On Nov 5, 5:42*am, Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 04/11/2010 10:45 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu 04 Nov 2010 08:09:24p, Dave Smith wrote in rec.food.cooking
> > m>:
>
> >> I don't think they would even cost that much to make. *The cost
> >> is almost all tax. *The government likes to use sin taxes to
> >> generate revenue and they figure that if you have a vice they
> >> can tax it. Then, since the product becomes expensive, there is
> >> a luxury tax. If youc an afford to smoke, then you can afford to
> >> pay tax... more tax. *The provincial government also figures
> >> that a higher tax will drive the price up so kids won't be able
> >> to afford it and won't get started.
>
> > And when all of us smokers quit, schools will close, police will cut
> > their budgets and crime will get all out of control. *Fire
> > departments will cut back and homes will burn down when it takes 2
> > hours for response.
>
> Ironic isn't it. The government taxes a vice with the excuse that they
> want to deter people from using it with a financial penalty. If they
> succeed in deterring everyone they will suffer a tremendous loss of
> revenue. *I don't know about other places but here in Ontario, the
> percentage of people who smoke is less than half what it was 30 years
> ago. Taxes on cigarettes have more than doubled, and total revenues have
> increased, despite the drop in smoking.

That's a win-win for everyone other than the folks who make the choice
to keep stinking.

--Bryan

On Nov 4, 10:33*am, Wayne Boatwright >
wrote:
> On Thu 04 Nov 2010 12:08:54a, ravenlynne told us...
>
> > On 11/3/2010 10:18 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>
> >> * purely for financial rather than health reasons.
> >>> I refused to pay $4.00 a pack * 2 a day ($320/month) *to let the
> >>> tobacco industry kill me. In turn I did all kinds of crazy
> >>> stuff, like buy satellite radio.
>
> >> It's been a while since you smoked if they cost $4 a pack when
> >> you quit. *Try $6 or $7 or more now. *Yikes. *It pains me to
> >> think of how much I spend to kill myself. *Nicotine is a wicked
> >> addiction.
>
> > Holy crap they were less that 3 a pack when I quit!
>
> Premium brands run as high as $6-7 per pack here in AZ. *We were
> buying cigarettes by the carton on the Inidian reservation, as there
> are exempt from certain taxes. *We were paying $38 per carton.
>
I think it's fine to not make Indians pay tobacco taxes on tobacco for
their own use, but non-Indians buying it untaxed and taking it "off
res" should be treated as smuggling. I don't blame you for doing it,
because it's legal, but it shouldn't be. A $250 fine for possession
of more than two packs that do not bear a state tax stamp, doubled for
every subsequent conviction would put a stop to it.
>
> * * * * * * * * * * *Wayne Boatwright

--Bryan

On Nov 5, 11:18*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
> "Nancy2" > wrote
>
> > ...and even though alcohol is taxed, it isn't taxed nearly enough, for
> > all the damage it does. *I like Chris Rock's take on bullets - they
> > should cost $5000 each, and then the shootings would be far fewer and
> > farther between - just do that with alcohol and see what happens.

Just because someone in your family couldn't drink w/o ****ing up,
doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer.
>
> > N.
>
> Speakeasies and moonshiners love that kind of talk. *You can be assured the
> government won't do anything to jeopardize that cash cow. *Alcohol use has
> been around for many centuries and it won't go away now. *They tried that
> once already. The only good that came out of it was the TV series The
> Untouchables that made a hero of Al Capone.

Notice that CA Prop 19 failed in Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity
Counties. I like beer to be available, legal and taxed a reasonable
amount. I wouldn't mind paying a bit more, but not a lot more, and
not if the revenues are used to enable tax cuts for the super rich.

--Bryan

In article
>,
Bryan > wrote:

> On Nov 5, 5:42*am, Dave Smith > wrote:

> > Ironic isn't it. The government taxes a vice with the excuse that they
> > want to deter people from using it with a financial penalty. If they
> > succeed in deterring everyone they will suffer a tremendous loss of
> > revenue. *I don't know about other places but here in Ontario, the
> > percentage of people who smoke is less than half what it was 30 years
> > ago. Taxes on cigarettes have more than doubled, and total revenues have
> > increased, despite the drop in smoking.
>
> That's a win-win for everyone other than the folks who make the choice
> to keep stinking.

Up there in Canada, health care is mostly paid for by the government. I
don't know how much would be saved by people not smoking, but I imagine
it would make up a considerable amount of that shortfall. Granted, it
will then cost more money for healthcare, because people will live
longer, but shouldn't the prolonging of life be a good goal for a health
care system?

