Tobacco Products Directive

I was a bit concerned when I read on Taking Liberties that the EU is proposing in its Tobacco Products Directive that:

Cigarettes, roll your own tobacco and smokeless tobacco with “characterising flavours” (eg menthol) will be banned.

What? No rolling tobacco? No cigarettes? No, it’s just a ban on flavours. But of course it’s part of a growing set of restrictions that are being gradually imposed salami-style, and will eventually lead to no tobacco and no cigarettes as these filthy bastards carry on ramming their values down everybody else’s throats.

A brief summary can be found here.

Tobacco directive: Details emerge

By Sophie Petitjean | Friday 14 December 2012

“Smoking kills – quit now” and “Tobacco smoke contains over 70 substances known to cause cancer”: these health warnings could soon become mandatory on each unit packet of tobacco for smoking, as proposed by the draft Directive on Tobacco Products, which Europoliticshas seen. The text, which dates from before the interservice consultation, aims to make tobacco products less attractive in order to discourage people from picking up their first cigarette. It bans flavoured tobacco products, long cigarettes and overly-attractive packets. Moreover, it allows member states to maintain or introduce stricter measures for domestically manufactured or imported products on the basis of public interest, “provided that these measures are proportionate, do not constitute arbitrary discrimination and […] are accepted by the European Commission.”

The adoption of the proposal is on the agenda of the College of Commissioners on 19 December.

NEUTRAL PACKAGING

Firstly, the Commission has proposed regulating on cigarette packages and cigarettes themselves. A cigarette packet should be rectangular and include at least 20 cigarettes, and 75% of its surfaces, recto and verso, should be covered with health warnings (images and text). Furthermore, these health warnings, which should be a minimum of 64 millimetres long and 55 millimetres wide – should be positioned at the top edge of the unit packet. A unit packet of rolling tobacco should contain at least 40 grammes of tobacco. The proposed text specifies that member states should not increase the size of health warnings by introducing, for example, the obligation to surround health warnings with a border. The same logic applies to the form and content of cigarettes, which should in future meet precise criteria: the draft directive proposes imposing a right circular cylindrical form on cigarettes, and a diameter of between 7.5 mm and 8.5 mm. Member states should affix a single indentifier, and a bar code of at least one cm 2 on cigarette packets in order to avoid fraud, with a dispensation of five years for products other than cigarettes and rolling tobacco. Unlike Australian legislation, this directive does not regulate on colour and depth.

SPECIAL FLAVOURINGS

The Commission has also proposed regulating the ingredients of tobacco products. The proposed text establishes a maximum threshold per cigarette for tar (ten mg), nicotine (one mg) and carbon monoxide (ten mg). It forbids adding special flavourings and certain additives, such as vitamins, caffeine, taurine and other stimulating additives associated with energy and vitality. This ban also applies to the ingredients of tobacco products, such as filters, papers, packages, capsules and other elements that alter flavour and smoke. As for ingredients that will remain authorised, these will be subject to the obligation to provide information: producers and importers of tobacco products will have to draw up a list of all ingredients used in the manufacturing of products, justify the presence of these ingredients, and classify them according to their quantities.

NEW PRODUCTS

These new rules will also apply to new products (those placed on the market after 1 January 2012). These will be subject to a notification obligation six months before they are placed on the market. The draft directive also covers products whose nicotine content surpasses a certain amount (two mg per unit, or a concentration of four mg per ml). Finally, it forbids tobacco for oral use (except that which is smoked or chewed) while maintaining Sweden’s dispensation for snus.

CHANGES SINCE DALLI

The draft text is only provisional, since the College of Commissioners has not yet adopted it. However, very few changes have been made during the interservice consultation. Some measures have disappeared since the summer, including a ban on all smokeless products. The same goes for the obligation for tobacconists to restrict their presentations to one packet per brand and per threshold, as well as those concerning the presence of 85% tobacco in products.

However, the proposal is not immune to further changes, since health advisers for each commissioner are due to give their opinions on the text on 14 December, and heads of cabinet on 17 December. Parliament and Council must then adopt the legislative proposal.

