Cigarette Tax $1.50

[Burzhui]

By JOANNE WASSERMAN
Better take a deep breath, smokers: A pack of cigarettes could cost nearly $7 by the summer.

Mayor Bloomberg proposed raising the city's cigarette tax to $1.50 a pack from 8 cents yesterday, saying he was trying to get smokers to quit.

"This is not a revenue-enhancing thing — although I'd like to have the revenue," the mayor said. "This is something for the future of our children, and I think it would be very easy to put together a panel of reputable public health officials which would show that we should do this."

The mayor needs approval from Albany to increase the cigarette tax. If approved, it would bring an extra $249 million to city coffers next year.

Tobacco lobbyists argue the increase would hurt small stores and the city's treasury by forcing smokers out of state and onto the Internet, where they can buy cigarettes without paying a penny in taxes.

"The mayor has promised not to raise taxes," said Michael Pfeil, vice president of communications at Philip Morris. "The same logic that the mayor has used to hold all other taxes steady applies to the proposed cigarette tax increase."

A pack of smokes is already going up in price. Effective April 1, the state tax on cigarettes will rise to $1.50 from $1.11 — an 39-cent increase.

Add another $1.42 in city taxes, and a $5 pack of cigarettes suddenly costs $6.81.

"It's preposterous," said James Calvin, president of the New York State Association of Convenience Stores. "Say what you want about whether it's smart for people to smoke, but people who smoke are not stupid about where to find cigarettes that do not include exorbitant taxes."

Bloomberg said he believed he had the support of state Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno (R-Rensselaer) to hike the tax. A spokesman said Bruno "told the mayor he wants to be helpful, not just on this issue, but other help he may be seeking from Albany."

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan), whom Bloomberg said he could "probably convince," did not return calls for comment.

The mayor said he didn't believe programs aimed at helping smokers quit worked as well as "just raising taxes. ... You raise it, consumption goes down."

If you think that's enough to make people quit, think again.

"I'm addicted," said Raymond Rios, 33, a food service worker at Pace University. "I tried to quit and I started again a week later. A pack already costs $5. A little more money isn't going to make me stop."

Holy Smokes!

A $5 pack of cigarettes soon could cost New Yorkers nearly $7 if Mayor Bloomberg gets his way.

Here’s how:




State tax to be raised to $1.50 from $1.11: up 39 cents

City tax to be raised to $1.50 from 8 cents: up $1.42

$1.42 plus 39 cents equals $1.81

$5 pack costs $6.81

[DoPeY5007]

:heh:

[ChrisMG187]

Maybe now more people will quit. If they tax it heavily enough, no one will be able to afford it.

[johnnymk]

now, if I was addicted to tobackey, I would start a tobackey farm on the patio and roll my own ceegarettes...just a thought

[sbp]

:stupid:

Cigarette taxes are already too much. All this is going to do is increase cigarettes smuggling.

Raising these taxes hurt the poor more.

[chrissy]

more people will buy where there isn't taxes (indian reservations and military bases) and sell them at a profit. see it now already

[Grimm]

So why does the pack of cigarettes cost $5 to start?
How much Federal Tax is being charged?

[mojo]

holy no-linkage given, burzhui!

peeps here already buy smokes across the border and sell them state side for profit. i've seen it...it's not pretty.

[ufcrusher]

Damn! TO think I used to pay $4 for three packs of camels! I think these anti-smoking individuals need to be hit upside the head a few times. I am really tired of seeing all these anti-smoking ads.

For example: THere is an ad whereby they show a newborn in the picu ward hooked up to so many different machines. THey claim it is a result of smoking.

FACT: Many of us, our parents, or even grandparents were born to smokers. We didnt end up in the picu. THere are many children even born today to smoking mothers with no ill effects.

Who cares if a person wants to light up a cigarette. I really dont. Go ahead, burn one.

Its true, that there are some places which are less appropriate for smoking (such as a restaurant) but still who are we to dictate what someone does with their life?

I already know that some people are going to say, "it affects me if I breathe their smoke." One word, MOVE. If you dont like the smoke, move away from the smoker. If you cant move, then ask the smoker (politely) to put it out, most smokers will says sure.

[Dave_7]

Hmmm... I'm not sure where I stand on this one...

I think that the only reason that tobacco is STILL legal is that it's such an OLD and LARGE part of the American economy. I mean, if they discovered that puffing on Plutonium rods gave you a little buzz and settled your nerves... they wouldn't leagalize it because doing so would be OBVIOUSLY dangerous to your health. Let alone the whole "addictive" property of tobacco.

