Higher Tobacco Taxes Proposed

Higher Tobacco Taxes Proposed

There are 22 comments on the KXNT-AM Las Vegas story from Mar 28, 2011, titled Higher Tobacco Taxes Proposed. In it, KXNT-AM Las Vegas reports that:

A -A Smokers could be paying more if a bill raising tobacco taxes is approved.A Senate Bill 386 would boost the state tax on a pack of cigarettes from the current 80 cents to two dollars.A Taxes would also double on cigars and chewing tobacco.A Supporters say it would raise an additional 350-million dollars for cash-strapped Nevada over the next ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KXNT-AM Las Vegas.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Mike

Reno, NV

#1 Mar 28, 2011
The taxes on smokes are already too high. Additional taxes on cigarettes won't work, anyway. Every time they raise the tax, more people quit and the money collected stays the same as before or goes down.

Judged:

11

11

8

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
bumstead68

Wichita, KS

#3 Mar 28, 2011
EVERY ONE HAS SEEN THE CLAIMS!
MOST CLAIM OVER 400,000 die from tobacco EACH YEAR!- MANY CLAIM 160,000 - to 180,000 Smokers die from lung cancer EACH YEAR!

THOSE ARE SOME BIG NUMBERS - INTENTIONALLY MEANT TO SCARE !!

BUT THEY ARE LIES!- AND VERY EASY TO DISCREDIT!

In 2000 the national cancer records SHOW - 64.06 people out of 100,000 people get lung cancer in the US
You can find that info here; http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2007/browse_c...

According to Census records the population of the US in 2000 was 281,421,906
Just google that one - ANYBODY can do that

Simple 6th grade math will show you that in 2000 - 180,222 people got lung cancer

NOW - IF EVERY PERSON IN THE US, SMOKED - THEN all the figures that the Anti-Smoking "Health" organizations CLAIM - would be close!

BUT - in 2000 the smoking rate was approx. the same as it is today 21%

21% of 180,222 --(again 6th grade math) would be 37,846

NOW - Lung cancer is a BAD one - It's mortality rate is second ONLY to Pancreatic cancer - approx. 85%

85% of 37,846,- is 32,169 --- That is STILL a terrible figure - BUT WAIT !

EVEN THE EXAGERATED FIGURES from some of YOUR WEBSITES , claim that 16 - 20% of smokers get lung cancer.
I'll give the benefit of a doubt -- and just split the difference say 18%

SO in the end we gat a figure of 5,790 lung cancer deaths in smokers -- And there is ABSOLUTELY no PROOF that even THOSE deaths were attributed to smoking!!
You will find similar results - NO MATTER WHAT YEAR YOU CHECK

STUDIES have shown the the very SAME amount of NONSMOKERS/NEVERSMOKERS die of Lung cancer!!

The FACTS contradict the CLAIMS - So why do these guys just keep spouting the SAME OLD TIRED LIES!!!!

Could it be this??
At New York’s 1975 World Conference on Smoking and Health, Antismoking activists were told that to eliminate smoking it would first be essential to “create an atmosphere in which it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children…”
- Huber. Consumers Research Magazine. 04/92
Hiram

Kingston, Canada

#4 Mar 28, 2011
I say tax alcohol and tobacco through the roof and give us a break on gas taxes.
Mike

