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.

(The New York Times)   After successfully throttling a cow, the states are now complaining that it's stopped giving milk   (nytimes.com) divider line 24
    More: Stupid, United States, municipal bonds, milk, tobacco  
•       •       •

16831 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 May 2012 at 11:09 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-05-06 11:01:03 AM
3 votes:
Let's force people to smoke. That way our precious industry can remain afloat for centuries to come.
2012-05-06 01:09:51 PM
2 votes:

pudgyv: Well, what the fark? Do you want tobacco revenue or do you want people to stop smoking? You can't have both. DUH!


Ideally, we'd like just one really, really rich guy to smoke...
2012-05-06 11:29:17 AM
2 votes:

Because People in power are Stupid: Let's force people to smoke. That way our precious industry can remain afloat for centuries to come.


You're employed in the Precious industry?
i18.photobucket.com

That's fascinating.
2012-05-06 11:16:57 AM
2 votes:
After successfully throttling a cow

cdn.mos.totalfilm.com
2012-05-06 11:13:26 AM
2 votes:

Friskya: cman: Obviously that means that we must raise tax on cigarettes more to make up for lost revenue

And the tobacco companies! Don't forget those evil, evil tobacco companies.


My hovercraft is full of eels.
2012-05-06 07:47:36 AM
2 votes:
Obviously that means that we must raise tax on cigarettes more to make up for lost revenue
2012-05-06 07:03:53 PM
1 votes:

SharkTrager: BarkingUnicorn: A similar (though smaller) fiasco is in the making with the idea of a "pole tax" on strip clubs to support programs for rape victims. If you really want to help victims you should approve every strip club that applies for a license, and eliminate "6-foot rules" or anything else that diminishes a strip club's appeal.

Of course, *I* fully support programs for rape victims!

They got those passed showing that "serious sex crimes" are more likely in an area with strip clubs, implying increased instances of rape.

What they kind of buried that they had added prostitution to the list that included rape, and, yes, there are more women in strip clubs who will have sex with you for money than in Target, at least on a per capita basis.


You said rape twice
2012-05-06 05:34:03 PM
1 votes:

Earl of Chives: Rik01: ArcadianRefugee

Don't you know that using intelligence and facts here can get you in trouble?

Sign me up for your newsletter.

A basic tidbit here. It wasn't until WW2 that tobacco took a turn for the worst, by stopping the use of imported Japanese rice paper for cigarettes. They switched to American made, acid cured wood pulp paper. After WW2, there was major pressure for them not to switch back, even though many smokers noticed the unpleasant difference.

Since the majority of the paper mills were owned by a few wealthy, politically connected folks, they didn't want to loose the boon in cigarette revenue.

There has also been, to my knowledge, no major effort to force the tobacco companies to clean up their product. The only change of any consequence has been to eliminate or decrease the amount of salt peter added to the tobacco (which was added to keep the cigarettes burning and not go out like they used to) in an effort to prevent accidental fires.

The companies changed the way they processed tobacco also, to make the basic leaf stronger. That process could be stopped.

Big Tobacco actually did design and push filtered smokes years back when it came out that the tar from tobacco was harmful. They initially presented a rather impressive selection of filters and worked on pushing them until it became rare to find a smoker who still used unfiltered cigarettes.

Granted, they are liable for a multitude of sins, but nothing other major businesses have not done before to keep their products selling.

Coca-Cola once had cocaine in it. The American auto industry resisted adding seatbelts even though European car makers were already doing so. Then there was that whole, major squabble over removing lead from paint -- which ended with industrial equipment still being allowed to use it. The Truth in Advertising laws requiring companies to list the ingredients in their products was met with major resistance. Companies knew if the consumer knew what krap they added ...


I thought it was as logical and stirring as Blutarsky's impassioned appeal in Animal House.
2012-05-06 03:47:08 PM
1 votes:

Rik01: ArcadianRefugee

Don't you know that using intelligence and facts here can get you in trouble?

Sign me up for your newsletter.

A basic tidbit here. It wasn't until WW2 that tobacco took a turn for the worst, by stopping the use of imported Japanese rice paper for cigarettes. They switched to American made, acid cured wood pulp paper. After WW2, there was major pressure for them not to switch back, even though many smokers noticed the unpleasant difference.

Since the majority of the paper mills were owned by a few wealthy, politically connected folks, they didn't want to loose the boon in cigarette revenue.

There has also been, to my knowledge, no major effort to force the tobacco companies to clean up their product. The only change of any consequence has been to eliminate or decrease the amount of salt peter added to the tobacco (which was added to keep the cigarettes burning and not go out like they used to) in an effort to prevent accidental fires.

