Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and AMA working with 44 states to take away smoking rights.

Then click on TOBACCO. Scroll down and see just how much money your state is getting in BLOOD MONEY to further ban, control, restrict and raise taxes on people who choose to smoke a legal product.

Think about it: the states are in dire financial need for health care. In steps old Easy Money Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. If the state signs up to chop off the heads of their smokers, the state will be a recipient to big grant money. For renovation, brand new MRI machines, you name it, the health facility will get it. All because they are doing away with the smokers and the smoking. Sound fair to you?

The higher the bans, control, restrictions imposed on a smoker in each state, the more grant BLOOD money the state will receive from the RWJ Foundation and the American Medical Association. Think about it.

Cigarette tax becomes healthy habit

The tax increase is expected to generate a record $94.9 million for the General Fund this fiscal year - $17 million more than last year - despite the reduced sales volume. That figure would make tobacco taxes the state's third-highest moneymaker, dropping the corporate income tax to fourth.

"We actually refer to it sometimes as 'tax profiling,' because you're taking a minority of the state's population and imposing a disproportionate tax burden on that group," said John Singleton, spokesman for tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds.

What is more, critics say, the tax increase is encouraging people to smuggle cigarettes across state borders and make purchases over the Internet. Both practices are illegal in Maine, said Elmer Pelletier, an analyst for Maine Revenue Services.

The Fund for a Healthy Maine, which will receive about $50 million a year for the next two decades, helps support the state's tobacco prevention and control program called The Partnership for a Tobacco-Free Maine.

Many other Maine smokers will join Gildard in cutting back or quitting, smoking opponents predict. State analysts forecast that retailers will sell 3 million to 4 million fewer packs in the 12-month period ending June 30, down from 100 million the previous year.

don't see a constitutional right, do you ?

This from www.usconstitution.net:-

The right to smoke would certainly be covered under the 9th Amendment. But, by extension, so is the right to snort cocaine; but it is illegal, and not just at the state level. So perhaps to start, you need to ask, what gives the U.S. the right to make cocaine illegal? From there, you can extend to include smoking.

The Congress has broad powers to regulate most things under the Interstate Commerce clause. Because most tobacco products are created for sale outside the state they are created in, the Congress can tax and regulate tobacco products. If cigarettes were only consumed in the state they were created in, the Congress may not be able to do too much about the issue. It would likely, however, have the power to ban smoking in all government buildings, seeing how it has the power to set rules for federal agencies, and, by extension, their facilities.

You may have trouble arguing that the Federal Government has a similar right to regulate other public places, because it exerts no direct influence. However, it can make funds for schools, for example, contingent upon it being a non-smoking area. The powers granted agencies such as the FDA would allow it to ban tobacco outright, I suspect, even given its wide usage; the FDA may even be able to ban smoking in public places, though I'd have to check its rules and the U.S. Code governing the various agencies.

My wife is still working on me. So far I have given up drinking, smoking, fatty foods, caffeine and wiskers in sink. Still on her list is staring at girls, socks on the floor, helping around the house and probably more than I know as of yet.

Wow, aren't you just a manly man. Gawsh, how impressive.

Does she keep in locked in the safe, and only let you get it out when you need to play with it?

The numbers on lifetime health costs of smokers v. non-smokers is interesting (do you have a source, by any chance?) but the disparity is even greater than that. Those numbers don't account for the fact that, over their lifetime, most smokers pay $30,000 - $60,000 more in taxes than anyone else in their tax bracket. Figure that in and the numbers become even more impressive. Smoking saves the government a substantial amount of money.

I could understand if the money were going in the Opposite direction, but the simple fact is RWJ is a renowned Philanthropist who spends an awful lot of time trying to do PALAPABLE GOOD with his money.

I guess you can fool some of the people all of the time.

The RJWF is a very clever way to dramatically increase the profits of Johnson and Johnson. It is set up as a separate charitable organization, but their primary source of funds comes from six billion (yes, billion) dollars worth of J&J stock. So when they harass someone into quitting, and that someone wastes his money on J&J's incredibly profitable nicotine patches, gum, inhalers, butt plugs, etc. it literally puts money in their pocket.

Actually, they dont even need to do that. If they want to crush out butts in this country, all they need to do is ban the Chemical Additive that keeps tobacco burning when it is not being actively smoked. Put it down for a second, and it goes right out. that Chemical is a public safety concern and is directly responsible for the deaths of many smokers that fall asleep with a cigarette.So I say, lets keep tobacco. Natural and safe. My Prediction, sales drop off by 50% in 5 years.

That chemical additive is potassium nitrate, aka saltpeter. Kiss you firecrackers good-bye. No more dynamite either.

Most European cigarettes don't have the additive and go out if you stop puffing for a minute. The same thing happens with premium cigars. In principle the idea of making cigarettes self-extinguishing sounds good, but let's remember the kind of scum we're dealing with here. First they'd demand that cigarettes go out in 60 seconds. A year later, 30. A year or two after that, 15. By the time they're done, the damn things will be made out of asbestos.

Your prediction is silly - if it were done correctly it would have no effect on smoking.

Shelion: Only by activism. I've tried and tried to get smokers motivated to march on capitals, etc, but they just won't do it. Until they will, we can expect more and more of our rights taken away. Also, join the Smoker's Tea Party by buying your smokes on foreign soil. I use yesmoke.com and get my Camel 100's for $14.95 per carton. You can order up to 5 cartons at a time. Spread the word to your addy book. Everyone knows people who smoke. It's time we told the gov where to go! They've been nothing but abusive to smokers and we're just not going to take it anymore. They can live without our tax dollars!

Brat:Some patriot you are. I guess the Constitution only applies to you and what you approve of.

Ever hear of the Boston Tea Party? It was an act of vandalism that we celebrate as an important part of our history. The people who did it are highly regarded as patriots.

They weren't just angry about taxation, but at taxation without representation. When was the last time you heard of any legislation, anywhere, for smokers?

The Tea Party was over a tax of three percent. Three percent! Cigarette taxes are 300%, 400%, 500% and more, and smokers get no representation for their money

Fighting an unjust government is patriotic. If the Boston Tea Party was patriotic, then so is evading cigarettes taxes. This does have the unfortunate side effect of saving up to 80%, but most smokers are willing to live with that inconvenience.

You have a constitutional right to smoke and smell up my air ?

Your air? WTF makes it your air?

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.