Without knowing exactly how the "democratic" system works in Iowa, I guess cigarette tax increases are politically and legally the easiest way to get get more income, be it short term. Nobody will object to cigarette tax increases, not even smokers, already designated scum of this earth. After all, cigarette smoking IS bad, isn't it (except if you smoke for the taxes)?
But who would expect anything different from a nation (not the people but the political institution) that elects its President based on a single criteria: he/she must be a non-smoker.
Michael;
Carrying over from the last blog a few points;.
First if the articles in the colors blog are students writings ; WOW I am impressed, there may be hope for us yet.
Kudos to the students who seem to have a firm grasp on a lot more than what we can convey to the general public.
The quote I took from your lead in
" Communication theory (McGuire, 2001) has shown that utilizing a message that instills a sense of fear and dread in the audience has the exact opposite effect that it intends- "
The indication is fear is not a wise choice for motivation. I don’t know if you have read “Freakonomics”, If not run don't walk and get a copy. An excellent read.
In the book among a number of reality checks, Levitt discusses an economist strategy to overcome late parents at a daycare center. It was announced a $3.00 fee be added to the bill for each child when a parent was late. The result, the number of late parents doubled. The normal fee was 360.00 per month. The fee thought to be too low actually took the moral obligation away from parents who found it embarrassing to keep a teacher late due to their own behavior. Now the parents thinking due to the low fee f it was not as large an issue as they had previously believed, however more significantly they were relieved of a moral restraint because they were now paying restitution for their actions.
What was more telling was after the trial the fees were dropped the higher level of late parents continued, parents now felt entitled to have another cup of coffee and take their time as no real issue existed any longer.
In a smokers view the idea of being blamed every time it rains, as TC will do, does not have nearly the effect it once would have had, prior to the abusive taxation which is now applied.
In Canada it is no secret despite SAMMEC figures smokers pay the lions share of healthcare for the entire country well beyond the actual smoking related expenditures of all causes by more than 10 Billion dollars. Because of those taxes smokers feel entitled to abandon any feelings of remorse or guilt. The level of taxes applied will assure the moral obligations once guilted into them will never be possible again.
The use of ETS to promote fear and exclusive attitudes has a large detrimental effect which is quite evident when we see close 50 million smokers despite efforts to rally them to substantial opposition the fear and hate has done a remarkable job of making anti depressants a huge growth industry. No serious opposition has happened, although I would not rule it out just yet.
Just think about this; prior to the war the Klan claimed numbers around 8 million including President Harding who swore allegiance in the White House.
During the second world war Will Rogers wrote "Papers all state Hitler is trying to copy Mussolini, Looks to me like it's the Klu Klux Klan that he is copying”.
America immediately turned her back on the segregation crowd of not only The Klan but the Eugenicists with best baby contests and their brand of moralized segregation. as well.
Now we go down the same road once more, with healthcare and personal moral obligations being expected.
Not balanced with’ but redoubled with financial penalties at the same time. The growth of black markets has never seen a more significant growth potential than what is existing already. Now they are going to increase the price yet again?
Freakonomics revealed another not well known statistic, With the addition of cigarette taxes it was discovered extremists were quite successfully raising funds to buy arms and kill Americas soldiers in the middle east, the opportunity was provided by those taxes.
If the Klan could recruit 8 Million Americans back in 1920 is it not strange we can not rally even one million smokers world wide today to simply stand up for their own rights?
Where society is going becomes scarier by the day.
It is also interesting to note Ohio and New Hamshire are the two bell weather States with the greatest ability to predict the winner of a federal election.
TC has drawn a line in the sand in a dangerous area, which could easily divide a nation if tempers are sucessfully harvested to political adavantage, the fire is already stoked and smokers are all outside many are fumming mad.
I hear Obama is a smoker. LOL
So Culver's election campaign was based on increasing medical care,but how did he plan to fund the cost originally ?If he stated it was going to be at the expense of the smoker and a dollar tax hike per pack,well,he was voted in.If he stated it was going to raised by some other method,then what was the originally stated method of raising the dosh ? This is hire purchasing votes on a promise.Creative accounting is a term i think which suits.Frankly,i'm amazed that Governors get away with these things,this verges on corrupt practices.Still,i suppose you get used o these sort of things.