But, then again... I'm not sure that TAXING something heavily is a great way of discouraging use.

Hmmm....




Dave.

[Burzhui]

F*cking bloomberg, now he wants to put tolls on manhatten brooklyn and williamsburgh bridges, someone shoot him

[mypriceline.com]

Who has the right to tell people not to do something. He wants to reaise prices because he doesnt want to smoke...HE ALSO may put tolls on the brooklyn and manhattan brdige to discourage people from driving during rushover... Whats next? Alcohol? perhaps McDonalds? THIS IS WRONG..

[INeedAVacation]

Originally posted by ufcrusher
Damn! TO think I used to pay $4 for three packs of camels! I think these anti-smoking individuals need to be hit upside the head a few times. I am really tired of seeing all these anti-smoking ads.

For example: THere is an ad whereby they show a newborn in the picu ward hooked up to so many different machines. THey claim it is a result of smoking.

FACT: Many of us, our parents, or even grandparents were born to smokers. We didnt end up in the picu. THere are many children even born today to smoking mothers with no ill effects.

Who cares if a person wants to light up a cigarette. I really dont. Go ahead, burn one.

Its true, that there are some places which are less appropriate for smoking (such as a restaurant) but still who are we to dictate what someone does with their life?

I already know that some people are going to say, "it affects me if I breathe their smoke." One word, MOVE. If you dont like the smoke, move away from the smoker. If you cant move, then ask the smoker (politely) to put it out, most smokers will says sure.

Wow, you are very uneducated (ignorant). I'll begin at the top;

First, about the ads, they do not promise that 100% of the children who's parents smoke during the pregnancy will be effected in the exact same way as the premature baby in the ad. It is possible for one unborn child to be effected moreso than another; this means that one child may have a lot of complications while another may have only a few or even none.
To relate this to unborn children's parents who drink during pregnancy, not every chold was effected the same by that drug either. I have a friend who's mother drank while she was pregnant with my friend and, since birth, my friend has had many, many effects from the alcohol which she continues to suffer from.

Next, you asked who should have the authority to dictate what others do with their own life. Then you were quick to point another way in which one persons smoking sometimes does effect others. An analogy if you will: I want to spit. I spit in your face. What gives you the right to dictate what I can do with my own life? You would be far less likely to die from someone spitting in your face every day then if someone was to blow smoke in your face every day. And, to answer your question of who should have the authority to dictate what we do in our own lives, the answer is simple: the people who we elect as our leaders. Its their job. We vote for them to do their job and part of their job is to protect us, even from ourselves.

Lastly, your solution to smokers is for the person bothered by the smoke to move. So, if you buy a townhome and two days after moving in a chimney of a man moves downstairs from you and his smoke continuously permeates your floor and walls and lungs, your answer is that YOU must move? Why? Your new neighbor is the source of a continuous stink which IS harmful to your health, and to the health of your wife, and to the health of your baby, and the health of your pets and you think you should retreat and move somewhere else and prey that your new neighbor is not the same.

I am not one of those people who live for home owners association and, in fact, I don't like people telling me what I can and can't do but just because we in the United States fought for FREEDOM we must realize that door goes both ways. We must make sure our "freedom" does not infringe upon the "freedom" of others. Smoking is an obvious example of how some infringe their right to smoke on other's right to breath clean air.

I have heard the arguement that, "well maybe we should ban cars too because they produce way more smoke than cigarettes do." My answer to that arguement is this;
It is NOT an all or nothing scenerio; just because we can't do it all doesn't mean we should do nothing.
There have been enormous changes as to the legal limits of exhaust fumes a vehicle can put out. There have been, and continue to be, advances to purify the exhaust emitted by cars. If you believe in the "all or nothing approach" then you'd have to say that all exhaust on cars should be removed because we can't make the exhaust 100% clean yet. Do you see how stupid that is? You can't skip evolution and just come up with the perfect "widget".

[mojo]

Originally posted by INeedAVacation


Wow, you are very uneducated (ignorant).

<snip>An analogy if you will: I want to spit. I spit in your face. What gives you the right to dictate what I can do with my own life? You would be far less likely to die from someone spitting in your face every day then if someone was to blow smoke in your face every day. <snip>ironic that you called someone else ignorant.

if you blew smoke in my face, i would be offended and ask you not to. if you spit in my face, i would still be offended, but you can also count on not being able to use at least one of your eyes for a while.