The smug little speech announcing it all can be found here. It ends:

In conclusion, who will benefit from this enhanced legislation?

Everybody will – at least to some extent.

Young people will benefit since my hope is that, in the long run, the new Directive will make tobacco products less attractive and thus discourage them to start.

Current tobacco users shall receive more adequate information about the products, the risks and possibilities to quit, if they wish to do so.

Manufacturers of tobacco products as well as governments will benefit from clearer rules, an improved functioning of the internal market and a level playing field that excludes those that play unfair. The new rules take particular account of the specific needs of small and medium-sized companies.

Governments and society will benefit from a healthier population. I cannot stress enough that while health is a value in its own right, it is also indispensable for productivity and prosperity and thereby a key factor for economic growth.

All lies and half-truths. Nobody will benefit at all.

How I wish that Britain could escape the monster that the EU has become. It seems that more and more people can see it. H/T Eureferendum for this by Henryk M. Broder in Die Welt (translation largely courtesy of Mrs Google):

Since our visit in Brussels and Strasbourg, I have no more illusions. The EU does not solve problems, it is the problem. Since the end of socialism, for which there was, in the opinion of its representatives, also no alternative, the EU is the most massive attempt to disenfranchise citizens and undemocratise society.

An opinion echoed by The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’, which I chanced upon somewhere, and which at least began by accurately describing the inherently undemocratic nature of the EU. I haven’t read it all.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Tobacco Products Directive

  1. Sandra says:

    Reading through the ‘speech’ it’s blatantly obvious that big Pharma will benefit (big time) but no suprises there considering they’re throwing millions at anything that will get them the control over tobacco that they desparately want.

    • Klaus K says:

      Right. The real story is that the EU-commission fucked the citizens’ opinions in the EU-consultation and bowed to the Pharma / Nicorette industry.

      The important issue right now is not so much the plans for the packets & the flavourings – in some way these parts of the directive only divert attention. The real story lies in the fact that the directive clears the way for the pharmaceutical nicotine monopoly. With snus and E-cigarettes out of the playing field, Big Pharma is getting ready to harvest big time once again …

      EU is mean – Big Pharma is mean – but together they are the devil. As history has shown:

      http://www.relay-of-life.org/speech/speech.html

  2. magnetic01 says:

    New year, new start: how councils are
    cracking down on smoking

    If you’re planning to give up the fags in 2013, Britain’s councils will
    be there to help you
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-government-network/2012/dec/20/councils-crack-down-on-smoking

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    Enter the blackmarket! In america if a menthol ban came down itd be AL CAPONE murder in the streets over territory in black hoods to meet demand and especially black colleges………

  4. magnetic01 says:

    There’s much serious blather in this “EU Directive”. But the part that really stood out for me was this:
    “Governments and society will benefit from a healthier population. I cannot stress enough that while health is a value in its own right, it is also indispensable for productivity and prosperity and thereby a key factor for economic growth.”

    All of these claims are straight out of the eugenics framework. Firstly, the reference to “health” is in only biological terms and based on flimsy markers for even biological health. Secondly, the claim that tobacco-use is detrimental to productivity and prosperity was the typical rhetoric of the industrial hygienists (eugenics) less than a century ago. These perverse “definitions” then lead to the perverse, “moralizing”, social-engineering conclusion that eradication of tobacco-use will produce a “healthier”, more productive, population. Implicit in the claim is that the individual is the property of the physician-directed State.

    Consider:
    Proctor (1997) provides considerable detail as to the extent of antismoking sentiment and measures by the Nazi regime: Tobacco was opposed by racial hygienists fearing the corruption of the German germ plasm, by industrial hygienists fearing a reduction of work capacity, by nurses and midwives fearing harms for the ‘maternal organism’. Tobacco was said to be ‘a corrupting force in a rotting civilization that has become lazy’, a cause of impotence among men and frigidity among women. The Nazi-era antitobacco rhetoric drew from an earlier generation’s eugenic rhetoric, combining this with an ethic of bodily purity and performance at work. Tobacco use was attacked as ‘epidemic’, as a ‘plague’, as ‘dry drunkenness’ and ‘lung masturbation’; tobacco and alcohol abuse were ‘diseases of civilization’ and ‘relics of a liberal lifestyle.’ (p.441).

