tobacco talk :)
Poll
 | 10 votes (18.86%) | ||
| | 10 votes (18.86%) | ||
| | 31 votes (58.49%) | ||
| | 2 votes (3.77%) |
53 members have voted
Quote: AZDuffmanThe feds are funny like that!
Just remember, who makes more money off of a pack of cigarettes:
A.) The farmer
B.) The cigarette company
C.) The retailer
D.) State and Federal government
I was gonna say health care, but I guess you can now just plop that into "D" =D
Quote: FaceQuote: AZDuffmanThe feds are funny like that!
Just remember, who makes more money off of a pack of cigarettes:
A.) The farmer
B.) The cigarette company
C.) The retailer
D.) State and Federal government
I was gonna say health care, but I guess you can now just plop that into "D" =D
Jimmy Burke has been dead for almost 20 years or he would be "E."
As to smoking and casinos that brings us back to the strongly held belief that most gamblers smoke like a chimney, a belief very strongly held to by casino owners and legislators.
I see no use in discussing this belief, but it might be sensible for someone to dig up the original work on Reward Deficiency Syndrome and see if in fact that is a genetic basis for smoking, sky-diving, drug use, violent crime, etc. etc. I've watched these tv specials on child molestations and hardly seen a perpetrator who obviously doesn't need an endocrinologist. Much of our crime and anti social behavior may be genetically linked. We need more data. The trouble is that politically sensitive groups pounce on scientists who try to link crime with genetics fearing it will be linked to race.
Quote: FleaStiffWell, its referred to as a "sin tax" so I guess we don't really have to quibble as to whether Health Care or Government is the greater sin in this nation.
As to smoking and casinos that brings us back to the strongly held belief that most gamblers smoke like a chimney, a belief very strongly held to by casino owners and legislators.
I see no use in discussing this belief, but it might be sensible for someone to dig up the original work on Reward Deficiency Syndrome and see if in fact that is a genetic basis for smoking, sky-diving, drug use, violent crime, etc. etc. I've watched these tv specials on child molestations and hardly seen a perpetrator who obviously doesn't need an endocrinologist. Much of our crime and anti social behavior may be genetically linked. We need more data. The trouble is that politically sensitive groups pounce on scientists who try to link crime with genetics fearing it will be linked to race.
Another great post by FleaStiff.....your one smart dude.
CVS beginning Oct 1 will no longer sell tobacco products. The decision will cost CVS an estimated 2 billion in sales annually.
Quote: mickeycrimmI have a friend who spends a couple of months a year in Thailand. And he tells me that premium cigarettes like Marlboro sell for $6.50 a carton there. And he tells me there are American ex-patriots there shipping them back to the United States by the case. I wonder if this is really true.
It very likely is true, people do all kinds of tax evasion stuff with tobacco to make a lot of money. That seems risky though, depending on how they are shipped, I had a friends dad, who bought cigarettes like this from somebody oversees for personal use, and the customs were secretly tracking it (not seizing it), and at the end of the year they billed him all of the money they owed him in back taxes (thousands of dollars), and pretty much said he had to pay or go to jail. If they are secretly tracking him (which is possible if he is shipping them through legal means) hundreds of cartons a day, he will probably end up with a bill for millions of dollars at the end of the year lol.
Prison smuggling in America is another popular way (even though its not tax evasion), but bringing cigarettes into prisons with really strict tobacco policies is profitable (at some really strict prisons they can go for over 100 bucks a PACK, so even if you buy them for 12 dollars a pack you can still make a ton of money), and very low legal risk, since in a worst case scenario all the prison guards can really do is take them from you.
Quote: GandlerIt very likely is true, people do all kinds of tax evasion stuff with tobacco to make a lot of money. That seems risky though, depending on how they are shipped, I had a friends dad, who bought cigarettes like this from somebody oversees for personal use, and the customs were secretly tracking it (not seizing it), and at the end of the year they billed him all of the money they owed him in back taxes (thousands of dollars), and pretty much said he had to pay or go to jail. If they are secretly tracking him (which is possible if he is shipping them through legal means) hundreds of cartons a day, he will probably end up with a bill for millions of dollars at the end of the year lol.
Happens on the rez here all the time. City folk will (attempt to) buy them by the truckload if they can, although it's mostly patrolled now down to 10 cartons max. Buy up for $25-$30 a carton, run em to the city, and sell them for $7 a pack.
I recall time in college. My best friend / roommate and I had it pretty good for awhile. He'd come to me when I was working the smoke shop, I'd give him premium brands at rock bottom prices, and we'd sell them out of our dorm fridge all year long. The fact that it was as bad a crime as selling coke was a non issue; we had a constant and seemingly unlimited flow of beer money, and life was good.
Quote: treetopbuddyAnother great post by FleaStiff.....your one smart dude.
CVS beginning Oct 1 will no longer sell tobacco products. The decision will cost CVS an estimated 2 billion in sales annually.
I'm glad to see CVS take a stance against tobacco. They are headquartered in Rhode Island and do a lot for charity, especially in the Southern New England area. My wife and I volunteer at their charity golf tournament in Barrington. It consistently draws some of the top pros in the world.
On the other side of the coin, this company has been in so much trouble over the years that I don't know where to start. Trouble with the feds, the state and various agencies within them. There have been charges of kickbacks, deceptive practices, fraud and corruption to name some.
Anyway, good for them for taking a stance.
Quote: FaceQuote: AZDuffmanThe feds are funny like that!
