Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said she might push again next legislative session for a hike in state cigarette taxes.
She’s right to try. It’s hard to dismiss the logic of a tobacco tax as a way to both reduce smoking and fund health care initiatives.
In 2004, Sebelius attempted to raise the cigarette tax by 50 cents to $1.29 a pack, but the measure went nowhere.
State Sen. Jim Barnett, R-Emporia — a doctor — said last week that the tobacco tax isn’t a reliable source of revenue.
But that’s not true, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which points out that every state that has significantly raised its cigarette tax has enjoyed “substantial increases in state revenue,” even accounting for fewer smokers, smuggling, tax evasion and other factors.
Sebelius thinks the growing pressure for health care reform will bring lawmakers back to the issue.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
41 Comments
MORE tax on tobacco?? Why dont they go after a few other health related things for a change?? Like,ohh, say, alcohol?? Or, fast foods?? Or, all that sugary soda pop?? Why just pick on tobacco?? Because it’s popular to hate your favorite smoker now days??
Yuppers, the leftist (control) branch is going to make war on fags.
They’re already doing it.
One way, or another, they are going to punish, tax, and pretty soon make it a crime – if you smoke.
I’m glad I don’t smoke.
Cretins will likely go after chocolate next. Then it’s war.
:)
….. chocolate is already under attack, didn’t the FDA just redefine what is acceptable amount of Cocoa butter for something to be called chocolate — in essence stating that a product does not need any cocoa / cocoa butter to be called chocolate —
…. and the request for that came from corporate America — hardly liberals …………..
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-may19apr19,0,4511657.story?coll=la-opinion-center :
……But perhaps no longer. The FDA is entertaining a “citizen’s petition” to allow manufacturers to substitute vegetable fats and oils for cocoa butter.
The “citizens” who created this petition represent groups that would benefit most from this degradation of the current standards. They are the Chocolate Manufacturers Assn., the Grocery Manufacturers Assn., the Snack Food Assn. and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Assn. (OK, I’m not sure what’s in it for them), along with seven other food producing associations.
This is what they think of us chocolate eaters, according to their petition on file at the FDA:
“Consumer expectations still define the basic nature of a food. There are, however, no generally held consumer expectations today concerning the precise technical elements by which commonly recognized, standardized foods are produced. Consumers, therefore, are not likely to have formed expectations as to production methods, aging time or specific ingredients used for technical improvements, including manufacturing efficiencies.”
Let me translate: “Consumers won’t know the difference.”
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208088.htm :
……. According to “Don’t Mess With Our Chocolate,” the proposed change in ingredients would not be reflected on the label: in other words, the products could still be called “chocolate.” No surprise here: the change would save manufacturers as much as two-thirds of their “fat” cost.
Let’s tax raise taxes on t.v viewing to decrease the number of couch potatoes, and to benefit societry with less viewing of violence! Time to pick on someone else for a change.
Between yesterday’s call for an increase in the gas tax and today’s call for more cig taxes, the Libs are showing they really do hate the po’ folks. What’s the matter with Kansas? The po’ folks are voting against their own self interests. Vote Republican.
Someone with a backyard garden could make a FORTUNE growing tobacco. I grew my own for years. Does fine in Kansas, but have since quit smoking.
What I see in the conveniece store in Drearyville KS is po folk buying lottery tickets and fags.
No, what you mean is you get to exploit and prey off the poor’s addictions.
If the smoking tax really reduced smoking, they wouldn’t have the big revenues they’re talking about. Why is it that they earn money from smoking? Because the smokers will pay what they have to to feed their addictions that they can’t quit.
I found it funny the other day in Salina…they went to the whole NO SMOKING on all property too. In the past you’d never see how many hospital workers smoked because they had them locked up in this little room behind the building. Now, they’re all lined up across the street….showing just how many of them do smoke.
YAY for policies to reduce smoking!
“…. chocolate is already under attack, didn’t the FDA just redefine what is acceptable amount of Cocoa butter for something to be called chocolate — in essence stating that a product does not need any cocoa / cocoa butter to be called chocolate —”———–
No – no – arrgghhhhhhhh.