    Industrial hygienists, who were worried about “tobacco instigated” loss of German manpower, also figure highly in antismoking pressure: “By the end of the 1930’s, people missing more than four weeks of work due to ‘cigarette stomach’ (especially gastritis or ulcers) were required to report to a hospital for examination; repeat offenders – people who failed to quit smoking and kept missing work – could be remanded to a nicotine-withdrawal clinic.” (Proctor, 1997, 470)

  5. magnetic01 says:

    2.
    Other pertinent excerpts from “Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger”, pp.149-152:

    Antismoking steps such as extensive “public education,” bans on certain forms of advertising, and bans on smoking in many public places “were consistent with the regime’s larger emphasis on physician-directed ‘health leadership’, embracing both preventive health and the primacy of the public good over individual liberties – the so-called ‘duty to be healthy.’” (p.437)

    Proctor (1997) continues that “throughout this period, magazines like Genussgifte (Poisons of taste or habit), Auf der Wacht (On Guard), and Reine Luft (Pure air) published a regular drumbeat against this ‘insidious poison’ [tobacco], along with articles charting the unhealthful effects of alcohol, teenage dancing, cocaine, and other vices. Dozens of books and pamphlets denounced the ‘smoking slavery’ or ‘cultural degeneration’ feared from the growth of tobacco use. Tobacco was branded ‘the enemy of world peace’, and there was even talk of ‘tobacco terror’ and ‘tobacco capitalism’ …. The Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls both published antismoking propaganda, and the Association for the Struggle against the Tobacco Danger organized counseling centers where the ‘tobacco ill’ could seek help” (p.456-457); “Hitler Youth had anti-smoking patrols all over Germany, outside movie houses and in entertainment areas, sports fields etc., and smoking was strictly forbidden to these millions of German youth growing up under
    Hitler.” (www.zundelsite – January 27, 1998.htm)

    Advertising bans included a ban on ads implying that smoking possessed “hygienic values,” as were images depicting smokers as athletes or even sports fans, or otherwise engaged in “manly” pursuits (Proctor,
    1997, p.460).

    Specialized antitobacco institutes were also established. The most important of these was the Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research. This was established by a 100,000 RM gift from Hitler’s Reichskanzlei (personal funding) to the University of Jena amidst great media fanfare in April, 1941 (Proctor, 1997, p.463). Within the medical and “health” leadership, antismoking was strongly propagated. For example, “Reich Health Fuhrer Leonardo Conti pointed out that tobacco was an addictive drug, weakening the ability of leaders to serve their nation. Karl Astel, the SS officer and physician who founded the institute [Institute for Tobacco Hazards research], denounced the health and financial costs of smoking, but also the ‘ethic of apathy’ fostered by the habit.” (Proctor, 1997, p.463)

    Furthermore, the director of Dortmund’s Institute for Labor Physiology (a Prof. Graf) argued that tobacco should be entirely banned at the workplace, due to the dangers of ‘passive smoking’….Jena by this time was a center of antitobacco activism. Karl Astel, director of the new institute, was also president of Thuringia’s Office of Racial Affairs, and rector – since the summer of 1939 – of the University of Jena. Astel was not just a notorious anti-Semite and racial hygienist (he had joined the Nazi party and the SS in July 1930), he was also a militant antismoker and teetotaler who once characterized opposition to smoking as a ‘national socialist duty’. On May Day of 1940 he banned smoking in all buildings and classrooms of the University of Jena; he soon became known for snatching cigarettes from the mouths of students who dared to violate the ban. One year later, in the Spring of 1941, as head of Thuringia’s public health office, he announced a smoking ban for all state health offices and all German schools. Tobacco abstinence was, as one might imagine, a condition of employment at Astel’s antitobacco institute: the original proposal sent to Hitler – written by Gauleiter Sauckel – noted that this was ‘as important as Aryan ancestry’; freedom from tobacco addiction was said to be necessary to guarantee the ‘independence’ and ‘impartiality’ of the science produced. (Proctor, 1997, p.464)

    Physician-directed “health leadership” can also be seen in the Godber Blueprint. The medically-trained advance themselves as having a monopoly on health and being exemplars of “healthy living”, e.g., antismoking. Like in Nazi Germany, we’ve seen a trend of late – that was suggested in 1975 by Godber – of [physical] health centres being staffed by only nonsmokers, i.e., employment discrimination against smokers.

