musicman Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 full articleThe new taxes, meant to increase funding for the federal State Children Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) full articleThe new taxes, meant to increase funding for the federal State Children Edited April 1, 2009 by Gary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidegate Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 i don't buy a pack very often but when I do I'll appreciate them all the more! No mention of cigars though....interesting.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Timmy Chan's Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 A typical pack of cigarettes will cost about $7 in Texas after the tax takes effect. Hmmm...every store I've bought cigarettes in the last 3-4 weeks has already been charging the "tax." Every pack I've bought lately has been $7-8, and several places in the last several weeks have actually told me it's because of the new federal tax. That's quite a surprise to hear that the tax goes into effect TOMORROW, when I've already been paying the "tax" for a month!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadooga Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Hmmm...every store I've bought cigarettes in the last 3-4 weeks has already been charging the "tax."Every pack I've bought lately has been $7-8, and several places in the last several weeks have actually told me it's because of the new federal tax. That's quite a surprise to hear that the tax goes into effect TOMORROW, when I've already been paying the "tax" for a month!!! The tobacco companies went ahead & raised the prices a couple of weeks ago. Cigarette prices go up ahead of tax Philip Morris USA, maker of Marlboro, Benson & Hedges and other brands, kicked off the price hikes on March 9 by charging an extra 71 cents a pack -- 62 cents for the higher excise tax and 9 cents for the increased cost of doing business, spokesman David Sutton said.R.J. Reynolds Tobacco followed March 16 by raising prices 44 cents a pack on its brands, including Camel and Winston, and eliminating discounts. The company instituted the price increase two weeks early ''because large tax increases can cause disruptions in the buying patterns of wholesalers and retailers,'' said company spokesman David Howard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Luckily, I stopped smoking about 10 years ago. I wonder what 10 years of nicotine gum does to someone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 I can't get addicting to cigarettes. I have bought a few packs of Reds, but only every once and a while. I don't go crazy when I can't smoke, like some people do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) I buy by the carton, and it went from $40 to $50. I haven't seen $7-8 anywhere. Edited April 1, 2009 by RedScare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolBuddy06 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 If it's going to fund CHIP, good. But shouldn't some of it go to funding lung cancer?I don't smoke, never did. If you smoke, keep trying to quit until you actually do. It's one of the few things people do that has no benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights2Bastrop Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 I look at it as an investment. I know smoking may kill me, and it is driving me to bankruptcy, but one of these days I am hoping it will pay off when I get cancer, then sue the bastard tobacco companies for not sufficiently warning me of the dangers of smoking 4 packs a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 full articleThe new taxes, meant to increase funding for the federal State Children Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Here's a map of state cigarette taxes by state as of February, 2009:http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/fa...ts/pdf/0222.pdfI'm surprised that Texas is as high as it is. New York appears to be the highest: $2.75, plus an additional $1.50 in NYC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy76 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) i don't buy a pack very often but when I do I'll appreciate them all the more! No mention of cigars though....interesting....Oh cigars got taxed big time. About the only thing I smoke.New Federal Excise Tax Rates:Cigars........................................... 52.75%, maximum 40 Edited April 1, 2009 by westguy76 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidegate Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Not at all. Think how much they could make though if they taxed that.Anyway, I didn't know about the cigar tax. I'll gladly pay it though, I'll usually have one on a Sat night with a single malt on the porch. That's definitely worth 40c more a week to me.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 I've been looking for a reason to quit ever since they added the fire retardent stuff. It makes them taste bad, and you have to keep puffin or they go out.If they took the fire stuff out, I'd pay the new high prices. If your dumb enough to smoke, and then fall asleep... maybe its your time. I feel like over throwing the federal goverment... thanks anti-smoking lobbyists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Not at all. Think how much they could make though if they taxed that.Anyway, I didn't know about the cigar tax. I'll gladly pay it though, I'll usually have one on a Sat night with a single malt on the porch. That's definitely worth 40c more a week to me....Yeah, but most cigarette smokers I know are definitely smoking more than 1 cigarette a week. Most I know are at least a pack a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 If it's going to fund CHIP, good. But shouldn't some of it go to funding lung cancer?Technically buying cigarettes is already funding lung cancer. Or wait, maybe you meant research to cure/treat lung cancer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 (edited) The tax is going up in order to cover the revenue lost by upping the legal age in which to buy cigarettes. It is going up to 19 yrs. old now. So, the state is gonna lose