World No Tobacco Day: May 31st (w/poll)

Today, May 31st is World No Tobacco Day.  650 Million people worldwide smoke tobacco regularly and half of them will be killed by it.  440,000 Americans die every year as a result of tobacco use.  In the US, deaths associated with smoking account for more deaths than AIDS, alcohol use, cocaine use, heroin use, homicides, suicides, motor vehicle crashes, and fires combined. The World Health Organization (WHO) has been spearheading tobacco control worldwide through its Tobacco Free Initiative and the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.  147 nations are parties to the FCTC.  The US signed the FCTC in 2003, but has not ratified it.

(Click to Enlarge)

More after the jump

The FCTC outlines four areas where nations can work to reduce tobacco use.

1. Advertising, sponsorship and promotion

2. Packaging and labelling of tobacco products

3. Protection from exposure to tobacco smoke

4. Illicit trade in tobacco products

Although it would be great to see the US ratify the FCTC, implementation of the FCTC requirements regardless of whether it is ratified or not is what really matters.  The problem with implementing these recommendations however, is that besides #3, all of these measures require Federal action, and while there has been a lot of State-level action on tobacco control, there have been almost no Tobacco Control measures at the Federal level in 30 years.  That isn't surprising given 12 years of Republican rule on Capitol Hill but it's sad nonetheless.  In its 2006 Tobacco Control Report Card, the American Lung Association gave the Federal Government an "F" grade.  Maybe that will change with Democratic leadership in Congress and declining influence from the tobacco industry.  However, I think that most of the movement will continue to be at the state-level.

The one FCTC recommendation which can be implemented at the state-level is #3, protection from exposure to tobacco smoke.  There has been a lot of good news this year about tobacco exposure.

First, the CDC announced that 75% of households were smokefree.  Ten years earlier, the figure was 43%.  This is a pretty significant finding because while tobacco exposure in workplaces and public places gets the most attention, exposure to family members and guests accounts for much of the involuntary tobacco exposure in the country.  I have no issue with people smoking at home by themselves, but when other people are present, particularly children, they are posing a significant risk to others.

Second, smokefree workplace laws continue to advance in many states.

This map shows the state-of-play with regard to Comprehensive Workplace Smoking Legislation

Legend
Blue - Comprehensive workplace smoking law in effect
Green - Comprehensive workplace smoking law enacted, not yet in effect
Yellow - Comprehensive workplace smoking law very likely to be enacted this legislative session
Orange - Comprehensive workplace smoking law possibly enacted this session

New Mexico, Maryland, and Minnesota enacted their workplace smoking laws this session.  Illinois and New Hampshire have passed laws which are simply awaiting their Governors' promised signatures. Oregon's bill passed the Oregon Senate and will likely pass the Oregon House as well.  

Many states which do not have comprehensive workplace smoking laws, have laws which cover many workplaces.  Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, and Florida have partial workplace smoking laws.  Tennessee's legislature passed a partial workplace smoking bill today which will be signed by Gov. Bredesen.

Many states continue to fight over the issue.  Several Pennsylvania localities have passed workplace smoking laws only to come up against the state's preemption law.  Smokefree workplaces will probably continue to be an issue in Pennsylvania until a law is passed.

Smokefree workplaces and public places are only part of measures that our states could be taking to limit tobacco smoke exposure and reduce tobacco use.  There are a number of other measures which are equally important including higher excise taxes, youth access control measures, and prevention and cessation assistance spending.  The Institute of Medicine, one of the National Academies, recently wrote a report "Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation" which outlines the measures which would reduce tobacco harm.

http://www.nap.edu/... (Full Text Readable Online)

http://video.nationalacademies.org/... (Audio Press Release)

•  Tip Jar (n/t)

  by ortcutt on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:17:58 PM PDT

•  People should be allowed to smoke

  if they want to, but I have no problems with raising taxes on tobacco products.

  by rjones2818 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:20:20 PM PDT

  •  Well

    No one disputes allowing people to smoke.  The rationale for higher excise taxes are that they have a significant effect on youth smoking rates.  Tobacco cessation is very difficult.  The best way to cut smoking rates is to reduce initiation rates.

    by ortcutt on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:22:31 PM PDT

    •  see that's the thing

      I agree that people should be allowed to smoke (and do other drugs).  But I have to wonder what possessed the parent to comment this way, bringing up a straw man of prohibition (this is similar to how the other side starts to bring out the straw man of stoned people driving whenever you talk about legalization of pot). I do not read that from the diary.

      by debedb on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:26:21 PM PDT

      •  Prohibitionist Bogeymen

        Opponents of tobacco control love to bring up the prohibitionist bogeyman to the extent that people must feel the need to preemptively reject it even though prohibition isnt a part of any anyone's proposals.

        by ortcutt on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:31:55 PM PDT

        •  Yeah...

