RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes

RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

IrishMist -> RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (8/9/2011 1:19:40 PM)
In the US, they are taxed at federal, state levels AND included are any state sales tax/county taxes thay they may wish to add on. I am not real sure what the actual amounts are though, and they differ from state to state.

NuevaVida -> RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (8/9/2011 1:21:20 PM)
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0097.pdf This is an updated list of cigarette tax - per pack, per state http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0303.pdf Cigarette Tax Revenue for New Mexico - more than $60Million in 2008 - in one state alone. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=403 Here is a list of all states - cigarette tax revenue by year. Combined state and local tax revenue in 2008 for the United States = $16,575,613,000 http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/245.html Here is Gas, Cigarette and Alcohol Tax by state, 2000 - 2010

Moonhead -> RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (8/9/2011 1:27:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze Actually if you look how much taxes are on alcohol and tobacco, most people who drink and smoke paid their costs themselves and the state has plenty left over Horseshit. The taxes on fags won't even pay for the anaesthetist you'll require for a tracheotomy, never mind some of the long term care the less lucky smokers end up needing. That line's nonsense. You'd need to hike the taxation on tobacco an awful lot for that one to hold any water. How a bit of maths? Pack of fags is how much? £6 or £7, profits on them not great, about £5 of that are taxes, so you smoke a pack a day, 365 days and you gotta have 10 to 20 years of that, including interest, only a small fraction of smokers will get lung cancer - there's plenty left over. And if you want to be cynical about it, you just think about how much money they have from not paying out the retirement funds, a win win situation for the state, additionally the smokers also pay into the NHS. While we're talking about maths, what percentage of the cost is the taxes, rather than the manufacturers' mark up? And really, any money they save by not paying a state pension for somebody who croaks of lung cancer is going to be pissed away by their attempts to treat the condition before the smoker dies. Surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, some cunt suing a hospital trust because they refused to prescribe an anticancer drug for somebody who's still on a couple of packs a day, you name it...

Moonhead -> RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (8/9/2011 1:28:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0097.pdf This is an updated list of cigarette tax - per pack, per state http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0303.pdf Cigarette Tax Revenue for New Mexico - more than $60Million in 2008 - in one state alone. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=403 Here is a list of all states - cigarette tax revenue by year. Combined state and local tax revenue in 2008 for the United States = $16,575,613,000 http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/245.html Here is Gas, Cigarette and Alcohol Tax by state, 2000 - 2010 Thank you. Looks like a rather bigger bite than gets paid over here. I'm surprised you don't have lobbyists from tobacco companies bitching about that, to be honest.

littlewonder -> RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (8/9/2011 1:39:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0097.pdf This is an updated list of cigarette tax - per pack, per state http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0303.pdf Cigarette Tax Revenue for New Mexico - more than $60Million in 2008 - in one state alone. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=403 Here is a list of all states - cigarette tax revenue by year. Combined state and local tax revenue in 2008 for the United States = $16,575,613,000 http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/245.html Here is Gas, Cigarette and Alcohol Tax by state, 2000 - 2010 Thank you. Looks like a rather bigger bite than gets paid over here. I'm surprised you don't have lobbyists from tobacco companies bitching about that, to be honest. They try. They always lose.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (8/9/2011 1:48:47 PM)
Recently talked to the newsagent, they make less than 10 P on a pack of fags, the majority of what you are paying is actually tax. They carry baccy and fags because somebody who goes in to buy a pack of fags will usually also buy a newspaper, a sandwich, a drink... When I signed up for my private health insurance some years back while still living in Germany, I had to have a complete health check, weight check, dental, give them how much I smoke, drink and sports I do (certain types of sports get only coverage when you pay a super premium, for some odd reason they aren't keen on people who do free-climbing) and they then accessed the risk factor for them and the price I pay. You lie to them and they find out and they can drop you, not worth the risk. Here's the tax revenue from tobacco in the UK, think the fact that they get over 11 Billion £ in a year would pay for some treatment? Though the money doesn't go to hospitals or anything, it's just tax revenue. http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/tax-revenue-from-tobacco/

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (8/9/2011 2:56:42 PM)
I was recently in Alaska and I felt they had taken a very sensible approach to the problem of alcohol and driving. Apparently, if you get a DUI, you get a big red slash across your driver's license. They also card everyone. At first I was flattered, but it turns out, they really do card every one at every bar or store where liquor is sold. If one has a license with a red slash, not only can you not buy alcohol, but you can't be on the premises. I thought this made a lot of sense. As for smoking, I am generally a non smoker, but once or twice a year, when I am out late, I like to have a cigarette. My state has a law where all public places are nonsmoking, as well as a 25 foot radius from the doorway of any public building. I felt that was ridiculous. I don't love second hand smoke, but I also don't appreciate a nanny state. In terms of which is more destructive, hard to say. Probably drinking, especially in the short term, although I believe smoking has more serious long term effects than occasional, light drinking.

