Cigarettes up to $7.00 a pack!

[Guest Dangerous A]

California is putting a $3.00 tax on every pack of cigarettes sold in California, putting the average pack price to $7.00. They are doing this to help relieve some pressure over the state budget crisis.

 

 

My thing is this. Why don't they look to the root cause of the problem, state spending. This seems like band-aids being put on a wound that won't stop bleeding. Now black market cigarettes are gonna thrive big time cause most people I know are not gonna pay that amount for smokes.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Black market? Who needs a black market? These guys ship cartons of 20 from a reservation to anywhere in the States for 30 bucks. I've had a delivery schedule of 5 a month set up for a couple of years now. No shipping charge, and it's never a day late.

[Guest EricMM]

Many of my friends smoke. Thats very rough. That's an awful lot of money.

 

It's a very popular tax hike for Non-smokers tho because they won't pay a dime Of course that means we're taxing the minority...

 

Actually can someone tell me why the govt. can tax cigs more than anything else?

 

I personally would be fine if the habit died... But that's not up to me. Eat what you want, smoke what you want, shoot what you want, as long as you deal with the consequences...

[Guest hardyz1]

Actually can someone tell me why the govt. can tax cigs more than anything else?

 

Because scumbag smokers need to pay extra for polluting my fucking air.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I'm just glad Big Brother is taking out its tax aggressions on smokes and not on something I like (yet).

[Guest redbaron51]

so its cheaper to afford pot than cigarettes

[Guest NoCalMike]

The government is almost contradicting itself in a way. On one hand they say, hey stop smoking it is bad for you etc....On the other hand, now they are using smokers as a source of income, so do you think they will back off of all the anti-smoking rhetoric or will they still try to eliminate a NEW source of income??

 

Personally, I am not a smoker, never have been, can't say I appreciate it that much, but don't think this new tax is fair because it targets a single group that is not breaking any laws. Smokers should just invest their money in pot now, since at least if you are gonna kill yourself, have some FUN doing it.

[Guest Some Guy]

People always tell me to just quit when I complain about the discriminatory taxation on Cigarettes. Well it's not that easy, I;m addicted to the things. Where's all the sympathy for my addiction? I see sympathy for drug addicts and alchoholics but little to none for smokers.

 

Most people think that the tax is fair, because they don;t smoke and it's bad for you anyway so it doesn't matter.

 

My response to this is if it's to a woman: What if we put a special tax hike on Tampons? I don't use them or have any use for them. You could always quit using them.

 

To a man: What if the governmetn put a $3 tax hike on your morning coffee? I don't drink it, it's bad for you, and you could just quit.

 

Mass has managed to successfully tax me out of the system. As soon as my order from Switzerland gets here I will never buy Cigs in this state again. And they'll report my not buying them here as well as all the others who buy on-line as people who quit because of the taxes.

[Guest Shaved Bear]

hey, if you wanna smoke, i think this is a smart way for the states to take advantage of smokers, my entire family smokes, and in NY, the avg is like $6.80 a pack...they are all going broke smoking

[Guest Flyboy]

Good thing I don't smoke.

[Guest redbaron51]

Ontario has also put a tax hike on cigs too, and its about 7 bucks a pack. (or 4 bucks American)

[Guest Bosstones Fan]

People always tell me to just quit when I complain about the discriminatory taxation on Cigarettes. Well it's not that easy, I;m addicted to the things. Where's all the sympathy for my addiction? I see sympathy for drug addicts and alchoholics but little to none for smokers.

Hmmmm...that's weird because I have ZERO sympathy for smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts.

 

 

And, for the record, you can chalk one up for me in the "In Favor Of Higher Cigarette Taxes" column.

[Guest J*ingus]

I think taxing them so high is pretty stupid. If a product is bad enough for the public that it represents a legit health hazard, simply outlaw it. If it's still legal to consume under today's laws, how constitutional is it to put a 100% tax on them, for being "bad for you"?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

It's a non-issue. State governments are trying to enforce morality in a typically heavy-handed and completely ineffective way. Their position is not only stupid and wrong, it's impracticable. Keep raising taxes. Make a pack of 20 cost twice as much as a bottle of whiskey. I don't care. I'll never pay one cent of those taxes, nor will any smoker with more than half a brain.

 

And for the record, I don't want anyone's sympathy, I'm "addicted" by choice, and I wouldn't accept medical care paid for by public funds even if I were on my deathbed.

 

You don't like cigarettes? That's dandy. No one's forcing you to light up. Just stay the fuck out of my life, you preachy, self-righteous, holier-than-thou pricks. "Polluting [your] fucking air?" How the fuck am I doing that from the privacy of my own flat, you fucking jackass? Must be one hell of a crosswind.

