New York State cigarette tax being raised from....$1.50 to $2.75 a pack

[Juicy D. Links]

http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pb...WS01/806010373



New York is often criticized for taxing its residents to death.


Saving lives, however, is part of the reason state officials cite for $1.25 a pack cigarette tax increase effective Tuesday.

The hike from $1.50 to $2.75 a pack will make New York's cigarette tax the highest in the nation, raising the average price of cigarettes by more than 20 percent to more than $6 a pack. By contrast, cigarettes cost less than $4.50 a pack on average, including taxes, in northern Pennsylvania where the state tax is $1.35 a pack.

An informal survey of five area stores this weekend revealed smokers don't appear to be stocking up on cigarettes, perhaps because smokers can take a short drive into Pennsylvania where they pay $1.35 in tax per pack.

Pennsylvania is where Leslie Cooper of Manhattan plans to buy her and her husband's cigarettes.

Cooper, who owns a weekend home in East Branch in Delaware County, said, "We should stop smoking, but we're just going to go to Pennsylvania instead."

At least one local convenience store is considering halting the sale of cigarettes because they fear too much business will be lost over the border.

Joan Barton owns Barton's Market in Apalachin, which is located five miles from Pennsylvania. She said she plans to stock less cigarette brands and possibly might stop selling cigarettes.

"We'll see if they're willing to pay higher prices. A lot of them say they're going to quit," she commented.

Endicott resident Kari Reed, 34, said she'll consider quitting her less than a-pack-a-day habit because of the new tax, not to mention the increasing cost of gasoline and food. Reed said she has no problem with the cigarette tax hike.

"If you're going to smoke, pay the price to smoke because smoking is a luxury," she said.

Vestal Parkway Manley's Mighty Mart Supervisor Tom Fadden said considering people can barely afford gasoline he expects the cigarette tax to really hurt customers.

Fadden, 24, however, said he hopes the tax will inspire some people to quit because he knows the health risk. Fadden, who doesn't smoke, had a father who smoked two packs a day for years. Last June, his father died of throat cancer.

According to studies cited by the American Cancer Society, the most surefire way to get people to quit, especially youths, is to raise prices. A 10 percent increase, for example, is followed by a 6.5 percent reduction in the number of cigarette-smoking youths and a 2 percent reduction of the habit in adults.

A widely cited national study in 2006, the Tax Burden of Tobacco, also shows a state tax increase is always followed by increased revenues and decreased smoking, even taking into account smuggling and tax avoidance. A $1 per pack increase in Montana in 2005, for example, was followed by a 17.8 percent sales decline and $25.1 million in state revenue.

New York state officials expect the increase will generate $265 million in additional revenue, much of it to be used for health programs, including smoking cessation.

Audrey Silk of Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, based in New York City, however writes that New York can expect less tax revenue next year from tobacco tax. She bases her opinion on analysis from Center for Policy Research of New Jersey which found New Jersey collected $23 million less in revenue from tobacco taxes in the fiscal year 2007 than the previous year after raising the tax $2.57 per pack.

[Methodcash Rick]

Ouch...

I feel for smokers in NY & Cali..

Glad I quit 3 years ago, between gas & cigs, it'd be a hard choice to make.. ;)

[Persius]

damn that sux 4 ny-ers

[Juicy D. Links]

Originally Posted by Persius

damn that sux 4 ny-ers

I am gonna start a rally and protest

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Methodcash Rick

Ouch...

I feel for smokers in NY & Cali..

I don't. People smoke for 30 years get smoking related disease then it's the TAXPAYERS that end up paying their medical bills. Or parents smoke their kids get asthma then WE the taxpayer are footing the kids medical bills. some bitch smokes will pregnant her baby is born underweight and needs expensive medical treatment. who pays for that? WE the taxpayers. So no I'm not sorry if smokers have to pay $2.75 in tax for a pack of smokes. So either the smokers finally start paying for some of thier medical care through these taxes or they quit which results in less tax $$ being needs ot pay for medical care. Either way it benefits the taxpayer.

