Smokers/Non Smokers, dumb laws

[CJ...$]

{RIP-OFF]..

Overall All States’ Average: $1.45 per pack
Major Tobacco States’ Average: 48.5 cents per pack
Other States’ Average: $1.57 per pack
State Tax Rank
Alabama $0.425 47th
Alaska $2.00 11th
Arizona $2.00 11th
Arkansas $1.15 29th
California $0.87 33rd
Colorado $0.84 34th
Connecticut $3.00 4th
Delaware $1.60 20th
DC $2.50 9th
Florida $1.339 26th
Georgia $0.37 48th
Hawaii $3.00 4th
Idaho $0.57 42nd
Illinois $0.98 32nd
Indiana $0.995 31st
Iowa $1.36 25th
Kansas $0.79 36th
Kentucky $0.60 40th
State Tax Rank
Louisiana $0.36 49th
Maine $2.00 11th
Maryland $2.00 11th
Massachusetts $2.51 8th
Michigan $2.00 11th
Minnesota* $1.576 22nd
Mississippi $0.68 37th
Missouri $0.17 51st
Montana $1.70 17th
Nebraska $0.64 38th
Nevada $0.80 35th
New Hampshire $1.78 16th
New Jersey $2.70 6th
New Mexico $1.66 19th
New York $4.35 1st
North Carolina $0.45 45th
North Dakota $0.44 46th
Ohio $1.25 27th
State Tax Rank
Oklahoma $1.03 30th
Oregon $1.18 28th
Pennsylvania $1.60 20th
Rhode Island $3.46 2nd
South Carolina $0.57 42nd
South Dakota $1.53 23rd
Tennessee $0.62 39th
Texas $1.41 24th
Utah $1.70 17th
Vermont $2.24 10th
Virginia $0.30 50th
Washington $3.025 3rd
West Virginia $0.55 44th
Wisconsin $2.52 7th
Wyoming $0.60 40th
Puerto Rico $2.23 NA
Guam $3.00 NA
Northern Marianas $1.75 NA
* Tax stamp includes 75¢ health impact fee &
34.6¢ cigarette sales tax (Commissioner of
Revenue sets sales tax rate each year)
Table shows all cigarette tax rates in effect now. Since 2002, 47 states, DC, and several U.S. territories have increased
their cigarette tax rates more than 100 times. The three states in bold type have not increased their cigarette tax since
1999 or earlier. Currently, 29 states, DC, Puerto Rico, the Northern Marianas, and Guam have cigarette tax rates of
$1.00 per pack or higher; 14 states, DC, and Guam have cigarette tax rates of $2.00 per pack or higher; five states and
Guam have cigarette tax rates of $3.00 per pack or higher; and one state (NY) has a cigarette tax rate more than $4.00
per pack. Tobacco states are KY, VA, NC, SC, GA, and TN. States’ average includes DC, but not Puerto Rico, other
U.S. territories, or local cigarette taxes. The median tax rate is $1.339 per pack. AK, MI, MN, MS, UT also have special
taxes or fees on brands of manufacturers not participating in the state tobacco lawsuit settlements (NPMs).
The highest combined state-local tax rate is $5.85 in New York City, with Chicago, IL second at $3.66 per pack.
Other high state-local rates include Evanston, IL at $3.48 and Anchorage, AK at $3.452 per pack. For more on local
cigarette taxes, see: http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0267.pdf.
Federal cigarette tax is $1.01 per pack. From the beginning of 1998 through 2002, the major cigarette companies
increased the prices they charge by more than $1.25 per pack (but also instituted aggressive retail-level discounting for
competitive purposes and to reduce related consumption declines). In January 2003, Philip Morris instituted a 65-cent
per pack price cut for four of its major brands, to replace its retail-level discounting and fight sales losses to discount
brands, and R.J. Reynolds followed suit. In the last several years, Philip Morris, Reynolds American, and Lorillard have
increased their product prices by almost $1.00 per pack. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
estimates that smoking-caused health costs total $10.47 per pack sold and consumed in the U.S.
The average price for a pack of cigarettes nationwide is roughly $5.51 (including statewide sales taxes but not local
cigarette or sales taxes, other than NYC’s $1.50 per pack cigarette tax), with considerable state-to-state differences
because of different state tax rates, and different manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer pricing and discounting
practices. AK, DE, MT, NH & OR have no state retail sales tax at all; MN & OK have a state sales tax but do not apply
it to cigarettes; and AL, GA & MO (unlike the rest of the states) do not apply their state sales tax to that portion of retail
cigarette prices that represents the state’s cigarette excise tax.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Brudno, it wasn't a question about those at risk of smoking ... it was a question of lower insurance rates for those who don't smoke versus higher rates for those who do smoke (due to certain health problems resulting from smoking.)

