Phil Everly, (The Everly Brothers), cashed in his hand at 74.

Damn cigarettes claimed another one.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Phil Everly, (The Everly Brothers), cashed in his hand at 74.

Damn cigarettes claimed another one.



At 74 any number of things could have folded his hand.

--

-Mike-

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Phil Everly, (The Everly Brothers), cashed in his hand at 74.

Damn cigarettes claimed another one.
-----------------------------------------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote:


At 74 any number of things could have folded his hand.
----------------------------------------------
Read the obit.

Lew

On 1/4/2014 9:43 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Phil Everly, (The Everly Brothers), cashed in his hand at 74.

Damn cigarettes claimed another one.
-----------------------------------------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote:


At 74 any number of things could have folded his hand.
----------------------------------------------
Read the obit.

Lew



It took my father at 53. I hate those things.

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 23:53:13 -0500, Meanie
It took my father at 53. I hate those things.

Agree completely. Took both my parents at the age of 69, eight years
apart.

Mike Marlow wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Phil Everly, (The Everly Brothers), cashed in his hand at 74.

Damn cigarettes claimed another one.



At 74 any number of things could have folded his hand.

I'm not arguing that cigarettes didn't take his life, just that at 74 any
number of things could have. I just consider that after 70 you're counting
lucky stars for each year.

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Phil Everly, (The Everly Brothers), cashed in his hand at 74.

Damn cigarettes claimed another one.



At 74 any number of things could have folded his hand.

I'm not arguing that cigarettes didn't take his life, just that at 74 any
number of things could have. I just consider that after 70 you're counting
lucky stars for each year.

And so I am!

--
 GW Ross 

 I'm setting my phaser on 'tickle.' 

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Damn cigarettes claimed another one.
-----------------------------------------------

"Meanie" wrote:

It took my father at 53. I hate those things.
-----------------------------------------------

Mine lived just 3 weeks past his 54th.

I still remember his nicotine stained fingers as he lay in the casket
and that was 55 years ago.

In all fairness, back then we didn't know what we know today.

Lew

Meanie wrote:
On 1/4/2014 9:43 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Phil Everly, (The Everly Brothers), cashed in his hand at 74.

Damn cigarettes claimed another one.
-----------------------------------------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote:


At 74 any number of things could have folded his hand.
----------------------------------------------
Read the obit.

Lew



It took my father at 53. I hate those things.

They took one of my close friends at 42 via his heart. His first heart
attack was at 35 after 20 years of smoking, but quitting at that point
didn't help. He died 2 days before Christmas 2012, and his younger daughter
still believed in Santa Claus.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing, add a zero and remove the last word.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Damn cigarettes claimed another one.
---------------------------------------------------------
SFWIW

My mechanic had a massive heart attact and survived thanks
to the VA.

He survived but was still smoking.

He was read the riot attack by his doctors and thanks to the VA
stopped smoking with the help of a VA program.

Chances are he will die from something other than smoking and
he will see 60.

The message is pretty clear.

If you are a vet and a smoker who wants to stop, the VA has a program
that will help you stop smoking IF you want to.

I realize that to receive VA help may include a significant drive to
get to a VA hospital for some of you, but if it helps save your life,
isn't it worth it?

Lew

CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.

It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term you
can't
buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.

Wonder whose next to join CVS?

Lew

On 2/5/14, 12:56 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.

It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term you
can't
buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.

Wonder whose next to join CVS?

Lew


I hope they can do everything they need to make that happen in only 100
years. :-p


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 2/5/2014 1:56 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.

It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term you
can't
buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.

Wonder whose next to join CVS?

Lew


Smokes is big bucks. I recently spoke with a former manager of a
convenience store in a border town. When his state increased the tax by
a buck a pack, they dropped sales of 3,000 packs a day as people went
across the border.

A small grocery/deli where I used to buy my lunch said they were the
biggest income and profit producer he had.

Fellow at work is complaining he needs a new truck but can't afford one,
yet he spends $80+ a week on cigarettes. And a six=pack and pint every week.

On 2/5/2014 12:56 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.

It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term you
can't
buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.

Wonder whose next to join CVS?

Lew






Goodwill, is that what they are calling it?