[Klen]

Bad.But again it maybe it will help to reduce smokers ratio.

[Juicy D. Links]

Originally Posted by GatorB

I don't. People smoke for 30 years get smoking related disease then it's the TAXPAYERS that end up paying their medical bills. Or parents smoke their kids get asthma then WE the taxpayer are footing the kids medical bills. some bitch smokes will pregnant her baby is born underweight and needs expensive medical treatment. who pays for that? WE the taxpayers. So no I'm not sorry if smokers have to pay $2.75 in tax for a pack of smokes. So either the smokers finally start paying for some of thier medical care through these taxes or they quit which results in less tax $$ being needs ot pay for medical care. Either way it benefits the taxpayer.

thats a weak argument...

[undersoul]

looks like it really pays to quit dude! good luck!

[Adultnet]

ouch bad

[Tom_PM]

That used to be my local newspaper, how weird.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Juicy D. Links

thats a weak argument...

No it's not. How many BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars are being used to treat illnesses caused by smoking? Please explain how in your twisted logic I should have to pay YOUR medical bills becasue YOU choose to smoke?

By the way a 2 pack a day smoker paying $2.75 a pack in taxes for 30 years is $60,000. Show me anywhere today you can get treated for lung cancer for under $60,000? In my book smokers are still getting off light.

[DateDoc]

They should raise it to $5/pack

[jact]

Still a lot cheaper then we pay here in Canada.

[Pete-KT]

They cost 5.50 here

[Holly]

Why don't you order them online from overseas? I do that for my grandmother and it averages about $13 a carton with shipping. I think they're over $30 if she buys them locally.

[Juicy D. Links]

Originally Posted by GatorB

No it's not. How many BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars are being used to treat illnesses caused by smoking? Please explain how in your twisted logic I should have to pay YOUR medical bills becasue YOU choose to smoke?

By the way a 2 pack a day smoker paying $2.75 a pack in taxes for 30 years is $60,000. Show me anywhere today you can get treated for lung cancer for under $60,000? In my book smokers are still getting off light.

I have my own Health Insurance and pay my own bills........ Sure there people uninsured and the burden falls on all of us.... but why isolate it to smoking deseases? Your argument just implies "smokers" what about alcoholics? Drug addicts? What about the person who has a rare deseases or whatever and is in the hospital and racks up huge bills paid fr by medicare or medicaid and such? We all pay into those "systems" hyou can isolate "smokers" as the sole cause of taking all the funds or whatever

[Juicy D. Links]

Originally Posted by Holly

Why don't you order them online from overseas? I do that for my grandmother and it averages about $13 a carton with shipping. I think they're over $30 if she buys them locally.

i order mine from Indian reservation in NY , 30/carton or 3 bucks per pack .... i buy 5 cartons a shot

[Juicy D. Links]

Originally Posted by GatorB

No it's not. How many BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars are being used to treat illnesses caused by smoking? Please explain how in your twisted logic I should have to pay YOUR medical bills becasue YOU choose to smoke?

By the way a 2 pack a day smoker paying $2.75 a pack in taxes for 30 years is $60,000. Show me anywhere today you can get treated for lung cancer for under $60,000? In my book smokers are still getting off light.

also what are your thoughts about paying for "all those people on govt "cheese" who are able bodied but miliking funds and so on?

[Juicy D. Links]

ill be back going out for a Smoke

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Juicy D. Links

I have my own Health Insurance and pay my own bills........ Sure there people uninsured and the burden falls on all of us....

I wasn't referring to YOU specifically. MOST smokers are poor FACT. MOST poor people have no health insurance. FACT. And no it shouldn't fall on us that don't smoke.

but why isolate it to smoking deseases?

because that is the topic being discussed in this thread.