And you are either a smoker or not a smoker ... 'not a matter of being at risk to smoke.
Similarly, you are either a felon or not ... and nobody suggests that nonfelons be treated as criminals merely because their ethnicity, family history, educational level, or anything else indicates a risky propensity to be a criminal.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

And former smokers should be charged more than those who never smoked....

Buzz and Matt have really gone off the deep end. From talking about not letting the government make all your decisions for you to candy-flavored cigarettes. Next, they'll be advocating letting 5-year olds drive, buy booze and smokes, etc.

"Most" have agreed that just about all rights are subject to reasonable limitations - like ex-felons not being legally able to buy/possess firearms, age limitations on buying booze and firearms, etc. It is childish to take the argument to the level of promoting smoking to kids. Feel free to do so - but you've lost credibility.

 

[belly-deep]

Belly-Deep- Using your argument...why are any drugs illegal? Isn't prohibiting the sale of any illicit drug an invasion on our lives by the government? I'll bet you're just mad because we don't have the Winston Cup, Marlboro Man and Joe the Camel anymore aren't you? Now when you're sitting by the campfire, you're just smoking a cancer stick whereas before you were the Marlboro Man...

Because there is a balancing act between freedom and public health and we've decided as a country drugs tip the scales far enough to make a limitation on freedom worth it.

I'm not mad about Joe Camel or anyone else, in fact, I don't smoke and never have.

 

[Brudno]

Brudno, it wasn't a question about those at risk of smoking ... it was a question of lower insurance rates for those who don't smoke versus higher rates for those who do smoke (due to certain health problems resulting from smoking.)

And you are either a smoker or not a smoker ... 'not a matter of being at risk to smoke.
Similarly, you are either a felon or not ... and nobody suggests that nonfelons be treated as criminals merely because their ethnicity, family history, educational level, or anything else indicates a risky propensity to be a criminal.

No it wasn't a question about those at risk of smoking I never presented it as such its a question of whether or not someone who smokes is going at some point contract cancer or whatever else as a result of smoking, despite the risks of smoking nothing says a smoker will end up with cancer.

 

[belly-deep]

I know, how about toys in cigarette packs, something like those found in cracker jacks.

Why not promote them? Isnt infringing on a cig. companies right to advertise to who they want, how they want, taking a fundamental right?

Fuggin' haters.

Nobody here has said we should promote them, Buzz.

It comes down to how well a we like the govenment telling us what to do. You obviously want the govenment to make every decision in your life for you. Thats fine, in fact, there are many countries that do just that. Have you ever thought of moving to China or Iran? You might like their style of life.

 

[BuzzH]

belly-deep,

You couldnt be more wrong...I'm all about people doing what they want. If people want to smoke...go for it, hopefully they develop lung cancer, and every other respitory disease associated with their "choice".

Just dont ask me to pay for it, which is exactly what I do via my insurance premiums being through the roof. Also, dont ask for any sympathy from me either when suffering the consequences of your "choice"...I'll do nothing more than maybe offer up a light.

You seem to be more into the socialist mindset, mainly that I should pay for someone elses stupidity and right to smoke. I shouldnt have to, yet I've no choice in the matter.

Sorry, I'm in favor of people paying their own freight.

You choose to smoke/chew , you should be either self-insured, insured with other tabacco users, or be forced to pay out-of-pocket for your health care.

Finally, if people are going to use tabacco I dont think its out of line to show them a picture of a dying lung-cancer victim on every pack...its where they're headed and too bad for them if they cant handle the truth.

 

[Brudno]

belly-deep,

You couldnt be more wrong...I'm all about people doing what they want.

Just dont ask me to pay for it, which is exactly what I do via my insurance premiums being through the roof.

You seem to be more into the socialist mindset that I should pay for someone elses stupidity and right to smoke. I shouldnt have to, yet I've no choice in the matter.

