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 Morning Call)   Pennsylvania could lose $320 million in tobacco settlement money because the state didn't do enough to help the big tobacco companies sell more tobacco in PA. *cough* Tobacco   (mcall.com) divider line 32
    More: Stupid, Pennsylvania, big tobacco, mandatory spending, R.J. Reynolds, uncompensated care, 46th state, tobacco, Lorillard  
•       •       •

3942 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jan 2014 at 1:13 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



32 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-01-12 09:48:52 AM
The signing tobacco companies in 2006 began withholding some of their payments to the states, claiming those states weren't taking diligent action against those smaller competitors, including small-name brands and roll-your-own tobacco providers.

In New England roll-your-own stores have been targeted within the past five years. Possibly enforcement was in response to the big companies' threats to cut payments. The desire for direct tax revenue is also a plausible motive.

That increased the potential hit to Pennsylvania to an estimated $242 million, the state said in court papers filed in December by Kane's office. The reduction in funding would force the state to "defund many of the public programs" that rely on tobacco money, the court papers said.

I wish we had a good way to make threats binding. Politicians vote that some program can't have any money except what is available through a particular revenue stream. Under business as usual rules they divert money from other funds if their bluff gets called.
 
2014-01-12 10:45:12 AM
I think I understand the crackdowns on e-cigs now
 
2014-01-12 01:16:30 PM
LOL. "Partnership"
 
2014-01-12 01:20:36 PM
Cough, indeed, Subby.
Cough, indeed.
 
2014-01-12 01:20:55 PM
Ha. PM and MO pay a nice dividend.
 
2014-01-12 01:22:54 PM
I really like how 98% of the tobacco settlement has been used for non-tobacco related things.
 
2014-01-12 01:23:38 PM
Any word on the Tomacco alternative?
 
2014-01-12 01:24:25 PM

ZAZ: I wish we had a good way to make threats binding.


It's called violence, but it's frowned upon until it is the action of last resort.
 
2014-01-12 01:25:05 PM
Leave it to PA to fark up a simple money grab. That is all this ever was. Any alcohol companies paying out for drinking related problems? Nope.
 
2014-01-12 01:27:06 PM
So wait. The tobakkie companies are now blackmailing the states into making more of it's own citizens get lung cancer?? Dafuq?

That's some real comic book super-villainy there!
 
2014-01-12 01:28:41 PM
Apparently, a tidy sum is about to go....


*dons sunglasses and lights tobacco pipe*


......up in smoke.

/Yeeeeeeee-*cough cough*-eeeeeeeah!
 
2014-01-12 01:31:07 PM

Bslim: Any word on the Tomacco alternative?


Official word from the company is it tastes like Grandma.
 
2014-01-12 01:32:29 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I think I understand the crackdowns on e-cigs now


This, this and THIS ^^^^^^^^^^
 
2014-01-12 01:33:50 PM

CruJones: I really like how 98% of the tobacco settlement has been used for non-tobacco related things.


Which is actually why they may lose their settlement money, unless I misread...
 
2014-01-12 01:46:01 PM
Pennsylvania has had a string of poor governors, including the current governor who decided to defend pedophiles. Neither party can seem to find someone who can walk and chew gum at the same dime. It doesn't surprise me.
 
2014-01-12 02:21:13 PM
i712.photobucket.com

/hot
 
2014-01-12 02:48:18 PM

The Irresponsible Captain: Pennsylvania has had a string of poor governors, including the current governor who decided to defend pedophiles. Neither party can seem to find someone who can walk and chew gum at the same dime. It doesn't surprise me.


What is it about Penn's insistence on defending pedos?
 
2014-01-12 03:02:03 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I think I understand the crackdowns on e-cigs now


Just now? I'm surprised Big Tobacco didn't have the inventor of e-cigs disappeared before they ever hit the shelves.
 
2014-01-12 03:03:02 PM
1. Sign an agreement to receive money from Evil Tobacco.

2. Fail to follow the agreement because, well, Evil Tobacco is evil and who should care?

3. Complain because you failed to follow the agreement and won't get money.

 i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-12 03:03:25 PM
TFA fills me with contempt for everyone involved.

/Fark this ass-backwards Commonwealth
 
2014-01-12 03:13:42 PM

D2theMcV: [i712.photobucket.com image 350x233]

/hot


Not NOW, Jerry!
 
2014-01-12 03:17:27 PM
He a-holes, you're the ones that made up all the strange rules to get your way in the first place, now you get to live with them.
 
2014-01-12 04:14:34 PM
Boobies.

img.fark.net
 
2014-01-12 04:19:23 PM

astouffer: Leave it to PA to fark up a simple money grab. That is all this ever was. Any alcohol companies paying out for drinking related problems? Nope.


In their defense, alcohol companies, as a general rule, don't take out full-page ads in newspapers explaining how all independent research into drunk driving is actually being done by people with hidden Prohibitionist agendas, and that multiple studies commissioned by Anheuser-Busch and Heineken have actually shown that drinking improves your driving abilities, reduces your tendencies towards violence, and makes your liver stronger by weeding out the weaker cells that are just mooching off the stronger liver cells.