DomImus -> RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (8/9/2011 3:05:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Slaveforlife789 So what are your thoughts of the double standards when looking at alcohol and cigarettes? My thoughts are that your logic is flawed and that no double standard exists. As has been mentioned, a person at the next table in a restaurant can enjoy a beer without you ever realizing it but the same cannot be said about a cigarette. Nobody ever died from cirrhosis of the liver from second hand alcohol. Alcohol is addictive only to alcoholics. Cigarettes hook pretty much everyone who tries them and sticks with it. There are some parallels but the items/activities have more differences than similarities. quote: Of course I am biased since I have been affected by the alcoholism of loved ones! I am biased because I have been impacted by the cigarette smoking of loved ones but my biases don't change the facts.

MileHighM -> RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (8/9/2011 3:13:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Thank you. Looks like a rather bigger bite than gets paid over here. I'm surprised you don't have lobbyists from tobacco companies bitching about that, to be honest. They try. They always lose. With the number of cigs they export to China, they really don't care what happens in the states anymore.... One of the few things left for Ammurica to export. USA! USA! USA! lol

Slaveforlife789 -> RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (8/9/2011 3:23:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus quote: ORIGINAL: Slaveforlife789 So what are your thoughts of the double standards when looking at alcohol and cigarettes? My thoughts are that your logic is flawed and that no double standard exists. As has been mentioned, a person at the next table in a restaurant can enjoy a beer without you ever realizing it but the same cannot be said about a cigarette. Nobody ever died from cirrhosis of the liver from second hand alcohol. Alcohol is addictive only to alcoholics. Cigarettes hook pretty much everyone who tries them and sticks with it. There are some parallels but the items/activities have more differences than similarities. Actually, you are right here since second hand smoking did influence policy to a large degree, something alcohol do not have. Alcohol can be given credit for domestic violence and car accidents- those involve others as well but there is no public pressure on this front. My original point is that something needs to be done about the positive image surrounding drinking - i heard a radio Ad recently: "After class, come to the liquid therapy students" something like buy a beer for a dollar or so. This is wrong and should be illegal, like cigarette advertisements

Moonhead -> RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (8/9/2011 4:19:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze Recently talked to the newsagent, they make less than 10 P on a pack of fags, the majority of what you are paying is actually tax. They carry baccy and fags because somebody who goes in to buy a pack of fags will usually also buy a newspaper, a sandwich, a drink... When I signed up for my private health insurance some years back while still living in Germany, I had to have a complete health check, weight check, dental, give them how much I smoke, drink and sports I do (certain types of sports get only coverage when you pay a super premium, for some odd reason they aren't keen on people who do free-climbing) and they then accessed the risk factor for them and the price I pay. You lie to them and they find out and they can drop you, not worth the risk. Here's the tax revenue from tobacco in the UK, think the fact that they get over 11 Billion £ in a year would pay for some treatment? Though the money doesn't go to hospitals or anything, it's just tax revenue. http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/tax-revenue-from-tobacco/ If they were putting the money into your stamp, rather than taxes, hospitals would get it.

DomImus -> RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (8/9/2011 4:50:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Slaveforlife789 Actually, you are right here since second hand smoking did influence policy to a large degree, something alcohol do not have. Alcohol can be given credit for domestic violence and car accidents- those involve others as well but there is no public pressure on this front. My original point is that something needs to be done about the positive image surrounding drinking - i heard a radio Ad recently: "After class, come to the liquid therapy students" something like buy a beer for a dollar or so. This is wrong and should be illegal, like cigarette advertisements I think the image aspect of drinking versus smoking does relate back to the actual activity. Drunks can be obnoxious but the act of drinking itself doesn't impact bystanders like smoking does. If drinking alcohol impacted bystanders in the same manner that smoking does I think drinkers would be pariahs just smokers are today. You don't have to walk through a gaggle of drinkers and a cloud of alcohol just to get inside the building where you work. I know many cigarette smokers and I think that most of them are pretty considerate about it. A relatively small percentage of militant smokers ruined it for all of them. No public pressure? I'm not sure where you live but law enforcement in my area is pretty serious about targeting those who drink and drive. Unfortunately, the judicial system doesn't often follow through on this. No amount of enforcement at the street level is going to matter if these folks are merely given a slap on the wrist and turned loose to drink and drive again. I have always been amazed that NASCAR disowned the tobacco companies entirely yet allows sponsors who make and sell alcoholic beverages to have their names emblazoned all over race cars. "Big Daddy" Don Garlits once said that this practice was unconscionable and I agree with him. I have a few drinks occasionally. Mostly just beer, usually only on the weekends (and not even every weekend) and almost exclusively in the privacy of my own home. I am not trying to rally to defend drinkers and you do raise some good points. Framing your debate as a "smokers versus drinkers" issues is the wrong strategy, in my opinion. Comparatively speaking, cigarettes tend to put alcohol in a pretty favorable light in most people's perspectives, including mine.