[ufcrusher]

Its always interesting to see how people get so inflamed by what they perceive as ignorance. It also is even more fun to see how idiotic certain people are. Apparently some people cant understand the point of my post and so I need try to simplify it for the simple folks. You know the ones who like to call names.

My entire point was simply that they are dramatizing the effects that occur from smoking. The ads make it appear that as soon as a mother has a cigarette while she is pregnant her child will suddenly need to go to the PICU. Unfortunately the majority of people are uneducated and dont understand that it is a dramatization. They actually will believe that if they have a cigarette their child will end up in the PICU.

Additionally,just because some people dont like it, they have demonized it, and as such have demonized all people who smoke. It is easy for someone to say that, man, I dont like smoke. It is another thing to say, I dont like smoke and therefore no one should smoke. Think about it. Just because you dont like something doesnt mean that it is bad. It just means that you shouldnt do it.

That said, I dont smoke. I used to smoke, but I personally quit a few years ago. I cant stand the smell of smoke anymore, but I am not going to sit there and tell someone that they cant smoke because it might harm me. EVERYTHING, and I do mean EVERYTHING, can be shown to be harmful. It all depends on the quantity and duration of exposure.


Now you want to sit there and use a "chimney of a man" moving into the townhouse next to you as an example. Well, the reality is, YOU would have to move. If he owns the property or even rents it without an anti-smoking clause, you dont have any right to tell him not to smoke. So, if you dont like it, you should move. Now you could try and bring a personal nuisance action against him, but you couldnt force him to stop smoking.

As for what gives them the right, and you claim we do through the legislature. No, I dont think so. Even when we vote, the votes dont get counted and numbskulls get into office. The legislator are SUPPOSED to do what their constitutents want, many dont.

[ThanatoGratus]

I believe the reason tobacco is not illegal is because the government CAN and DOES tax it. By the same token, marijuana is not legal, because the government has not found an "efficient" means by which the growing of it can be controlled and therefore they can know the supply on the market to tax and process, tax, etc. accordingly.
Thats my 2 cents on the matter, I'd be happy to elaborate, but I'm not sure exactly where I want to go on my take of the issue. So, feel free to point out anything, or try to condemn me for my views, it makes no difference who you are. You'd be surprised how few people are actually open-minded.
Here's a test scenario. The net time you're in a conversation and you get into an argument, try to be conscious if you say "no, you're wrong" before you hear their proof. I'm willing to bet that happens is more than 1/2 if not 3/4 of the cases for the standard person. (Note, these figures may and probably will be larger in the U.S.)

[johnnymk]

The term "smoker's rights" is an oxymoron.

[hoey222]

I'm glad i quit. :D

I think i'll start growing tomacco. :heh:

[Greykiller2k2]

Raising these taxes hurt the poor more.

Poor people, who eventually end up in ICU with emphysema, heart desease, cancer, or strokes...who cost US money because they don't have insurance? Those people?

Cig tax=== a just payment for those willing to commit slow suicide.

Make the tax 3 bucks a pack, and put the money in a fund for cancer research for people who DO NOT SMOKE.

Smoking killed both my parents. They made bad choices and paid dearly for them. Mom dead at 60. Dad dead at 62. RIP mom and dad.

[Dave_7]

If you started smoking within the last 20 years... you can't be very bright.

If you started smoking within the last 3 years... you must be a Grade-A Moron. Within the last 3 years, there has been plenty of mass-advertising against smoking for you to get the message... even if you ain't rich.

"Oh, but it calms my nerves when I'm really stressed." Yeah? Well... take a yoga class. I doubt that any yoga class has ever caused lung cancer (except, perhaps, for the Yoga For Smokers class on Long Island).

And the truth is... you have to TRY to be a smoker. No one just buys a pack as a larf with their pack of Twinkies at the gas station... lights up and says, "Mmmm... these are for me." It takes effort. In fact... more often than not... a person's first cigarette makes them nauseous. Mmmm... now THAT's for me!


Wise up.





Dave.