The companies changed the way they processed tobacco also, to make the basic leaf stronger. That process could be stopped.

Big Tobacco actually did design and push filtered smokes years back when it came out that the tar from tobacco was harmful. They initially presented a rather impressive selection of filters and worked on pushing them until it became rare to find a smoker who still used unfiltered cigarettes.

Granted, they are liable for a multitude of sins, but nothing other major businesses have not done before to keep their products selling.

Coca-Cola once had cocaine in it. The American auto industry resisted adding seatbelts even though European car makers were already doing so. Then there was that whole, major squabble over removing lead from paint -- which ended with industrial equipment still being allowed to use it. The Truth in Advertising laws requiring companies to list the ingredients in their products was met with major resistance. Companies knew if the consumer knew what krap they added to cann ...


That's one of the most elaborate and illogical straw-men I've seen on Fark. Congrats.
2012-05-06 03:13:54 PM
1 votes:

ZAZ: I didn't pay close attention to financing at the time. I didn't know states had shifted so much of the risk to Wall Street. I should have guessed. Why would any politician take $1 million per year for 40 years when he could have $10 million now?


Yup. Bad deals to avoid raising taxes are very popular with politicians.

Gwyrddu: I have to say that after being in enough countries where you can't go anywhere in public without ending up reeking of cigarette smoke, I appreciate the restrictions on smoking in the US and I'm happy to see tobacco companies lose money.


Agreed.

Yeah, government shouldn't have relied on that income, but I honestly didn't expect otherwise. If the choice is between taking tobacco money or raising taxes, you know the state isn't going to raise taxes if they can help it.

The tobacco settlement was a very bad idea.

The states are complaining though, just not in this article. They are making less than they forecast and that money it's spent. Just like what happened with sales taxes and property taxes. And it's all someone else's fault they overspent.

Yup. Politicians don't like the prudent. Locally--the city budgeted only what they actually had. The state budgeted with some very glowing projections. Now the state is taking money away from the city because the city has money.
2012-05-06 02:26:45 PM
1 votes:

sharkbeagle: Raise taxes to $100 per pack. And cancel all smokers' health insurance for life.


We should raise taxes on Big Macs the same amount. And cancel the health insurance on fatties. In fact, all junk food should be outlawed because it causes a financial burden on all people and on the state due to poor health. Obesity is an epidemic in this country.
2012-05-06 01:52:18 PM
1 votes:

ArkAngel: quoinguy: BronyMedic: Friskya: cman: Obviously that means that we must raise tax on cigarettes more to make up for lost revenue

And the tobacco companies! Don't forget those evil, evil tobacco companies.

So, what you're saying is that it is wrong to tax an industry and product which places a disproportionate burden on society, through Medicaid and Medicare dollars thanks to diseases caused by long term use of cigarettes, but you're perfectly ok that up to 50% of your Medicare dollars go to pay for it.



Came here to say BronyMedic is an idiot, and came away satisfied someone else beat me to it.Take a basic economics class overlaid with a dose of logic.

Aside from getting hit by a bus we all die the same way--after lengthy and expensive end-of-life medical procedures. The fact that heavy smokers and drinkers may die significantly earlier than they normally would have is a net cost savings to society.

/Side note--All this anti-smoking rancor made my dad very wealthy, so thanks.
//Love how the old man learned how to play the game back in the '70s.

This. And it wasn't just the tobacco companies that did the studies. The Czech government did a similar study in the late 90's and found that people dying younger from smoking-related diseases was something like 40% cheaper than dying of old age.


No, no, you don't understand.

It's morally repugnant to use such arguments to defend not taxing the victims heavily as well.
2012-05-06 01:47:07 PM
1 votes:

quoinguy: BronyMedic: Friskya: cman: Obviously that means that we must raise tax on cigarettes more to make up for lost revenue

And the tobacco companies! Don't forget those evil, evil tobacco companies.

So, what you're saying is that it is wrong to tax an industry and product which places a disproportionate burden on society, through Medicaid and Medicare dollars thanks to diseases caused by long term use of cigarettes, but you're perfectly ok that up to 50% of your Medicare dollars go to pay for it.



Came here to say BronyMedic is an idiot, and came away satisfied someone else beat me to it.Take a basic economics class overlaid with a dose of logic.

Aside from getting hit by a bus we all die the same way--after lengthy and expensive end-of-life medical procedures. The fact that heavy smokers and drinkers may die significantly earlier than they normally would have is a net cost savings to society.