(For those of you who were not reading newspapers in the 1990s, this is not hyperbole).
 
2014-01-12 04:25:24 PM
Also, near as I can tell (my reading comprehension skills may be off, or the article may be horribly written, I can't tell these days), it isn't because they failed to help sell more tobacco, but because they were lax in enforcement against small tobacco companies, which lend's credence to astouffer'sargument that this is a simple money grab, and which the tobacco companies' lawyers were smart enough to bet on.
 
2014-01-12 04:45:23 PM

hchaos: Also, near as I can tell (my reading comprehension skills may be off, or the article may be horribly written, I can't tell these days), it isn't because they failed to help sell more tobacco, but because they were lax in enforcement against small tobacco companies, which lend's credence to astouffer'sargument that this is a simple money grab, and which the tobacco companies' lawyers were smart enough to bet on.


It's not you, this is a long and very confusing article. As far as I can tell, a few years ago, big tobacco companies signed an agreement with states to pay them a set amount of money, and in exchange, the states would no longer be able to sue them for smoking related costs to medicare programs. But since only big tobacco companies signed the agreement, there were a lot of smaller companies that essentially got a free ride under the deal. So part of the agreement was that if those big companies lost market share to smaller companies who weren't forced to pay, and it was found that the states did nothing to stop this, they could cut their payments. States were supposed to be diligent in suing or otherwise hurting the profits  of small tobacco companies because they were still eating medicare costs without paying any kind of compensation. If they didn't, it's their own fault they're now losing big tobacco money.
 
2014-01-12 05:02:54 PM

ignacio: hchaos: Also, near as I can tell (my reading comprehension skills may be off, or the article may be horribly written, I can't tell these days), it isn't because they failed to help sell more tobacco, but because they were lax in enforcement against small tobacco companies, which lend's credence to astouffer'sargument that this is a simple money grab, and which the tobacco companies' lawyers were smart enough to bet on.

It's not you, this is a long and very confusing article.


Good. I'm glad I'm not the only one who read it twice and was still confused as to what it was actually trying to say.
 
2014-01-12 05:26:53 PM

ignacio: hchaos: Also, near as I can tell (my reading comprehension skills may be off, or the article may be horribly written, I can't tell these days), it isn't because they failed to help sell more tobacco, but because they were lax in enforcement against small tobacco companies, which lend's credence to astouffer'sargument that this is a simple money grab, and which the tobacco companies' lawyers were smart enough to bet on.

It's not you, this is a long and very confusing article. As far as I can tell, a few years ago, big tobacco companies signed an agreement with states to pay them a set amount of money, and in exchange, the states would no longer be able to sue them for smoking related costs to medicare programs. But since only big tobacco companies signed the agreement, there were a lot of smaller companies that essentially got a free ride under the deal....


I can't force myself to scour that mess text in the article again. Does the wording of the original settlement only pertain to cigarette manufacturers, or manufacturers and dealers of all types of tobacco? If it's the first case, there is no ground in the signers to come back and whine about losing market shares to sales of loose tobacco.

Hell, their own products aren't even 50% tobacco any more. Smokers have started to realize that.

/Makes me want to walk down and buy a tin of American Spirit just to spite them.
 
2014-01-12 06:35:03 PM
There are a lot of people who think cigarettes are expensive because of government taxes.

Let me tell you from someone who knows the industry better than most people... That's bullshiat. That is literally exactly what the tobacco companies want you to think.

Let's say the government increases the tax on each pack by five cents. The tobacco companies pass this on to their customer - the stores that sell them to you - as a 25 cent markup per pack.

They do this consistently, have done that for many years. Every price increase the tobacco companies make is hidden behind a much, much smaller government tax, which takes the blame.
 
2014-01-12 06:41:55 PM
I'm considering growing my own tobacco this year and saying fark you to the tobacco companies and government It'd be a pain in the ass to start, but would be worth it in the long run
 
2014-01-12 06:49:15 PM

LavenderWolf: There are a lot of people who think cigarettes are expensive because of government taxes.


I don't think that. I don't even smoke but for some reason I know how the price has changed from 10-20 years ago to today. There's no way taxes or inflation can account for that. My reasoning wasn't as complicated as yours. I just figured it's a drug and people will pay whatever it costs so if all the cig companies agree, why not raise prices every year or so?

/feels bad for poor people addicted to cigs
//not too bad but a little bad
 
2014-01-12 11:26:08 PM
Mein Fuhrer I Can Walk:
Hell, their own products aren't even 50% tobacco any more. Smokers have started to realize that.

/Makes me want to walk down and buy a tin of American Spirit just to spite them.


Natural American spirits are owned by Santa Fe, which are wholly owned by Reynolds, which is 42% owned by British Tobacco. Which are the second largest tobacco companies in the U.S and the World, respectively.
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report