The use of tobacco in any form is it's own reward (punishment) and the tax
can't be high enough.As for taking food, quit spending so much
money on things the public really doesn't need and you won't need to
raise taxes, which are already too high. I see where a proposed tax
on water failed to get out of a legislative committee (that really amazes me!)
and remember that we used to joke about taxing the air we breathe. If certain
types had their way, we'd be paying taxes on it for sure.
1conservativeWEST VALLEY CITY, UTWhy does the tobacco industry
receive $250 million a year in subsidies and DEMOCRATS remain silent?=========3 things...1. Republicans (espicially
TeaParty types) go on and on, day after day about Government spending. I'm
just asking - why the free pass on tabacco? Why the double standard?2. "Liberal" Democrat States have passed laws, restriciting the use of
Food Stamps for alcohol and tobacco products. Why doesn't Utah, and other
Republican States do likewise?3. Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin
(Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.) and Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) introduced the
Tobacco Tax Equity Act, S. 194, just 4 days ago which would close tax loopholes
that allow tobacco companies to avoid the federal cigarette and roll-your-own
tobacco tax, by making taxes on pipe tobacco equivalent to cigarette tobacco.“The current loopholes in the taxes on tobacco products encourage
the use of products like pipe tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and 'nicotine
candies' as a cheap source of tobacco, particularly among young
people,” Durbin said Thursday.4. and once again, Republicans
are remaining silent....
Why does the tobacco industry receive $250 million a year in subsidies and
DEMOCRATS remain silent?sorry "open minded mormon" its'
not a partisan issue.Rather, that particular subsidy is related to
the political clout of states like ohio, iowa, and, to a lesser extent Virginia.
OMM, surely you know the answer to your question.It's called
"payoffs." That's another word for Bribes.
Why does the tobacco industry receive $250 Million a year in Subsidies, and Republicans remian silent?
Chris Price,I cannot speak for Professor Rodu, but in the US the
National Institute for Health certainly thinks that oral cancer from smokeless
tobacco is a problem.
So you would rather people continue to smoke? By raising the tax rate on
smokeless tobacco you are doing more harm than good.If given the choice
between a more expensive, more dangerous product or a less expensive, less
harmful one, which would you choose?Adults smokers deserve to have the
right to choose-the "quit or die trying" approach isn't working.Also, maybe if the 18 and over to buy law where enforced more, less minors
would have access to tobacco products-it has nothing to with how much they cost
and more to do with how easily they can get it.
"High taxes on tobacco have greatly reduced tobacco consumption in this
country"Actually according to the CDC tobacco consumption rates have
changed in at least 5yrs. Maybe if the money from this "sin tax" were
actually used for what it should be that would be the case. Lowering the tax on
smokeless and other harm reduction products would do more to lower the smoking
rate than to increase it. If you had a choice between a more expensive, more
dangerous product or a cheaper less dangerous product which would you choose? A
better way to keep tobacco out of the hands of minors would be to actually
enforce the 18+ to buy law. Not all smokeless tobacco is "dip or chew".
There are safer alternatives out there and adult smokers should be given the
choice. Taxing them at the same rate gives them little to no incentive to
Tax tobacco... but not billionaires. Pick a standard.
"Cancel your date with lung cancer -- make one with oral cancer
instead"Again, smoking is FAR more likely to contribute to oral
cancer, but if the risk was equal, and 100% of the population used smokeless
tobacco, the tobacco related mortality rate would drop by over 360,000.Roughly 400,000 smokers drop dead every year, with roughly 1/3 from lung
cancer, roughly 1/3 from heart disease. Oral cancers in total represent around
8000 fatalities per year, roughly 6500 from SMOKING. Given there has been no
change in SMOKING cessation in the past 10 years according to the CDC, it's
time Utah faces reality, and a 98% reduction in harm to sane people is a good
"I've heard from "dippers" that smokeless tobacco is extremely
hard to give up. "This much is true. "If
you've ever been around users its one of the filthiest habits
imaginable"Not really, there are disolvable solutions, and there
is no measurable increase in common cancers with products like Swedish Snus.
"I can't believe Utah legislators would encourage its
use"I can't believe citizens in Utah would rather people
smoke cigarettes, but I guess ciggie taxes do pay the bills. Here's how it works, you have heroin addicts. You can't say
they're not bad people because heroin users contribute to a ton of crime to
support their habit. In Utah we have Project Reality, it get's heroin
junkies hooked on methadone. A lifetime of methadone use is a net win over
heroin. Methadone is far from safe, and it even gets you high, just not so high
you can't have a job. Smoking is considered more addictive
than heroin, and kills roughly 1% of it's users per year. Nicotine does
not even in smokeless tobacco. But somehow heroin users are entitled to harm
reduction, but smokers are expect to quit or die.
"Cancel your date with lung cancer -- make one with oral cancer
instead."But thank you, DN, for finally publishing an item that
tells some of the terrible truth about the American Legislative Exchange Council
-- or ALEC -- an insidious organization that includes most of our state
legislature as loyal members.
"Modern epidemiologic studies reveal that the oral cancer risks from snus
use in Sweden and from moist snuff and chewing tobacco use in the U.S. are so
small that they cannot be measured with any precision."Prof B Rodu -
the world's leading authority on the oral pathology of tobacco
consumption.There seems to be some disagreement between the
world's leading authority in this field and the author. Professor
Bradu's opinion is that the elevation of absolute risk of at least some
types of oral tobacco products for mouth cancer is of the order of 1% or so, and
when compared to smoking is not even visible. Perhaps the author would like to
produce the evidence to correct him.
Midvaliean,I disagree that tobacco is overly taxed, but the rest of
your post is a riot. Too funny.
Smokeless tobacco hurts more than just the person chewing. When that person
develops oral and esophageal cancer, guess who pays the bills? Either the
taxpayer if the person is on Medicare or Medicaid, or other insurance holders if
the person has private insurance.High taxes on tobacco have greatly
reduced tobacco consumption in this country, saved money, and saved thousands
and thousands of lives.There is no good reason to reduce those
I've heard from "dippers" that smokeless tobacco is extremely hard
to give up. If you've ever been around users its one of the filthiest
habits imaginable, I can't believe Utah legislators would encourage its
I never agree with a food tax increase. However tobacco is overly taxed. So to
relax the tax is fine. Smokeless tobacco is not as bad as smoking. Why?
Because it only hurts the person chewing. Smokers spew out 2nd hand smoke.
Chewer's simply spew. So, yes, chewing is better, if you want to compare
and rate garbage.