about 20% on that deal so they pass it on up to the older LEGAL smokers. SO, they can try to justify it by saying the new revenue is going towards CHIP, but the truth is, to keep them from losing any money.http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/6352189.html Edited April 2, 2009 by TJones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolBuddy06 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 Technically buying cigarettes is already funding lung cancer. Or wait, maybe you meant research to cure/treat lung cancer...Exactly what I mean, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gooch Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 Well... the smokers to help keep Social Security solvent by dying off early. I hear it prevents alzheimers as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff8201 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 I don't smoke, never did. If you smoke, keep trying to quit until you actually do. It's one of the few things people do that has no benefits.Not completely true. I don't smoke, however for all those people I know who do, it's a stress and anxiety reliever for them. Pretty beneficial in that light. It keeps them calm. Take someone who smokes a pack a day and take that away and watch them fall to pieces at the normal everyday hustle and bustle of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 I always get a kick out of non-smokers giving me expert advice. And, while smoking can cause some pretty severe diseases in a certain percentage of the population, I wonder what the non-smokers are doing that causes them so much disease. Even though the percentage of those who smoke is continuing to drop (down to roughly 20-21%), the number of cancer cases is rising. Wonder what it is that is causing that?If the government is going to tax my vice, at least it goes to a worthy cause. The increased federal tax goes to fund SCHIP. The increase in Texas state taxes goes to fund emergency room care. I'm OK with that. Better than funding Blackwater mercenaries killing innocent Iraqi civilians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolBuddy06 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 I always get a kick out of non-smokers giving me expert advice. And, while smoking can cause some pretty severe diseases in a certain percentage of the population, I wonder what the non-smokers are doing that causes them so much disease. Even though the percentage of those who smoke is continuing to drop (down to roughly 20-21%), the number of cancer cases is rising. Wonder what it is that is causing that? There's one thing in medical research that others, especially lawyers, often forget. When a factor, or a variable, is identified as contributing to your chance of getting a disease, it does not mean that you have to get that disease just because you're in the group. The probability of getting lung cancer for smokers is not 1. The probability of a non-smoker getting lung cancer is not zero. Other factors come into play. Even if somking is the only factor, those probabilities are still not absolute. What we're just saying is that there is a significant difference between the number of smokers who have lung cancer, COPD, emphysema, and other serious repiratory problems. The difference is so significant that you reduce your chances of getting those disease a lot by quitting. And no matter how much you're propped to quit, remember it is an advice, meaning you can stick it in your pocket and use it, or flush it down the toilet on your next smoke. Good luck. Not completely true. I don't smoke, however for all those people I know who do, it's a stress and anxiety reliever for them. Pretty beneficial in that light. It keeps them calm. Take someone who smokes a pack a day and take that away and watch them fall to pieces at the normal everyday hustle and bustle of life. That's addiction. Still not a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 That's addiction. Still not a good thing.It's not all about the addiction. While nicotine is definitely an addictive drug, it also raises the stimulus barrier between synapses. This acts like a squelch control on a CB radio, making it easier to focus on signal and ignore noise. Nicotine is a smart drug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 I always get a kick out of non-smokers giving me expert advice. And, while smoking can cause some pretty severe diseases in a certain percentage of the population, I wonder what the non-smokers are doing that causes them so much disease. Even though the percentage of those who smoke is continuing to drop (down to roughly 20-21%), the number of cancer cases is rising. Wonder what it is that is causing that?Probably better detection methods as technology advances.I think a lot of the mortality rate of smoking is attributable to genes. In my family, people die young; especially the men. There isn't a man in my immediate or extended family who made it past 50 (all were heavy unfiltered Lucky Strike smokers). But then there was my grandmother. She smoked like a coal-fired locomotive and lived to be 71. There was something different about her that let her live long after all her children had died. She also drank Schlitz like water and washed her hair with Pabst. If history is a guide, I've got about 11 years left on this Earth. Unless I start smoking and washing my hair with beer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 If history is a guide, I've got about 11 years left on this Earth. Unless I start smoking and washing my hair with beer. Well, it was nice knowing you. C'mon dude, you could be the blacksheep of the family and die at 118 or something. Besides, it ain;t your choice, the man upstairs will decide how long he wants to keep you around down here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 I quit smoking (for about the 5 or 6th time) right at Christmas. Absolutely cold turkey. No nicotine replacement. No cheating. I still can't believe I haven't chewed my right arm off, or shot my BF, or somehow else gone crazy. My stress level is through the roof and I've gained 10 pounds. Maybe I need more weed in my life, to