Your argument just implies "smokers" what about alcoholics? Drug addicts?

yes alcohol too should have extra taxes on it to help pay. Drugs? well drugs are illegal so ther for can't be taxed. If they ever legalized pot then yes add a tax for that too. I'm all for it.

What about the person who has a rare deseases or whatever and is in the hospital and racks up huge bills paid fr by medicare or medicaid and such? We all pay into those "systems" you can isolate "smokers" as the sole cause of taking all the funds or whatever

People who have diseases that can't be helped is something completely different that somone one who got lung cancer form smoking. Quit making excuses as to why I should pay for someonelses bad habbits.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Juicy D. Links

also what are your thoughts about paying for "all those people on govt "cheese" who are able bodied but miliking funds and so on?

WTF you want a debate on government handouts now? I have no problem with TEMPORARY help. The problem is welfare and food stamps typically become a lifestyle. No reason why someone should have to be on food stamps for YEARS. I also have issues with smokers that get food stamps. They have money for smokes but not food? They can also get steaks and other expensive food. The WIC program limits which foods you can get and so should food stamps. Coke, Doritos, Twinkies and filet mignon should not be eligible for foodstamps. Also people on food stamps don't pay sales tax on food which is a part of the reason why I'm paying 8.25% If everyone paid the tax on food could be lowered for ALL.

[Ashley023]

PPL in the Big Apple should get out of the way of smoking...everybody should indeed

[Juicy D. Links]

Originally Posted by GatorB

MOST smokers are poor.

based on opinion or fact?

[Holly]

Originally Posted by Juicy D. Links

i order mine from Indian reservation in NY , 30/carton or 3 bucks per pack .... i buy 5 cartons a shot

What kind do you smoke? That still sounds expensive. She smokes a weird brand so maybe that's why they're so cheap from Europe.

[Juicy D. Links]

Originally Posted by Holly

What kind do you smoke? That still sounds expensive. She smokes a weird brand so maybe that's why they're so cheap from Europe.

NewPort Lights , they are fresh and only diff is that they dont have the NYS tax stamp on em

In the past we ordered from across seas provisders and it took long time to arrive and the smokes were not fresh and tasted like crap

[jalami]

I'd be in support of a cigarette tax or something down here... around $1.50 a pack and everyone smokes, especially the girls....

[Tom_PM]

With all the debate on smoking and disease, it's easy to forget that car exhaust and emmisions from smoke stacks (especially in port cities) is SO far and away more harmful than any amount of human smoking, it's not even close.

But trying to tell your local huge businesses that they are killing your constituents is not "sexy". So you get anti-smoking laws, and "second hand" smoking fears whipped up into a frenzy. While taxes and emmisions requirements are dropped (in the last 8 yrs anyway)

Look up a map that shows the highest concentrations of asthma and other breathing related disorders and you'll see they all cluster around our largest port cities and other concentrated industrial zones.

[Juicy D. Links]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

With all the debate on smoking and disease, it's easy to forget that car exhaust and emmisions from smoke stacks (especially in port cities) is SO far and away more harmful than any amount of human smoking, it's not even close.

But trying to tell your local huge businesses that they are killing your constituents is not "sexy". So you get anti-smoking laws, and "second hand" smoking fears whipped up into a frenzy. While taxes and emmisions requirements are dropped (in the last 8 yrs anyway)

Look up a map that shows the highest concentrations of asthma and other breathing related disorders and you'll see they all cluster around our largest port cities and other concentrated industrial zones.

good point

[bignasty]

damn, i pay less than that per pack

[pr0]

good news for me...if im planning on coming to NYC ill just pick up a couple cartons at $25 each ; )

[stev0]

They're over $10/pack here...

[Spunky]

I pay almost 10 bucks for a pack of 20

[woj]

Originally Posted by Holly

Why don't you order them online from overseas? I do that for my grandmother and it averages about $13 a carton with shipping. I think they're over $30 if she buys them locally.

What site do you buy from? If you don't want to share it publically, can you icq me (33375924) the url?