Leave my chocolate alone!
Seriously – I love the stuff! I bake with Callebaut and Valhrona almost exclusively and I think confections made with top of the line cocoa must be served in heaven.
And how can man mess with that?
I mean – it’s almost sinful just to consider it.
:)
PM – I’ll bet legislation is introduced within a year – to begin gradually making smoking illegal.
It’s what they want.
And there’s no stopping them.
You’re right, because the non smokers won’t stand up and say this is wrong to do.
As long as it isn’t ‘their’ sin that is in jeopardy. But they don’t realize that it very much is.
GS – I’ll take your bet. There may be legislation concerning smoking in such a manner as to impact others but I do not see any effort to criminalize the drug.
Personally, although I do not use any of them I think all three of the primary recreational drugs should be on an equal footing. The only difference I would make is that, because of the mode of delivery of the smoked drugs, their use should be restricted from public places.
GS – an aside. As quality control inspector I must approve of any chocolate confections you make.
;^)
Anything that helps motivate people to stop smoking is a good thing. As a former smoker, every little bit of motivation to give up the habit is helpful.
I am not in favor of any law that makes it illegal to smoke on private property or any law to make smoking illegal (what a crock to make that argument) but raising taxes on cigarettes is fine by me.
Sorry , but the price of cigs are essentially inelastic. The price has never affected them much unless it was some drastic increase, then they are just driven underground.
For gods sake, the Palestinian and Hamas terror groups already smuggle cigs here in this country. 5 were murdered last year in the process due to tax differences across the nation.
You can go to North Carolina and buy cigs for 1.50, then take them to NYC and sell them for 7.00.And what is to funny is that North Carolina takes their cig settlement money and gives it to the tobacco farmers…great come back on their part.
If they raise it so high they just go somewhere else. Or start growing their own. The old Hippie magazine “High Times” now has sections on Tobacco Growing.
And the stuff is 10 times as potent as the stuff in the stores….
So more of government meddling does wonders.
just buy online and avoid the taxes.
Now liberals “hate poor folks” because they want to make smoking illegal.
Before, it was Barak Obama is a horrible human being because he . . . wait for it . . . because he still smokes.
You might want to figure out which position you want to go with before you further embarrass yourself with this clear contradiction.
The keyword WS, was “former”. That says it all.
As a former drinker, I hope they raise the price of booze by 400% then. Afterall alcohol hurts far more people faster. I’ve never heard of people divorcing over a cigarette, beating their wives and children over a smoke.
One of the motivation I had to quit smoking was the price of cigarettes, P’Mom. To be honest, if cigarettes were free, I would probably still be a smoker.
Every sin has it’s price. Alcohol is already taxed at a high rate in Kansas.
I am not defending or condemning any vice – God knows I have a bunch of vices myself – I was merely pointing that cost is a factor in quiting for some people.
If you are comfortable smoking – more power to you. For your sake, I hope that you are able to quit easily when or if you make that decision.
If you never decide to quit, I hope that the health hazards of smoking never catch up to you.
Enjoy your next smoke – I wish I could join you.
In Russia you can still smoke in bars, Ride a motorcycle without a helmet and have the freedom to choose whether or not to wear a seat belt when you riding in a car.Tell me, what happened to having the freedom of making our own decisions. We speak of freedom yet we have less freedom to make our own choices in life than a person living in communist country.I understand that a none smoker should be able to have lunch in smoke free environment if they chose to. But I also feel that restaurant and bar owners should have the right to chose whether or not to allow smoking in their establishment. If a restaurant allows smoking and you don’t like the smoke then you have the freedom to chose not to patronize the establishment. That’s what freedom is all about.
We live in the land of the free. So why is it I don’t feel as free as I did ten years ago.
Jim,
Sorry to bust your bubble, but there is a large component of “freedom” in the laws of which you speak. Insurance companies, private entities, drive a lot of the moves towards vehicle safety. They’re in business to make a profit, and not having to pay for preventable injuries helps to maximize the bottom line. The laws are there partially as an altruistic attempt to protect us all, but don’t be fooled that there isn’t an economic component in those very same laws.