          ...no one at all.

          Except, well, the Surgeon General of the United States.

          by Jay Elias on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:38:21 PM PDT

          •  exactly

            by buddabelly on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:45:01 PM PDT

          •  It's a throwaway line

            I would note that prohibition has never been part of any official recommendation from the Surgeon General or any other board because it's an idiotic idea.  Carmona should know better.  Nicotene is insanely addictive.  Prohibition isn't an option.

            by ortcutt on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:48:14 PM PDT

            •  And addictive substances...

              ...are never banned in this country?  What's your argument?

              There are lots of prohibition advocates (hell, there are still alcohol prohibition advocates) - I was able to find that statment by Carmona in a three second google search.

              I do agree that it isn't an option, at least, not a good one.

              by Jay Elias on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:50:03 PM PDT

            •  Not yet...

              I believe the British equivalent of the US S.G. has in fact advocated prohibition, and perhaps even the WHO and other health organizations.

              Five years ago noone argued for smoking bans in private cars--whenever one suggested that to anti-smokers they would laugh in your face and say "absolutely not!"...and now we hear about car smoking bans everywhere as the next step.

              You bet you will hear the Surgeon General calling for prohibition at some point.

              by michael1104 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:01:22 PM PDT

              •  carmona

                He's a crackpot hardass who drew a gun and killed a man in the street. Thanks for the rambo SG, Bush.

                by gpdx on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:06:58 PM PDT

                •  Not quite the way you describe it

                  Carmona, who was off duty but carrying a pistol, called for backup and moved in, asking the driver to put down his weapon. The man was a mentally ill ex-convict who had murdered his father that day. He looked at Carmona, started to put down the gun, then suddenly fired at the doctor, grazing his head. Carmona fired seven shots, hitting him three times and killing him

                  .

                  http://www.time.com/...

                  by buddabelly on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:28:53 PM PDT

              •  Yep....They Keep Moving the Goalposts....

                ....all the while alleging "they'll NEVER be willing to take their jihad THAT far!"  Yet step by vicious step, they always seem to manage.

                by Mark27 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:26:04 PM PDT

        •  If Tobacco Prohibition Was Proposed Tomorrow....

          ....can you honestly say you'd come out against it?  Given your obvious obsession with showing how much power you wield over smokers at every turn, I find it hard to imagine that you have any respect for crossing the line in your persecution of them.

          by Mark27 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:24:03 PM PDT

          •  ten points for that one

            Instant Rec for calling BS on the BS.  

            Prohibition creeping in on little cat feet.  

            As for me, I'm puffing on my pipe right now and enjoying it greatly.  A short while ago I had a piece of chocolate cake and enjoyed that greatly also.   The thing that drives puritans crazy is the idea that someone else might enjoy somethng that they themselves don't, or worse yet, that they themselves secretly want more than anything else.  

            Oh, and here's the Libertarian Democrat solution to "tobacco regulation."  

            First, repeal all the excise taxes, because excise taxese are an illegitimate example of social engineering based on disapproval of the choices of consenting adults that affect no one but themselves.  Second, as part of a comprehensive single-payer national health care program (some of us Libertarian Ds support that), impose "health risk taxes" on products and activities found to have associated high health related costs (e.g. sending out the rescue squad to scrape fallen mountain climbers off rocks at the base of cliffs).  These taxes are nothing more than the internalization of what would otherwise be extenalized costs: something Libertarian Ds also support (same principle as a carbon tax).  

            I once calculated this and it came out to about $2.50 per pack of cigarettes.  The interesting result is that the net tax on cigarettes would go down slightly and they would become slightly less expensive in most places.  

            The health risk tax completely relieves the public of any burden of paying for health care for smokers (as well as mountain climbers, parachute jumpers, and riders of fast motorcycles, among others).  Thus it eliminates any rationale for those who would attempt to regulate te private behavior of consenting adults.  

            You can be sure the puritans will be back though, seeking other rationales such as protecting the children.  What puritans really need is to get over it and admit that they really have a secret craving to engage in precisely the behaviors they claim to want to regulate.  It's like Ed Meese on the Pornography Commission: it gave him the excuse he publicly needed, to look at the pictures he secretly wanted.  

            by G2geek on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:57:13 PM PDT

    •  Lots of people...

      ...dispute allowing people to smoke.

      by Jay Elias on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:29:27 PM PDT

      •  lots of people

        dispute other things too, but does this diary?

        by debedb on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:30:18 PM PDT

        •  No...

          ...but there is a world of difference between the comment I replied to, which said "no one" and the diary.

          by Jay Elias on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:31:11 PM PDT

          •  oh, ok

            I took that comment to mean 'no one HERE' - as in, the diarist.

            by debedb on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:32:08 PM PDT

        •  They never start out that way.

