I don't believe I'm saying this but....we must back Liberals on cigarette tax!!

WASHINGTON - Congress is taking new whacks at the cigarette industry, banning tobacco sales in Senate buildings and — more importantly — seeking a significant federal tax increase on cigarettes.

The industry, once a lobbying behemoth, is quietly working against the tax bill. But it lacks the clout it once wielded.

Several key lawmakers said they have had no recent contacts with tobacco lobbyists. And both houses have signaled a willingness to raise the cigarette tax if other provisions of a children's health bill can be resolved.

"I think the industry has tried to do things more quietly, largely because they obviously know how popular a tobacco tax is," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA. The health advocacy group supports a proposed $35 billion increase in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which a higher cigarette tax would finance.

House and Senate negotiators are trying to craft a veto-proof version of the bill. President Bush says he would veto it because it calls for a 61 cents-per-pack increase in the federal excise tax on cigarettes, taking it to $1.

The House came within about a dozen votes of overriding Bush's veto of a similar bill last month. The bill's supporters are offering to change program eligibility rules in hopes of picking up enough Republicans to make the revised bill veto-proof. The proposed cigarette tax increase is not at issue, leaders of both parties said.

Philip Morris USA, the nation's largest cigarette maker, sponsors a Web site, mailings and a toll-free number urging people to ask Congress to sustain Bush's veto. "Taxing smokers is unfair," the materials say, adding that states have increased sales taxes on cigarettes 73 times since 2000.

"We are sharing our position with legislators," Philip Morris spokesman Bill Phelps said in an interview. The company also has encouraged tobacco growers, retailers and wholesalers to get involved, he said.

But tobacco's critics say health concerns have deeply eroded the industry's influence in Congress.

"The country and elected officials have really made a turn," said Bill Corr, executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Cigarette companies, he said, "don't have the opportunity to go in and push members as much."

The tobacco industry gave $3.5 million to federal campaigns and candidates in the 2006 election cycle, ranking 64th among major industry groups, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Ten years earlier, it gave $10.5 million, ranking 26th.

Some Democratic lawmakers have groused that House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., is married to a lobbyist who has worked for Philip Morris' parent company. Blunt, who is monitoring the children's health negotiations, says his wife no longer lobbies on tobacco issues.

In a landmark 1998 settlement of many lawsuits, four major tobacco companies agreed to help states pay for smoking-related health care costs. They paid $52.6 billion from 2000 to 2005, the government reported.

In some ways, tobacco's presence on Capitol Hill is literally waning. The Senate Rules Committee recently ordered shops in the Capitol and all Senate office buildings to end cigarette sales by Jan. 1.

Cigarettes are still sold in the Longworth House Office Building. But last January, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., banned smoking in the ornate Speaker's Lobby, just off the House floor.

"The days of smoke-filled rooms in the United States Capitol are over," she said, citing the risks of cancer and respiratory diseases.

Other congressional actions could have a far greater impact on the industry. A Senate committee recently approved legislation that would, for the first time, allow federal regulation of cigarettes. The bill, also pending in the House, would require the Food and Drug Administration to restrict tobacco advertising, regulate warning labels and remove hazardous ingredients.

---------------------------------------

I must be crazy but, this is one issue I am with the Liberals on. We must stamp out tobacco and smoking as soon as we can with this tax. This is also one issue that is the weakness for Rush Limbaugh and President Bush and my fellow Conservatives. Smoking does kill and others with second hand smoke. If I was to raise the tax, I would jack the tax so high that smokers would be forced to quit. I hope that we can raise the roof with this tax. It must succeed.

---

I agree Maha.  While I don't like the Federal government regulating smoking since smoking isn't illegal, I do worry about our health and the health of children due to second hand smoke.  I have asthma and I'm allergic to cigarette smoke.  I carry an epipen with me in case I get closed up with cigarette smoke and have an attack.  TN just started it's state wide ban on smoking in public places and it's the best thing that ever happened for us.  We never patronized restaurants that allowed smoking because of my asthma.  Since the ban we have questioned several owners and they say business is the best it's ever been.  Patrons eat and leave instead of sitting for an hour drinking free coffee refills and smoking. :-)

Maybe more states will follow the example of the few like TN and ban it on the state level.  I would love to see the big tobacco farmers put out of business, especially in my area, because it would kill two birds with one stone.  We would naturally slow down the cigarette business and get rid of all these darn illegals that work the tobacco farms.