Sorry, I'm more into people paying their own freight.

I've read your views on obama care they don't line up with what your saying now.

 

[BuzzH]

prove it...assclown.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Buzz - have you ever thought of suggestuing to your insurance carrier that they should start a non-smoker group rate? Certainly life insurance companies routinely ask about tobacco use and charge more if the answer is yes. I don't know why medical insurance companies couldn't do the same. Some employers regulate smoking,l I believe....some were charging smokers more for insurance. Perhaps that was challenged in court or overturned, as its been a couple years since I read about that.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Here's some links -

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11394043/ns/health-addictions/t/smokers-paying-extra-health-insurance/

http://www.alliedquotes.com/Resources/Health-Insurance-Rates.html

http://www.healthinsurancecolorado.net/blog1/2008/07/08/health-insurance-premiums-for-smokers/

 

[Brudno]

Buzz - have you ever thought of suggestuing to your insurance carrier that they should start a non-smoker group rate? Certainly life insurance companies routinely ask about tobacco use and charge more if the answer is yes. I don't know why medical insurance companies couldn't do the same. Some employers regulate smoking,l I believe....some were charging smokers more for insurance. Perhaps that was challenged in court or overturned, as its been a couple years since I read about that.

employers do, do that. Lloyd wont point that out though.

 

[Brudno]

prove it...assclown.

It will be my pleasure.

Sorry to hear about your son, but I don't think this is an appropriate thread for a hunting forum.

Lloyds response.

Since when is the truth not appropriate? I hunt and I care about other hunters and their families and how this type of ridiculous legislation will impact them.

It shows the hypocracy and the lack of a giving a shit that Denny Rheberg and his fellow Republicans show toward the peasants....unbelievable.

But, on the good side, Rhebergs rich buddies, who can afford health care, will get another tax break to ensure they have another million in the bank and that 3rd vacation home. By trying to do away with the stream access law, those same rich buddies wont have to bothered watching a Father take his sick son fishing past that 3rd vacation home.

The callousness...hell I wont sugar-coat, the meanness of the R's these days never fails to impress...

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=245913&highlight=health+insurance In addition to every other one of your posts supporting what is in effect a goverment socialized health care system. You pound your chest in this thread, I'm not paying for anyone else, and there healthcare my rates shouldnt be affected by other people, blah, blah, then in the linked thread you blame high rates on the "meaness" (lol) of republicans for wanting sanity brought into the healthcare system, and call even not willing to cover everything heartless. You cant have it both ways Dbag, this isnt like your younger days when you played for both teams, you cant play class warfare then tell us your not a bleeding heart.

 

[BuzzH]

Gee Nicky,

How many smokers do you suppose actually admit they smoke when asked for insurance reasons? In particular when they know damn good and well their rates will increase based on the answer?

You may want to research that some...

Also, theres a huge difference between self-induced medical conditions caused by smoking compared to someone, through no fault of their own, developing a medical condition they have no control of. Insurance should clearly cover one...and not cover the other, if only obviously.

I do find it hypocritical for, drunken, douchebags like Rehberg, who get FREE healthcare off the taxpayers back, to deny same for their constituents, in particular when trying to do so based on constitutionality.

By the way, how did that work out for drunk-drunk Denny?

 

[Brudno]

Gee Nicky,

How many smokers do you suppose actually admit they smoke when asked for insurance reasons? In particular when they know damn good and well their rates will increase based on the answer?

You may want to research that some...

Also, theres a huge difference between self-induced medical conditions caused by smoking compared to someone, through no fault of their own, developing a medical condition they have no control of. Insurance should clearly cover one...and not cover the other, if only obviously.

I do find it hypocritical for, drunken, douchebags like Rehberg, who get FREE healthcare off the taxpayers back, to deny same for their constituents, in particular when trying to do so based on constitutionality.

By the way, how did that work out for drunk-drunk Denny?

Do you not get taxpayer funded healthcare? I thought you worked for the feds.

Lots of insurance companies test for tobacco use now, they're are penalities for lieing about it too.

 

[BuzzH]

I wonder who said this???

"Sorry about your son, but we are talking about insurance, you cannot force companies to insure hish risk liabilites and expect them to stay in busisness right? I think we can all agree on that"

Yet you argue when I say the exact same thing? Unless you're dumb enough to believe that smokers arent high risk?

Laffin'...