With regard to smoking…it has been scientifically established that even second-hand smoke is dangerous. Sure, I’d be all for letting restaurant owners choosing whether to allow smoking or not, so long as it doesn’t affect those who choose not to smoke. The only way to do this would be to physically isolate smokers, not just establish “smoking” and “non-smoking” sections. If restauranteurs and bar owners were willing to set aside space and build isolation barriers between smokers and non-smokers, then everyone would be happy. However, I imagine the law of the marketplace would prevent them from wanting to do this. Therefore, as long as I can’t be isolated from your smoke, your smoking should be curtailed because it affects my health. See, “freedom” and “laws of the marketplace” work both ways..sometimes in ways we may not like.
BFAH,
I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make here.
business owners should not be required to ban smoking in their establishment just because it offends your or your beliefs. They should have the right to decide wither r not to allow smoking just as you have the right to decide wither or not to patronize their business.
Why should they have to build barriers between smokers and non-smokers? If you don’t like the smoke then find a none smoking bar.
As for your statement: it has been scientifically established that even second-hand smoke is dangerous
I do not share the same beliefs as you. a person can find studies to substantiate any subject they desire to defend.
Lets take red meat for exampleThose who appose eating red meat might state it has been scientifically established that eating red meat causes colon cancer. it you don’t believe this is true, simply check out this web page. http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/red-meat-colon-cancer.htmlOn the other hand a person who enjoys eating red meat might state that eating Lean red meat is not only a good source of protein and energy, but also has benefits in avoiding heart disease, this person could back up his claim with the following web page: http://www.csiro.au/resources/ps8l.htmlas I stated earlier you can find studies to validate your stance on any subject.
by now your thinking…look he is avoiding the smoking issue by attacking something I like in an attempt to avoid the subject of smoking.
Ok, lets discuss the good virus bad of SMOKING
here’s some sites you might want to look atDoes tobacco smoke prevent atopic disorderssite:http://www.data-yard.net/30/asthma.htmTwin Study Supports Protective Effect of Smoking For Parkinson’s Disease:http://www.data-yard.net/10m/twin.htmImpact of Smoking on Clinical and Angiographic Restenosis After Percutaneous Coronary Interventionhttp://www.data-yard.net/34/circulation_2001_104_773.htm
Jim,
I understood your point completely. The problem is, smoke knows no boundaries. If you smoke…anywhere…your smoke affects MY health and comfort. If you were to put a bag on your head (or go to a private club yourself…which makes far more sense) then all would be well. As it is, you would have the majority of the population –nonsmokers – accommodate the personal behavior of the minority – smokers…with health impacts involved.
Your example aren’t really relevant. Your eating red meat doesn’t materially affect my health, so chow down.
As to your smoking sites, are you or the majority of smokers suffering from those diseases? BTW, who funds those web sites? Bet you have no idea.
As you can see BFAH, a person can fins studies to back any subject they desire to defend.
The bottom line is that you have no more of a right to tell some one how to live their life than I do. nor do you have a right just because you don’t smoke to tell a business owner he can’t allow smoking because you may some day want to visit his establishment some day.
One more thing …can you provide me with the studies you mentioned that show second hand smoke is dangerous?
by the way here’s a site that has a lot of studies regarding smoking and it’s effects.http://laptop.gorknet.org/serendipity/index.php?/archives/141-The-Benifits-of-Smoking.htmlthe fact is, I started smoking as a kid, I wish I hadn’t but I did and yes I have tried many times to quit but with no luck. so do me one favor take the restaurants if you must but leave the bars along.us weak people need at least one place we can go. and what better place than a bar were we can smoke, get drunk and feel sorry for ourselves over the loss of our freedoms.
hope you have a great smoke free day….JM
your right your eating red meat doesn’t effect my health.
It effects my wallet when my tax dollars have to pay for your medical problems from eating the red meat…
you need to get a life and stop demanding everyone do things to benefit your needs and desires.
Sigh,
Jim, you’re another intolerant a$$ who can’t discuss a topic rationally without blowing up. The law prohibits lots of things some minority people would like to do…bigamy, child molestation, animal cruelty. Learn to live with it.