It makes good ethical sense but the customers are going to give the
competition $2 Billion worth of extra business.

Sounds like a preemptive move to perhaps dodge any law suits Kalifornia
is cooking up.

On 2/5/2014 2:18 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/5/2014 1:56 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.

It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term you
can't
buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.

Wonder whose next to join CVS?

Lew


Smokes is big bucks. I recently spoke with a former manager of a
convenience store in a border town. When his state increased the tax by
a buck a pack, they dropped sales of 3,000 packs a day as people went
across the border.

A small grocery/deli where I used to buy my lunch said they were the
biggest income and profit producer he had.

Fellow at work is complaining he needs a new truck but can't afford one,
yet he spends $80+ a week on cigarettes. And a six=pack and pint every
week.



Sounds like he needs a new truck to haul his cigs and booz. Catch 22

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/5/2014 1:56 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.

It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term you
can't
buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.

Wonder whose next to join CVS?

Lew


Smokes is big bucks. I recently spoke with a former manager of a
convenience store in a border town. When his state increased the tax
by a buck a pack, they dropped sales of 3,000 packs a day as people
went across the border.

A small grocery/deli where I used to buy my lunch said they were the
biggest income and profit producer he had.

Fellow at work is complaining he needs a new truck but can't afford
one, yet he spends $80+ a week on cigarettes. And a six=pack and pint
every week.

I think I've been quit for 10 years now. Its sort of frightening how
easy is would be to start back up. One of the things that helps me stay
quit is the cost. I remind myself that if I'm going to buy a pack,
then I might as well buy enough cigarettes for the month. That quickly
snaps me back to my senses! I wouldn't even leave the house on Friday
night with "only 1 pack"... If I was going to buy cigarettes today I
don't think I could buy only 1 pack. In fact, even allowing 2 packs a
day isn't a guarantee you won't run out ("Oh, the horrors...").
Although he quit years earlier, 25+ years of smoking Pall Mall's may
have led to to my dad's death of lung cancer (among several other types)
at age 72.

Bill

Leon wrote:
On 2/5/2014 12:56 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.

It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term you
can't
buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.

Wonder whose next to join CVS?

Lew




Personally, I have frequently found it strange that pharmacies have/had
such huge cigarette displays (I sensed a "conflict of interest").
And crappy prices too! They apparently cater to people who are
price-indifferent.

On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:28:49 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/5/2014 12:56 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.

It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term you
can't
buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.

Wonder whose next to join CVS?

Lew






Goodwill, is that what they are calling it?

It makes good ethical sense but the customers are going to give the
competition $2 Billion worth of extra business.

Perhaps more, as the smokers get used to shopping elsewhere.

Sounds like a preemptive move to perhaps dodge any law suits Kalifornia
is cooking up.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.

It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term
you
can't
buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.

Wonder whose next to join CVS?
----------------------------------------
"Leon" wrote:

Goodwill, is that what they are calling it?

It makes good ethical sense but the customers are going to give the
competition $2 Billion worth of extra business.

Sounds like a preemptive move to perhaps dodge any law suits
Kalifornia is cooking up.
----------------------------------------------------
You are a little slow Leon.

This whole thing got started when the city of San Francisco enacted
city law
prohibiting sale of tobacco products in drug stores 8-10 years ago.

CVS, as well as the big box stores, and the tobacco companies tried to
fight
it but learned again that you don't fight city hall.

Everybody else dropped their law suits against S/F.


CVS decided to not fight and instead complied so extending this across
all
7600 stores is not such a big deal for them to implement.


Lew

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

Smokes is big bucks. I recently spoke with a former manager of a
convenience store in a border town. When his state increased the
tax by a buck a pack, they dropped sales of 3,000 packs a day as
people went across the border.

A small grocery/deli where I used to buy my lunch said they were the
biggest income and profit producer he had.

Fellow at work is complaining he needs a new truck but can't afford
one, yet he spends $80+ a week on cigarettes. And a six=pack and
pint every week.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My how times have changed.

I worked in a smoke shop while in high school.

Cigarettes cost $1.86/carton except for Pall Mall which was
$1.88/carton.

