the assault on smokers.

I couldn't have said it better than you!

If people would actually stop and think about this instead of "Oh we hate smokers.  We can't stand the smell!  Throw the smokers out to the curb,"  they would have to be realistic and realize that if there was no more smokers and/or smoking, SOME one would have to make up for the loss of revenue.

It's not that easy just to want to ban smokers and cigarettes.  Lots of money in it, and if this loss is realized, someone somewhere in the state would have to open up their wallets a lot bigger.

Thank you!!

[Beagle8U]

I say...Amend the tobacco settlement to exclude any money going to states or city's that ban smoking.

State taxes on Cigarettes should be earmarked to go only to city's that allow private business to decide if smoking is or isn't allowed.

Problem solved, the tobacco Nazis go away, the end.

[Sunshine Sister]

SD is one of my favorite places to visit. Now I have another good reason to go there.

[The Foolkiller]

FANTASTIC job on the FR about me page!! Laughed my ass off.

[The Foolkiller]

ABOUT TIME there's some good news!!

[Bender2]

Re: FANTASTIC job on the FR about me page!! Laughed my ass off.

Thanks for the compliments... But... Eh, Fool?

#2 want you to come back and pick up that huge ass you left!

And could you do it quickly? The smell is stifling!

And it is attracting baboons!

And beavers, too!

[SheLion]

I say...Amend the tobacco settlement to exclude any money going to states or city's that ban smoking.

State taxes on Cigarettes should be earmarked to go only to city's that allow private business to decide if smoking is or isn't allowed.

The pitiful thing about this is, the highly paid professional anti's that are swooping down on state after state ARE being paid by smokers who pay taxes on cigarettes!  Not Big Tobacco and not the state government.  But the smokers!

Smokers are paying for their own control, restrictions and bans through the very taxes they shell out for cigarettes.

After the Tobacco Settlement money started flowing into the state, the board of health created a coalition called Partners for a Smoke Free Everything, and now we have all the bans hitting us in the face.

And the anti's are still living the high life with cigarette taxes that smokers have to pay.

All the state anti coalitions have to do is slap a few negative ads on TV during each month and establish a "Smoker's Help Line" and then they can use the rest of the money as they wish.

For instance:  Mass used the smokers tax dollars to build a $175,000 GOLF course and Maine is using that money to sponsor "5" race car teams and various stock car tracks across the state!

Instead of using the tax dollars to help sick kids and for any smoker that MIGHT get sick and who is uninsured, they use it for various stupid pet programs they can think of.  They can't spend the money fast enough.

Maine even gave money to a little old woman in Ellsworth one year to plant a GARDEN in the center of town.

Ridiculous?  Without a doubt!

[SheLion]

SD is one of my favorite places to visit. Now I have another good reason to go there.

I wish that state was closer to ME!  I would sure give them some of MY money!  Without a doubt.  Be nice to go to a coffee shop and sit and drink coffee and smoke again.  That would be heaven on earth to me.  I'm a good tipper too! :)

[SheLion]

ABOUT TIME there's some good news!!

Oh yes!  Isn't it nice????  I love it!

[TAdams8591]

An excellent point. I wish more people would see it that way.

[TAdams8591]

It's nice to hear some good news.

[NaughtiusMaximus]

As PJ put it, "Putting money in the hands of politicians is like giving whiskey and carkeys to teenage boys."

[TAdams8591]

"Putting money in the hands of politicians is like giving whiskey and carkeys to teenage boys."

PJ O'Rourke has a great sense of humor. Too bad his witty and insightful remark happens to be the gospel truth.

[Mears]

I'll join you in the coffee shop ! Heaven !