[bringer]

Originally Posted by GatorB

I don't. People smoke for 30 years get smoking related disease then it's the TAXPAYERS that end up paying their medical bills. Or parents smoke their kids get asthma then WE the taxpayer are footing the kids medical bills. some bitch smokes will pregnant her baby is born underweight and needs expensive medical treatment. who pays for that? WE the taxpayers. So no I'm not sorry if smokers have to pay $2.75 in tax for a pack of smokes. So either the smokers finally start paying for some of thier medical care through these taxes or they quit which results in less tax $$ being needs ot pay for medical care. Either way it benefits the taxpayer.

where have i heard this type of argument before?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...1/ai_n16162035

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by bringer

where have i heard this type of argument before?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...1/ai_n16162035

Apples and oranges buddy. Smoking does in fact have health effects. Treatment for those effects are definately at least in part paid by ALL taxpayers.

The experts can't even agree is porn is "unhealthy" or not and most evidence points to it not having any effects. In fact there is eveidence that it reduces rape. It certianly doesn't cause cancer.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

With all the debate on smoking and disease, it's easy to forget that car exhaust and emmisions from smoke stacks (especially in port cities) is SO far and away more harmful than any amount of human smoking, it's not even close.

Tom Tom Tom we are ALL exposed to car exhaust and smokstack smoke. Then how is it that SMOKERS have a higher rate of lung cancer if the effect of smoking is negligible? People can smoke if they want all I ask is not to expect me to pay for their smoking related disease treatments.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Juicy D. Links

based on opinion or fact?

FACT of course. I don't have an opinon onsomething based on BS. I'm an atheist that by nature makes me a skeptic and also a personal that tends to use reason and lotgic to come to conclusions rather than emotional unlogical reasoning based on what I WANT to be true. Ther are lots of things I WANT to be true. They aren't and trying to deny these things is pointless.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/200...ncome-charted/

[bringer]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Apples and oranges buddy. Smoking does in fact have health effects. Treatment for those effects are definately at least in part paid by ALL taxpayers.

The experts can't even agree is porn is "unhealthy" or not and most evidence points to it not having any effects. In fact there is eveidence that it reduces rape. It certianly doesn't cause cancer.

how is it different? the government thinks it knows whats best for us and then uses the tax system to eliminate what it considers to be bad for society. you think this is good but when the "experts" come out saying how teen pregnancy and runaway rates increase BECAUSE of porn and a 25% tax is imposed, you wont think its such a great idea for the government to use its muscle to influence your life choices.

btw, almost every person in my family smokes cigs, including my 94 year old grandmother. 2 packs a day for 50+ years and no sign of cancer. no cancer in any of them. so i guess the cancer "link" isnt definitive either. why should my family subsidize the med bills of people who are predisposed to getting cancer?

heres another instance

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/pro...9&id=8561 461

should you pay more in taxes because some fat fucks each fast food daily and are getting fat? how about chocolate? should we tax hershey for their chocolate bars because if you eat enough it'll be bad for your health. my real question is, where do we draw the line? when it affects something you enjoy?

[bringer]

how about violent video games? if experts agree it glorifies violence, which experts agree is bad, does that justify taxing it? 50% tax on gta4 so kids cant afford to buy a copy. that'll work!!!!!!!!!!! btw, when they say the funds from these taxes will go to something, it usually gets diverted elsewhere to justify future increases. werent lotteries going to fix the budget shortfalls in the schools? that worked GREAT!!!!!!!

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

If it saves lives and preserves family values while generating money no one should be surprised that laws like this are passed.