    Since the 1970s, we’ve seen numerous similarities to Nazi antismoking and coming from the same sort of personnel, e.g., those trained in the medical model – doctors, nurses, Public Health. We’ve seen smokers reduced to just “addicts” (1988), and smoking depicted as an “epidemic”. We’ve seen the “dangers” of “passive smoking” advanced as the basis for wholesale indoor bans, and even outdoor bans. We’ve seen specialized antismoking institutes galore cropping up under the auspices of Public Health Departments. We’ve seen children brainwashed from an early age into antismoking a là Hitler Youth. We’ve seen the rise of numerous avenues by which the “tobacco ill” can seek (forcibly) help. We’ve seen tobacco-use depicted as “slavery”, as a drain on society, as a threat to productivity. We incessantly hear the eugenics refrain of “if you leave it to us (medically-aligned), we’ll create (engineer) a healthier society”.

    It’s all been heard and seen before, and with catastrophic consequences. There were no bases for such claims in Nazism; it was all ideological rhetoric. Interesting is how the neo-eugenicists have attempted to legitimize the same rhetoric through the abuse/stretching/torture of statistics and questionable assumptions. And I should note that it’s not Nazism that makes these “hygienist” proclamations: It’s eugenics that does so. Eugenicists around the world at the time, and particularly in America, would have had the same views. Nazism (socialism/fascism) simply made it easy to inflict the physician-led doctrine/ideology on everyone.

    Tragic is that we should know way, way better. But most of us – on a global scale – are still utterly clueless.

    • Frank Davis says:

      And I should note that it’s not Nazism that makes these “hygienist” proclamations: It’s eugenics that does so.

      I’d agree that eugenics was imported into Nazism, but it seems to have also been integral to it. Nazi antisemitism was also a species of eugenics. Jews, after all, were regarded as ‘racial poison’. However, I’m not sure whether British and American eugenicists were as antisemitic as the Nazis. In some ways antisemitism seems to have been a specifically Nazi extension of eugenic thinking, lending ‘scientific’ support and justification (and terrible new force) to an ancient hatred. Nazism was in some ways the marriage of eugenics and pre-existing antisemitism.

      After the war, the eugenicists set out to distance themselves from Nazi eugenic thinking, and from antisemitism. They regarded theirs as a sort of ‘good’ eugenics – very reasonably concerned with smoking, drinking, diet, lack of exercise – by comparison with ‘bad’ Nazi eugenics.

      But in reality all eugenic thinking is highly corrosive and destructive. It’s not a curate’s egg (good in places). It’s all bad. Because it always ends up marginalising and demonising some social group, and turning people into outcasts. There is no ‘good’ eugenics.

      • Edgar says:

        Natural selection is a form of eugenics; not good, not bad, just active. It might be some comfort that people who are obsessed by cleanliness, purity, hygiene, and so on, are probably the ones least likely to survive under natural selection. They select themselves for extinction.

      • magnetic01 says:

        We obviously couldn’t have had Nazi eugenics without Nazism :)

        Briefly.
        The reason for my point is that eugenics can be inflicted on society without militarism, i.e., by more stealthy methods. For example, the current fascists are imposing the physicalism/social-engineering of aspects of eugenics on societies around the world through the UN (WHO) and EU by “capturing” government health bureaucracies and how Public Health courses are taught – it’s all perversely medically dominated.