          It's always 'think of the children' or 'it's just for workplaces' or whatever rot they want to start with.

          Then it moves on.  Bars and restaurants are workplaces.  People get shoved further and further to the periphery.

          by Corwin Weber on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:35:29 PM PDT

    •  If the goal's to prevent initiation...

      How abouta heftyy one-time tax on your first pack, with an incremental rebate on later ones, structured as a tobacco purchase license.

      by ben masel on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:50:14 PM PDT

      •  doesn't cut it because....

        ....you sure as hell don't want government having the right to "license" behavior among consenting adults.  

        Better to just enforce the existing age-of-access laws.  Under 18, no tobacco.  And any store that sells it to kids goes up on charges.

        This is like: insteed of a national ID card to reduce illegal immigration, just enforce the existing wages & hours laws, thereby drying up the demand for illegal immigrants.  

        Never pass a new law when an existing one will do.
        And never pass a single law without repealing two.  

        by G2geek on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:02:05 PM PDT

    •  The Rationale for Higher Excise Taxes.....

      ....is that they allow government to get even richer off of smoking than the tobacco companies do.  The entire premise of a "World No Tobacco Day" is laughable considering the world economy would grind to dust if every smoker quit smoking....and every government would be thrust into instantaneous bankruptcy as well.  It's so sad that otherwise intelligent people such as yourself are such easy prey for this moronic culture war waged on the global peasantry.

      by Mark27 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:21:59 PM PDT

      •  Cigarette taxes....

        ...literally double the price of a pack.  Most states justify this by claiming that the higher taxes are to offset 'increased healthcare costs...'  (an argument which has turned out to be pretty bogus.)  Strangely enough, given this justification, the money always seems to go into the given state's general fund.... it's never earmarked.

        by Corwin Weber on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:37:39 PM PDT

        •  I Address the Bogusness of the Healthcare Cost...

          ....canard downthread.  Basically, the demographic that runs up the lowest lifetime health care bill (smokers) is on the hook for the highest health care "user fee".

          by Mark27 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:42:34 PM PDT

          •  not only that but we're saving Social Security

            By smoking and cutting our lifespan we are doing more to save Social Security than almost any other group of people.

            by buddabelly on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:48:55 PM PDT

            •  Exactly.

              If every American smoked a pack a day, we wouldn't be wringing our hands about the pending financial ruin of Social Security.  Not that I advocate every American smoking a pack a day, but it spells out the phony cost-benefit calculus applied to the "cost of smoking on society", when in fact the opposite is true.

              by Mark27 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:01:02 PM PDT

            •  Don't worry

              Smokers add enough in Medicare costs to more than make up for the money they save the government by dying early.

              by ortcutt on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:07:10 PM PDT

              •  show me the studys

                by buddabelly on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:21:30 PM PDT

        •  not to mention pipe tobacco and cigars

          for which the health risks are nearly zero.

          by G2geek on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:09:49 PM PDT

          •  mouth and throat cancer still stay off of my body

            by buddabelly on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:12:47 PM PDT

          •  Pipe smokers....

            ...actually live longer than nonsmokers.  Less stress, which is worse than smoke.

            by Corwin Weber on Thu May 31, 2007 at 11:34:40 PM PDT

            •  yep, it's the stress that kills.

              In other cultures where people smoke like chimneys and have longer life expectancies, the key factor is: less stress.  Less pressure, less time crunch, more rest, more time off, etc. etc.  

              I suppose we can try getting the antismoking crowd to raise taxes on stress and have World No Stress Day!  That would be interesting.

              by G2geek on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 01:00:09 AM PDT

      •  Ridiculous

        The entire premise of a "World No Tobacco Day" is laughable considering the world economy would grind to dust if every smoker quit smoking....and every government would be thrust into instantaneous bankruptcy as well.

        For one thing, the idea that everyone is suddenly going to quit smoking all at once is ridiculous.  Second, governments pay far more as a result of tobacco than they take back in taxes.

        by ortcutt on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:17:34 PM PDT

        •  Patently False....

          The aggregate of state, local, and federal governments in America alone profit more than a trillion dollars a year off of tobacco taxes.  There's a reason why it's not only still legal, but why the government played the role of the mob legbreaker to the tobacco companies' "Brooklyn shopkeeper" demanding a profit-sharing kickback from Philip Morris and RJR in exchange for a state-imposed protection racket for Big Tobacco from tobacco company upstarts that could cut into their market share.