Both sold for $1.95/carton and individual package sold for
$0.20/package retail.

Tried to float a price increase to $2.05/carton retail, but it didn't
fly until 2nd or
3rd attempt.

This was also about the time that a package had a couple of pennies
taped on
the side so you could use a quarter to buy a pack and automatically
get
$0.02 change.

Anybody remember Hav-A-Tampa cigars?

Came complete with a wooden mouth piece and was such a deal at
$0.15/pair.

Lew




Lew

On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 19:49:20 -0500, Bill
wrote:

Leon wrote:
On 2/5/2014 12:56 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.

It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term you
can't
buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.

Wonder whose next to join CVS?

Lew




Personally, I have frequently found it strange that pharmacies have/had
such huge cigarette displays (I sensed a "conflict of interest").
And crappy prices too! They apparently cater to people who are
price-indifferent.

Conflict? They get you coming and going - profit at both ends of your
health. How is that a conflict?

Bill wrote in :

Personally, I have frequently found it strange that pharmacies have/had
such huge cigarette displays (I sensed a "conflict of interest").

I agree completely.

On 2/5/2014 7:08 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

Smokes is big bucks. I recently spoke with a former manager of a
convenience store in a border town. When his state increased the
tax by a buck a pack, they dropped sales of 3,000 packs a day as
people went across the border.

A small grocery/deli where I used to buy my lunch said they were the
biggest income and profit producer he had.

Fellow at work is complaining he needs a new truck but can't afford
one, yet he spends $80+ a week on cigarettes. And a six=pack and
pint every week.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My how times have changed.

I worked in a smoke shop while in high school.

Cigarettes cost $1.86/carton except for Pall Mall which was
$1.88/carton.

Both sold for $1.95/carton and individual package sold for
$0.20/package retail.

Over seas while on the ship my dad paid 4 cents per pack, 5 cents on
land. 1946




Tried to float a price increase to $2.05/carton retail, but it didn't
fly until 2nd or
3rd attempt.

This was also about the time that a package had a couple of pennies
taped on
the side so you could use a quarter to buy a pack and automatically
get
$0.02 change.

Anybody remember Hav-A-Tampa cigars?

Yes

Doug Miller wrote:
Bill wrote in :

Personally, I have frequently found it strange that pharmacies have/had
such huge cigarette displays (I sensed a "conflict of interest").
I agree completely.

On a slow day, I inquired about this to the cashier at Walgreen
(Pharmacy), more than 10 years ago. But she didn't seem to understand
what I was talking about, and she that she "only worked there
part-time". So in case you have any questions about what some of these
cashiers are really thinking about, I offer you that data point! ; )

On 2/5/2014 6:56 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:

CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.

It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term
you
can't
buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.

Wonder whose next to join CVS?
----------------------------------------
"Leon" wrote:

Goodwill, is that what they are calling it?

It makes good ethical sense but the customers are going to give the
competition $2 Billion worth of extra business.

Sounds like a preemptive move to perhaps dodge any law suits
Kalifornia is cooking up.
----------------------------------------------------
You are a little slow Leon.

This whole thing got started when the city of San Francisco enacted
city law
prohibiting sale of tobacco products in drug stores 8-10 years ago.

CVS, as well as the big box stores, and the tobacco companies tried to
fight
it but learned again that you don't fight city hall.

Everybody else dropped their law suits against S/F.


Perhaps Lew, if you had given all of the details it would have made more
sense the first time around.





CVS decided to not fight and instead complied so extending this across
all
7600 stores is not such a big deal for them to implement.

And you call that move, giving up at fighting the law, a good will
gesture???

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Leon" wrote:


Perhaps Lew, if you had given all of the details it would have made
more sense the first time around.
-------------------------------------------------
Taken from the web on background for much of the day after the
original post.

I'm just a parrot on this one.

Lew


I saw the "announcement" on the evening news.

"Leon" wrote:


Perhaps Lew, if you had given all of the details it would have made
more sense the first time around.
-------------------------------------------------
Taken from the web on background for much of the day after the
original post.

I'm just a parrot on this one.

Lew

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Smokes is big bucks. I recently spoke with a former manager of a
convenience store in a border town. When his state increased the tax
by a buck a pack, they dropped sales of 3,000 packs a day as people went
across the border.