I seen an article today that said that New Jersey was afraid of the lost revenue in casino slot machines due to people staying and gambling in Philadelphia and they fear an even bigger loss now that casinos can only allow 25% of the casino to smokers. This from the people who voted to only allow smoking in 25%, voted that your couldn't smoke in privately owned restaurants and bars and increased the taxes on cigarettes as the antis told them to do. Every State is gambling on the smoker to fianace their problems. They can pass all the tax increases they want, but when the projected money doesn't come in, should I cry for them?
There is a saying that goes something like, if you find yourself in a hole quit digging.........the anti-smoker cartel hasn't figured out just what that means.
The fact that Doc Siegel is finally coming around to something most of his loyal opposition has been saying for more than a decade is a step in the right direction. Taxation is the first step, I know he will come around on the smoking ban hogwash as it is also based on the same socialist behavior engineering principle as the cigarette taxes.
Remember Doc, peanut and seafood allergies can be almost instantly deadly, but most people with them take the personal responsibility for themselves and/or their children. Personal responsibility to avoid something someone dislikes, such as SHS, which we all know is not instantly deadly, should be treated in the same manner.........don't you agree?
Or, since peanut products and shellfish have the potential to kill people, by the same logic as the anti-smoking cartel espouses, shouldn't these products be banned from our food supply? (To be on the safest of safe sides.) That's an absurd idea, isn't it. Well then, why is it somehow supposed to be my obligation to steer clear of any other "chemically sensitive" people. I don't think it is. I think it is THEIR responsibility to steer clear of ME if I happen to be smoking a cigarette. I have noticed that this bunch of anti-smoking, anti-everything people are very self-centered and selfish in general. I was standing outside in a store parking lot smoking a cigarette, when a lady came out of the store and started fanning the air and carrying on. She said that she had recently had some sort of lung surgery or something--- I just looked at her and said "I see that as being your problem --why are you yelling at me out here in an enormous open air parking lot?" Crazy, hysteria prone bunch of people, these antis.
Another unintended consequence may be that organised crime (I don't mean TC or big Pharma in this instance)will eventually see and exploit a nice little money making opportunity.
Look what happened in California gaols.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/m...ws/
16734461.htm
Speaking of Big Pharma I see they have been overcharging the British Government (ergo the taxpayers) by hundreds of millions of pounds per year.
GreatScot
It all but eliminates the incentive for policy makers to take any subsequent actions that would substantially reduce cigarette smoking rates in Iowa
The joke is: it doesn't. These folks are incapable of understanding the concept "collision course" and blithely continue to ride both trains. Happens everywhere.
:
Just to explain my previous posts.
1 taxpayers get ripped off by the drug companies = health care costs higher than need be
2 tax increases results in less tax collected due to quitters, smuggling, black market etc = bigger funding deficit for heath care
3 Result is a huge problem for Iowa
Gabz, you would think people would take heart to the saying, "if you find yourself in a hole, quit digging" but there is another saying that I think would fit better for tobacco control. It is, "one who digs their own holes will fall in first." I once had a wise Jewish boss who escaped the holocaust say this everyday of his life.
GreatScot, in Texas they are already noticing an increase. With us being on the Mexico border and the recent $1 tax hike, the black market is beginning to become an issue. A small one at this point, but the tax hike began Jan. 1. If they are starting to notice black market increases so soon, I can't imagine what it will be like in 6 months.
Well of course they have an easy answer to funding, and then when(if) enough quit participating, they'll reduce the costs by refusing treatment to those who choose "less" than healthy lifestyles, such as..... awwww, you guessed it didn't you? Thats right, smokers, then the obese (under the guise of diabetic management), then the drinker's, and finally, just those who are lower class, as they don't need the protections the upper classes deserve, right?
Fro more on the balck market, and other issues against cig tax hikes, please read
www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/entrep/2006/CA-
props/Prop86.pdf
Hezobla was bootlegging cigs in MN to fund terrorism. canada rolled back it's tax hike because of the crime it caused.
also see
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/e.../
excisetax.html
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/
t...taxandteen.html
Dave K
I see it was a busy weekend (I was away for several days and didn't get online at all).