          You wanna know why it's taken so long for FDA regulation of cigarettes to be embraced by Congress?  Because they have yet to determine the cost-benefit calculus of reducing nicotine in cigarettes.  If they cut nicotine rates, many smokers will be better able to quit....and government would lose its fastest-growing source of revenue in potentially large swaths.  On the other hand, reduced nicotine levels could simply prompt smokers to smoke more to compensate for the reduced rate of nicotine....which would be good for government coffers.  Rest assured that FDA regulation of cigarettes won't happen unless government believes it can make even more money out of the deal.

          by Mark27 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:43:37 PM PDT

      •  what we need is

        "World Consenting Adult Liberty Day."   Make it the 1st of June.  And celebrate by having a smoke, a drink, a toke, using a condom or a birth control pill, watching or reading some consenting-adult porn, having oral sex, holding hands in public with someone of your own gender, betting on a horse race or sporting event, going with friends to the local shooting range, and of course, registering to vote.

        by G2geek on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:07:55 PM PDT

        •  Wouldn't That Just Throw the Puritans....

          ...on both the left and right into a tea-and-crumpet-induced frenzy?

          by Mark27 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:10:06 PM PDT

          •  yes, and I'll enjoy that too.

            Few things are quite as delightful as watching the obvious nonverbal expressions of cognitive dissonance on the faces of puritans.

            How they storm and fume!  How they make their righteous noises!  Ahh, but their faces and tones of voice betray them every time, for there is nothing they would love more than to get loose and do the very thing they condemn others for doing.  

            Imagine for a moment, that there was an effective truth serum.  Think of dosing all the puritans.  Yes, the lines would be eight or ten or fifty people long, at the porn shops, the liquor stores, the smoke shops, and the apartment doors of people who sell marijuana.  

            by G2geek on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:17:57 PM PDT

    •  if you really want...

      ...to reduce illegal immigration, the way to to it is not with national ID cards, it's by enforcing the existing laws: the wages & hours laws, that are not presently enforced and thus give employers an incentive to hire illegals.

      And if you really want to stop kids getting access to tobacco, the way to do it is to enforce the existing age of access laws.  Not by passing a tax that primarily hits working adults.  

      So I call bullshit on that one.  

      June 1st is National Keep Your Laws and Regulations Off My Body Day.  Celebrate by having a drink, a smoke, a toke, using a condom or taking a birth control pill, or having oral sex.

      by G2geek on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:37:50 PM PDT

  •  Sure...

    ...no one ever loses raising taxes on poor people.

    Over 50% of smokers in American are below the poverty line.  Let's tax 'em!

    by Jay Elias on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:29:11 PM PDT

    •  hey

      it's for their own good!

      And you know what...it's also for their own good to remain abstinent until they get married and it's for their own good to go to church and pray in school so they get good values instilled in them.

      by michael1104 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:33:02 PM PDT

      •  see now

        I don't know about that. There already is a certain discrimination as to what things are taxed. Would a luxury tax be wrong, for instance?

        by debedb on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:34:17 PM PDT

        •  well I don't see

          anything wrong about taxing bad things per se...including tobacco. What I do have a problem with is taxing the products to such an extreme that it actually hurts the person and makes it regressive, encourages the black market, and makes it worse because it turns the product into a forbidden fruit. Then using the tax money to pay for things completely unrelated to the "sin."  

          by michael1104 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:36:57 PM PDT

        •  Taxing the Poorest Demographic of Americans....

          .....and that would be smokers, to the tune of hundreds or even thousands of dollars per year, is the inverse of a luxury tax.  Very poor example.

          by Mark27 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:31:46 PM PDT

      •  The most ridiculous thing...

        ...is that these regressive taxes which we pretend are blind to issues like education and poverty are based on people making poor choices.

        As if making poor choices (often mostly because they are not sufficiently capable of making better ones) wasn't a principal cause of poverty to begin with.

        by Jay Elias on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:35:03 PM PDT

        •  principal cause of poverty

          define 'making poor choices'.

          For instance, in some circumstances dealing drugs may actually be a good choice, economically, some things considered. (See also http://www.hup.harvard.edu/... But then let's say someone decides to actually make a good choice - and what do we have? Oops, got a drug conviction, there go your financial aid and tax credits for education. Go back to dealing. As a crude example, of course.

          by debedb on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:39:02 PM PDT

          •  Yet...

            ...we still victimize literally millions of (mostly poor) Americans for minor drug dealing.

            Sucks, doesn't it?

            by Jay Elias on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:40:31 PM PDT

            •  what do you mean 'yet'

              'Yet' implies we're in a disagreement. :)

              by debedb on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:41:37 PM PDT

              •  I mean..

                ....that I'm sick, and not working with all my brain.  Sorry.  I realized that and uprated you.

                by Jay Elias on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:42:12 PM PDT

                •  a yes

                  I'm sick too... Tylenol cold is pretty trippy if you are not used to it... :)

                  by debedb on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:43:15 PM PDT

      •  True Dat. When it Comes to Smoking....