A small grocery/deli where I used to buy my lunch said they were the
biggest income and profit producer he had.

Fellow at work is complaining he needs a new truck but can't afford
one, yet he spends $80+ a week on cigarettes. And a six=pack and pint
every week.

It sure is big bucks - but so much of it is tax in NY. National brands are
now over $10 per pack in upstate areas and off brand nativie american
cigarettes are almost $9. Rolling your own brings the cost of a pack down
to about $1 per pack and takes about 10 minutes to produce a pack. They
finish just like a production cigarette, smoke the same and taste the same.
The RYO industry finally attracted the attention of NY State as they
realized they are missing out on that tax revenue. Expect that to change in
the not too distant future. Don't know how people can buy national brands
over the counter these days.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Smokes is big bucks. I recently spoke with a former manager of a
convenience store in a border town. When his state increased the tax
by a buck a pack, they dropped sales of 3,000 packs a day as people went
across the border.

A small grocery/deli where I used to buy my lunch said they were the
biggest income and profit producer he had.

Fellow at work is complaining he needs a new truck but can't afford
one, yet he spends $80+ a week on cigarettes. And a six=pack and pint
every week.

It sure is big bucks - but so much of it is tax in NY. National brands are
now over $10 per pack in upstate areas and off brand nativie american
cigarettes are almost $9. Rolling your own brings the cost of a pack down
to about $1 per pack and takes about 10 minutes to produce a pack. They
finish just like a production cigarette, smoke the same and taste the same.
The RYO industry finally attracted the attention of NY State as they
realized they are missing out on that tax revenue. Expect that to change in
the not too distant future. Don't know how people can buy national brands
over the counter these days.

Meh. Damned progressives. If they can't constitutionally ban it, they will
attempt to tax it to death, thereby increasing crime, and more excuses to
fill the prisons:

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten...51244.abstract

Government blatantly chasing revenue under the guise of social cost is a
sign of the times, another way to fool the ever increasing gullible, and
another nail in the coffin of freedom of choice.

How soon that failed experiment in wielding 'social cost', Prohibition, is
forgotten ... as if the current "war on drugs" isn't enough to foment crime
and chaos.

--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)

On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 08:03:38 -0600, Swingman wrote:
Meh. Damned progressives. If they can't constitutionally ban it, they will
attempt to tax it to death, thereby increasing crime, and more excuses to
fill the prisons:

Really? You're complaining that taxing cigarettes is increasing crime?
You've got to be kidding. You're one of the smartest people I know,
but your IQ just dropped twenty points.

Whatever crime and costs that might be attributed to taxing cigarettes
is VASTLY overshadowed by the loss of lives and costs to the
healthcare system from people smoking.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
eb.com...
CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.

It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term you
can't
buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.

Wonder whose next to join CVS?


This morning's news say Walgreens is examining the policy contemplating a
similar policy change.

"CVS cigarette move urges action by Walgreens, rivals"
"Walgreen instead launches a free, Internet-based smoking cessation program"

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...rk-walgreen-co

Dave in SoTex

On 2/6/2014 9:13 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 08:03:38 -0600, Swingman wrote:
Meh. Damned progressives. If they can't constitutionally ban it, they will
attempt to tax it to death, thereby increasing crime, and more excuses to
fill the prisons:

Really? You're complaining that taxing cigarettes is increasing crime?
You've got to be kidding. You're one of the smartest people I know,
but your IQ just dropped twenty points.

Government restriction of any form causes crime.

Think about prohibition.





Whatever crime and costs that might be attributed to taxing cigarettes
is VASTLY overshadowed by the loss of lives and costs to the
healthcare system from people smoking.



You should move a little closer to the Texas Mexican border, you might
change your mind. On a slow day dozens of people are killed in any
given border town.

Now you might say that the drugs, which is the focus of all the
violence, would not exist if the government was not restricting its use
and or when cigarettes are eventually out lawed crime will increase even
more.

The government should only maintain the infrastructure and protect our
borders.

On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:30:02 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Government restriction of any form causes crime.

Sorry, can't agree with that. While some of it maybe true, there are
far too many benefits to regulating certain things that is ignored by
your statement.

