Betchya can't do it, Sam.

bmd wrote:Betchya can't do it, Sam.

Great American Smokeout is TODAY

This casual acceptance of smoking was the norm when the American Cancer Society's Great American Smokeout went nationwide more than 25 years ago in November 1977.That quarter century has marked dramatic changes in the way society views tobacco promotion and tobacco use. Many public places and work areas are now smoke-free which protects non-smokers and supports smokers who want to quit.

The American Cancer Society's Great American Smokeout event grew out of a 1971 event in Randolph, MA, in which Arthur P. Mullaney asked people to give up cigarettes for a day and donate the money they would have spent on cigarettes to a high school scholarship fund. In 1974, Lynn R. Smith, editor of the Monticello Times in Minnesota, spearheaded the state's first D-Day, or Don't Smoke Day. The idea caught on, and on Nov. 18, 1976, the California Division of the American Cancer Society succeeded in getting nearly one million smokers to quit for the day. The first national Great American Smokeout was held in 1977.

During the next 25 years the Smokeout was celebrated with rallies, parades, stunts, quitting information, and even "cold turkey" menu items in schools, workplaces, Main Streets, and legislative halls throughout the US.

The Great American Smokeout has helped to spotlight the dangers of tobacco use and the challenges of quitting, but more importantly, it has set the stage for the cultural revolution in tobacco control that has occurred over this period.

Because of the efforts of individuals and groups that have led anti-tobacco efforts, there have been significant landmarks in the areas of research, policy, and the environment:

In 1977, Berkeley, California became the first community to limit smoking in restaurants and other public places.

In 1983, San Francisco passed the first strong workplace smoking restrictions, including bans on smoking in private workplaces.

In 1990, the federal smoking ban on all interstate buses and domestic flights of six hours or less took effect.

In 1994, the state of Mississippi filed the first of 24 state lawsuits seeking to recuperate millions of dollars from tobacco companies for smokers' Medicaid Bills.

In 1999, the Department of Justice filed suit against cigarette manufacturers, charging the industry with defrauding the public by lying about the risks of smoking.

In 1999, the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) was passed, requiring tobacco companies to pay $206 billion to 45 states by the year 2025 to cover Medicaid costs of treating smokers. The MSA agreement also closed the Tobacco Institute and ended cartoon advertising and tobacco billboards.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/co..._Changes.a sp

Tobacco settlement being misused, activists say
By The Associated Press

Despite the promises of politicians and policymakers, states and counties have spent the lion's share of the settlement money on things that have nothing to do with public health or smoking, even as once-falling teen smoking rates have stagnated.

Of the $61.5 billion divided among 46 states between 2000 and 2006, only 30 percent was spent on health care, according to federal Government Accountability Office data analyzed by The Associated Press. Less than 4 percent went to anti-smoking efforts.

"A lot of people on both sides thought we were going to enter a new Eden, and we haven't," said Thomas Glynn, director of cancer science and trends at the American Cancer Society.

In June 2007, the state of West Virginia sold its rights to all tobacco settlement payments through 2029 to bond holders for a total of $911 million.

The state's share of the bond issue, $807 million, was transferred into the Teachers Retirement System to help pay down a huge unfunded liability for teachers' pension costs.

The state budgets about $6.6 million a year for tobacco cessation programs - or less than one-fourth the $27.8 million that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in 2007 the state should be spending each year to undertake an effective anti-tobacco effort.

In 2006, Alaska desperately needed cash to complete a museum featuring a mummified bison and other natural wonders of the frozen north. So the state dipped into its share of the landmark 1998 tobacco settlement.

The billions that began flowing from cigarette makers to the states a decade ago also helped outfit the Niagara County, N.Y., golf course with new carts and sprinklers. And the money has gone toward college scholarships in Michigan, tax breaks in Illinois and Ohio, a dogcatcher in Lincoln, Neb., and jails and schools elsewhere around the country.

Altogether then about 82% of the $3.73 the consumer pays for the pack of cigarettes ends up flowing down in taxes or other payments to the government.

source

Aaron wrote:If the government believes that tobacco is a dangerous product, then they should ban it, not try and tax it out of existance.

At what point is enough enough?

Altogether then about 82% of the $3.73 the consumer pays for the pack of cigarettes ends up flowing down in taxes or other payments to the government.

source

Aaron wrote:So you're fine with a product having an 82% tax rate Willie?

bmd wrote:

Aaron wrote:So you're fine with a product having an 82% tax rate Willie?

Yup. Particularly when that 82% is STILL too small to pay for the damage tobacco inflicts upon society.

Aaron wrote:That's a cowards way of saying you want to keep getting the taxes Willie. You're not fooling anyone.

If it does as much damage as claimed, then tobacco should be banned, PERIOD.

Clyde wrote:So acceptance with unfair taxiation is the answer?

Clyde wrote:So what about McDonalds? When are they moving into the 82% tax bracket because obesity causes as much, if not more damage then smoking does.

Clyde wrote:And what about caffine[sic]? It's a 'drug'. When is[sic] coffee, soda and tea going into the 82% tax bracket?

Clyde wrote:Your reasoning shows your ignorance Willie.

bmd wrote:Sam,

"Denial" ain't just a river in Egypt. You make about as much sense when it comes to tobacco as creationists make when it comes to science.

SamCogar wrote:

bmd wrote:Sam,

"Denial" ain't just a river in Egypt. You make about as much sense when it comes to tobacco as creationists make when it comes to science.

That was a really piss-poor "cop-out", bmd.

But not surprising though, that was but a typical reply from you whenever you are unable to refute any statements or claims by another poster.

bmd, it must give you an awful sick feeling when you can't explain or defend those things that you claim to believe in.