        ....there's precious little daylight between tyranny-for-your-own-good "progressives" and Jerry Falwell lieutenants' attempts to microregulate human behavior to fit their notion of "morality".

        by Mark27 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:30:52 PM PDT

        •  Thing is.....

          ....banning smoking isn't a progressive issue.  Some anti-smoking zealots have made it into one in the popular mindset, but there's nothing progressive about it.

          by Corwin Weber on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:39:28 PM PDT

          •  But Sadly....

            ...the majority of Democratic politicians have latched onto it, sweeping the nation with moronic bar smoking bans and predatory supersized tobacco taxes to fill budget holes.  It's getting harder and harder to convince my nicotine-addicted blue-collar friends that the Democratic Party is the party of the working person when they insist on doing shit like this.

            by Mark27 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:44:56 PM PDT

    •  And Most Sadly of All....

      ....the supporters of this unconscionably regressive sin tax on tobacco fancy themselves "progressives".

      by Mark27 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:27:49 PM PDT

•  I'm not a nanny state fan

  by VelvetElvis on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:22:17 PM PDT

  •  er

    Why does this make it a nanny state? Do gas taxes make it a nanny state?

    by debedb on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:27:09 PM PDT

    •  To a degree...

      ...yes.  But since that is less about personal behavior, not as much so.

      by Jay Elias on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:30:03 PM PDT

    •  Gas Taxes are a User Fee Imposed on Nearly....

      ....everybody for the benefit of driveable public highways (ideally at least).  Cigarette taxes are a user fee imposed on a small minority of the population, and the poorest among us at that, that allow the more affluent majority to pay less than their fair share.  Worse yet, high cigarette taxes portend government dependence on tobacco tax revenues, making them one and the same as the very "evil Big Tobacco" giants whom they villify for profitting from other people's addictions.  Not to mention that high cigarette taxes portend a black market by subverting the traditional supply-and-demand curve for a legal product.  And that high cigarette taxes are a user fee for services that smokers use less of than non-smokers over the course of their lives....as they die sooner and run up lower lifetime health care bills than do nonsmokers.

      Bottom line:  tobacco taxes epitomize everything that is unethical and unprogressive about our tax system.  Those who support them are either very selfish or very misguided.

      by Mark27 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:39:30 PM PDT

  •  Where does the nanny state come in?

    Smokefree workplace laws have to do with protecting people from harm from others, harm from involuntary tobacco exposure.  That's not the nanny state, no more than prosecuting assaults are the nanny state.  As to excise taxes, they are a very effective way of cutting initiation rates.  Considering that more than 70% of smokers later regret smoking and are simply slaves to an extremely addictive substance, it would seem that the state is simply helping people achieve what their future selves would want.

    by ortcutt on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:28:00 PM PDT

    •  Stop trying to fund everything uner the sun on

      the backs of smokers. Whats your vice lets tax it and use the money to line soeone elses pockets. Get off of the smokers backs.

      by buddabelly on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:47:51 PM PDT

      •  wish that were possible

        now that they have their hooks into smokers, it's too easy now to just keep hiking and hiking and hiking all taxes. They put none of it toward smoking cessation plans but toward everything else that they don't want to tax rich people or homeowners on, because of political fear.  Smokers are easy. Everyone hates us and those that advocate higher taxes are usually perfect human beings with no vices whatsoever. Or so they think.

        by dougymi on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:52:36 PM PDT

        •  Tell me about it and they wonder why the

          republics call us the nanny state party. Get out of my house.

          by buddabelly on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:54:48 PM PDT

        •  Nothing towards cessation programs

          But, gee they make great commercials!

          As a smoker who has tried and tried ect. I would like to see a nicotine delivery system that is actually pleasant. A smokeless cigarette that would not endanger the people around me and would give me the drug that I crave without further harming me. And I want it at a reasonable price. But, that would enable me to remain addicted and that would be bad.

          I know people who have been chewing nicorette for over five years, I would join them if it didn't make me sick. All of the arguments against developing better delivery systems are based on curing people of the addiction. I like my addiction, it's the last one I have.

          I make this point because I am furious at the hypocricy of taxing me for my own good, when really they just look at me as a revenue stream. Fuck them.

          Please, America, find someone else to tax, I'm begging you.

          by high uintas on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:52:07 PM PDT

    •  So Are You Supportive....

      ....of compromise efforts that allow for self-contained smoking rooms in bars where workers don't have to consume the smoke-filled air?  If not, then this has nothing to do with "protecting the workers" and everything to do with shitting on smokers for the fun of it.