[Guest LooseCannon]

That sort of tax I don't think is unconstitutional, no matter how high. Certain taxes may run afoul of due process, for instance if the government raised the property tax on a small number of homes without raising the taxes on other homes nearby. But it would take some very unique circumstances for a sales tax, no matter how high, to be unconstitutional.

 

That said, despite cigarettes addictive qualities, prohibitive tax rates have never been an effective way to raise revenue. Ever. If the purpose of these taxes is to discourage smoking, that's one thing, though of questionable efficacy. But if they honestly believe they are going to increase state revenues, then they might do well to invest the time in taking a simple economics course.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

It's not unconstitutional, it's just really, really dumb.

[Guest LooseCannon]

yup.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I think it all comes down to what the government decides what is "bad" for you today and what is bad for you tommorow. They just support this or that when in need for money. If they could make money off of marijuana it would probobaly be legal. If they want to make Tobacco illegal they could do it, but there goes a boatload of money.

 

Personally my opinion is, Tobacco is LEGAL, so leave it alone.

[Guest DrTom]

Personally my opinion is, Tobacco is LEGAL, so leave it alone.

 

I agree completely. Of course, that didn't stop the federal government from ass-raping the tobacco industry to the tune of half a trillion dollars. And they were also considerate enough to leave them open for every septogenarian dotard who's been smoking for fifty years, and wants someone else to pay for the choice he made. Fuck those people. If you smoke, it's your choice, and YOU should be responsible for the consequences. It's been known for a LONG time that smoking's not exactly good for you, so no one should be able to claim ignorance. Of that fact, at least.

[Guest Youth N Asia]

As a non smoker I just find this very funny

 

The companies know they sell an addicitve product, that knowingly kills over time...and even if they cannot prove it kills it's still known to be bad for the health to begin with...then they target it to a younger group so they can addict early and keep them for the long haul.

 

Then the spike prices...knowing that the weak will pay any price and just give in...while the ones who are trying to stop will spend $50 or so on the patch or gum that they're manufacturing anyway...and I've heard more people tell me they tried all them and went back to smoking then I heard about them actually working.

 

They just get you at every turn

 

And serves ya right! I fucking hate being around smokers

[Guest EricMM]

Then the spike prices...knowing that the weak will pay any price and just give in...while the ones who are trying to stop will spend $50 or so on the patch or gum that they're manufacturing anyway...and I've heard more people tell me they tried all them and went back to smoking then I heard about them actually working.

 

If I read it right, the American government is taxing tobacco, the companies are not hiking the prices per se...

 

I mean there are a lot of American habits that are cancerous and bad for you. Should the government tax fatty foods because they cause people to have heart attacks? I don't understand why the govt. singles out cigs? I guess they can tax whatever they please? Or is it because tobacco is controlled by the govt?

 

As a non-smoker on one hand I like seeing Tobacco companies get cornholed because my grandfather lived a lot of his later life with no breath because of camels. He quit but it was too late. On the other hand, it's not the '50s and the risks of things like Cigs, red meat, and sun bathing are better known. So really smokers shouldn't be coddled if they chose to smoke...

 

I mean remember that post about the guy who sued McD's cuz he didn't know the fried burgers would make him obese? I mean in today's day and age, there's a certain amount of accountability for your actions...

 

I personally think smoking smells bad, but it's really not that big a deal. My roomate smokes and I've liked girls who've smoked. I don't freak out if people do it around me at all, and I don't really understand people who do. I mean they're passing regulations at my school where people can't smoke outside of buildings unless they're far away from the buildings. That's rough, what if it's raining? People smoking outside your door won't kill you, shit, someone smoking next to you won't kill you...

[Guest MrRant]

While I personally don't smoke and I will not under any circumstances let someone smoke around my baby (Aug. 24th) including my grandparents and mother who smoke.

 

That said I know plenty of people who smoke and my only issue is that in confined places like a airplane there should be no smoking. In a resturant it should have the option of non-smoking (unless its a bar then its a given and you have no right to complain about smokers).

 

I also think it goes both ways because smokers can be just as self-righteous as the non-smokers who memorize a little fact about how smoking is bad and then proceed to tell anyone who lights up. I find a lot of smokers are VERY inconsiderate on non-smokers as well. An example would be Disneyland where it fucking says NO SMOKING except in designated areas and some assholes walk around smoking. I don't care what kindof whining about the addiction it is but follow the goddamn rules because most people don't smoke and that is why the fucking rule is there because I personally don't want to walk behind some fat fuck spewing out toxic chemicals into my, my fiancee or my baby's face and if I catch them doing that I am gonna knock them on their ass.