Lovelock, NV

#6 Mar 29, 2011
bumstead68 wrote:
EVERY ONE HAS SEEN THE CLAIMS!
MOST CLAIM OVER 400,000 die from tobacco EACH YEAR!- MANY CLAIM 160,000 - to 180,000 Smokers die from lung cancer EACH YEAR!
THOSE ARE SOME BIG NUMBERS - INTENTIONALLY MEANT TO SCARE !!
BUT THEY ARE LIES!- AND VERY EASY TO DISCREDIT!
In 2000 the national cancer records SHOW - 64.06 people out of 100,000 people get lung cancer in the US
You can find that info here; http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2007/browse_c...
According to Census records the population of the US in 2000 was 281,421,906
Just google that one - ANYBODY can do that
Simple 6th grade math will show you that in 2000 - 180,222 people got lung cancer
NOW - IF EVERY PERSON IN THE US, SMOKED - THEN all the figures that the Anti-Smoking "Health" organizations CLAIM - would be close!
BUT - in 2000 the smoking rate was approx. the same as it is today 21%
21% of 180,222 --(again 6th grade math) would be 37,846
NOW - Lung cancer is a BAD one - It's mortality rate is second ONLY to Pancreatic cancer - approx. 85%
85% of 37,846,- is 32,169 --- That is STILL a terrible figure - BUT WAIT !
EVEN THE EXAGERATED FIGURES from some of YOUR WEBSITES , claim that 16 - 20% of smokers get lung cancer.
I'll give the benefit of a doubt -- and just split the difference say 18%
SO in the end we gat a figure of 5,790 lung cancer deaths in smokers -- And there is ABSOLUTELY no PROOF that even THOSE deaths were attributed to smoking!!
You will find similar results - NO MATTER WHAT YEAR YOU CHECK
STUDIES have shown the the very SAME amount of NONSMOKERS/NEVERSMOKERS die of Lung cancer!!
The FACTS contradict the CLAIMS - So why do these guys just keep spouting the SAME OLD TIRED LIES!!!!
Could it be this??
At New York’s 1975 World Conference on Smoking and Health, Antismoking activists were told that to eliminate smoking it would first be essential to “create an atmosphere in which it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children…”
- Huber. Consumers Research Magazine. 04/92
Some HONEST scientists need to say what you said so that we can work on getting our freedoms back.
I hate the fact that I cannot smoke in an airport, even if I'm willing to go inside a bar (where you must be at least 21) and pay more than double for what a drink should cost!!
I hate the ninnies who have banned smoking in many places and are looking to take more freedoms away from us!!
ThomasA

Gadsden, AL

#7 Mar 29, 2011
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>Some HONEST scientists need to say what you said so that we can work on getting our freedoms back.
I hate the fact that I cannot smoke in an airport, even if I'm willing to go inside a bar (where you must be at least 21) and pay more than double for what a drink should cost!!
I hate the ninnies who have banned smoking in many places and are looking to take more freedoms away from us!!
The real ninnies are the smokers who try to light up where people don't want the nasty stench of cigarette smoke. They still light up where there is no smoking and get pissed when asked by a manager or security to put it out or leave.The non hooked people are tired of butts,butts,butts everywhere and packs dropped at the point of last lightup. You're bringing on the problems yourselves. Put another one dollar a pack tax on to go directly to the local law enforcement agency that has inmate labor to go out and pick up litter and butts.
ThomasA

New Market, MD

#8 Mar 29, 2011
And that's Mr. Hole to the rest of you.
Mike

Crystal Bay, NV

#10 Mar 30, 2011
ThomasA wrote:
<quoted text> The real ninnies are the smokers who try to light up where people don't want the nasty stench of cigarette smoke. They still light up where there is no smoking and get pissed when asked by a manager or security to put it out or leave.The non hooked people are tired of butts,butts,butts everywhere and packs dropped at the point of last lightup. You're bringing on the problems yourselves. Put another one dollar a pack tax on to go directly to the local law enforcement agency that has inmate labor to go out and pick up litter and butts.
I do not know of any smokers who light up in areas where it is prohibited. If you don't like smokers, go buy your own place where you can put up "No smoking" signs if that's how you feel about it. But stop having government come in and decide for the rest of us. This is supposed to be a free country and we don't need local or state governments deciding for us where we can or cannot smoke.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#11 Mar 31, 2011
bumstead68 wrote:
EVERY ONE HAS SEEN THE CLAIMS!
And everyone on TOPIX has seen your spam. If not for the jumped up red tape involved, your act would be getting continual abuse reports.