      Furthermore, a bar employee is killed in this country nearly every day when drunken barflies get physical and the bartender/bouncer gets snuffed out as "collateral damage".  Unlike the ambiguous deaths connected to secondhand smoke, there's no mystery at all surrounding the cause of death of the bar bouncer filleted by the drunken slob when trying to pull him off his wife.  Since alcohol clearly creates a climate in which bar employees' safety is in jeopardy, why are you not supporting a ban on alcohol in all workplaces as well?  

      You consistently evade this question because you realize that your mindless "protecting the workers" meme is rendered instantly meritless if you come out in favor of letting the alcohol-related body count of bar employees continue to grow.

      by Mark27 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:52:27 PM PDT

•  Smokers are already

  ...taxed to death, so to speak.  Maybe you could advocate sky-high taxes on McDonalds, Burger King and all manner of fatty junk food.  I understand heart disease kills a few people a year too.  

  by BarbinMD on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:22:51 PM PDT

  •  regressive taxes too...

    just about the most anti-liberal form of government action there is.

    And then the tax revenue breeds dependency on state governments to continue to balance their budgets on the back of smokers, which would explain why they are slashing their cessation effort earmarks...it's just incredibly hypocritical.

    If they are gonna tax it, use the money for health care, or smoking cessation--not paving roads or paying civil servants and building schools.

    by michael1104 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:26:39 PM PDT

    •  You mean...

      ...that giving the government revenue from smokers (and speeders and drug users and so on) actually makes the government have a disincentive to actually curb said behavior?

      Say it ain't so!

      by Jay Elias on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:32:16 PM PDT

      •  You Cynical Bastard!!!!

        Are you suggesting that governments aren't being genuine when throwing their support to the "World No Tobacco Day" that ortcutt is cheerleading?  How dare you!

        by Mark27 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:56:18 PM PDT

    •  Not regressive

      Tobacco taxes are very progressive.  Everyone who doesn't start smoking because of higher excise taxes saves tens of thousands of dollars over a lifetime simply in cigarette costs alone, not to mention health care costs and other incidentals.  I can't think of anything more progressive than that.

      by ortcutt on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:35:07 PM PDT

      •  I'm not sure...

        ...you understand what regressive means.  Or what progressive taxation means either.

        by Jay Elias on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:36:52 PM PDT

        •  Uh, yes I do

          I'm just pointing out that when you consider taxes, you need to take account of the causal effects of those taxes as well.  If taxes cause me to cease the behavior on which I am taxed or to never start, then I save a whole lot of money, not just in taxes, but also in terms of the costs of the behavior as well.  If a tax results in poor people saving tens of thousands of dollars over a lifetime then it is a very progressive tax.

          by ortcutt on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:41:17 PM PDT

          •  "Progressive taxation"...

            ...means that people with more money are taxed at a higher rate.

            That is utterly impossible in the case of excise taxes in general and in this case in particular.

            Meanwhile, the data shows that the higher taxes have the lowest effect on poorer smokers.  In other words, poor people are the least likely to "save thousands of dollars over a lifetime".

            by Jay Elias on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:43:57 PM PDT

            •  Two Points

              1. Higher taxes would have a greater effect on reducing initiation rates among poor people.  

              2. If you compare the tax paid by someone who starts smoking because of a lower excise tax rate against someone who doesn't smoke with a higher rate, then the person pays no tax in the second case and pays significantly more tax in the first one.  

              That is why excise taxes are progressive.

              by ortcutt on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:51:53 PM PDT

              •  who appointed you the nanny of the poor

                by buddabelly on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:53:07 PM PDT

              •  Not only does your math fail...

                ...as well as you still not getting the "rich people are taxed more" element of "progressive taxation", but every study repudiates that it has that affect on poor smokers, including new poor smokers.

                Meanwhile, there are lots of dumb reasons why people start smoking, but this is the first time I've ever heard the (highly improbable) explanation that anyone starts smoking because of a lower excise tax rate.

                by Jay Elias on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:56:49 PM PDT

                •  prohibition is never logical...... just righteous

                  by buddabelly on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:04:32 PM PDT

                •  Bullshit

                  What studies are these?  Every study I've ever seen says that higher excise taxes have the effect of reducing initiation rates.

                  by ortcutt on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:14:03 PM PDT

                  •  Cite one please.

                    Should be easy for you, right?

                    by Corwin Weber on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:45:22 PM PDT

                    •  From the study noted in the diary

                      http://books.nap.edu/...

                      I can't cut and paste quotes from this online book, but you can read the section for yourself.

                      On page 155, the authors of the study conclude that concerns are regressivity are "overstated even misplaced".

                      http://books.nap.edu/...

                      by ortcutt on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:04:25 PM PDT

                      •  Of course they're saying that.

                        They aren't the ones paying the tax.  They're not poor either.  They provide nothing to back up their claims that the tax is not regressive... just 'oh well if they don't like it they can quit.'