And, you're missing my point. Whatever crime that might be attached to
restricting or taxing cigarettes is easily outdone by the devastating
effects and costs that tobacco use has on society.

On 2/6/2014 10:13 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 08:03:38 -0600, Swingman wrote:
Meh. Damned progressives. If they can't constitutionally ban it, they will
attempt to tax it to death, thereby increasing crime, and more excuses to
fill the prisons:

Really? You're complaining that taxing cigarettes is increasing crime?
You've got to be kidding. You're one of the smartest people I know,
but your IQ just dropped twenty points.

He is spot on. I see people going out of their way to circumvent that
taxes. Buying mail order, buying out of state, and it is a hot item for
thieves breaking into stores.


Whatever crime and costs that might be attributed to taxing cigarettes
is VASTLY overshadowed by the loss of lives and costs to the
healthcare system from people smoking.

That may be true, but taxation has done very little to reduce the number
of smokers. Some sort of education program may help. Taking away the
"cool factor" for young teenagers would help a lot. I was about 13 when
I started, just like the big kids, but was able to quite in my 20's.

On 2/6/2014 9:45 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:30:02 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Government restriction of any form causes crime.

Sorry, can't agree with that. While some of it maybe true, there are
far too many benefits to regulating certain things that is ignored by
your statement.


Regulation and restriction are two different things.



And, you're missing my point. Whatever crime that might be attached to
restricting or taxing cigarettes is easily outdone by the devastating
effects and costs that tobacco use has on society.


I disagree, and those living in the southern US border towns that are
being murdered because of the trafficking caused by government laws
restricting any number of products would probably disagree too.

Granted cigarette smoking is harmful to your health but if warning
labels and ads on TV and health education at the doctors office and in
schools is not enough then adding taxes is not going to do any thing but
prompt smokers to obtain their tobacco in another way, and that is
typically is illegal.

On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 08:03:38 -0600, Swingman wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Smokes is big bucks. I recently spoke with a former manager of a
convenience store in a border town. When his state increased the tax
by a buck a pack, they dropped sales of 3,000 packs a day as people went
across the border.

A small grocery/deli where I used to buy my lunch said they were the
biggest income and profit producer he had.

Fellow at work is complaining he needs a new truck but can't afford
one, yet he spends $80+ a week on cigarettes. And a six=pack and pint
every week.

It sure is big bucks - but so much of it is tax in NY. National brands are
now over $10 per pack in upstate areas and off brand nativie american
cigarettes are almost $9. Rolling your own brings the cost of a pack down
to about $1 per pack and takes about 10 minutes to produce a pack. They
finish just like a production cigarette, smoke the same and taste the same.
The RYO industry finally attracted the attention of NY State as they
realized they are missing out on that tax revenue. Expect that to change in
the not too distant future. Don't know how people can buy national brands
over the counter these days.

Meh. Damned progressives. If they can't constitutionally ban it, they will
attempt to tax it to death, thereby increasing crime, and more excuses to
fill the prisons:

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten...51244.abstract

Government blatantly chasing revenue under the guise of social cost is a
sign of the times, another way to fool the ever increasing gullible, and
another nail in the coffin of freedom of choice.

How soon that failed experiment in wielding 'social cost', Prohibition, is
forgotten ... as if the current "war on drugs" isn't enough to foment crime
and chaos.

Much like Alabama's very high tax on alcohol, some 40% of the total retail
cost, it doesn't seem to put a damper on peoples drinking habits.

It does make for a viable bootleg liquor market, both store bought and
moonshine.

It is a short trip to Kentuckey where the price is low and a pickup
load can net the bootlegger an easy $1000 dollar profit a trip.
(that's a very conservative figure)

The price of cigarettes are even more grossly distorted from NC to the
Nothern states, it's illegal but it is big business too.

None of this takes away from the fact that smoking does in fact kill
millions, however we are Americans and should be able to choose
our poison without much govt. interference.

basilisk

Swingman wrote:


Meh. Damned progressives. If they can't constitutionally ban it, they
will attempt to tax it to death, thereby increasing crime, and more
excuses to fill the prisons:

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten...51244.abstract

Government blatantly chasing revenue under the guise of social cost
is a sign of the times, another way to fool the ever increasing
gullible, and another nail in the coffin of freedom of choice.