Well, I finally got off my lazy butt, and bought myself some tobacco, tubes and stuffer and now make my own. It's amazingly easy to do and it really does taste better, smoke better, and it doesn't stink as much, PLUS, My girlfriend lives in UTAH and has been smoking in her house with it all closed up because of the cold, and it didn't stink when I walked in. I was impressed.
My girlfriend and I discussed this at length over the weekend (she's been making her own for a while now) and I suggested she think of growing her own as she has the land to do it on, as well has a shed for drying and curing already. Well, yesterday, she went online, did some reading, and then ordered Tobacco seeds. She's also good at gardening so she should do well with this new project. And then she and I will share the crop (yes, I'll pay her a small fee for her tobacco, since she's doing all the work it's only fair to me).
I simply refuse to quit smoking, AND I refuse to continue to fund pet projects that those "health freak" non-smokers don't want to fund.
Here in Arizona, its an early childhood education program......well, let all those people popping out all those babies pay for that...........my son is fully grown now. Granted, he grew up with 2 heavy smoking parents, the poor thing is just healthier than any non-smoker I know. What a burden I put on him eh? Good health, fewer colds, no flus.......bloody sinful of me. (yes, that is sarcasm).
Bottom line here? I'm no longer funding the states, etc so they can attack and harass me...........they can pay for that privilege on their own.
Lynda i think you'll find the law states it's for personal consumption,so you cannot buy it,but of course what you do off record is your affair.It's vastly superior tobacco isn't it,there is no comparison,and you can upgrade to the very best available.www.ryomagazine.com if you haven't already come across it,is a must.
Si,
I'm not buying it from her, simply plan on sharing the expenses she will be laying out. Besides, any payment would be similar to her watching my kids or pets while I was away I pay her for her time in doing that. And since it IS all for personal use.......we are friends, she is sharing, and I'm sharing expenses (you know, water and such)........no problem......hehehehehe
I'll check that out, as I just bought something from a smoke shop near her, and while it's ok........I certainly can't rave about it either, and considering it was $20/lb I was surprised it didn't taste better.
Lynda,all i meant was you never know who reads this blog,and homegrown is something that can never be controled,thank God(lol).Simce you're refering to a smoke shop you are sampling something which is most likely the bottom of the barrel or which has been stored detrimentally.Doug who is ryomagazine is No1 for anything you want to know.Speak to Mark Ryan atD&R,he is a smashing person and he'll get you sorted.
Oh, and by this extension, people that don't have any kids who want to quit smoking? They should think of others! Especially if they have nothing better to do with their life/money. But they still shouldn't smoke around the kids.
No, this probably isn't in the legislation, but it's legislated that parents shouldn't smoke around kids, someone needs to pick up the tobacco tax slack.
How about loners who aren't doing anything anyway? Or maybe rich people who can afford health care either way and shouldn't be selfish?
Or better yet, an ad tobacco companies can't air:
"Kids, If you start smoking now, by age xx you will have contributed $xx to Iowa's universal health care fund. This money will be used to help fight diseases, give health care to people who can't afford it..."
I'm the Iowan who sent the articles to Dr. Siegel.
Si, Culver did, in fact, say he was going to fund his healthcare plan on the backs of smokers....for our own good, of course. Because he sincerely "believes" in his heart that it will get us to quit. Just like GW sincerely believed there just had to be WMD's in Iraq. Facts don't matter when your a guv or a pres who just "believes".
But it gets even crazier. The Democratic rationale is now that the poor will benefit from this regressive tax since they don't have the disposable income to buy by the carton, hence it will be harder for them to buy by the pack. And THIS is being packaged as "progressive" politics. In plainspeak, the poor now are expected to pay for their own healthcare just like state lotteries make them pay for their own education.
And overeaters and overdrinkers get a free pass for their health choices.
Another T-shirt slogan I'd add is this:
Eat, Drink, and Be Merry.
Smokers Have You Covered.
You have to be an Iowan to understand the Iowa mentality. We suffer from an interminably inferiority complex. It's in our genes or something. We're the brunt of most jokes. We're only one of 17 states without state or city smoking bans (not really true, but that's what most believe). So, by God, we just gotta go with those more "progressive states" instead of thinking for ourselves and enact something that might fit Iowa.
BTW: I'm a lifelong Democrat. So is Culver. He's an idiot.
Go to the Des Moines Register tomorrow or Thursday and read Dave K's Op-Ed on the tax.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