BFAH Hay So you think it would be ok if I open a private club for the smokers?but you know your kind of thinkers would state we were discriminating against your kind! Not to allow you access to the clubs our swimming pools and golf courses and so on… This is a circle of retarded thinking. Just like the gases emitted by the cows. I guess I got to move away from my farm friends.
YOU MUST BE A DEMOCRATE
DFV,
Methane is not toxic, it’s just asphixiating. You can smell farts all day long, no problem.
Go to an airport…they accomodate smokers by providing enclosed smoking rooms for them. Out of the thousands of people going through the airport, there are only a few dozen smokers at any one time in there…a perfectly acceptable accommodation. You see no problem with smoke, so you can breathe it all in as well as smoke. I don’t care to, so I don’t have to. Everyone is fine. Unfortunately, your ilk is unwilling to compromise on an issue..it’s your way…period.
Oooooh, Jim, what an INSULT…wow!
I guess BFAH, you’ve never stuck your head over a waste storage tank of let’s say 5000 gallons of waste material. It may not be toxic, but you will die within a few moments after you become asphyxiated. :)
Quantity is everything. :D
Republican,
That’s what asphyxiation is…if you go into a tank filled with helium…colorloess,odorless, tasteless, you’ll also die very quickly.;..but it doesn’t cause cancer, and you were the only jerk to go inside.
no, it is you who is not will to compromise. it’s got to be your way or no way, By the way nice language you used earlier.Oh and one more the gases released by cattle are harmful to the environment, that is of course according to studies and we know how much you like to quote studies or is that only when it benefits your side of the argument?
listen it was nice chatting with you. by the way we mean no disrespect towards you. In fact I defended this country so you an I could continue to speak freely and disagree….. Thats what freedom is all about.
Have a great day…. I need to go now I am dying to have a smoke…..your friend in Vegas ….JIM
Jim,
I said I was willing to accommodate whatever arrangement so you could smoke and I wouldn’t have to be exposed to it. I like to jerk off in public…I can’t understand why people find it so disgusting and ban it. Can’t you just leave us the bars to enjoy ourselves?
Bovine flatulence is not harmful to the environment. Animal have been on the earth for millions of years and the rate at which they produce emissions is in dynamic equilibrium with the environment. Sheesh.
Now I understand…. I am talking to a jerk off.. no wonder I cant win the argument, all your doing is jerking me around.
Do us all a favor ….Turn your gas oven on and stick your head in it.
this site should be blocking people like you. for the safetyand wellbeing of the children that may be viewing this site.
they should not have to read comments like the one you wrote.
Quick smoke, huh, Jim?
No, I’m not jerking you around. You posted here first, right? What did you expect? Overwhelming agreement with you? So, your solution to hard questions you can’t answer is to deny them any speech to which you’re opposed.
As I said, I’m willing to accommodate you in any way, but in a way which doesn’t require my breathing your smoke. I don’t like the smell, it stinks up my clothes, it can cause me health problems…etc.
Instead, you are unwilling to consider the other point of view. You wanna smoke in bars, restaurants if you can, anywhere if possible. You now have the right to smoke outside, in designated smoking areas, and numerous other locations. You’re unwilling to even attempt to come to some reasonable agreement. Your only lame response is censorship.
I DO NOT LIKE YOU
BFAHSTAY AWAY YOU ARE A BAD MAN
Hfah, If your out there ….Happy 4th of July….
Remember today we celebrate our freedom….the freedom to live were we choosethe freedom to eat what we wantto live life how ever we desire toto decide what happens in our own businesses Oh wait scratch that onewere at least I still have the right to smoke in my own back yard
Hey we are cooking up some red meat today, If you would like to join us your welcome to come over.
I’ll even allow you to hold a vote of wether or not we are allowed to smoke at dinner.
In any case have a great smoke filled fourth…… you know fireworks, barbeque’s etc.
by the way you know they cause harmful smoke,That is the fire works and smoke from the grills But then again these are probably things you enjoy so I would be willing to bet you don’t try to get them band any time soon….
Have a great day…….JIM ,
Guess I got the last word in…..