IrishMist -> RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (8/9/2011 5:05:49 PM)
quote: No public pressure? I'm not sure where you live but law enforcement in my area is pretty serious about targeting those who drink and drive. Unfortunately, the judicial system doesn't often follow through on this. No amount of enforcement at the street level is going to matter if these folks are merely given a slap on the wrist and turned loose to drink and drive again. That's pretty much the same here. They do have some bar owners/tenders who, after so much, are quite willing to cut a person off becasue of that not so new law that says if a person leaves a bar, get's in an accident...the bar owner/tender can be held responsible. Unfortunatly, most of the places that serve drinks are not willing to turn someone away, AND, the law has so many loopholes that a car could fall through them.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (8/9/2011 5:13:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IrishMist quote: No public pressure? I'm not sure where you live but law enforcement in my area is pretty serious about targeting those who drink and drive. Unfortunately, the judicial system doesn't often follow through on this. No amount of enforcement at the street level is going to matter if these folks are merely given a slap on the wrist and turned loose to drink and drive again. That's pretty much the same here. They do have some bar owners/tenders who, after so much, are quite willing to cut a person off becasue of that not so new law that says if a person leaves a bar, get's in an accident...the bar owner/tender can be held responsible. Unfortunatly, most of the places that serve drinks are not willing to turn someone away, AND, the law has so many loopholes that a car could fall through them. Now isn't that nannying somebody? I mean the bar deciding how much a person can drink and the bar owner being the nanny? I thought Americans don't want a nanny state? I would be damned pissed off if I would go to a pub or bar and would be told I had a drink already I can't have a 2nd one - and I can seriously count the times when I was drunk and I usually walk or take a cab or the bus or train or the tube if I plan to have more than a drink. Sorry but where's the point of being an adult if you get a law that says your bar tender is your nanny? Does that tie in with you can be old enough to join the army and be killed for your country, you can drive a car, you can get married and raise kids, but you're not old enough to order a beer?

Moonhead -> RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (8/9/2011 5:16:56 PM)
Not really: if you're paying the barkeep to get hammered, they're not wanting you to get so pissed you'll drop dead on the way home, are they?

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (8/9/2011 5:32:21 PM)
Alrighty then! I don't get the difference. I've lived 57 years and have decided: no smoking, that shit is just bad for you, if you have to keep doing it, cut off your fingers. Drinking is only bad if you do it to excess and don't drink pure alcoholic beverages. Which means see my cousin, he owns the still. Food? Well fuck. Everyone should be eating pure organic vegetables, fruit, grain, and meat. No exceptions. Eating all that processed food is harmful and as such should be outlawed. If you can't eat pure real food, you are not a real, pure human. Kick the processed food to the curb and say yes to organics. Once you are tanked up on pure real meat and grains plus organic fruits and vegetables, you can conquer the world. The revolution will not be televised, it will be organic. Repeat as needed.

Moonhead -> RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (8/9/2011 5:36:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt Everyone should be eating pure organic vegetables, fruit, grain, and meat. No exceptions. Eating all that processed food is harmful and as such should be outlawed. If you can't eat pure real food, you are not a real, pure human. Kick the processed food to the curb and say yes to organics. That was the first thing they told me when I was diagnosed as diabetic, in fact. No processed food, don't even think of eating anything that comes out of a tin.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (8/9/2011 6:10:07 PM)
I said all that as a joke, but anyone who knows me at all knows I am not kidded. Stop eating food from a box or a can. Buy real food and eat it raw or cooked, your choice. Learn how to cook what is available for maximum nutrition and minimal cost. Most foods do not need to be cooked, they need to be washed. If you don't trust your food in a natural state, question your vendor. You will not be the only one. If you (for whatever reason) want to cook your food, do the minimum. All meat, fish, and fowl need to be cooked to certain standards, but don't overcook , as any food that is overcooked will lose nutrients. If you spend more time on shopping, you can easily spend less time on cooking and preparation. Excellent, high quality food needs minimal preparation. Once you have these basic rules down, go for variety. The more variety you have in your fresh, organic, raw a/o pure food diet, the healthier you will be.

DomImus -> RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (8/9/2011 6:12:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze I don't smoke in the house because of the stench, if I can't get my ass out on the porch or go around the back of the house to have one of my 3 to 5 cigs a day, then I'm such a lazy git, I don't deserve to have one. While I love the smell of a freshly lit cigarette, it only smells good with coffee and in fresh air, it's not a particularly pleasant smell to have in my hair or my clothes, or furniture or curtains. That's what I love most about cigarette smoke. If you smoke outside the smell magically does not adhere to your clothes and hair. [8\|]

IrishMist -> RE: Alcohol vs Cigarettes (8/9/2011 7:37:56 PM)
quote: Now isn't that nannying somebody? I mean the bar deciding how much a person can drink and the bar owner being the nanny? Exactly. Which is why I said that there were so many loopholes in it that if you put your mind to it, you can get around it. It actually came about when a man killed a family after leaving a bar one night; he was totally trashed, had been at the bar most of the day...the prosecutor went out on a limb and included the bar owner/tender in the case. He won, which in turn opened the door for the extended family to sue the bar owner for damages. Like I said though; it's so riddled wth loopholes that it's not funny, and most bars will not turn away a paying customer; no matter what.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875