I got an idea. GO fire bomb a few places and stage protests, burn a few police car's and people will get the message to back the fuck off.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by bringer

how about violent video games? if experts agree it glorifies violence, which experts agree is bad, does that justify taxing it? 50% tax on gta4 so kids cant afford to buy a copy. that'll work!!!!!!!!!!! btw, when they say the funds from these taxes will go to something, it usually gets diverted elsewhere to justify future increases. werent lotteries going to fix the budget shortfalls in the schools? that worked GREAT!!!!!!!

are you reatrded? seriously. The tax on cigarettes is there to help pay for the medical problems that smoking those cigarettes cause. WTF does that have to do with video games? Show me where video games cause cancer. Seriously show some facts where you can state violent video games cause X amount of $ in health care costs. You can't but you certainly can with cigarettes. Anyone here still trying to deny cigarettes don't have health consequences isn't worth talking too. Even the cigarete makers agree cihgarettes are bad for you.

[bringer]

Originally Posted by GatorB

are you reatrded? seriously. The tax on cigarettes is there to help pay for the medical problems that smoking those cigarettes cause. WTF does that have to do with video games? Show me where video games cause cancer. Seriously show some facts where you can state violent video games cause X amount of $ in health care costs. You can't but you certainly can with cigarettes. Anyone here still trying to deny cigarettes don't have health consequences isn't worth talking too. Even the cigarete makers agree cihgarettes are bad for you.

games dont cause cancer, they cause bloodlust and WAR!!!!

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...s-inside_x.htm

what im basicly saying is once you give the government an inch and they take a mile. its cigs today. tommorrow its something else they've decided (or can convince you) is bad or costly to the government. if cigs are as bad for all as you think, why not just outlaw them? that'd eliminate the healthcare costs completely. they wont do that though because the tax rev is too great on taxing things many rely on daily.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by bringer

how is it different? the government thinks it knows whats best for us and then uses the tax system to eliminate what it considers to be bad for society. you think this is good but when the "experts" come out saying how teen pregnancy and runaway rates increase BECAUSE of porn and a 25% tax is imposed, you wont think its such a great idea for the government to use its muscle to influence your life choices.

btw, almost every person in my family smokes cigs, including my 94 year old grandmother. 2 packs a day for 50+ years and no sign of cancer. no cancer in any of them. so i guess the cancer "link" isnt definitive either. why should my family subsidize the med bills of people who are predisposed to getting cancer?

heres another instance

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/pro...9&id=8561 461

should you pay more in taxes because some fat fucks each fast food daily and are getting fat? how about chocolate? should we tax hershey for their chocolate bars because if you eat enough it'll be bad for your health. my real question is, where do we draw the line? when it affects something you enjoy?

YOU=RETARD.

No point in talking to you. consider yourself ignored. I have better things to do than to argue with people that refuse to listen to LOGIC and REASON. You admit your family smoke. Therefor you are BIASED. So anything that goes against your bias is dismissed. That is neither logical or reasonable or intelligent. Once again if you would put EMOTION aside open your mind abnd look at things FACTUALLY then you realize I am correct.

You could think the sky is green with purple polka-dots that doesn't make it true and wishing for it to be true doesn't make it true and denying that the sky is blue doesn't make is green with purple poka-dots. Then sooner you accept the truth in things even if it goes against what you previously believed the happier you will be and you won't be living a life of ignorance. If everyone believed that way 99% of the world's problems would be over.

[DigitalDruid]

i pay $15 a pack (20) for Marlboro reds up here, It isnt easy getting people to smuggle now a days....... You guys have the smokes to match our beer

[pr0]

I know tons of people ordering from online who ended up getting big tax bills in the mail.

Always use western union when ordering smokes online!

Or simply have a friend in NC or VA send you some......they are 20$ a carton

[bringer]

Originally Posted by GatorB

YOU=RETARD.

No point in talking to you. consider yourself ignored. I have better things to do than to argue with people that refuse to listen to LOGIC and REASON. You admit your family smoke. Therefor you are BIASED. So anything that goes against your bias is dismissed. That is neither logical or reasonable or intelligent. Once again if you would put EMOTION aside open your mind abnd look at things FACTUALLY then you realize I am correct.