                        Pardon me if I'm anything but sympathetic to that argument, nor the first link given that this is a single pre-publication source with unverifiable citations itself.

                        by Corwin Weber on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:23:25 PM PDT

                        •  Wow

                          You'll really ready to use any excuse to discount reputable scientific studies.

                          by ortcutt on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:58:58 PM PDT

                          •  Well....

                            ...if you want to call a basic education in statistical and scientific methodology an 'excuse,' that's your call.

                            I strongly doubt that most of this crowd is going to agree with you, however.

                            by Corwin Weber on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:05:19 PM PDT

                            •  You have methodological complaints?

                              Then make them.  Discounting an entire corpus of medical research without giving any justification is complete baloney.

                              by ortcutt on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:11:21 PM PDT

                              •  You have posted....

                                ...two pages from a better than 150 page document, pre-publication, with citations that can't be cut and pasted for easy verification and that don't list specific numbers.

                                And you expect anybody to take you seriously?  (Psst.... hysteria and volume don't make your point... just sayin...)

                                by Corwin Weber on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:25:47 PM PDT

                                •  Uhh

                                  You asked for studies.  The Institute of Medicine Study gives citations to many studies.  If you have a problem with those studies then go ahead and state them.

                                  by ortcutt on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:58:34 PM PDT

                                  •  Yet strangely enough....

                                    ....you didn't post them.  You posted a citation with completely unverifiable numbers in a field where the primary study has been largely debunked.

                                    by Corwin Weber on Thu May 31, 2007 at 11:33:15 PM PDT

                •  It's Amazing How Far People are Willing....

                  ....to twist in the wind when it comes to defending a personal article of faith.

                  by Mark27 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:06:49 PM PDT

          •  By That Logic......

            ....you would have to support massive sin taxes on every "naughty" consumer product as a means of "deferred progressive taxation" among a bunch of low-income lifestyle puritans.

            Yep....I think we're all convinced you're not a nanny-stater!

            by Mark27 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:05:30 PM PDT

      •  Arizona passed the draconian tax

        and now I buy my cigarettes on the reservation that has cost the do-gooders their sin tax as well as state sales tax.

        And I'm saving more money than before.

        by Coldblue Steele on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:43:02 PM PDT

        •  I actually went even further and use the tubes

          and bulk tobacco about 8.50 a carton that way and actually not as harsh on the lungs as the Marlboro I used to smoke.

          by buddabelly on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:50:08 PM PDT

          •  They're talking about taxing that in MI

            it will move the price up to about 30 bucks a carton. If the diarist gets his/her way, that money will go toward alleviating the property taxes of the rich folks. Good investment, I think...  pffft.

            by dougymi on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:56:11 PM PDT

            •  freaking insane, The latest one here in Az

              went to fund early childhood education. What a crock of horse shit

              by buddabelly on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:59:58 PM PDT

            •  35-40 a pack in Oregon.

              And even higher than that in Washington.  I remember paying over five dollars a pack in Seattle.

              by Corwin Weber on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:46:19 PM PDT

              •  Bah.

                Carton.  35-40 a carton.  Brain, keyboard, sleep, etc.

                by Corwin Weber on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:46:45 PM PDT

                •  Cheap, Marlboro at a c-store 6.50 in Az.

                  by buddabelly on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:01:03 PM PDT

                  •  I've more than half considered....

                    ...going back to RYO.... (taxed differently.)  But the machines are a pain and I never smoked pot.... so I never did get the hang of rolling freehand.....

                    by Corwin Weber on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:04:23 PM PDT

                    •  The tube style machines arent too bad

                      and if you buy decent tobacco they are actually less harsh than the tailor mades.

                      I usually buy a brand called American Spirit out of New Mexico it's about 12 dollars a can and is all natural no additives and grown in America.

                      When broke like lately there are bags of fairly decent tobacco for 6.00 dollars and a box of 250 tubes costs about 2 dollars so with tax anywhere from 8.50 to 14.50 for 12.5 packs of cigs.

                      The key is not to pack the tobacco too tight in the machine it takes a little practice but for that much savings its worth it.

                      I also leave my humidor on the other end of the house so if I want a smoke I have to get up and walk to the bedroom helps to cut down a little more.

                      I've just taken to smoking a pipe when not at home. Its easier to deal with than either taking the machine, tubes, and tobacco or pre-rolling smokes.

                      Plus no one, at least very rarely, complains about a pipe as they smell much better.

                      by buddabelly on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:17:07 PM PDT

                      •  I actually prefer my pipe.

                        It's just more of a hassle.  I have to carry more than one around to smoke more than once a day.... it takes longer....

                        I do like it better tho.