How soon that failed experiment in wielding 'social cost',
Prohibition, is forgotten ... as if the current "war on drugs" isn't
enough to foment crime and chaos.

The tax on 16oz of cigarette tobacco for making your own cigarettes is
approximately $28. The tax on 16oz of pipe tobacco is approximately $2.50.
Guess what everybody uses? Cigarette tobacco is chopped a little finer, but
the desktop injectors that people use will cut the pipe tobacco to the
proper size while injecting the tobacco into an empty cigarette tube. The
device itself costs about $35 on average. Like I say you can make a pack of
cigarettes that are essentially the same thing as a commercial cigarette for
about a buck a pack. NY realized that they lost (they figure...) over $70M
in tax revenue on people like me so I expect they will quickly find a way to
impose a new tax. Not because they really care about my health, the cost to
my neighbors, or any of that crap.

You are right - failed social experiment. Or better said - it's all about
how we fund things that are more politically popular.

--

-Mike-

On 2/6/2014 9:13 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 08:03:38 -0600, Swingman wrote:
Meh. Damned progressives. If they can't constitutionally ban it, they will
attempt to tax it to death, thereby increasing crime, and more excuses to
fill the prisons:

Really? You're complaining that taxing cigarettes is increasing crime?
You've got to be kidding. You're one of the smartest people I know,
but your IQ just dropped twenty points.

No problem, just a drop in the bucket ... still got plenty left.

Whatever crime and costs that might be attributed to taxing cigarettes
is VASTLY overshadowed by the loss of lives

Saving the life of someone willingly engaging in bad behavior is not my
concern in the least.

and costs to the
healthcare system from people smoking.

It is a demand on the healthcare system only because progressive make it so.

Progressive thinking rarely takes into account the unintended
consequences of their policies ... in this case rewarding bad behavior
by providing healthcare for the consequences of same only encourages
further bad behavior, of all types, including crime.

Look no further for the result of years of progressive policies by the
rampant bad behavior exhibited in places like Detroit and Chicago.

Only one thing is absolutely unarguable ... all the above
notwithstanding, a progressive politician can buy votes all the way to
hell by promising to do so.

--
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

wrote:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 08:03:38 -0600, Swingman wrote:
Meh. Damned progressives. If they can't constitutionally ban it,
they will attempt to tax it to death, thereby increasing crime, and
more excuses to fill the prisons:

Really? You're complaining that taxing cigarettes is increasing crime?
You've got to be kidding. You're one of the smartest people I know,
but your IQ just dropped twenty points.

Really Dave? You cannot see the connection? Yes you can - just think about
it for a moment...


Whatever crime and costs that might be attributed to taxing cigarettes
is VASTLY overshadowed by the loss of lives and costs to the
healthcare system from people smoking.

So - how about some sort of definition for the word "VASTLY". It's
insurance Dave. All insurance plays odds against the pool. People around
you pay for your benefits, people all over pay for the life choices of
others, and people pay for all sorts of the risks that others take. I
contend that your "VASTLY" is just an emotionally charged word.

--

-Mike-

On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:20:29 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Granted cigarette smoking is harmful to your health but if warning
labels and ads on TV and health education at the doctors office and in
schools is not enough then adding taxes is not going to do any thing but
prompt smokers to obtain their tobacco in another way, and that is
typically is illegal.

So you're saying that it's a complete waste of time to tax tobacco and
spend money on warnings and health education? I can't support that
suggestion at all.

The vast majority of smokers would quit immediately if it was easy. No
more bad taste in their mouths. No more sore throats, no more nicotine
stained fingers. No more watching their money go up in smoke. All of
these things made me quit smoking thirtyfive years ago. Smokers and
non-smokers alike know that it's an unhealthy, dirty habit. Education
about smoking has had a huge effect the masses.

The pictures and the ads of smoking caused cancer and other associated
diseases have had an effect on people. If it was otherwise, everybody
would be smoking and they're not. So how do you explain this? How do
you explain people quitting smoking and people hating their smoking
addiction if not for the education and the ads?