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Nov 6, 10:15*am, Dan Abel > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *Bryan > wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 5:42*am, Dave Smith > wrote:
> > > Ironic isn't it. The government taxes a vice with the excuse that they
> > > want to deter people from using it with a financial penalty. If they
> > > succeed in deterring everyone they will suffer a tremendous loss of
> > > revenue. *I don't know about other places but here in Ontario, the
> > > percentage of people who smoke is less than half what it was 30 years
> > > ago. Taxes on cigarettes have more than doubled, and total revenues have
> > > increased, despite the drop in smoking.
>
> > That's a win-win for everyone other than the folks who make the choice
> > to keep stinking.
>
> Up there in Canada, health care is mostly paid for by the government. *I
> don't know how much would be saved by people not smoking, but I imagine
> it would make up a considerable amount of that shortfall. *Granted, it
> will then cost more money for healthcare, because people will live
> longer, but shouldn't the prolonging of life be a good goal for a health
> care system?
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Petaluma, California USA
>

==
Now there is a shortfall of accommodations for seniors who ARE living
longer as a result of healthier lifestyles. About 28% of Albertans
smoked twenty years ago...down now to around 18%. I was a smoker for
fifty years and finally was able to quit. Tobacco is one of the most
addictive substances used by people and it is time to really crack
down on its use by young people. Pre-teen and teen-agers must be fully
educated on the perils of tobacco as once they start it becomes
extremely difficult to change this insidious behaviour.
==

Roy wrote:
>
> And in order to make it taste like commercial tobacco you will need to
> add extra nicotine and all kind of preservatives and chemicals to stop
> the moulds and insect invasions.

You'll have to add a lot more than that.
I've heard that the cigarette industry
buys most of the licorice crop in the U.S.
They also use a considerable amount of apple
juice of a special kind. Normal apple juice
during pasteurization loses its volatile
flavor components, which are collected and
added back to apple juice used for drinking.
Not so for apple juice used for tobacco.
There's lots of flavor ingredients added to
tobacco. It's probably more complex than
any other product. People develop strong
preferences for their favorite brand, and
these flavor combinations are what keep them
coming back to the same brand.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> it's a nice thought, but aside from the growing you also have to deal with
> the curing. tobacco ain't as pipe-ready as homegrown pot. plus you would
> (or i would) need many more tobacco plants to keep up with daily
> consumption.

Somebody should invent a kit and sell it on
late-night infomercials. (I was going to say
UHF TV, but after going digital, it's all UHF.)

On Nov 5, 10:18*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
> "Nancy2" > wrote
>
> > ...and even though alcohol is taxed, it isn't taxed nearly enough, for
> > all the damage it does. *I like Chris Rock's take on bullets - they
> > should cost $5000 each, and then the shootings would be far fewer and
> > farther between - just do that with alcohol and see what happens.
>
> > N.
>
> Speakeasies and moonshiners love that kind of talk. *You can be assured the
> government won't do anything to jeopardize that cash cow. *Alcohol use has
> been around for many centuries and it won't go away now. *They tried that
> once already. The only good that came out of it was the TV series The
> Untouchables that made a hero of Al Capone.

Did I say prohibition? No.

N.

On Nov 6, 6:18*am, Bryan > wrote:
> On Nov 5, 11:18*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
>
> > "Nancy2" > wrote
>
> > > ...and even though alcohol is taxed, it isn't taxed nearly enough, for
> > > all the damage it does. *I like Chris Rock's take on bullets - they
> > > should cost $5000 each, and then the shootings would be far fewer and
> > > farther between - just do that with alcohol and see what happens.
>
> Just because someone in your family couldn't drink w/o ****ing up,
> doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer.
>
>
>
> > > N.
>
> > Speakeasies and moonshiners love that kind of talk. *You can be assured the
> > government won't do anything to jeopardize that cash cow. *Alcohol use has
> > been around for many centuries and it won't go away now. *They tried that
> > once already. The only good that came out of it was the TV series The
> > Untouchables that made a hero of Al Capone.
>
> Notice that CA Prop 19 failed in Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity
> Counties. *I like beer to be available, legal and taxed a reasonable
> amount. *I wouldn't mind paying a bit more, but not a lot more, and
> not if the revenues are used to enable tax cuts for the super rich.
>
> --Bryan

Not only do I have no alcoholics in my family, I don't even know
any....It's just my opinion, which I can certainly voice without
having a personal involvement.

Why shouldn't alcohol be taxed proportionately the same as tobacco?

N.

In article
>,
Nancy2 > wrote:


> Why shouldn't alcohol be taxed proportionately the same as tobacco?

You mean it's not?

I read that ethanol (the alcohol we drink) can be produced industrially
for US$0.50 per gallon. Last I heard, here in the US, the federal tax
alone is US$10 a proof gallon, which would be almost US$20 a gallon.
Each state then adds on their own tax. Taxes on wine and beer are much
less.

If you own a warehouse for aging distilled spirits, like wooden barrels
of whisky or brandy, you are not allowed to have a key to that
warehouse. Only the ATF can have those keys, and an agent must be
present if you want to go into your own warehouse. Why? Because the
tax hasn't been paid yet!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA