Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   New York raises tax on cigarettes from 8 cents to $1.50. Sales drop 64% in 3 months   ( divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

4670 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Oct 2002 at 11:03 AM (14 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

139 Comments     (+0 »)
2002-10-16 09:51:42 AM  
When will they learn? If you over tax something, you only create a blackmarket.
2002-10-16 11:01:47 AM  
What they fail to mention is that everyone is going to indian reservations and buying cartons at a time. It's not like 64% of smokers actually quit smoking....
2002-10-16 11:06:38 AM  
If the smoke don't kill 'em, the taxes surely will.
2002-10-16 11:06:55 AM  
"Sales drop 64% in 3 months" ... in New York.
2002-10-16 11:07:19 AM  
If the stated goal is to make it harder for kids to smoke, then I would guess that it's working.
2002-10-16 11:08:24 AM  
I'm of two minds about this.

It's a screw if you're a smoker, but c'mon, the stuff kills you. High prices might make it tougher for kids to start.

I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole thing. I'd probably have to smoke to care.

2002-10-16 11:08:26 AM  
Soon some New Yorkers dressed as Indians will raid a cigarettes ship and throw all the smokes in the NY harbor.
2002-10-16 11:08:42 AM  
[image from too old to be available]

Why stop at $1.50?
2002-10-16 11:09:05 AM  
65% of smokers are now tax protestors.
2002-10-16 11:09:26 AM  
more people will just roll their own. the taxes only apply to packs of cigarettes, not the tobacco and papers you need to make your own. or something like that.
2002-10-16 11:10:07 AM  
next up, the 5.00 tax on cheeseburgers. THen the 10.00 tax on guinness. Then i start shooting tax collectors.
2002-10-16 11:10:17 AM  
personal responsibility drops 100%
2002-10-16 11:10:56 AM  
RandyJohnson, So true, and I'd love to know the amount of money NY store owners are losing. This is all for some politician to be able to hold up a chart and quote some stats to make him feel important.
2002-10-16 11:11:17 AM  
And they actually think that this means less people are smoking.

Two words: black market.
2002-10-16 11:11:25 AM  
In other news: Highways to NJ, PA, VT, MA, and CT have been overcome with traffic jams. Film at 11:00
2002-10-16 11:11:31 AM  
It'd be interesting to find out how sales in nearby states has changed with the raised taxes.

Tax the smokers more, better them than me.
2002-10-16 11:12:21 AM  
Only decent thing they've done lately.
2002-10-16 11:13:48 AM  
$23.99 a carton in tax-fee New Hampshire
2002-10-16 11:14:11 AM  
/me quit smoking 3 months ago.

2002-10-16 11:14:13 AM  
I got 1.5 words for any smokers tired of being the sacrificial lambs when there's a budget shortfall or some poor sap whose life was ruined by knowingly consuming carcinogenic chemicals for 20 years suddenly gets religion and wants to save the goddamned chil'un.

It's European blends, but they're not all that different, and I happen to prefer the brown filter Marlboro lights to the American version, and the Camel Milds are the same as Camel Lights over here.

It's $13.00 a carton, my hacking, wheezing brothers and sisters! Rauchen sie!
2002-10-16 11:14:13 AM  

And I don't even smoke.
2002-10-16 11:14:28 AM  

2002-10-16 11:14:34 AM  
I'd like to see what $6.00 in taxes on a gallon of gasoline would do to NY drivers.

It would keep the kids from "cruising."
2002-10-16 11:14:56 AM  
So New York is making 8 times as much money from the tax and New Yorkers are buying fewer cigarettes. What's so bad?
2002-10-16 11:15:43 AM  
If Bloomberg does in fact ban smoking in bars, I'll spend a lot more time in bars. No point in me smelling like someone else's bad habits, in order to indulge my own.
2002-10-16 11:17:08 AM  
Tax the smokers more, better them than me.

Good time to pull out that Nazi Germany quote. First they came for the Jews... blah blah blah... then they came for me.

France just taxes porn almost 100%. That will come here soon. People are already suing fast food joints. Taxes will come next. People are talkin about taxing soft drinks and anything that contains sugar, or caffeine.

Who knows what will be taxed next... Violent video games, movies, email, swearing, sex.

Pretty much anything that some politician doesn't like, and as long there is a majority faction (like you smoking nazis) to vote for them.
2002-10-16 11:17:14 AM  
sin tax... what a great idea. next, go for a $5.00 tax on a bottle of beer, $6.00 per condom, fatty foods, a tax on not exercising, and we might as well just tax jews and blacks because they ain't no good.

stupid government... this is not a communitarian society and it's not up to them to decide what is good for you and what is not. it may sound good for those who don't like cigarettes, but it's still a loss of freedom.
2002-10-16 11:17:42 AM  
This same crap is starting to work it's way into Florida as well. Yesterday I saw campaign add for Bill Mcbride that proposed a 50 cent tax on cigarettes to go to the school system. There's also some bill that would make it illegal to smoke in restaurants. It's absurd that a pack of cigarettes already costs $4 when 5 years ago they were 2. Why should 1 group of beople shoulder the burden of the entire state educational system. Why not a extra tax on twinkies to get the potheads money, or a extra tax on spoilers to get the rice-boys' money.
2002-10-16 11:17:58 AM  
hey New York....welcome to our world
Michigan smokers

$5.40 for a pack of Lucky Strikes my foot.
2002-10-16 11:18:45 AM  
Not to mention the organize crime opportunities. Im sure somewhere down the line I unknowingly fund Hezbollah terrorist who were involved with interstate smuggling simply by buying a pack of cigarettes.
2002-10-16 11:19:10 AM  
New Yorkers aren't buying fewer cigarettes, it's called the internet. Just buying fewer cigarettes from NY based buisnesses. Once Pataki is out of office this will all change. Macall is a money man, he sees whats going on, he'll rectify it!
2002-10-16 11:19:38 AM  
Fubar- they did mention people going to reservations to buy cigs.
2002-10-16 11:20:38 AM  
Math is not my strong point, but it seems that the revenue has still increased by about 675%.
2002-10-16 11:20:40 AM  
I'm sure there's a booming internet smokes industry starting up because of this, as well as importing from outside states.

Prohibition doesn't work. Vote Libertarian.
2002-10-16 11:20:43 AM  
SMOKERS - a little hint. roll your own. After an initial investment of about 20 bucks (rolling machine/tobacco/papers/filters) your gonna be spending about .90 cents a pack. My buddy does this. he mixes up differnet flavors of tobacco and uses full flavor filters. Claims they taste just like M******os. Or better yet, quit.
2002-10-16 11:21:05 AM  
I don't smoke so I say Tax 'em!

But lay off the porn and beer! Then i'll have something to protest.
2002-10-16 11:22:13 AM  
[image from too old to be available]

This picture makes me want to start smoking.
2002-10-16 11:23:17 AM  
It will always be easy for kids to get hooked on smoking - now the taxes making it harder to get just makes smoking seem that much cooler.
2002-10-16 11:23:26 AM  

What i failed to mention is that I just scanned through the article and didnt actually see the 1 line about it. Still they seem to be trying to slant it as 64% of NYers quit smoking...
2002-10-16 11:23:27 AM  
It's time to fight back against these idiot health-Nazis. People should have the right to abuse themselves without big brother taxing them on it. It's all about generating revenue anyway. Freakin' air pollution in NYC probably kills more than 1000 people a year.
All you folks who are so cavalier about this because you don't smoke, what about when the societal nannies go after your beer/fast food/junk food/risky sex/whatever your vice is?

It seems as though all politicians do nowadays is find ways to raise taxes (revenue enhancemants) and start campaigning for the next election immediately upon taking office.
2002-10-16 11:23:38 AM  
What I find insane is the amount of money some smokers are getting out of the cigarette companies. It's not like someone stuck a gun to their heads and forced them to start smoking. Yet, they win millions of dollars from these companies for something they did willingly.
2002-10-16 11:24:03 AM  
hmmm...maybe if we add a high tax to fried chicken, black people will go back to africa!
2002-10-16 11:24:50 AM  
$6.99 a pack in the uk!!!!
2002-10-16 11:25:39 AM  
Who cares if there's a black market of if people buy them on the reservations. The goal is to get kids to not start smoking, and I'm pretty sure 13 year olds aren't driving up to Mohegan Sun or whatever it is.

Oh, and I love how it really does only apply to packs of cigs, and not bulk tobacco or dip or chew.
2002-10-16 11:25:56 AM  
The other day I went into a bar that I frequent from time to time and noticed that it was completely empty. I sat down lit up and the bar tender promptly told me that the bar is now non-smoking. So I got up and left leaving the bar back to its empty desolate state. Then I went across the street to its competitor and the bar was freekin so crowded.

Anyways my point being is that I'm sure that in the end consumers will get their way no matter what laws they make.
2002-10-16 11:28:04 AM  
High prices might make it tougher for kids to start.

Or, it'll add status - "Hey, look at me, loser - I can afford cigarettes."
2002-10-16 11:28:15 AM  
What's the rule now? You can only smoke in your own house, underneath a blanket, with the lights out?
-Dennis Leary
2002-10-16 11:28:51 AM  
that picture makes me want her to start smoking me
2002-10-16 11:29:32 AM  
ban smoking in cigar bars? erm... perhaps next we should ban walking on sidewalks...
2002-10-16 11:31:28 AM  
Lets tax the hell out of golf, golf clubs, golf balls, anything to do with golf. Golf sucks.
2002-10-16 11:32:53 AM  
What you fail to see, is this doesn't stop kids from smoking. Think about it, a 16 year old living at home with mommy and daddy, no bills, earns about $200 a week working at McDonalds. Do you really think $5 for a pack of cigarettes really bothers them?
2002-10-16 11:32:59 AM  
Yes my little primates let them revoke every freedom you have one by one. It's the same thing with pot, not being able to drink after two A.M., and the crazy ass taxes on beer. Some might say if you want freedom you have to pay for it but, let's see the government hike up the taxes on gasoline. Let's see how long that would last. Everyone would start biatching and crying because it affects them directly. Suddenly it's not right that the Gov, is sucking that much money out of people, or they are trying to make people quit using gasoline as a fuel. Yes the scenario might be a bit different but it all boils down to the same thing. Glad I live in New Orleans
2002-10-16 11:35:35 AM  
taxation without representation
2002-10-16 11:36:22 AM  
That's a 64 percent decrease.

Yep, and a 64% increase in internet sales, I'm sure.

Mayor Bloomberg has said repeatedly that he'd be happy if the city didn't make a cent from the cigarette tax because his goal is to stop young people from smoking.

I thought this was supposed to be a big-money man. He sounds like a retard. Successful mayors run their cities like a business.

Bloomberg argues that secondhand smoke is killing 1,000 people here a year.

My favourite line of the piece. As far as I'm aware, the dangers of second-hand smoke have yet to be confirmed as a major threat by any real scientist. Sure, theoretically, if you were shut in a room full of smokers for 12 hours a day, you'd probably breath in about 10% (maximum) of the harmful chemicals the smoker does. Being realistic, the amount of people who die each year in NYC from breathing in second-hand smoke is probably closer to 1 or 2.

If you guys disagree with this, find me a report by a reputable scientist that states otherwise.
2002-10-16 11:39:10 AM  
I'm sick of smelling like an ashtray after going to a bar. If smokers want to kill themselves, they should have that right, but i don't need to smell their weapons!
2002-10-16 11:39:50 AM  
What they really need to tax is people who pee on the street. That'll raise enough money to clean up the whole city, and buy everyone a pack of smokes for their trouble.
2002-10-16 11:41:27 AM  
Krusty, the smokers in NYC DO have representation. They get to vote. The sky is not falling.
2002-10-16 11:42:04 AM  
I'm a smoker, but I don't live in New York. The thing that gets me is that they raise the tax on cigarettes, but alcohol is never over taxed.

Of course smoking is bad, I think everyone is well aware of this. But, alcohol creates much larger problems than cigarettes do. Alcohol causes accidents, liver disease, and obviously alcoholism. Those seem more "problematic" in society than cigarettes. Plus, underage drinking is just as a concern, if not more, than underage smoking.

But, because tobacco companies are evil empires, its ok to target their products. People can think for themselves, why is there a need for gov't to control all aspects of our lives.

Things that kill people:

I only see one thing on there that is exorbitantly taxed.
2002-10-16 11:43:42 AM  
Here ya go influx....
2002-10-16 11:45:00 AM  
Gothic_Sponge- Then alls you have to do is simply leave. I don't complain when I walk into a room where noone is smoking, so don't you complain about being somewhere where there is smoking!
2002-10-16 11:45:55 AM  
Yosarian - You can have my risky sex when you pry it out of you just can't have it.
2002-10-16 11:49:11 AM  
I hate walking into a restaurant and not be able to enjoy a 100% legal recreational activity....
2002-10-16 11:49:11 AM  
Other States constituents ignore New York's pain.
2002-10-16 11:51:17 AM  
Here ya go Influx...
2002-10-16 11:52:16 AM  
Heh, there are probably less chemicals in a cigarette than in the air of New York alone.
2002-10-16 11:55:53 AM  
Don't quit smoking, y'all. We need you guys to die off to keep us from overpopulation, and we need the taxes you pay on cigarettes to fund all sorts of things that we nonsmokers need.

Smoke 'em if ya got 'em!

And they should tax alcohol all to hell as well.
2002-10-16 11:56:31 AM  
Artificial inflation of tobacco prices only result in more smuggling. The profits then go to organized crime and the state is shafted out of there neat little plan.
2002-10-16 11:56:44 AM  
This is so stupid. now the people who are addicted are gonna have to prostitute themselves out like some sort of cigarette-whores so that they can afford to buy the carton that they need. so the government gets more money by killing people. if cigarettes kill people, make them illigal if they don't, then why the high tax? I say, raise the age limit one year per year. 18 this year then 19 next year...
2002-10-16 11:56:51 AM  
TBS007, that is about the dumbest argument I've yet seen here. If you walk into a room where nobody is smoking, you don't end up smelling like burning paper and inhaling toxic chemicals.

As it it, when I walk into a bar that's opaque with smoke, I DO leave. As do many people in NYC. Restaurant business INCREASED after smoking was banned in those restaurants. Who's to say it wouldn't do the same for bars? Hell, if the smokers want their cigs so badly, they can step outside, like they do at work.
2002-10-16 11:57:54 AM  
If you don't want to smell like smoke go to a non-smoking bar. If your area dosen't have at least one bar or resturant that dosen't permit smoking, then move out of the damn stick.
2002-10-16 11:58:37 AM  
Hagbard: They're $7.50 in NYC now. Most of my friends are smokers and no one has stopped smoking, they are just rolling their own (as some folks pointed out above), or mail ordering or getting them in NJ. But, when you do the math I guess NY is still making more money on taxes.
As much as I am for personal freedoms, and I still smoke occasionally, it really isn't fair to subject employees to all that second hand smoke. Even the smoker bartenders I know wouldn't mind having the ban, because even for them it's rough breathing that for 6 hours. The exception, which I believe they allowed in California, is if the owner or owners are the sole employees (or perhaps only on their shifts), you can allow smoking. Otherwise it would seem to set a precedent for allowing other nasty toxic stuff in the work MUZAK.
2002-10-16 12:02:56 PM  
I quit smoking so I don't care anymore if they raise taxes.

In all fairness though, drinking causes more dealths and hardship each year than smoking does, but taxing alchol would mean interfering with the fat cats martini lunches and california new age hippy freak wine clubs, who cause more pollutants and lung cancer each year with their cars than people who smoke do.

But since I quit smoking, I don't care
2002-10-16 12:03:07 PM  
"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."
-- Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

When they tax something you DO care about, the precedent will have already been set.
2002-10-16 12:03:22 PM  
Thepaulpage: "This is so stupid. now the people who are addicted are gonna have to prostitute themselves out like some sort of cigarette-whores so that they can afford to buy the carton that they need."

Oh, well. They could always quit. People do it every day. Then they wouldn't have that problem. Along with a host of other problems.

But, hey, they're your lungs. Light up.
2002-10-16 12:05:29 PM  
Just wondering. Did the Billionare Mayor also raise the tax on those expensive cigars all his billionare buddies smoke at the country club?
2002-10-16 12:09:43 PM  
A Modest Proposal

I'm down with letting smokers smoke their little lungs out. I live in New York and don't smoke, but I totally defend the rights of smokers to smoke themselves silly, even in restaurants and bars. Let non-smokers use the power of their wallet to convince bars and restuarants to ban smoking, but don't legislate behavior.

OK, so there's my concession. What do I expect from smokers? The concession I expect from smokers is they refrain from using their medical insurance to rectify a problem they themselves created. Smokers should pay to have their own trache ring installed when they have invasive throat cancer surgery. I don't need my premiums going up because of your addiction. Stop suing the tobacco companies for messing up your life - you've known for the past 20 years smoking's bad.

If you're cool with that, keep puffing Chester. Otherwise, accept that the smoking habit has societal costs beyond the cost of the pack. And that you must pay for those costs through taxes, restrictions, etc.
2002-10-16 12:10:31 PM  

you seem to be missing the point. sure alcohol is dangerous, TO YOU. Cigarettes are dangerous by you smoking them and walking down the street or standing in a restaurant. Theyre dangerous to other innocent people. If you drink a beer, are you hurting someone next to you, second hand drinking? Nope. You arent.

And besides, anyone who says this isnt a good idea to get a good percentage of kids to stop is kidding themselves. Kids hate paying a lot of money, and it just wouldnt be "cool" in their eyes anymore to buy something so expensive. If you smoke, its not a RIGHT. its an activity that you so ignorantly chose to kill yourself with. If you are being so inconvinienced, then FIND ANOTHER THING TO MAKE YOU COOL. and go away, stop bothering the average citizen who doesnt smoke.
2002-10-16 12:12:45 PM  

Yes, people can quit, I did. It still is not right that these people are paying a ridiculous amount of tax. What would you do if they taxed your soy burgers all to hell... you'd probably be a little mad too....
2002-10-16 12:13:48 PM  
But, hey, they're your lungs. Light up.

Great point. They are my lungs. If I want to "ruin" them by smoking cigarette that should be my worry. The government shouldn't be allowed to tell me if I can or cannot smoke. That's not their job. This is tantamount to theft at gunpoint from innocent people. This is NYC mugging smokers. The only difference is they don't do it on a darkened street, they do it right in cigarette selling stores and brag about it the next day.
Ant [TotalFark]
2002-10-16 12:14:59 PM  
I quit smoking on July 5th and haven't had a cigarette since, but I still think it's a crappy practice to tax something so ridiculously much.
2002-10-16 12:15:31 PM  
oh yeah, and your average kid CANNOT afford to pay that much money anymore. Most are wasting their entire allowences on cigs to begin with, this extra price will definately hurt them, and maybe theyll quit! If someone adult is having to pay more, well then maybe you should rethink smoking, and if you HAVE to smoke, then you can live with the extra prices.
2002-10-16 12:16:19 PM  
Why don't the bars in the US try investing in smoke extractors??? Every bar has them over here in Ireland.
2002-10-16 12:17:50 PM  

The federal government should increase taxes on unleaded gasoline by 100% or more (diesel should stay low as to not affect the price of everything shipped by truck). The fumes from all those exhaust pipes are bad for my health and smell like rotten eggs. And maybe people will get over their addiction of terrorist-funding oil, which is bad for all of us. Plus I live in Manhattan, don't drive, and don't own a it won't affect me much.

Somehow I doubt they're getting the same amount of taxes..."projections" notwithstanding. Plus they're hurting the local bodegas, forcing them to increase the prices of everything else to keep the same amount of income and stay in business. And NYC is in the biggest budget crunch in it's history. Good call, Mike.

2002-10-16 12:20:43 PM  
Whiners. Cigarette prices in SK, Canada doubled in price after the cigarette tax hike.

How much are cigs normally in the states anyway?
2002-10-16 12:28:18 PM  
I would add a rider to your modest proposal, women who get pregnant.
I don't want my insurance money going to someone who decides to have an optional $25,000 procedure. I chose not to have kids and therefore should not have to pay for someone else to do so through my premiums.
2002-10-16 12:29:20 PM  
Excellent! Thats a 680% increase in tax revenue even with the reduced volume of sales.
2002-10-16 12:36:54 PM  
Hell, this has got to a an opportunity to make big $$ on the Internet at government's expense. Hmmm... Time to check out the nearest Indian reservation!
2002-10-16 12:38:13 PM  
Fubar: "Yes, people can quit, I did. It still is not right that these people are paying a ridiculous amount of tax. What would you do if they taxed your soy burgers all to hell... you'd probably be a little mad too...."

I'm a carnivore, baby. But soy burgers don't hurt anybody else, last I looked.

Alcohol does
hurt others in the case of drunk driving and broken relationships (when people can't control their alcohol intake, which, not to make a blanket generalization here, is obviously a good many people). I worry the most about the morons who drink and drive. But if you want to drink, have a drink. If it makes you obnoxious, I'll leave. Just do me a favor, don't think you're Superman and you can drive when you're bombed.

If you want to smoke, have a smoke. If it makes you reek or threatens my health, I'll leave. I'll have the last laugh eventually.

The Omni: "Great point. They are my lungs. If I want to "ruin" them by smoking cigarette that should be my worry. The government shouldn't be allowed to tell me if I can or cannot smoke."

Like some comedian said once (can't remember who), smoking would be okay if when you sucked it in, you kept it in.

And, again, if it was only "your worry", you'd have a point. But you make life unhealthy for others who don't smoke.

It's a debate that's been going on forever and will always have two sides: Your right to smoke vs. my right not to breathe second-hand smoke. "If you don't like it, leave" vs. "I have a right to be here".

Right now you smokers seem to be losing the battle. That's unfortunate. But you haven't built up a lot of sympathy over the years to draw from now.

Look, like I said, we need your tax money and we need you to die off and we need your insurance premiums and all that, so go ahead, light up, you won't do it in my house because I can control that, but if you're in public and it's not illegal, do whatever you want and I'll adjust.

But here's my last argument on this, and it's not really an argument so much as my rationale (and forgive this for sounding schmaltzy or Hallmark Card-y, but if you can avoid just teeing off on that and listen to the sentiment):

There is going to come a day, maybe when you're 75 or 80 or maybe younger, when you're going to wish you had just one more day. One more day to see a sunset, one more day to play with your grandkids, one more day to listen to music you love, one more day to enjoy a summer night or a baseball game or whatever. You'll beg for that one more day (unless you're just a total crumurdgeon, which I sense many of you are).

Only there won't be one more day. And there won't be one more day when you're 65 or 75 or 80 because you just had to have a pack of cigarettes when you were 35 or 40. You had to do something that you know is bad for you, that you know makes you unappealing to be around, that you know contributes to general unhealthiness.

That's why I don't smoke.

But you have free will, so make your own decisions and live with the consequences. Knock yourself out. If you think you're being taxed unfairly, we have a system in this country for rectifying the decisions of government, don't we? Ever hear of it?
2002-10-16 12:50:17 PM  
In other news in the last 100 years 100% of stores report nobody is buying medical heroin. Conclusion: Nobody does heroin anymore.

I'm glad I'm in Kentucky. You could't buy a more smoker friendly state.
2002-10-16 12:50:17 PM  
There is only one thing to be said for this -- if "non-politician" Mike had told New York what his REAL priorities were when he was running for office, there's no way he'd be mayor.

Sure, there's something to be said for making a city safe for caprice-laden billionaire ex-smokers, but then that's hardly populism.

As for the stats on second-hand smoking, they're largely crap -- a product of political science more than genuine science. Then again you don't have to take my word for it, read it for yourself. If your scientific findings are actually found by taking a bunch of studies, throwing out the ones that don't suit your conclusions, and progressively reducing the correlation threshold until the study says what you wanted it to say at the start, it has more to do with politically-motivated fraud than with actual science.
2002-10-16 12:51:31 PM  
$4.05 a pack here.
2002-10-16 01:10:36 PM  
I just decided that the taxes were getting too large. Instead of quitting, I found a novel way around the taxes: I started working for the tobacco industry, I get 'em free.
2002-10-16 01:14:20 PM  
im so farking sick of you self-righteous nonsmokers posting about how smokers should die and that they deserve every tax increase that is thrown at them. you piss and moan about how when you get home from the bar you smell awful, yet you cant quite get it through your heads to stop going to bars if you dont like the environment. i could make the same argument about drunken assholes screaming things at the television when i go to the local sports bar to watch football games, but i, like most normal people, have enough common sense to remove myself from a situation when i am unhappy with it.

face facts. bars = smoke. if you dont like smoke, dont go to bars. if you insist on going to bars, accept the conditions (read: smokers).

nobody has the right to tell you what to put into your body, even if it is harmful to your health. besides, while were on the topic of harmful substances, how about alcohol?
2002-10-16 01:35:06 PM  
H1x: Because we're cheap bastards over here and will never spend extra to do something right when we can pay 30% (or whatever) less to do it half-assed.