 

---

I read this article this morning, and I'll tell you, I am against this. I am a smoker, and I have been smoking for 47 years. I don't smoke around non-smokers or children. When I take my family out to eat, I always ask for non- smoking section, and wait until I am finished and go out to smoke.

I know that smoking is a health risk, but while they are at going after smoking, they should do more about alcohol. There have been far more people killed by drug drivers than by smokers.

---

John07, that's the part of me that is against the no-smoking law.  As long as smoking isn't illegal, and it shouldn't be, I think businesses should be able to decide how to run their businesses. 

Not all smokers are as polite as you are.  Some of them are downright rude.  While I personally like the anti-smoking law in TN because of my personal health risks and the risks to children, I don't think it's up to the Federal government to control it.  State level is a good thing IMO.  One reason my asthma is so bad is because my parents both smoked when I was little.  People didn't realize how bad it was for your health back then.  That still happens today.  The children of smokers don't have any say about the situation.  There are laws to keep teenagers from buying cigarettes, that don't work BTW, but they are still exposed in most smoking households.  The government can't ban it there but they can control it in public places.  Anything is better than nothing I guess.  If all smokers were like you there wouldn't be a problem or a need for a law.

Ditto on the alcohol.  I hate drunks!

---

it is / was a personal right / all you bandwagon folks don't seem to realize "everybody wants to rule the world " is very true . Stamp out Smoking , next will be booze then "What Ever " a slect group wants . I smoke and enjoy it .

Do i tramp on your Rights ??? NO  

---

It is all about trial lawyers and control of your everyday life. Any thing that politicians find that will make their buddys in the legal profession rich or enhance their career is what they are for. Just remember William Jefferson "Blow Job Bill" Clinton likes cigars.

---

I do not like this-let people smoke if they want too ---my parents owned land in Kentucky and knew some of their neighbors--some had tobacco plants and piles of it in their tobacco barns--this is how they earn a living---leave these people alone! 

---

Melinda in TN said:

John07, that's the part of me that is against the no-smoking law.  As long as smoking isn't illegal, and it shouldn't be, I think businesses should be able to decide how to run their businesses. 

Not all smokers are as polite as you are.  Some of them are downright rude.  While I personally like the anti-smoking law in TN because of my personal health risks and the risks to children, I don't think it's up to the Federal government to control it.  State level is a good thing IMO.  One reason my asthma is so bad is because my parents both smoked when I was little.  People didn't realize how bad it was for your health back then.  That still happens today.  The children of smokers don't have any say about the situation.  There are laws to keep teenagers from buying cigarettes, that don't work BTW, but they are still exposed in most smoking households.  The government can't ban it there but they can control it in public places.  Anything is better than nothing I guess.  If all smokers were like you there wouldn't be a problem or a need for a law.

Ditto on the alcohol.  I hate drunks!

 

I also don't smoke in my house. I have a designated place I smoke, and everyone knows this. If they don't like the smell and don't want to be around the smoke, then don't come near me when I'm smoking.

I am well aware of how bad cigatette smoke smells. I think it stinks. I don't even want to be around someone who is smoking unless I am am smoking, also. But this is not the issue. This is just another example of our government in their ifinite wisdom trying to interfere in our personal lives, and soaking us for more taxes to squander the money on things other than what the taxes are designated for. Most likely to take care of the increasing demands of illegal immigrants. After all, we have to take care of these poor unfortunate people who have been sent here because their own government doesn't care about them.

---

John07 said:

I read this article this morning, and I'll tell you, I am against this. I am a smoker, and I have been smoking for 47 years. I don't smoke around non-smokers or children. When I take my family out to eat, I always ask for non- smoking section, and wait until I am finished and go out to smoke.

I know that smoking is a health risk, but while they are at going after smoking, they should do more about alcohol. There have been far more people killed by drug drivers than by smokers.