        On other points made –
        Frank, you may be correct on the anti-Semitism point. Germany had a particularly long history of anti-Semitism that with the racial hygienism of eugenics provided a perfect storm for extremism, i.e., genocide. That’s not to say that, apart from Germany, eugenics was not racial. Eugenics was very racial: It’s what it’s most terribly remembered for…. even in America. In America, eugenics served to reinforce racial segregation. Coloured races were considered to be inferior to whites. The eugenicists with their statistics developed all sorts of tests, e.g., IQ tests, that “proved” that non-whites were inferior. And it didn’t stop immediately post-WWII. Eugenicists (no longer calling themselves that) in America still pushed the whites-are-superior line, citing their IQ tests. There were very, very heated debates at that time and there was very considerable scrutiny of what were later viewed as racially-biased IQ tests. It’s only as we get to the 1960s and the civil rights movement that long-standing racial shackles were loosened. And it’s only as this racial dimension became too hot an issue that the eugenics thinkers (healthists=hygienists) started to focus predominantly on the behavioral dimension with smoking being the first cab off the rank. And they’ve been allowed to do this almost without question because most still haven’t figured out that it’s still eugenics involving the same dangerous, superficial mentality. There are many, particularly in academia, that should have known better. It’s now somewhat too late: There’s a global infrastructure that’s now built around this insanity. Anyone questioning the official line – and there wouldn’t be too many left in academia – will find themselves targeted. And it’s not as if you need to ship dissenters off to a camp or have them shot. In the current climate, threatening their career/employment does the job.

        The deterioration into physicalism and the perverse definition of health as only a physical phenomenon, e.g., absence of disease, will inevitably lead to attempts at social engineering, i.e., eugenics. The eugenics mentality is constantly comparing groups, eventually declaring one group “better/superior” than another. If it stopped there, it would be one matter. But it doesn’t stop there; it never stops there. The mentality then concludes that “something must be done” to engineer a “better/healthier” society. And it has no reservations in denormalizing groups (or attempting to force them to conform), shoving them out of “normal” society into second class status, even defining them as a “threat” to normal society, usually in medical terms. It has no reservations in the use of inflammatory propaganda masqueraded as “science” that promote irrational fear and hatred to achieve goals. It does this because it does not view these assaults as problematic. Physicalism/materialism is a superficial mentality. It doesn’t comprehend any other dimensions of the human condition, e.g., psychological, relational, moral. Therefore, assaults on mental health don’t even register as a health issue on the physicalist radar. That’s why the mentality is dangerous, as seen just over a half century ago.

        On another point made by others: Eugenicists accept the idea of natural selection. But they believe that it takes too long and that nature can also get it wrong. So, these arrogant, pompous miscreants impose themselves as arbiters of natural selection……. as gods…. declaring what is desirable/undesirable. The neo-eugenicists…. the healthists…. are deranged. But here’s the thing: They’ve been allowed to run the show….. again.

        • Messalina says:

          Yes, physicalism or ‘healthism’ is like a religion: but it’s a religion without God, without the comforting thoughts of a loving God and an eternity in paradise; without even the fun things like having debates like ‘If God is omnipotent, can he create a stone so heavy that even he can’t lift it’. No spiritual dimension, no musings on the nature of God and the size of the universe. Pure dull dreary materialism.

  6. DP says:

    Dear Mr Davis

    “Governments and society will benefit from a healthier population.”

    Says it all, really: people are livestock, to be milked, shorn, fleeced and perhaps one day slaughtered, purely for the benefit of the state.

    DP

    • Messalina says:

      Excellent observation. Yes, that’s why they want us to live longer, so they can raise the retirement age to 85 and we’ll all live long ‘productive’ lives purely for the benefit of the state.
      I want to smoke more now! And drink more, and eat lots more sugary, fatty, salty foods!

      • Klaus K says:

        Maybe we should be careful taking politicians’ words at face value. Politicians very often say the opposite of what they really mean. It is likely they are headed in the opposite direction: The possibility is open that they want to kill off a vast majority of people at quite younger ages since there will not be enough money to keep people alive after they stop working.

        This could start pretty soon. The baby-boomer generation (born ca. 1943-ca. 1962) is one third bigger than the following generation (1963-1982) and double the size of the next generation (1983-2003). Do the math yourself.