calm down. Meme, my best friend quit about 10 years ago, but she has no intention of giving up the gum. Nicotine is a wonderful thing.The State can just go eat **** on the way they tax tobacco, though. It amazes me that they get away with it. But, god forbid you upset the tobacco company shareholders by attempting to curtail smoking in the rest of the (poor) world, and cut into profits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsb320 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 I quit smoking (for about the 5 or 6th time) right at Christmas. Absolutely cold turkey. No nicotine replacement. No cheating. I still can't believe I haven't chewed my right arm off, or shot my BF, or somehow else gone crazy. My stress level is through the roof and I've gained 10 pounds. Maybe I need more weed in my life, to calm down. Meme, my best friend quit about 10 years ago, but she has no intention of giving up the gum. Nicotine is a wonderful thing.The State can just go eat **** on the way they tax tobacco, though. It amazes me that they get away with it. But, god forbid you upset the tobacco company shareholders by attempting to curtail smoking in the rest of the (poor) world, and cut into profits. Congratulations! Especially with all the stress at your job these days. Do you have evidence that your BF is alright? Has anybody else seen him recently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff8201 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 That's addiction. Still not a good thing. It may seem like I'm nitpicking, maybe because I am, but the word addiction doesn't necessarily have to mean something's bad. You didn't say addiction to smoking, simply "That's Addiction." As if the act of being addicted to anything is always negative. In the case of smoking, usually yes, but lets say I'm addicted to going to the gym... not a bad thing, well unless I exercise myself until my muscles completely tear apart and I become paralyzed, in which case I'm not addicted but simply an idiot. But my only point to this rant is that the word Addiction is stereotypically associated with something being bad, and that's not always the case. Again, I know what you meant, but I felt that for whatever reason the word needed its 30 seconds of scrutiny before moving on. I stand by my affirmation that smoking isn't all bad (not saying it's all good either just to be clear) because of its calming effects on people. However, one stress reliever can simply be replaced by another. Most people are reluctant to do so when they find a method that works so well for them, i.e. smoking. Have they tried drinking? Works wonders for me! I've met smokers who justify it by the ole' "Gotta die of something" in which I retort "Yes, but better to die at 80 from something natural than 50 something in agony, am I right?" I guess if everyone thinks like many smokers I may have some hope of collecting Social Security one day after all . And of course I'll hear a story about how someone smoked until they were 95 and didn't even die of a smoking related illness... well if that's indeed true they're just plain lucky. For the smokers who will tell that story, are they really willing to see if they have that same fate when their chance of having the same life expectancy is very much not in their favor? I guess you can fool yourself into believing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 (edited) It may seem like I'm nitpicking, maybe because I am, but the word addiction doesn't necessarily have to mean something's bad. You didn't say addiction to smoking, simply "That's Addiction." As if the act of being addicted to anything is always negative. In the case of smoking, usually yes, but lets say I'm addicted to going to the gym... not a bad thing, well unless I exercise myself until my muscles completely tear apart and I become paralyzed, in which case I'm not addicted but simply an idiot. But my only point to this rant is that the word Addiction is stereotypically associated with something being bad, and that's not always the case.Again, I know what you meant, but I felt that for whatever reason the word needed its 30 seconds of scrutiny before moving on. I stand by my affirmation that smoking isn't all bad (not saying it's all good either just to be clear) because of its calming effects on people. However, one stress reliever can simply be replaced by another. Most people are reluctant to do so when they find a method that works so well for them, i.e. smoking. Have they tried drinking? Works wonders for me! I've met smokers who justify it by the ole' "Gotta die of something" in which I retort "Yes, but better to die at 80 from something natural than 50 something in agony, am I right?" I guess if everyone thinks like many smokers I may have some hope of collecting Social Security one day after all . And of course I'll hear a story about how someone smoked until they were 95 and didn't even die of a smoking related illness... well if that's indeed true they're just plain lucky. For the smokers who will tell that story, are they really willing to see if they have that same fate when their chance of having the same life expectancy is very much not in their favor? I guess you can fool yourself into believing. You make some good points, but all I can really say in my own defense (and what do I care what smoking does to anyone else but me, when you get right down to it), is what my doctor told me this afternoon after my physical..."You're in great shape. Keep doing what you're doing, except the smoking." If smoking was causing me health problems, I'd certainly make a greater effort to quit. It's not, so I don't. I've told this story before. The looks I get on my 40 mile bike rides when I light up a smoke at the rest area, after having passed up the non-smokers on the ride, is priceless. Like everything else, one size does not fit all. And, when the health zealots oversell the dangers of anything, some of us tune them out. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going outside for a refreshing blast of nicotine. Nice weather out. Edited April 3, 2009 by RedScare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.