You not only have nothing original or rational to say, but you insist on pumping your hostile crap in all caps. You show no remote grasp of internet ettiquette whatsoever--which is in keeping with your respect/regard for truth and for others in the forum.

If you need to pump up your denial so badly, why not just find some way to quit smoking, so it won't bother you so badly?
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#12 Mar 31, 2011
I find it somewhat lamentable that so many governmental entities pin so much of their function on a source that relies on human misery.

I wonder where the $2 tax would put Nevada in terms of the amount levied by other states? It's a pity the article didn't provide the tax ranking for taxing the rank.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#13 Mar 31, 2011
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>Some HONEST scientists need to say what you said so that we can work on getting our freedoms back.
I hate the fact that I cannot smoke in an airport, even if I'm willing to go inside a bar (where you must be at least 21) and pay more than double for what a drink should cost!!
I hate the ninnies who have banned smoking in many places and are looking to take more freedoms away from us!!
How many ways that is simply wrong. The tobacco company execs themselves admitted years ago that they would NEVER find an unbiased scientist to say that SHS was not harmful to health. That did not, of course, mean that they couldn't find or create such bias. One of the "studies" most commonly trotted out was authored by two people. One says quite unabashedly that he works for the tobacco companies because they pay him so much above market value for his work. The other was involved only because Philip Morris declined to make that overpayment unless the first author took on the second as a partner in it. As I recall, PM even decreed what data set was to be used in order to produce "useful" results--which was what the initial author promised to deliver in return for the overfunding.
No worries

Hot Springs National Park, AR

#14 Apr 1, 2011
No worries for me and a few friends! when the smokes doubled in price I just started growing my own will last year I grew way too much so I gave away most of it and smoked all year myself. I figure 200 plants will do for a pack a day smoker about 400 square feet of yard space is needed if planted tight. Tobacco is as easy to grow as tomato plants! I now have 5 people in my block growing tobacco "will they all ready have the grown prepared to grow" I will be giving them seeds this weekend. We are starting up our own little club and trying to bring others in to grow there own in our neighborhood! It would be nice to see the smokers to take power from the Government and the tobacco companies
No worries

Hot Springs National Park, AR

#15 Apr 1, 2011
ground prepared to grow"
Mike

Reno, NV

#16 Apr 1, 2011
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
How many ways that is simply wrong. The tobacco company execs themselves admitted years ago that they would NEVER find an unbiased scientist to say that SHS was not harmful to health. That did not, of course, mean that they couldn't find or create such bias. One of the "studies" most commonly trotted out was authored by two people. One says quite unabashedly that he works for the tobacco companies because they pay him so much above market value for his work. The other was involved only because Philip Morris declined to make that overpayment unless the first author took on the second as a partner in it. As I recall, PM even decreed what data set was to be used in order to produce "useful" results--which was what the initial author promised to deliver in return for the overfunding.
I don't give a shit!! This is supposed to be a FREE country and people should be able to choose to smoke or not smoke!!
John

Henderson, NV

#17 Apr 2, 2011
Really, tax tobacco again. What a bunch of a__holes. Find something else to tax. Start a state lottery. Oh we can't it may hurt the casinos that hire tons of illegal aliens thats drowning our schools and hospitals into bankruptcy.
Tax sodas or alcohol not tobacco.
ThomasA

Gadsden, AL

#18 Apr 2, 2011
John wrote:
Really, tax tobacco again. What a bunch of a__holes. Find something else to tax. Start a state lottery. Oh we can't it may hurt the casinos that hire tons of illegal aliens thats drowning our schools and hospitals into bankruptcy.
Tax sodas or alcohol not tobacco.
Whilst you be pointin' the finger at the world's problems,be sure to be standin' in front of a mirror!!!!!

Since: Mar 11

Highland, NY

#19 Apr 2, 2011
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>I don't give a shit!! This is supposed to be a FREE country and people should be able to choose to smoke or not smoke!!
So where is my choice not to smoke that "s*it" you exhale?