        It is also not true, that “Governments and society will benefit from a healthier population” – it is just political wording / “stating the obvious”. On the contrary: Society, governments AND their partners in the pharmaceutical industry will all benefit from an unhealthier population:

        http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/one-more-time-smokers-healthcare-costs.html

  7. magnetic01 says:

    Consider this from NY under Bloomin’ Berg which has become a eugenics epicentre on a par with Califraudia:

    The statement in the article that is of particular interest is:
    “The document explains how neighbourhood contractors would help develop New York health department’s agenda in tobacco, alcohol, exercise and diet.”
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249355/Mayor-Bloomberg-ban-New-Yorkers-smoking-OWN-homes.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    “Tobacco, alcohol, exercise and diet” – that’s the behavioral dimension of eugenics: These have been the obsessions of eugenicists since the late-1800s. Inflammatory propaganda is already rife in official policy. Enabling activists to assault the public can only make matters even worse. There is no control over what they claim; they can add their own deranged beliefs to the mix. The situation is very sick.

  8. magnetic01 says:

    For an example of employment discrimination against smokers that follows the Godber Blueprint and goes way back to the 1980s, see comments by magnetic01 concerning the Park Nicollet Medical Center:
    https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2012/07/30/the-caudine-forks/

  9. magnetic01 says:

    Madonna (the singer) was a one-time smoker. She has since degenerated into a super-rabid antismoker, threatening to cancel an outdoor show in Chile if people didn’t stop smoking. There’s a video where you can hear the sanctimonious blather:
    http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2012-12-21/dont-let-your-second-hand-smoke-reach-madonnas-nostrils-or-she-will-go-off-watch-for-yourself/

    • Frank Davis says:

      I’m not in the least bit surprised. She was always pretty obnoxious anyway, IMHO.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        BYTCH!

        • smokervoter says:

          He who pays the piper calls the tune.

          Go ahead and cancel perra, give us back our dinero and let’s call the whole thing off. Yangui go home! And take your archaic, washed-up disco music dance routine with you!

          Gawd, I’m getting to detest turncoat Ex-smokers from Hell more with each passing day.

      • smokervoter says:

        May she relapse and then take the Chantix suicide regimen to quit again.

        World to Madonna: How can we miss you when you won’t go away.

      • beobrigitte says:

        Madonna…………. What a laughable relic!!!
        “if you’re smoking cigarettes right now I’m not doing this show”
        Well, this “show” looks not quite SOLD OUT……….
        “I can’t sing if you smoke”
        Is Madonna trying to say that she actually CAN SING???????

        For some strange reason on listening to Madonna whinge I remembered a song I haven’t heard for years:

        …”Madonna dying in the dust,
        Waiting for the manna coming from the west.
        Barren is her bosom, empty as her eyes, ..”

        I remember seeing UB40 in the 1980s and they did play this one, “food for thought”. It is about the refusal of politicians to relieve third world hunger. Nowadays our politicians waste huge amounts of money on destroying their own economy as well as giving the third world smoking bans.
        FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

        • smokervoter says:

          Beobrigitte, I’m glad you got a hearty laugh out of that one. I aim to please.

          Believe it or not, my computer can’t see the youtube link you’ve put up there. It’s due to my old operating system and browser (Firefox 2.0). All I see is the word Advertisement at the top and a big blank.

          Gee thanks, Google (owners of YouTube). You and your big green agenda and your huge contribution to Ex-Smoker from Hell Obama’s campaign chest. Big Green Google wants me to throw away a perfectly good computer so it’ll end up in a third world electronic recycling dump somewhere if I want to access YouTube.

          Typical of all of the hypocritical antismoking candyasses who populate the Silicon Valley in California.

          I’m hoping North Korea targets that area with one of their nukes. After we safely evacuate commenter Tom of course.

        • smokervoter says:

          So, am I worried about the nuclear fallout? Heck no. Silicon Valley is 500 miles to the north of me. By comparison, there’s 683 miles from the north of the UK to the south.

          A couple of weeks ago Northern Cal had four days of treacherous floods – during which I got 3/4ths of an inch of rain here. One of the days of flooding I was watching it the telly in 76 degree weather (24.44 C).