/Side note--All this anti-smoking rancor made my dad very wealthy, so thanks.
//Love how the old man learned how to play the game back in the '70s.


This. And it wasn't just the tobacco companies that did the studies. The Czech government did a similar study in the late 90's and found that people dying younger from smoking-related diseases was something like 40% cheaper than dying of old age.
2012-05-06 01:15:06 PM
1 votes:

PunGent: pudgyv: Well, what the fark? Do you want tobacco revenue or do you want people to stop smoking? You can't have both. DUH!

Ideally, we'd like just one really, really rich guy to smoke...


You work for a publically subsidized mass transit system, don't you?
2012-05-06 11:44:34 AM
1 votes:

Erebus1954: Wondering if people are quitting because of the health consequences or the tax increases.


We should try it on booze, prescription narcotics, firearms, and the NFL and take a poll.
2012-05-06 11:37:37 AM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: Friskya: cman: Obviously that means that we must raise tax on cigarettes more to make up for lost revenue

And the tobacco companies! Don't forget those evil, evil tobacco companies.

So, what you're saying is that it is wrong to tax an industry and product which places a disproportionate burden on society, through Medicaid and Medicare dollars thanks to diseases caused by long term use of cigarettes, but you're perfectly ok that up to 50% of your Medicare dollars go to pay for it.




Came here to say BronyMedic is an idiot, and came away satisfied someone else beat me to it.Take a basic economics class overlaid with a dose of logic.

Aside from getting hit by a bus we all die the same way--after lengthy and expensive end-of-life medical procedures. The fact that heavy smokers and drinkers may die significantly earlier than they normally would have is a net cost savings to society.

/Side note--All this anti-smoking rancor made my dad very wealthy, so thanks.
//Love how the old man learned how to play the game back in the '70s.
2012-05-06 11:34:27 AM
1 votes:
For the states dumb enough to issue bonds that required them to raise taxes if the bonds defaulted...hey, being stupid sucks. Remain stupid and these things are going to happen to you over and over.

For the investors that were dumb enough to invest in bonds that *didn't* require states to raise taxes if the bonds defaulted...hey, being stupid sucks. Remain stupid and these are going to happen to you over and over until you run out of money.

And I can't help but giggle at any invest that managed to combine into one toxic package bond issuing investment bankers, brain dead credit rating bureaus, retarded state governments AND tobacco companies. And people bought the bonds.

That's like having unprotected butt sex with a heroin addicted transvestite hooker on a mattress tossed on the floor of a crack house filled with rival gang members, and then being surprised when something goes wrong.
2012-05-06 11:34:12 AM
1 votes:
If everyone had stopped smoking in 2006:

On the bright side:

* 2.8 million premature deaths would be avoided between then and 2025. During the same time, healthcare spending would decrease by $211 billion (only 1.25%)

* States would have decreased Medicaid costs

* A small increase in social security (about 1.58%, the book estimates) as workers would be living longer, but retiring later

However:

* States would lose the revenue they get from cigarette excise taxes, that was $13.75 billion in 2006, an overall of 1.4%

* health care costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they would become higher than at present. In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs

* Tobacco manufacturers gave $143 billion away between 1997 and 2005 - 42% of which went to public health and community development programs. That money would probably disappear. Nationally, though, that's only about 3% of corporate giving

* According to a paper by the NBER, Americans will get fatter if they stop smoking


Asides:

* only 10% of smokers get cancer

* At least 17,000 people who have never smoked are diagnosed with lung cancer each year. That's more people than are killed annually in the US by drunk drivers, or by murderers, or by high blood pressure ... and account for 10 percent of those diagnosed with lung cancer (20 percent if you include those who quit smoking years ago)

Sources: just copy and paste parts of the above into Google.
2012-05-06 11:33:12 AM
1 votes:
I think we should cancel life insurance for anyone who knowingly engages in life-threatening choices, like soldiers, drivers, drinkers and Baltimorians.
2012-05-06 11:28:10 AM
1 votes:
img33.imageshack.us
2012-05-06 11:24:59 AM
1 votes:
Raise taxes to $100 per pack. And cancel all smokers' health insurance for life.
2012-05-06 11:21:27 AM
1 votes:
I've heard done tell that folks heavily invested in the Lawn Darts industry are hurting something fierce these days.
2012-05-06 11:18:04 AM
1 votes:
This decline in tobacco profits along with the decline in the lining of pockets is what will eventually give us legalized marijuana.
2012-05-06 08:00:03 AM
1 votes:

cman: Obviously that means that we must raise tax on cigarettes more to make up for lost revenue


And the tobacco companies! Don't forget those evil, evil tobacco companies.
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report