                        by Corwin Weber on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:27:10 PM PDT

                        •  I use Missouri Meerschaum corn cob pipes

                          they're dirt cheap like 5 bucks and you can buy stems from the company for a quarter,I'm a stem chewer. They smoke cool and require almost no break in period.

                          http://www.corncobpipe.com/

                          And because they're so cheap its not a big deal to have a few I think I have about ten I rotate. Plus you can get them either filtered or non. And a nice company to deal with in business since 1869 and the last corn cob pipe maker in the country.

                          by buddabelly on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:43:42 PM PDT

                          •  I like those....

                            ....but it's still a hassle to have to carry around so many.  I always thought that a real meer wouldn't need the rest time of a briar.... but for some reason it seems to.

                            I need to design an uberpipe.  :)

                            by Corwin Weber on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:54:08 PM PDT

                            •  I can get 2 loads out of them before resting

                              so I only have to carry a couple maybe 3 if I am gone all day.

                              by buddabelly on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:56:48 PM PDT

                  •  buy online...

                    you can get russian or ukranian cigarettes for like $18 a carton when you include the shipping...they don't report your name to US authorities. I've done it several times...I'm not sure how much I trust russian smokes, but what else can one do when being taxed to death?

                    by michael1104 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:06:19 PM PDT

                    •  I switched to rolling with a machine and tubes

                      its even cheaper see post above. And I have to say the Am. Spirit tobacco is really good. Although sometimes I will just carry filters and tobacco and handroll but I am finicky on the paper I use.

                      by buddabelly on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:19:41 PM PDT

                •  You think that's bad?

                  I paid $10.50 downtown Chicago for a pack of Salem lights.

                  Once the dude rang them up, I said "These had better be the BEST cigarettes of my life, or I'm coming back and taking you down."

                  He got lucky.

                  by TheBlaz on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:30:02 PM PDT

                •  54$ for marlboro lights here

                  48$ for Basics.

                  I was talking about the hand rolled stuff like buglers or american spirit.  They tax pipe tobacco and cigars big time here already. My last attempt at quitting cigs involved pipe tobacco but it's just too sickly sweet.

                  by dougymi on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 09:04:42 AM PDT

          •  exactly

            you both prove the point that extreme sin taxes are ridiculous and counter productive.

            Say the tax before was a reasonable $1 a pack, and it went up to $3. The government is now losing your $1 that you were paying before because you won't pay the new tax and you go ahead and buy in a reservation, online, or roll your own....and some people will buy from the black market. For however many people quit, a lot more people will simply find new ways of getting their cigarettes effectively killing the government sin tax profit machine.

            Regressive sin taxes fail every time.

            by michael1104 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:57:58 PM PDT

            •  Yup Its almost as profitable to smuggle

              smokes from Mexico as it is to smuggle pot. And the penalties aren't as harsh. 1.50 in Mexico 6.50 in Az. for a pack of Marlboro.

              by buddabelly on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:01:57 PM PDT

              •  It's Actually More Profitable....

                Hezbollah's largest source of fundraising is cigarette smuggling here in the United States.  If you want to make $2 million in a weekend, take a truckload of $20-per-carton Marlboros from North Carolina and drop them off in New York City or Chicago.  You can be sure that the biggest supporter of tobacco tax increases in America is not your traditional anti-smoking prima donnas, but organized crime.  The mob must be sending a bouquet of flowers to Michael Bloomberg and the Chicago City Council every day.

                by Mark27 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:48:15 PM PDT

        •  I wish I had that option

          I get mine in Virginia, where they are considerably cheaper than in Maryland, but it's still $30 a carton.    

          by BarbinMD on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:29:57 PM PDT

          •  Man

            you people are lucky.

            I'm from Chicago, it's around twice that for a carton.

            I could drive to the suburbs and pay like 40, maybe 35 if I'm LUCKY, but then my saved cash is wasted on gas.

            I'd just quit, but then the (nicotine) terrorists would win, and I'm more patriotic than that.

            by TheBlaz on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:40:09 PM PDT

            •  Time to roll your own at those prices

              hell I thought 6.50 a pack was bad. I switched to an all natural no additive AMERICAN grown tobacco and its less than 15.00 for 12.5 packs. screw the terrorists, we can't let them win.

              by buddabelly on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:43:05 PM PDT

            •  We've got to fight them here

              ...so we don't have to fight them...uh...here?  

              by BarbinMD on Thu May 31, 2007 at 11:37:15 PM PDT

      •  Extra Points for Originality....

        ....but only in the same sense as I give Congressional Republican leaders extra points for originality when they referred to Americans to poor to pay income taxes as "lucky duckies".

        by Mark27 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:57:49 PM PDT

  •  that would be fine

    Taxes on McDs, why not. (Comfortably spoken by someone who doesn't care for McDonalds, except for coffee).

    by debedb on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:28:41 PM PDT

    •  All of it