[Guest hardyz1]

You don't like cigarettes? That's dandy. No one's forcing you to light up. Just stay the fuck out of my life, you preachy, self-righteous, holier-than-thou pricks. "Polluting [your] fucking air?" How the fuck am I doing that from the privacy of my own flat, you fucking jackass? Must be one hell of a crosswind.

 

Oh, that's right, NOBODY smokes in public. Thanks for reminding me.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

And just because some smokers can be obnoxious, inconsiderate creeps, all of them should be taxed no matter how or where they smoke? The "addiction" line is bullshit; if you're that fucked up, you really shouldn't be allowed in decent company in the first place. But if you're sitting in a smoking area, or you're in your own house, or you're smoking in the middle of a park with no one around for miles, and you're dumb enough to buy a pack from from a shop which pays the sales tax, you're getting penalised for no reason at all. Or does EVERY smoker in California directly pollute your fucking air?

 

smokers can be just as self-righteous as the non-smokers

I've never seen anything of the sort. Most people, if you politely ask them not to smoke, will immediately put out their cigarettes. Those who don't aren't jerks because they're smokers, they're just jerks. And, incidentally, if that silly overwrought line about punching someone because he or she's smoking around you wasn't just hyperbole, it'd be kind of funny to watch. The smoker might get a $50 fine or something, at max, while you'd have your ass busted for assault and battery. And one day you'd pick on the wrong smoker, and your ass would be in a sling as well.

 

Smokers do a lot of things that piss me off, like carelessly smoking around children (I don't allow anyone to light up anywhere near my goddaughter) and tossing their filters on the ground. But self-righteous non-smokers and legislators who try to tax a legal industry to death piss me off more.

[Guest Some Guy]

The sympathy for my addiction was sarcasm, I was making a point about hypocracy form some people who are always wanting more tax money to go to help drug addicts but when they see a smoker they start the fake cough bullshit and want them to be unfairly taxed for their bad habit.

 

I don't mind no smoking in a plane, but I don;t fly very much as a result, nor do my father or my uncle. It makes sense, you're in a tube with mostly recycled air, but the lawsuits by stewardesses are bullshit. They took the job knowing that there would be smoking on the planes and knowing that smoking or second hand smoke is bad for you and if they didn;t know that then they have been living under a rock for the last 50 years.

 

I think there should be a smoking and non-smoking section in restaurants, I pay just as much as everybody else and as such I should be able to enjoy myself just as much.

 

Bars should be all smoking, it would hurt the business if they stopped, a lot of non-smokers will light up when out drinking, it's part of the culture, so to speak.

 

All the health facists who want smoking outlawed, banned anywhere inside (including people's own houses), any where outside, etc.. are just trying to run other people's lives. I am hurting no one by smoking a cigarette I my house by myself, I am hurting no one by walking down the street smoking. There is this magical thing called air and wind and since smoke rises you are unlikely to get more than maybe a little tiny breath of it and that will not kill you.

 

The other hypocritical argument about from non-smokers is that it hurts their enjoyment of whatever they're doing. Well what about smoker's enjoyment? I guess that doesn't count. Generally smokers will bend over backwards to avoid blowing smoke on someone and we still get shit for it.

 

I remember when I was 15 soem woman stopping on the street to explain the evils of smoking, like I was a moron who had no idea that they were bad for me.

 

As for why I started smoking? I don't really know, it just seemed like the right thing to do at the time.

[Guest Nevermortal]

You could probably just drink tar and get the same effects as a cigarette.

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

I'm usually up for a debate like this, but I'm going to take the "it-doesn't-affect-me-so-I-don't-give-a-shit" perspective on this one. As a fairly conservative man I'm against taxes as a whole, but what are you gonna do about it? Either find another way to get your smokes, pay the taxes, or in the extreme case, get started on a quitting program.

 

I look at it this way: I like booze. If tomorrow morning I had to pay $50 for a liter of vodka or $25 for a six pack, I'd probably opt not to, because I'm not addicted. Otherwise I'd save up some cash and buy a bottle, or I'd get it in Canada or from a friend or however I had to. Now, if I was addicted, I'd still have the same options, and frankly I wouldn't have the "right" to cheap booze. Yeah, it would probably make my life pretty damn shitty, but you've just gotta deal with it.

 

In the end, I guess what I'm trying to say is that while I'm not in favor of the tax, I'm not gonna try to stop it.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

And all 50 States breathe a sigh of relief...

[Guest jimmy no nose]

So is anyone here actually going to pay $7 for one pack? Is it a little cheaper to buy a carton?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

No one with Internet access has to. Follow the link in my first post.