It is the duct-tape paradigm. Look at our roads or home appliances or you name it; cheap and lots of it.

As Mr. Zappa said "it's a little biatcheesy but it's nicely displayed"
2002-10-16 01:45:02 PM  
I pay like $2.50 for Pall Malls here, so screw all the flatlander dinks in NY. Hell, you can even get dollar a pack smokes from the Indians (not natives) if you don't mind that oh so alluring dung flavor.
2002-10-16 01:52:20 PM  
This i kinda funny,,, (I am a smoker)

1: The Gvment Tax's smokes
2: Then they make laws telling you where you can/ can not smoke
3: Why are you non-smokers complaining? where do you think your public insurance money comes from?
4: If you are a smoker and a place you goto doesn't allow smoking leave ,,, let your $$$ speak for you (I personally do not goto any club's/pubs ect that do not allow smoking
5: Australia 25%@ tax on a pack of smokes (not bad for a country that just introduced 10% across the board)

6: Now i feel like a smoke..
2002-10-16 02:00:38 PM  
Grow your own. Idiots.
2002-10-16 02:02:17 PM  
10-16-02 12:10:31 PM Big Al
you seem to be missing the point. sure alcohol is dangerous, TO YOU. Cigarettes are dangerous by you smoking them and walking down the street or standing in a restaurant. Theyre dangerous to other innocent people. If you drink a beer, are you hurting someone next to you, second hand drinking? Nope. You arent.

Until said person gets in a car, right? Runs into another car, killing someone directly, right? Or until said person gets angry, because they are drunk, and stabs or beats someone to death. Or goes home, and beats the wife or kids because they can't control the amount they drink. There are just as many innocents at risk from your "harmless beer" as there are from smokers.
2002-10-16 02:08:25 PM  
Somebody check my math on this... According to the article, before the tax increase 29.2 million packs were sold at $.08 tax per pack. That's about $2.3 million in tax. After the increase, 10.5 million packs were sold at $1.50 tax per pack. That's about $15.8 million!! Looks like somebody just found a way to increase tax revenue by almost 700%, even though only one third as many people are 'contributing' to the tax! Rock on, New York!
2002-10-16 02:08:33 PM  
10-16-02 12:10:31 PM Big Al

you seem to be missing the point. sure alcohol is dangerous, TO YOU. Cigarettes are dangerous by you smoking them and walking down the street or standing in a restaurant. Theyre dangerous to other innocent people. If you drink a beer, are you hurting someone next to you, second hand drinking? Nope. You arent.

Smoking Vs Drinking,,, have you even read how many innocent people are killed EVERY year from drunk's? not to mention that more than half of fight's are some way connected to drinking ,,, maybe drinking is as harmful as smoking and they should tax that up too?
2002-10-16 02:12:35 PM  
What they really need to tax is people who pee on the street. That'll raise enough money to clean up the whole city, and buy everyone a pack of smokes for their trouble.

yes!!! i second that emotion
2002-10-16 02:20:24 PM  
Smokers--your freedom ends where mine begins.

Would you fart loudly, intentionally, and smelly, in a restaurant?
2002-10-16 02:22:33 PM  
How'd New Jersey do in cigarette sales, since the NY tax?

2002-10-16 02:23:12 PM  
also, i live in new york, financial district, where i breathed in ash/fumes/building parts post-9/11. all the while the EPA kept telling us the air was not dangerous for our health.

so burning 110 story buildings whose asbestos content is unclear collapsing and filling the air with a huge cloud of smoke and debris isn't bad for you... but occasionally breathing in second hand smoke (for example, the non smoker who spends 4-8 hours/week in a bar, perhaps) is??
2002-10-16 02:23:29 PM  

but there are LAWS against drinking and driving, you are breaking the law by doing it. You can drink and NOT drive. you CANT smoke next to someone and NOT give them 2nd hand smoke
2002-10-16 02:29:16 PM  
the filter has won.
2002-10-16 02:30:36 PM  

once again, this is taking something out of context. One has nothing to do with the other. I can be sober and run around and beat people up, or beat my wife, or get into an accident. You cant be around smoke and NOT get some in your lungs. You do what helps the greater good in America, and the greater percentage does NOT smoke, so that is why laws against smoking are in effect.
2002-10-16 02:41:56 PM  
it's probably safe to say that the greater percentage of americans are slack-jawed yokals who think us city folk are ruining america. so wtf/e. i don't buy into crowd mentality. don't call me cletus. and don't tell me where i can or can't smoke. it's getting ridiculous.
2002-10-16 02:50:57 PM  
Nfission: Apparently, not drinking results in poor grammar. I'm also curious as to where you've read that "more than half of fight's [sic] are some way connected to drinking." And just "how many innocent people are killed EVERY year from drunk's?"

