(no subject)

[rootofnewt]

it's about damn time. i hope the tax actually gets passed. and I'm glad PM is no longer threatening to pull production out of VA or the US if VA raises the tobacco tax. I mean, sure, I'd be happier if PM didn't exist, but the fact is that people do rely on tobacco for their incomes and some of those people do live in my state.

Comments

[lightning-rose.livejournal.com]

If PM moves it's manufacturing plant(s) out of VA, it'll be for cheaper labor costs (probably Mexico), not because of cigarette taxes at the retail level.

[krasota.livejournal.com]

In the past, they've threatened to move out if the tax is elevated... it was basically a lobbying move with VA legislators--threaten a major economy blow to the state. They also made threats when VA was debating what to do with their share of the tobacco settlement money... Maryland, for example, paid off tobacco farmers to never grow tobacco again, or something. And I think they threatened with the move to Poland, actually, but I can't remember so well anymore.

[javafiend.livejournal.com]

Aww, no fair, picking on us poor little addicts. I'm certain it won't hurt PM's revenue, no matter how high the taxes rise.

[seeliespright.livejournal.com]

Higher cigarette taxes to generate revinue to smoking prevention measures and to care for victims of smoking = good. However, I do not trust our government to use the revinue they generate from higher taxes _solely_ for that purpose. Our government has a long history of wasting money and they continue to do so today.

As far as higher taxes significantly decreasing the sale of cigarettes, not likely. But they will make it a more expensive habit and so, not as convenient.

As far as higher taxes hurting Phillip Morris,
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
That's cute.

What we need are more class action lawsuits brought by groups of people that will take _billions_ of dollars from the tobacco industry, Philip Morris in particular. THAT is what made them uncomfortable (mark all the recent changes in marketing, anti-smoking ads from PM for kids, etc). Granted, a great deal of PM's philanthropy was dictated and enforced by the state and the amount they spent on anti-smoking advertizing vs. the amount they spend yearly on advertizing is millions to BILLIONS or trillions or something ridiculous like that.

I have much much more to say on the subject that I won't expound upon here.

I will only say, what we really need is: to gradually make it more and more difficult to obtain cigarettes and maintain the habit, encourage and support programs for quitting smoking and preventing the start of the habit, and eventually to get to the point where we can shut down the production of cigarettes altogether.

However, that takes time. And money. And determination. And a change in society.

If ya want more, ask me; you'll get it.

[seeliespright.livejournal.com]

Quick other comment: "people do rely on tobacco for their incomes and some of those people do live in my state" but that shouldn't stop you from fighting/lobbying against the tobacco industry.

Just as the fact that many people are employed by the oil and other crude fuels industry but we shouldn't stop lobbying for alternative energy sources and an eventual disbandment of the industry.

[krasota.livejournal.com]

oh, i totally don't want to support the industry and do try to actively lobby against it, so far as my health allows me. i used to be more active in petition gathering/signing/presenting, letter-writing, etc. i just meant--i can understand why legislators would be hesitant to piss off a major employer (and consumer, though that sounds worse than i mean) of their constituents.

[seeliespright.livejournal.com]

Oh, of course. My comment was actually directed in general. I didn't mean anything against you. I should have been clearer.

And I know what you mean about not being active. I am afraid that I have gotten so wrapped up in college life / work that I haven't campagned in quite some time. But I've been thinking lately and most definately want to become more involved because I see _so many_ people smoking at this university. And it's so prevalent in our society.

It's difficult sometimes though because those close to me smoke. And I know, that should make it easier but it has actually made it harder for me. Because two of my friends smoke to stabilize their mood... and how do you approach that?

"You should stop smoking"
"I'll have a panic attack if I don't smoke"
"Oh... well..."

Anyways, whenever approaching the subject, I go with the understanding that many, I would venture to say most, of the people who smoke would like to quit but just find it so difficult. So, I just point out how harmful to their health it is and how harmful it can be to others. Then direct them to resources for quitting and leave it at that.

[krasota.livejournal.com]

If boy had taken up smoking to stabilize his moods when he started having anxiety problems, I'd have kicked him out. (Don't think I'm joking, either.)

Instead, he discovered that diet is responsible for a lot of his mood issues. He also went through the gamut of psychotherapy (blah, he needed cognitive behavioral therapy, NOT psychoanalysis), drugs (oh, those did NOT agree with him), and settled on reiki, qi gong, tai chi, meditation, exercise, diet, and taking time for himself (which is what all of those add up to). Kinda hard to learn that in college, but it's very important.

I have close friends who smoke. I hate the smoke. I hate the tobacco. I don't hate the smokers. That doesn't mean I think smoking should be allowed in public, though. And I'm sorry if my friends feel ostracized--I feel that my right to breathe and be migraine-free trumps their right to smoke. I go to the Dawning to socialize, but it costs me a few days of dawning hangover afterward and lots of asthma/allergy drugs on Sat night to even manage to stay upright in there.