You could think the sky is green with purple polka-dots that doesn't make it true and wishing for it to be true doesn't make it true and denying that the sky is blue doesn't make is green with purple poka-dots. Then sooner you accept the truth in things even if it goes against what you previously believed the happier you will be and you won't be living a life of ignorance. If everyone believed that way 99% of the world's problems would be over.

when did i say smoking was good? smoking IS BAD for your health, just like mcdonalds, but if the government really had your best interests at heart theyd outlaw it like marijuana instead of just taxing it more. you just dont like people who smoke so anything that cuts into that is good in your eyes regardless of the ramifications to everything else the government might perceive as unnecessary or bad for your health.

[bringer]

i guess some people just dont like their views being challenged. i could careless about this tax since i dont live anywhere near NY. i care in general because whenever i hear about the goddamn porn tax discussed people point to the success of taxing cigs and use it as an example of a positive method of curbing demand on what they deem damaging. take it or leave it, ive heard that justification at least 20 times.

btw, you = retard
you think the experts who dont think porn is damaging get a voice when these taxes are on the table? fuck no. its the people who parrot the view that'll ultimately scare people into accepting their tax that get called to appear infront of the committee and talk about how damaging it is.

[bringer]

Originally Posted by GatorB

are you reatrded? seriously. The tax on cigarettes is there to help pay for the medical problems that smoking those cigarettes cause. WTF does that have to do with video games? Show me where video games cause cancer. Seriously show some facts where you can state violent video games cause X amount of $ in health care costs. You can't but you certainly can with cigarettes. Anyone here still trying to deny cigarettes don't have health consequences isn't worth talking too. Even the cigarete makers agree cihgarettes are bad for you.

http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1207
then
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/acrylamide.html
you can see from that second link that they just gave up. tax freedom fries!!!! they DO cause CANCER. or is this apples and oranges too because one you despise and the other you enjoy? your quest is noble but your methods are retarded. forcing others to pay for peoples choices is a bad idea.
anyways...
more info on acrylamide

Potential health risk
There is evidence that exposure to large doses can cause damage to the male reproductive glands. Direct exposure to pure acrylamide by inhalation, skin absorption, or eye contact irritates the exposed mucous membranes, e.g. the nose, and can also cause sweating, urinary incontinence, nausea, myalgia, speech disorders, numbness, paresthesia, and weakened legs and hands. In addition, the acrylamide monomer is a potent neurotoxin, causing the disassembly or rearrangement of intermediate filaments. Ingested acrylamide is metabolised to a chemically reactive epoxide, glycidamide.


Cancer
Acrylamide reliably produces various types of cancer in experimental mice and rats. However, studies in human populations have failed to produce consistent results, and it remains unclear whether this is due to a reduced risk in a natural setting or the methodological difficulties inherent in such studies. For example, it might be difficult to isolate the effects of acrylamide because it is so ubiquitous in Western diets. A Dutch study on 62000 women over an 11 year period has recently concluded that those who ingest more acrylamide in their regular diet are twice as likely to develop endometrial or ovarian cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide

they do say ignorance is bliss so enjoy it while it lasts. ever heard the term "porn/sexual addiction"? addicts need help. help costs money. who should pay for that? the ones creating the porn, thats who! its their fault isnt it? sooner or later the industries ive listed in this thread WILL be targeted by corrupt government officials looking to vilify anyone and anything that goes against THEIR PERSONAL beliefs (usually based in religion) to fill budget shortfalls created by pork projects. maybe the shit they throw sticks, maybe it doesnt. id rather not give them the power in the first place but since you think they'll use that power responsibly ill just trust in your judgement. when i think about it, history HAS shown our government to do just that. show restraint in going after people and making objective decisions that are best for the country.

anyways, gatorb = assclown
this is boring. time for a bongrip

[The Duck]

a pack of smokes cost about 8 dollars here.

[Jens Van Assterdam]

a pack with >17< cigaretts is 4,00EUR over here.