 

Cigarettes can be shipped directly to your house via any shipping you're willing to pay for to expedite the arrival.  These are American made cigarettes sent to Sweden at a huge discount and then resold via the internet and shipped directly to you.  Only hitch is that you cannot buy more than two cartons per day. With shipping it works out to about $20. per carton and for some brands even less.  Another reason why control of this media, our last bastion, is in the workings.  When I lived in Utah all liquor stores are state owned, a form of socialism, but those with internet access could purchase wines via the internet.  Since then they've cracked down on that too, but stuff does still slip under their detection.  Unloaded a truck at a retail location that came in from California that had about 6 cases of wine on it that was accidently loaded.  The manager was supposed to dump it all, but she sold it to the employees that wanted it under a different sku and at a discount.  She could have had a felony charge against her for that action.  

Smokers don't bother me as long as they don't infringe on my personal space.  It's their choice, but it's just another freedom of choice that is being taxed, removed, or made illegal.  Interestingly though, even though Nevada has banned smoking in public establishments they made an exception for the gaming part of casino's.  Guess when big big bucks are involved heads look the other way. 

tencz57 said:

it is / was a personal right / all you bandwagon folks don't seem to realize "everybody wants to rule the world " is very true . Stamp out Smoking , next will be booze then "What Ever " a slect group wants . I smoke and enjoy it .

Do i tramp on your Rights ??? NO  

This is just a single example of how the government can "change the rules". It is legal to smoke but socially unacceptable today. What people don't seem to understand is that while they may not be affected by Smoking Bans and Taxes (as non smokers), they will be affected, taxed by the "next " in a series of governmental attacks. Evidence some of the proposals of Hitlary Clinton for National Health and Green (energy). If the government feels comfortable attacking 25 % of Americans (Smokers) they will relish higher taxes on gas, natural gas, heating oil and diesel (to curb our driving to work and heating our homes).  Look for other areas of government domestic policy where the government can profit from taxing what they want to control for their social agenda. Done it in the past (ask a moonshiner) and will do it MORE in the future.

The politicians have learned well how tramping on the rights and freedoms of individuals is ACCEPTABLE to mold society's morals, actions , products and beliefs. Yes, I smoke. No, I don't wish to quit. Tax and regulate is not the answer...Gerald 47 is right: When the government makes something expensive or regulated, individuals will FIND ways to subvert the "system".  Too bad but a reality. As the price of gas goes up, will a "black market " in gas develop ? Smuggling of cigarettes already exists between states to subvert state taxes. Smuggling of booze exists to subvert "dry counties and states". Is fuel next? And why is our government so stupid as to think it can go down this road without ENCOURAGING what eventually becomes illegal activity ? Guess we learned nothing from Prohibition Days.

Personally, I care not whether they tax, regulate or even outlaw cigarettes. I'll still smoke. But what worries me is: what is next in their agenda of CONTROL and rape of the rights of an individual ?

Well said Sparks3. I am tired of the politically correct liberal government and their lap dogs telling me or restricting me, and for that matter, penalizing me for something I do. As I said earlier, I have been smoking for 47 years, and I am going to be 59 in another month. I may drop dead tomorrow, but so far I have not had any health issues due to smoking, or for that matter over eating and eating foods high in fat and cholesterol. Like you, I will continue to smoke until I feel like quitting.

As far as the taxes, can anyone say Boston Tea Party???

---

Do we really think this extra tax will go to a children's health bill? It, too, will be raided for useless congressional pet projects.

The outsourcing of millions of jobs has caused many  hard-working Americans to no longer have jobs, health insurance, a retirement plan. If the "government" was really there to represent their EMPLOYERS, they would have assessed each corporation a fee/fine to move out of the country instead of giving them many tax benefits. This fund would have been used for displaced workers' families welfare. But once again, it is the little guy at the bottom of the food chain that has to take up the slack caused by their irresponsible policies and trade deals.

On another tax issue, on a recent trip to North Carolina by auto, federal and local taxes listed on the pump (gas price $2.82/gal.) totaled $.91. Each state I passed through varied. NC was the worst.

See you in the Third World.