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Those cigarette taxes are sure working out, eh?

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/15/those-cigarette-taxes-are-sure-working-out-eh/

    I just drug out this part;

    Their study finds that nearly half of the packs of smokes purchased in New York were “from other states, Indian reservations, duty-free shops, and military bases.” And that doesn’t take into account the number of smokers who are choosing to do their shopping with black market bootleggers who are increasingly prevalent in sections of the state which are further from the border. This has led to the “unexpected” result of more police resources being diverted to enforcement efforts, more people winding up in jail and more small businesses being swept up in the wreckage and disarray. In short, rather than soaking up more cash with this tax, New York is actually losing money on the deal. Who could possibly have predicted that?

    But that’s just New York. We’re kind of weird out here anyway, right? So maybe this case is just an outlier. I’m sure things are working out much better in Chicago, where Illinois is quickly moving to catch New York in the smoke tax category. The money surely must be rolling in by now.

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    Cigarette Tax Evasion Remains Rampant in New York
    The state is losing $1.7 billion in tax revenue as well as 6,700 jobs, according to a New York Association of Convenience Stores report.

    http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/News/Daily/Pages/ND1214122.aspx

  12. magnetic01 says:

    A Merry Christmas to all, wishing you a wonderful start to the new year …..despite the healthist junk. There is always hope: Be of good cheer :)

    • Messalina says:

      Absolutely. And I think all of us here have long ago made a resolution not to heed the healthist junk ‘advice’. Cheers!

  13. Messalina says:

    No wonder a lot of people are starting to grow their own tobacco. With the EU threatening to tamper with tobacco products, I shudder to think what they’ll do. Better to get tobacco from the Man with a Van, it’ll probably be safer!

  14. beobrigitte says:

    Well, Houston, we’ve got a problem………:

    “Smoking kills – quit now” and “Tobacco smoke contains over 70 substances known to cause cancer”
    Right. 43 years of inhaling 20+/day (occasionally more than that but never less!) “over 70 substances known to cause cancer” and being only found in the category “sports injuries” must either mean that natural selection chose me as a survivor or simply, that tobacco control is a liar big style.
    No, I do NOT believe that nature selected me. I still do age, albeit slower than others, but I still age.

  15. GaryK30 says:

    “Smoking kills – quit now”

    Doll’s doctor study

    85% of current smokers died from the diseases ’caused’ by smoking.

    85% of ex-smokers died from those same diseases.

    84% of the never-smoker deaths were from those same diseases.

    It just doesn’t make much difference.

    Tell the kids, don’t smoke or smoke and quit or smoke and never quit, you will always have an 85% probability of dying from a disease ’caused’ by smoking!!!

    The other side of the coin is that everybody has about the same chance of ‘not dying’ from a disease caused by smoking.

    For the New Year, I may start smoking more.

    Doll’s study found that heavy smokers(25+/day), had the same 84% death probability as never-smokers.

    Antis claim that smokers die younger; but, my ‘life expectancy at birth’ was 63 years.

    I am now seven years past that age and such nonsense doe not bother me.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Gary, I still need an answer to:

      85% of current smokers died from the diseases ’caused’ by smoking.

      Which diseases are caused ONLY by smoking? I have been looking for these now for many years and can’t find ANY!

      • Klaus K says:

        Since no scientific method exists to establish without uncertainty that a disease in a patient is “caused by smoking” the question in itself is rubbish.

      • GaryK30 says:

        I think you will find that they never claim ‘only caused’.

        They don’t even try to give % of cause.They let people assume totallity.
        http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5745a3.htm

        Table at the bottom lists the diseases.

        Funny thing; if you use CDC data, you find that the lung cancer death rate iincidence is:
        Current smokers = 7/10,000/year
        9,993/10,000 don’t die/year

        Never-smokers = 2/10,000/year
        9,998/10,000/year don’t die

        9,993 is 99.95% of 9,998

        Soooo; in any given year, a current smoker has 99.95% of a never-smoker’s chances of NOT dying from lung cancer.

        A never-smokers is ONLY, when compared to a current smoker, 1.0005 times more likely to not die.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.