Never mind! That you don't give a s*it about anyone is the first honest thing you said in this thread. I wish the rest of "freedom-lovers" of your ilk were equally forthcoming.

Now about taxes - I'm against new tobacco taxes, but for a different reason. States use those taxes to bubblegum their budget gaps rather than address real health issues caused by smoking. And smokers just take more money out of their family budget in order to satisfy their habit. Talk about lose-lose situation.

Since: Jan 10

Las Vegas, NV

#20 Apr 3, 2011
ThomasA wrote:
<quoted text> The real ninnies are the smokers who try to light up where people don't want the nasty stench of cigarette smoke. They still light up where there is no smoking and get pissed when asked by a manager or security to put it out or leave.The non hooked people are tired of butts,butts,butts everywhere and packs dropped at the point of last lightup. You're bringing on the problems yourselves. Put another one dollar a pack tax on to go directly to the local law enforcement agency that has inmate labor to go out and pick up litter and butts.
I actually agree with you, but how does a tax stop inconsiderate people?

Since: Jan 10

Las Vegas, NV

#21 Apr 3, 2011
xparte wrote:
<quoted text>
So where is my choice not to smoke that "s*it" you exhale?
Never mind! That you don't give a s*it about anyone is the first honest thing you said in this thread. I wish the rest of "freedom-lovers" of your ilk were equally forthcoming.
Now about taxes - I'm against new tobacco taxes, but for a different reason. States use those taxes to bubblegum their budget gaps rather than address real health issues caused by smoking. And smokers just take more money out of their family budget in order to satisfy their habit. Talk about lose-lose situation.
We should spend zero on health issues caused by smoking. None of that is a secret. People that use that stuff or willfully expose themselves to it should be S.O.L. Drug abusers, alcoholics, obese too. Why should anyone pay for self inflicted wounds
Mike

Reno, NV

#22 Apr 4, 2011
xparte wrote:
<quoted text>
So where is my choice not to smoke that "s*it" you exhale?
Never mind! That you don't give a s*it about anyone is the first honest thing you said in this thread. I wish the rest of "freedom-lovers" of your ilk were equally forthcoming.
Now about taxes - I'm against new tobacco taxes, but for a different reason. States use those taxes to bubblegum their budget gaps rather than address real health issues caused by smoking. And smokers just take more money out of their family budget in order to satisfy their habit. Talk about lose-lose situation.
Your choice to not inhale smoke can be exercised by patronizing non-smoking establishments where the OWNERS have VOLUNTARILY put up NO SMOKING signs,not because the government says they have to!! Just because you and other ninnies like you don't like smokers does not justify turning our country into a nanny state or a police state!!
ThomasA

Gadsden, AL

#23 Apr 4, 2011
Here in Vegas wrote:
<quoted text>
I actually agree with you, but how does a tax stop inconsiderate people?
You keep raising taxes to pay for their behavior. It's like speeding tickets. Sometimes one doesn't bother people,but two,three,four gets their attention when it hits the billfold. The smokers throw down butts everywhere even though a butt bucket is nearby. If policemen would start writing littering tickets,people may start to get the idea not to do it. Raise the fine to $250.00. Put plain clothes policemen on light duty on the sidewalks and start writing tickets. It won't take long for word-of-mouth to get around. They wouldn't have to write many tickets a day to pay for their expense plus some.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Carson City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Court denies mustang appeal sought by Nevada co... Apr 27 okimar 3
News 2016 a record year for solar power in Nevada Mar '17 Solarman 3
Carson Nugget: Comstock Buffet Mar '17 Local 1
News Equal Rights Amendment debate continues in Neva... Mar '17 Edwin Sandy Jordan 1
News Are robots the future of sex tourism? (Jul '15) Feb '17 Metal Phart 2
News Nuisance workshop prompts four-hour discussion (Nov '15) Jan '17 waste of time 2
News DUI Defendant Drinks 12-Pack at Court - (Oct '07) Jan '17 Dudley 47

Carson City Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Carson City Mortgages