The answers to these questions and more, on Action News tonight at eleven.
2002-10-16 03:05:48 PM  
Normally I'd take this oportunity to rant. But today all I want to say is:

2002-10-16 03:20:23 PM  
Tom Green's idea of a smoke bubble was pretty damn sweet. Light up and not even need to worry if its a non smoke area. Damn... wonder if I can find one on E-Bay or Pricewatch.
2002-10-16 03:24:23 PM  
If smokers want to fark up their lungs fine.

Just don't exhale and fark with MY lungs.
2002-10-16 03:34:18 PM  
"Would you fart loudly, intentionally, and smelly, in a restaurant?"

ooops. my bad.
2002-10-16 03:35:53 PM  
To all who voted for this assclown Blowburg- See what you get when a so called "businessman" runs the city??? Hope you're all happy.
2002-10-16 03:44:01 PM  
I'm getting sick of this "Dont fark with my lungs" bullshiat. Read Clevershark's link. Seccond hand smoke, while it is an irritant, has not been shown to be any more harmful than walking around outside...

The problem is, is that the smokers who, by the way, are the better tippers in bars and restaurants, just dont speak up against all of this crap. It's all you whiny pussies with your "your killing my lungs" propaganda bullshiat that's causing good, hardworking people, that just happen to like to smoke, to become put out by all these new laws and taxes.

Remember, it's the squeeky wheel that gets the grease, you people and your TRUTH comercials are no better than PETA...
2002-10-16 03:46:06 PM  
2002-10-16 03:48:32 PM  
Now if they'd plant,grow,sell and tax pot, I'd gladly pay the piper
2002-10-16 03:49:54 PM  
There is absolutley no scientific evidence that second-hand smoke is bad for you.

Ooops, except this article about a study from U of Toronto and U of Maryland on crib-death.

Or this interview with Dr. Ichiro Kawachi of the Harvard School of Public Health about a study that showed second-hand smoke increased the risk of heart attack in women.

Or this article from the BBC about the conclusions drawn by the IARC and the WHO that second-hand smoke causes cancer.

It's bad enough you want to bathe us all in disgusting, carcinogenic smoke. Don't try to smother us in bullshiat as well.
2002-10-16 03:52:35 PM
2002-10-16 04:00:21 PM  
The question you should ask in this is cui bono?

Who profits by saying second-hand smoke is harmful if its not? I can't think of anyone.

Who profits by saying second-hand smoke is harmless if its not? Tobacco companies that first lied to the public for decades about the danger of cigarettes, then lied to the public about the addictive properties of nicotine in cigarettes.

Something to chew on, there.
2002-10-16 04:19:56 PM  
obviously it is a racist plot against immigrant convenience store owners to drive them out of business.
2002-10-16 05:31:40 PM  

10-16-02 01:14:20 PM Praetorian
im so farking sick of you self-righteous nonsmokers posting about how smokers should die and that they deserve every tax increase that is thrown at them.

face facts. bars = smoke. if you dont like smoke, dont go to bars. if you insist on going to bars, accept the conditions (read: smokers).

I guess you don't travel to california much. such ignorance.

no smoking in bars here, against the law for many years. bars are a fun clean air places with lots of fun people and no smokers. .. just drinkers... sometimes drunk, or surly, or lecherous or what have you, but hey.

bars = drinking

THAT's a definition, not some assertion about the way things are and you are used to.
2002-10-16 05:38:11 PM  
It is sad that this tax mostly crushes against the lower class and recent immmigrants. It would have been better if the money from this tax was kept seperate to support low income families for health needs. Instead of getting plundered by the state budget.
2002-10-16 05:38:24 PM  
but there are LAWS against drinking and driving, you are breaking the law by doing it. You can drink and NOT drive. you CANT smoke next to someone and NOT give them 2nd hand smoke

Sure, sure, but does the law actually stop people from doing that. Look, I wasn't taking sides here, but merely sommenting on your assumption that drinking causes no harm to innocent people. As you said If you drink a beer, are you hurting someone next to you, second hand drinking? Nope. You arent. It's total bullshiat. If you are going to make a statement that broad and overgeneralized, then don't be surprised if people take it "out of context" as you say. It tooks like I wasn't the only one to comment specifically to you, anyway.
2002-10-16 05:57:05 PM  
Don't you just love it how the STATE extornists steal from the county and city extortionists?

2002-10-16 06:41:12 PM  
Wow, only 12 times as much money to NYC instaid of 18 times as much. I guess it was really stupid of them...
2002-10-16 07:09:47 PM  

take a comment however you want, i dont care. The point is, if you smoke in a restaurant, you have the possibility of hurting someone else with your smoke, if you drink in a restaurant, you are NOT hurting anybody else. There are more laws about fighting, drinking and driving, etc. but those are not what we are talking about. Just the act of SMOKING can cause harm when near somebody, the act of drinking CAN NOT.
2002-10-16 07:15:53 PM  
i'd like to say right about now that whiners suck. people biatch about others smoking. wtf?? there are more important things in the world. get over your precious lungs. what. ev. er.
2002-10-16 07:46:13 PM  
From Nightsweats' links:

First link
Koren admitted a study of this size can't answer those questions. But he believes exposure to cigarette smoke is probably one of a number of factors that all have to fall in place for a baby to succumb to SIDS.