I hate smoking-- I am asthmatic--I am COPD--I hate smoking-- about 1/4 as much as I hate ignorance and mob rule. The war against smokers is perhaps the most unfair war I have ever seen. I do not smoke, I do not like people smoking near me. I dislike that , as I entered above, about as much as I hate lies and cheating and the use of fear to get people to make decisions. The war went to the children--go home and get your parents to quit. I had mixed emotions about that. The people I have known in my life who are the strongest against smoking --are the ones I call the "anti-smoking nazis". The only way they can totally win is to convince everyone that all smoke , to use their exaggeration techniques, is dangerous to anyone within 5 miles of the smoker. Bosh. Again, because the world is full of contrary people, I do not smoke, I dislike smoking, I think smokers put themselves at risk for health issues. But--whoa--that won't give the anti-smoking Nazis what they want---so how about the extreme dangers of SHS (Second Hand Smoke)? That's a winner. Let's scare everyone about how we are killing the kids and our spouses. They did do that and now they are trying to stop everyone from smoking everywhere. I, too, wish everyone would stop smoking. I am not Hitler and I would not dictate that if I were. Let's instead use reason, and set REASONABLE limits on where people can smoke.

OK -enough. Now I will excerpt some information released subsequent to the great SHS (Second Hand Smoke) scare.

" April, 2003 -- Dating back one year, this milestone study published by the American Journal of Epidemiology has been so thoroughly ignored by the public health gangs and its media servants - it has escaped even our attention! The enormous study covers 37 years, during which thousands of filght attendans have been followed and monitored for cancer. Furthermore, this is not a study based on questionnaires asking whether uncle Jack smoked more or less in 1956, as it's the case for most antismoking junk science -- nor it is something started and finished in a few months. Finally, it is neither financed by the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry, nor is it supported by "public health" funds allocated to produce scientific frauds to support public health's frauds on smoking. All that explains the results. Here is an excerpt that says it all:

"We found a rather remarkably low SMR [standardized incidence ratio] for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group. Smoking during airplane flights was permitted in Germany until the mid-1990s, and smoking is still not banned on all charter flights. The risk of cardiovascular disease mortality for male and female air crew was surprisingly low (reaching statistical significance among women)."

"May 28, 2002 - There's been a loud and "responsible" silence in the media about this study, published 11 months ago, concerning the overestimation of the already ridiculously small "risks" of passive smoke. "Adjustment for bias due to misclassification of smoking habits reduces the observed relative risk of lung cancer in non-smoking women associated with smoking by the husband from 1.24 to 1.18." Eighteen percent risk increment …(1.00 = no risk; 1.18 = 18 % increased risk). Readers must keep in mind that statistical risks smaller than 200% are not even considered by serious science – especially when one cannot even be sure of what has been measured – as it is always and only the case for passive smoke. Yet, well financed criminals have penetrated the media, state and even international institutions to the point where a non-existing danger has become a primary legal, financial and political issue at the global level. This is the sad state of decay in the body of "public health" – the entity we trust.

"Lord Harris of High Cross comments on the findings (or should we say "non-findings?") of the WHO study: "In short, 'passive smoking' is a hoax inspired by anti-smoking pressure groups (ASH, etc), obligingly invented by militant medicos, and unwittingly spread by passive thinking! It is driven by familiar political imperatives and orchestrated by media scare stories. For all the effort to prove their point, the anti-smokers' ETS claims vanish in a puff of smoke."

In short, many people have relied on falsified data to almost criminalize anyone who ever lights a cigarette, cigar or pipe.

Again (I know from experience that if I do not keep repeating it, no one will remember it), I HATE smoking. But I hate ruling people through fear, lies and misinformation more.

And , to be completely open, I have found anti-smoking Nazis to be obnoxious people, trading in false reports and on the guilty feelings of smokers. Let commercial enterprise, (restaurants, cafes, trains, planes, etc.), make decisions about how it is handled on their premises and let's stop the government intervention in this addiction of 30% of the American public.

PS As scientific reports have come out refuting the SHS charges, there are new charges that SHS causes Diabetes, and a number of other diseases. Bosh, again.

Perhaps Al Gore will add it to the causes of anthropogenic Global Warming--or did he already???

