Take this marquee out side of a private business in Washington State for instance:
Posted on 10/03/2006 10:07:28 AM PDT by southernnorthcarolina
Tobacco Taxes
North Carolina's excise tax per pack of cigarettes: $0.050
North Carolina's excise tax collection for the
fiscal year ending June 2002: $40,309,132
Sales tax on tobacco products: 4.00%
Local tax on tobacco products: $6,000,000
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 North Carolina to produce the same state excise tax revenue generated by one carton of cigarettes: 1.7
Number of bottles of wine that must be sold in North Carolina to produce the same state excise tax revenue generated by one carton of cigarettes: 3.2
North Carolina Smokers' Contributions to the State Economy - FY2004
In 2003, North Carolina smokers comprised only 24.8% of the adult population in the state. Here is what they already pay because they choose to buy a legal product:
North Carolina Smokers' Contributions to the State Economy - FY2004
Smokers Pay Excise Taxes $ 40,193,000
Smokers Pay Sales Taxes $112,540,000
Smokers Pay Tobacco Settlement Payments $144,987,000
$297,720,000
Get lost anti smoking FREEPER!
You want to take away our rights, but God help us if one of yours is affected. Move on!
Sure is - from those addicted to government interference in private enterprise.
Tyranny of the minority.
Which is even more troubling. Ignorance can be remedied by knowledge. Thuggery can be remedied by conscience. Stupid is forever.
A nation of imbeciles holding out their hands to receive "free stuff" from out of thin air is a very troubling image.
Thanks for the ping, Gabz!!!
Well, good for them. I stand (semi-) corrected.
ML/NJ
I agree with you, but fighting this appears to be pretty much a lost cause. The public in general, and the public health wanks in particular, have now made the health risks of second hand smoke conventional wisdom that you can't argue against, despite the lack of any convincing proof. And with the great majority of the public being non-smokers, well they want what they want, and that's to be able to go to any bar or restaurant of their choosing without having to smell (or come out smelling of) smoke. And they'll support laws to that effect and to heck with the property rights of bar and retaurant owners, or the desires of smokers. I don't like it, but it's just a fact of life today, so get used to it.
Me? I'm giving in and trying to quit - it has just become too unenjoyable socially to smoke anymore. Indoors, at home, is about the only place I can really sit down and relax with a smoke any more.
Would that this were so.
In the Peoples' State of New Jersey, it is now against the law to open a restaurant or bar that permits smoking (unless it's part of a casino).
ML/NJ
"if someone doesn[t like smoking in a resturant/bar: DON'T GO TO IT!! It's that plain and simple, Go to a new place that doesn't allow smoking instead!!"
Further to my last post, you're completely correct, of course. But most people don't really give a flying fig for broad concepts like "freedom" and "liberty" and just want what they want. And the majority of those "most people" are now non-smokers. I've given up on the whole fight - it's a losing proposition, at least for the forseeable future.
Second hand smoke is not the killer the anti's are swaying the general public into believing it is!
SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY INSTITUTE
Research Defense
September 20, 2006
Defending Legitimate Epidemiologic Research
James E. Enstrom, Ph.D., M.P.H.
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAA11.htm
(excerpt)
Instantaneous ACS Attack
As soon as the embargo was lifted on the press coverage of the paper, it was immediately condemned in a May 15, 2003 press release by the ACS (11), “American Cancer Society Condemns Tobacco Industry Study for Inaccurate Use of Data.” This press release has subsequently been posted on the ACS web site in a slightly different format (12). As I will demonstrate later, the ACS press release makes a several entirely false statements about the study, such as:
1) “Tobacco Industry Study” was “Part of Organized Effort to Confuse Public About Secondhand Smoke”
2) “Society researchers repeatedly advised Dr. Enstrom that using CPS-I data to study the effects of secondhand smoke would lead to unreliable results”
3) “this study is neither reliable nor independent”
4) “The study suffers from a critical design flaw: the inability to distinguish people who were exposed to secondhand smoke from those who were not”
5) “exposure to secondhand smoke was so pervasive [in 1959] that virtually everyone was exposed to ETS, whether or not they were married to a smoker”.
Also, the press release contains a number of out of context quotes from formerly confidential tobacco industry documents (http://tobaccodocuments.org/about.php), that have nothing to do with the conduct, analysis, or publication of BMJ paper. My tobacco industry funding and competing interests were clearly and accurately described in more than 200 words in the BMJ paper (1). However, in order to raise doubts about my honesty and scientific integrity, the ACS made a great effort to locate and extract selective quotes from the professional correspondence I have had with the tobacco industry over a number of years. This ad hominem attack diverted attention from paper itself and obscured its contribution to the body of epidemiologic evidence regarding the lethality of ETS.
Take this marquee out side of a private business in Washington State for instance:
Me too.
I smoked for 23 years; loved every puff.
Now, after having been quit for almost a decade, I simply don't like the smell. Can't say I'd mind a ban inside restaurants. I chose to quit.
We have some merchants here in this well known flue-cured tobacco marketing town that says "SMOKERS WELCOME". If one doesn't like the hazy atmosphere and lowered oxygen level, they find another place to frequent. Choice ought to first rest with the establishment's owner, then the customer.
Well as the old addage goes "THEY Can Leave'!..
I love North Carolina (like a fine southern lady..), don't ever Change!! Please... ;D1
Yep, good for them. As a smoker in a city where it's outlawed, I'd be mad at the restriction on my freedom. As a smoker in a city where nobody caters to me, that's just my problem.
It's funny how the health risks supposedly associated with others smoking suddenly disappear when it means more money for our overlords.
They should be fighting ALL government mandated bans, and if they hate smokers so much, go non-smoking.
they might hate smokers but they know who their clientelle is, and they know better than to alienate a large portion of them.
and they wouldn't fight a state ban, but most wouldn't endorse it either. and if a statewide ban went into effect, they'd probably all find a way around it. (patios, decks, sidewalk tables, etc)
This is what gets me about these people. They have the option of doing all of that now........why force others, who may not have those options do it.
Anti-smokers tend to be of the same mindset of the WalMart haters who claim WM puts small businesses out of business (generally untrue) yet they are supportive of chain restaurants seeking to put small businesses out of business with their support of smoking bans. Hypocrites, one and all.
If, as a citizen, society does not cater to my interests, why should I cater to the interests of society?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.