[mojo]

a lot of people should quit smoking. that is true.

a lot of people don't want to quit. that is also true.

a lot of people should be able to breathe clean air. that is true.

there are ways that the people who want clean air can get it without affecting those that wish to keep smoking. that is true.

there are ways that people who want to smoke can smoke and not affect those that want clean air. that is true.



now maybe someone can tell me why such simple ideas can't find a resolution? torturing smokers because someone doesn't want to deal with a legitimate solution isn't an answer. smokers "blowing smoke in the face of nonsmokers" (i've never seen it, but people say it happens :shrug: ) isn't an answer. we should be able to live together without such ill feelings between groups.

[leemaj]

have all 50 states raise taxes $20 a pack, and have george w have an internet tax on them for $20 a pack..use the money to have a sort of "anti-tax" on nicoretes and stuff like that.

[ThanatoGratus]

Originally posted by INeedAVacation


Wow, you are very uneducated (ignorant). I'll begin at the top;

First, about the ads, they do not promise that 100% of the children who's parents smoke during the pregnancy will be effected in the exact same way as the premature baby in the ad. It is possible for one unborn child to be effected moreso than another; this means that one child may have a lot of complications while another may have only a few or even none.
To relate this to unborn children's parents who drink during pregnancy, not every chold was effected the same by that drug either. I have a friend who's mother drank while she was pregnant with my friend and, since birth, my friend has had many, many effects from the alcohol which she continues to suffer from.

Next, you asked who should have the authority to dictate what others do with their own life. Then you were quick to point another way in which one persons smoking sometimes does effect others. An analogy if you will: I want to spit. I spit in your face. What gives you the right to dictate what I can do with my own life? You would be far less likely to die from someone spitting in your face every day then if someone was to blow smoke in your face every day. And, to answer your question of who should have the authority to dictate what we do in our own lives, the answer is simple: the people who we elect as our leaders. Its their job. We vote for them to do their job and part of their job is to protect us, even from ourselves.

Lastly, your solution to smokers is for the person bothered by the smoke to move. So, if you buy a townhome and two days after moving in a chimney of a man moves downstairs from you and his smoke continuously permeates your floor and walls and lungs, your answer is that YOU must move? Why? Your new neighbor is the source of a continuous stink which IS harmful to your health, and to the health of your wife, and to the health of your baby, and the health of your pets and you think you should retreat and move somewhere else and prey that your new neighbor is not the same.

I am not one of those people who live for home owners association and, in fact, I don't like people telling me what I can and can't do but just because we in the United States fought for FREEDOM we must realize that door goes both ways. We must make sure our "freedom" does not infringe upon the "freedom" of others. Smoking is an obvious example of how some infringe their right to smoke on other's right to breath clean air.

I have heard the arguement that, "well maybe we should ban cars too because they produce way more smoke than cigarettes do." My answer to that arguement is this;
It is NOT an all or nothing scenerio; just because we can't do it all doesn't mean we should do nothing.
There have been enormous changes as to the legal limits of exhaust fumes a vehicle can put out. There have been, and continue to be, advances to purify the exhaust emitted by cars. If you believe in the "all or nothing approach" then you'd have to say that all exhaust on cars should be removed because we can't make the exhaust 100% clean yet. Do you see how stupid that is? You can't skip evolution and just come up with the perfect "widget".

/APPLAUSE

[ufcrusher]

Why dont we just shoot everyone with aids, kill all the druggies, and kill all the homosexuals? I mean it.

That would cure aids since no one carrying the disease would be left.

It would get rid of the drug trade because there would be no one using.

It would get rid of those sickos who practice deviant behavior.

Then when ever someone gets the flu, we should kill them too.

The common cold, kill them.

Diptheria, emphasyma, meningitis, tuberculosis, sickle cell anemia. Yeah, any disease lets just kill them.

What?!? What you say? The audacity of such statements. THere is no way that you can equate taxing cigarettes with such a drastic statement.

Well, its simple, everyone starts screaming about the health risk created by smoking, but all of those diseases do the same thing. They injure people. They can even cause death.

Some of you seem to think that stomping on peoples rights because it can help the "health" of others is ok. SO why dont we just take it to the next step. Come on. You all believe what you say. Lets kill them all. And just think, it would solve the worlds over population at the same time. Yeah, lets do it. Come on.

(Disclaimer: Dont be offended by my choice of examples, they are for illustrative purposes only)

[Speedfreak]

Originally posted by ufcrusher
Why dont we just shoot everyone with aids, kill all the druggies, and kill all the homosexuals? I mean it.

That would cure aids since no one carrying the disease would be left.

It would get rid of the drug trade because there would be no one using.