Oh, and Nicky, you may want to research how much Rehberg pays out of pocket (ZERO) for his coverage VS that of a regular federal employee. Might even look into the deductibles...

Laffin'...again.

 

[Brudno]

I wonder who said this???

"Sorry about your son, but we are talking about insurance, you cannot force companies to insure hish risk liabilites and expect them to stay in busisness right? I think we can all agree on that"

Yet you argue when I say the exact same thing? Unless you're dumb enough to believe that smokers arent high risk?

Laffin'...

Oh, and Nicky, you may want to research how much Rehberg pays out of pocket (ZERO) for his coverage VS that of a regular federal employee. Might even look into the deductibles...

Laffin'...again.

I wasn't agruing insurance companies charging more Lloyd I was agruing the government involvement, private companies are just that private and are entitled to certain benefits. Your reaching really is to much. LOL enjoy your taxpayer funded healthcare. BTW your welcome even though I believe your grossly overpaid.

 

[BuzzH]

Dippy,

I dont think you know what "your" "agruing"...

 

[belly-deep]

Dippy,

I dont think you know what "your" "agruing"...

So Buzz are you saying that you will only pay for someone's healthcare when YOU approve of their lifestyle?

What if a vegan doesn't approve of eating meat...should they have to pay into healthcare for someone who eats red meat?

 

[MattK]

Smoking and Death
Smoking causes death.

The adverse health effects from cigarette smoking account for an estimated 443,000 deaths, or nearly one of every five deaths, each year in the United States.2,3
More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.2,4
Smoking causes an estimated 90% of all lung cancer deaths in men and 80% of all lung cancer deaths in women.1
An estimated 90% of all deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease are caused by smoking.1
Smoking and Increased Health Risks
Compared with nonsmokers, smoking is estimated to increase the risk of—

coronary heart disease by 2 to 4 times,1,5
stroke by 2 to 4 times,1,6
men developing lung cancer by 23 times,1
women developing lung cancer by 13 times,1 and
dying from chronic obstructive lung diseases (such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema) by 12 to 13 times.1
Smoking and Cardiovascular Disease
Smoking causes coronary heart disease, the leading cause of death in the United States.1
Cigarette smoking causes reduced circulation by narrowing the blood vessels (arteries) and puts smokers at risk of developing peripheral vascular disease (i.e., obstruction of the large arteries in the arms and legs that can cause a range of problems from pain to tissue loss or gangrene).1,7
Smoking causes abdominal aortic aneurysm (i.e., a swelling or weakening of the main artery of the body—the aorta—where it runs through the abdomen).1
Smoking and Respiratory Disease
Smoking causes lung cancer.1,2
Smoking causes lung diseases (e.g., emphysema, bronchitis, chronic airway obstruction) by damaging the airways and alveoli (i.e., small air sacs) of the lungs.1,2
Smoking and Cancer
Smoking causes the following cancers:1

Acute myeloid leukemia
Bladder cancer
Cancer of the cervix
Cancer of the esophagus
Kidney cancer
Cancer of the larynx (voice box)
Lung cancer
Cancer of the oral cavity (mouth)
Cancer of the pharynx (throat)
Stomach cancer
Cancer of the uterus
Smoking and Other Health Effects
Smoking has many adverse reproductive and early childhood effects, including increased risk for—

infertility,
preterm delivery,
stillbirth,
low birth weight, and
sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).1,8


Smoking is associated with the following adverse health effects:8

Postmenopausal women who smoke have lower bone density than women who never smoked.
Women who smoke have an increased risk for hip fracture than women who never smoked.

Belly-Deep- I'm not sure what Buzz thinks but I will say that when the list of health related problems/ deaths reach the proportions of the above...someone should get involved. I can't be sure, but I would guess that Insurance companies are probably lobbying against cigarettes just as they did to get seat belt laws enforced. It's a pretty sad day when a person has to be protected from themselves but that's not really the push for the anti smoking campaign. Some day all of the smokers will be on Medicaid, medicare or the like...It is in the government's best interest to stop smokers now to eliminate some of these monster sized bills later in life. I would say "we the people" definitely have a stake in the game and therefore should definitely be allowed to put these regulations in place. If it were up to me...cigarettes would be outlawed. Any other item this detrimental would have been banned before it was able to get to a retail store, and that's a fact.