Second link
We weren't able to precisely estimate just how much of a dose and how long one would have to be exposed to in order to get into increased--situations of increased risk, such as we observed.

Third link
There wasn't any information at all in the third link.

This is proof? Of what? Speculation?
2002-10-16 08:07:52 PM  
i don't know how well this compares, but here is a list of some of the cigarettes in my area (mt. evelyn, victoria, australia)

Super Kings (pack of 20, 100mm long) - $6.70AUD ($3.67USD)
Longbeach (pack of 20, standard length) - $~6.50AUD (~$3.50USD)
Longbeach (pack of 40, standard length) - $12.55AUD ($6.80USD)
Winfield (pack of 25, standard length) - $8.55AUD ($4.68USD)
Peter Jackson (pack of 30, standard length) - $10.20AUD($5.59USD)

cigarette tax is 68.9% (not sure if this cigarette tax is applied before or after GST of 10%)
2002-10-16 08:39:43 PM  
Randomly stopped on a post but don't care who wrote it. Says something about letting your $$$ do the talking by not going to places that don't allow smokers... like us non-smoker business owners are going to be upset at this.

People don't smoke for the taste. I can't imagin that they get some sort of 'high' from it. No, no, no. They smoke to calm their nervers CAUSE THEY CAN'T HANDLE STRESS!!!! If you can't handle stress, KILL YOURSELF!!! oh wait, that's what you're doing, ok, my bad. could ya do it a little faster? Traffic's getting bad out here.

-Grand Ba$tard B-
2002-10-16 08:53:58 PM  
"Mayor Bloomberg has said repeatedly that he'd be happy if the city didn't make a cent from the cigarette tax because his goal is to stop young people from smoking."

"But they said cigarette tax revenues were "above target for this month" and would meet the $125 million annual projection."

oh yeah.

"well, everybody quit smoking, and i'm so happy to report we're short about $125 million... but hey, who cares, right? we're just happy that all those poor people who barely even pay taxes are healthy! hear! hear! ...uh, does anyone have busfare?"

...oh, shiat sorry, i musta been day-dreaming...
2002-10-16 09:30:32 PM  
People don't smoke for the taste

Uhh, yeah, they do.
2002-10-16 11:48:34 PM  
It's legal thievery, committed in the name of the chiiiillldddrrreeennnn and the undertroooooddddeeennn and our own gooooooood. Things that governments and politicians inherently don't give a rat's ass about.

Don't kid yourselves. Their greedy bastards who just happen to know what's best for you and me. And it's their license to steal.
2002-10-17 02:04:19 AM  
Rhiannon, you excerpted prologues that were then countered with the info about the studies.

Some better exceprts.

1. He and his colleagues decided to look for biological markers, solid proof that would eliminate the need to rely on reporting from parents.

So they looked for nicotine -- a marker of exposure to second-hand smoke -- in the lung tissue of 44 infants who had died of SIDS and 29 babies who had died of other causes.

"Basically what we found is that SIDS babies had much more nicotine in their lungs," Koren said. "We did see huge differences."

While that doesn't rule out the possibility that women who smoke during pregnancy increase the risk of SIDS for their babies, it does show that exposure to second-hand smoke after birth does.

2. DR. ICHIRO KAWACHI: We followed a group of about 32,000 women over a period of 10 years to see whether passive smoking might increase the risk of heart attack. And basically we found that women who are regularly exposed in either the work or the home are at about double the risk for heart attack compared to those who are not exposed.

3. The group of 29 experts from 12 countries found second-hand tobacco smoke was carcinogenic to humans and that typical levels of passive exposure have been shown to cause lung cancer among people who have never smoked.

That would be a more representative set of excerpts. I didn't even look that hard for those articles.

Like I said, I don't want to be buried in smoke or covered in pro-tobacco bullshiat, either.
2002-10-17 03:08:23 AM  
at least its a write off - right?
2002-10-17 05:44:27 AM  
Big Al, I've sat next to very many people smoking, and not inhaled any smoke at all. And btw, you say drinking itself doesn't hurt anyone, just because there is a law for not drinking and driving, that doesn't stop people. And btw, you wanna not get lung cancer? Stop driving your car, those things are doing a million times more damage than cigarettes will ever do. Jesus have you seen the warnings on the sides of gas stations lately. The one saying that inhilation of gas fumes has caused cancer in lab rats? If just the fumes from the stuff is causing cancer, that worries the crap out of me.
2002-10-17 06:56:05 AM  
Rhiannon, you excerpted prologues that were then countered with the info about the studies.

Yeah, if you're reading the articles from finish to start.

Anyway, I don't doubt that second hand smoke could be harmful. I just seriously doubt that the miniscule exposure that most people could possibly be subjected to over their day could have any serious side effects, when compared to the other pollutants they're sucking in.
2002-10-17 07:26:28 AM  
The Government has been pressured by PETA to tax usage of and at 5.00 an hour due to the massive pileups of dead kittens at local animal shelters and landfills.

*Coming soon!*
Displayed 139 of 139 comments

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.