I went back over my responses and I didn't even mention the tax on cigarettes.  Taxing the cigarettes won't make a bit of difference to a smoker.  It will only make the politicians richer.  Smokers are like any other addict.  Drug users will get their fix, alcoholics will get their alcohol, and smokers will get their nicotine, no matter who it hurts.  Taxing them will only make their families suffer for lack of money for necessities, unless you are rich.  It's only the poor and middle class that suffer when government taxes our vices.  While they have a good intention with the tax on cigarettes, I don't see it working they way they think it will.  Letting the states determine how much cigarettes cost and where in public you can smoke is a better way.   

I do like TN's ban on smoking in public places because it makes more places that non-smokers can go.  If the ban wasn't in place I would do what I always did and not patronize those businesses.  A lot of parents don't mind taking their kids to places like that though.  That said, I don't like the government telling businesses what they can do in their own business.  What I was trying to say is that I'm for it for personal reasons but against it for other reasons.  I would NEVER be for making smoking illegal or banning people from smoking on their own property.

As far as tobacco farms go, I'm really disgusted with our local tobacco farmers.  They all use illegals and that causes problems for the rest of us.  If it means they all go out of business, so be it!

Another thing.  I think tobacco is different today than it was years ago.  My grandfather rolled his own as long as he lived.  He started smoking when he was about 10 I think and smoked until the day he died in his 90's.  He never had any problems with his health from it, but, he never smoked commercial cigarettes.  I think they are putting more pesticides or something on the tobacco than they did fifty or 100 years ago.

---

Melinda:

You are right in that cigarettes are different than they used to be. Chemicals/fertilizers added to the soil and in the processing of the tobacco has made it the danger it is today. When I first started smoking, a cigarette could be used as a timer. It would take me ten minutes to smoke one; today that time has been cut in half. They burn faster, less evenly and produce more smoke.

Mz said:

Melinda:

You are right in that cigarettes are different than they used to be. Chemicals/fertilizers added to the soil and in the processing of the tobacco has made it the danger it is today. When I first started smoking, a cigarette could be used as a timer. It would take me ten minutes to smoke one; today that time has been cut in half. They burn faster, less evenly and produce more smoke.

It seems everyone has different experiences concerning cigarette smoking.  I was raised with parents who both smoked, in the car, in the house, everywhere.  I have no ill effects from second hand smoke at all, nor did I wind up a smoker myself.  But I have to say, it was one of the greatest days when smoking was banned in California restaurants.

I've never heard that cigarettes were more harmful these days.  If true, they do need to go.

---

If they bann cigarettes altogether, and make them illegal, then they should make alcohol illegal. I have known more people who have died from illnesses related to alcohol abuse, more deaths due to alcohol related murders and auto wrecks, than from cigarette smoke.

While we're at it, lets ban the use of cell phones while driving. I have had more near misses from people trying to drive while talking on the phone or sending a text message, than from someone trying to light a cigarette.

I will be the first to agree with the banning of smoking in public places. Like I have said, though I'm a smoker, I don't want my family to be subjected to it. Not just because of the health reasons stated, but  the smell is offensive to those who don't smoke, and to some of us who do smoke. I certainly don't like to smell it while I'm trying to eat in a restaurant.

---

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING:  Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health. 

 What a paradox.  The leaf that kills people, will now be used to save children whose parents make up to $60,000, many who are already covered by a parent's good health coverage.  This is 'one giant step' toward Socialized Medicine in the United States. 

I do not smoke but I vote no to helping children who do not need the help. One dollar per pack multiplies quickly for more government bureaucracy and more government control over our lives.

Cut out the 'pork barrel' nonsense! Us that money to  pay for children's health care coming from poorer families.  In America I do not see any dead children lying in the streets.

President George Bush is right vetoing this foolishness.

Bible Blabber said:

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING:  Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health. 

 What a paradox.  The leaf that kills people, will now be used to save children whose parents make up to $60,000, many who are already covered by a parent's good health coverage.  This is 'one giant step' toward Socialized Medicine in the United States. 

I do not smoke but I vote no to helping children who do not need the help. One dollar per pack multiplies quickly for more government bureaucracy and more government control over our lives.

Cut out the 'pork barrel' nonsense! Us that money to  pay for children's health care coming from poorer families.  In America I do not see any dead children lying in the streets.

President George Bush is right vetoing this foolishness.

 

This money will not go towards paying for children of poorer families. It will go for health care of anchor babies and the other children of illegals.

---