It would get rid of those sickos who practice deviant behavior.

Then when ever someone gets the flu, we should kill them too.

The common cold, kill them.

Diptheria, emphasyma, meningitis, tuberculosis, sickle cell anemia. Yeah, any disease lets just kill them.

What?!? What you say? The audacity of such statements. THere is no way that you can equate taxing cigarettes with such a drastic statement.

Well, its simple, everyone starts screaming about the health risk created by smoking, but all of those diseases do the same thing. They injure people. They can even cause death.

Some of you seem to think that stomping on peoples rights because it can help the "health" of others is ok. SO why dont we just take it to the next step. Come on. You all believe what you say. Lets kill them all. And just think, it would solve the worlds over population at the same time. Yeah, lets do it. Come on.

(Disclaimer: Dont be offended by my choice of examples, they are for illustrative purposes only)

Do you think anyone willingly wants to get sick? to get Diptheria, emphasyma, meningitis, tuberculosis, etc? No one wants these illnesses. So, why are people paying $3-4 for a pack of cancer? Work on that one for me, why don't you.

Ok, fine... you are not garunteed to get cancer (hell, look at George Burns..smoked all his life), but why would someone want to PAY for a health risk? Why the hell are these people also PAYING (Whether it's copay or idivitual healthcare) to get WEll? I think they should make up their minds of paying for a good chance to get sick or to get well.

What purpose does smoking have at all? There is NOTHING good in it. Maybe it would be smart for fire departments to wrap shrubbery with paper before they do controlled burns and then charge smokers to run around and breath in the smoke once the flames are gone.

Hmm.... Nicotene....a narcotic. Shouldn't that be controlled? I should get a job in government fighting that. I think I would be the first polotitian who wouldn't mind having shallow pockets if it meant filtering/keeping Nicotene out of cigarettes.

[ThanatoGratus]

Originally posted by Speedfreak

Hmm.... Nicotene....a narcotic. Shouldn't that be controlled? I should get a job in government fighting that. I think I would be the first polotitian who wouldn't mind having shallow pockets if it meant filtering/keeping Nicotene out of cigarettes.

You can always try. The problem is that when most people get to the push vs. shove pinnacle... they don't ahve enough left to fight the establishment anymore.

[mojo]

the thing here is that everyone is focused on people that smoke, while the government is doing everything short of making it illegal. it's like a mind game. you can't smoke here, you can't smoke there...it costs too much to smoke...but it's legal. they want to act like they don't want you to smoke. they want to look like they don't want you to smoke. oh, and they care ever-so-much for people being exposed to 2nd hand smoke. yet it's still legal.

think of all the other things that are proven to be harmful to others when you do it. speeding is illegal. running stop signs is illegal. dumping toxic waste is illegal. when they know something is harmful, they make it illegal.

if the government really want people to not smoke, they should just make it illegal and quit screwing with everyone. if they're not gonna make it illegal, they should just make sensible ways that people can smoke and enjoy it with other smokers. this wishy-washy crap is silly.

[ThanatoGratus]

Originally posted by mojo
this wishy-washy crap is silly.
I couldn't agree more, but that's the political side. Its about money..... the suppliers/manufacturers of tobacco products are a multi-billion-dollar industry. They spend alot on politicians.... and even with the recent boom in
"the companies of Philip-Morris are striving for a better future" ... blah blah blah.... they still make most of the money on the cigs and such... and wouldn't be STUPID enough to not watch that aspect of their equity.

[mojo]

Originally posted by ThanatoGratus

I couldn't agree more, but that's the political side. Its about money..... the suppliers/manufacturers of tobacco products are a multi-billion-dollar industry. They spend alot on politicians.... and even with the recent boom in
"the companies of Philip-Morris are striving for a better future" ... blah blah blah.... they still make most of the money on the cigs and such... and wouldn't be STUPID enough to not watch that aspect of their equity. that's what i was getting at. we're tools to them.

it's like in that movie "dragnet" with tom hanks and dan akroyd...some dude was controlling both sides of the equation. he was both for and against something, so that he could profit from both sides. he waged a war just for personal gain. being the good and bad side, and that fact hidden, he was able to become quite wealthy indeed.

[ThanatoGratus]

Thats sort of the way its going across the U.S. now... with gas prices rising again... the manufacturers control the distribution and also control the sales partly in the country...
Its amazing how there's not enough conscious people to logically think this stuff out.