Just remember, who makes more money off of a pack of cigarettes:
A.) The farmer
B.) The cigarette company
C.) The retailer
D.) State and Federal government
I was gonna say health care, but I guess you can now just plop that into "D" =D
I recently heard of a study (didn't read it myself, so this is second-hand) that smokers actually end up spending less on health care of the span of their life because they die earlier. Healthier folk live longer, into their 70s and 80s, so even though they have fewer health problems in their younger and middle-age years, they end up spending more on the back end.
I will try to dig up any evidence on this, but to me it passes the smell test.
Quote: 1BBI'm glad to see CVS take a stance against tobacco. They are headquartered in Rhode Island and do a lot for charity, especially in the Southern New England area. My wife and I volunteer at their charity golf tournament in Barrington. It consistently draws some of the top pros in the world.
On the other side of the coin, this company has been in so much trouble over the years that I don't know where to start. Trouble with the feds, the state and various agencies within them. There have been charges of kickbacks, deceptive practices, fraud and corruption to name some.
Anyway, good for them for taking a stance.
They are probably hoping it will benefit them years down the road when hardly anyone smokes anymore. Then they can be like "look at us we were standing against tobacco when it was not popular to do so" it will be good publicity for them later on.
Quote: AcesAndEightsI recently heard of a study (didn't read it myself, so this is second-hand) that smokers actually end up spending less on health care of the span of their life because they die earlier. Healthier folk live longer, into their 70s and 80s, so even though they have fewer health problems in their younger and middle-age years, they end up spending more on the back end.
I will try to dig up any evidence on this, but to me it passes the smell test.
Not only that, but decreased life span also lessens the drain on Social Security and reduces the use of valuable resources, not to mention the tons of money smokers pump into social and healthcare programs by way of taxes.
Hold your applause, it's the least I could do ;)
Quote: AcesAndEights
I recently heard of a study (didn't read it myself, so this is second-hand) that smokers actually end up spending less on health care of the span of their life because they die earlier. Healthier folk live longer, into their 70s and 80s, so even though they have fewer health problems in their younger and middle-age years, they end up spending more on the back end.
I will try to dig up any evidence on this, but to me it passes the smell test.
I remember hearing this during the MSA talks in 1997. It was a point the tobacco companies could not bring up even though it was seemingly true.
Quote: GandlerThey are probably hoping it will benefit them years down the road when hardly anyone smokes anymore.
If I owned company shares, I'm not sure I'd be pleased about planning for an event that will occur several million years in the future.
For what it's worth, in today's trading CVS is down 1.5%. Walgreen (WAG) and Rite Aid (RAD) are each up about 1.5%.
Quote: FaceQuote: AcesAndEightsI recently heard of a study (didn't read it myself, so this is second-hand) that smokers actually end up spending less on health care of the span of their life because they die earlier. Healthier folk live longer, into their 70s and 80s, so even though they have fewer health problems in their younger and middle-age years, they end up spending more on the back end.
I will try to dig up any evidence on this, but to me it passes the smell test.
Not only that, but decreased life span also lessens the drain on Social Security and reduces the use of valuable resources, not to mention the tons of money smokers pump into social and healthcare programs by way of taxes.
Hold your applause, it's the least I could do ;)
Yes smoking is excellent for governments, the more people who smoke the more money they save. If America still had the same smoking rates as the 1930s social security and pension reforms would likley not be an issue.
Not too long ago a big tobacco company (I think Altria) did a study for a South American government when they were considering banning smoking ads and demonstrated how much money they will save by encouraging smoking. And then add absurd per pack taxes and cigarettes become hugely profitable.
If every smoker in America quit overnight our country would be in serious trouble.
Not really. All smoking bans and enforcement of them are political decisions and such decisions are not always based on sufficiently studied evidence.Quote: treetopbuddyAnother great post by FleaStiff.....your one smart dude.
Many smoking bans have lead to enhanced economic experiences for bar owners despite bar owners being the most vigorous opponents of such legislation. We don't really know enough to properly link genes to gross behavior traits but we do have some data. The problem is also whether you classify gambling as risky or impulsive behavior. Its sort of like sky diving. The only risk is in the landing and its hardly "impulsive" to get dressed in an orange jump suit, don your chute and fly up to altitude Some people like epinephrine but want more of it.
All we know is that certain gene groupings do seem to cluster around certain behaviors that most people define as risky such as speeding or illegal drug use.
If it is later found that despite there being some non-smoking gamblers the overwhelming majority of gamblers both smoke and share a particular genetic mutation, then we can revisit some of the legislation.
We allow drinking but we only allow lower and lower amounts of alcohol in the blood. Are we going to have puff testing someday?
Quote: FaceQuote: AcesAndEightsI recently heard of a study (didn't read it myself, so this is second-hand) that smokers actually end up spending less on health care of the span of their life because they die earlier. Healthier folk live longer, into their 70s and 80s, so even though they have fewer health problems in their younger and middle-age years, they end up spending more on the back end.
I will try to dig up any evidence on this, but to me it passes the smell test.
Not only that, but decreased life span also lessens the drain on Social Security and reduces the use of valuable resources, not to mention the tons of money smokers pump into social and healthcare programs by way of taxes.
Hold your applause, it's the least I could do ;)
I believe your correct. Smokers die younger........It could be argued that smokers are unsung hero's. The value smokers create can't be overstated. Celebrating the smoker would be the right thing to do.... maybe a National Day for Smokers?
We measure emphysema costs virtually all of which are attributable to smokers but smokers die of other diseases too and have medical costs well before they start hacking away all day.
Alot of hotels and office buildings are non smoking and they went that way for business reasons involving cleaning rather than legislation or politics.
How much lost productivity do you want to chalk up to the effects of inhaled carbon monoxide? Do you want to charge the last two hours a day of a computer programmer at a high rate to "smoking costs" because you have to pay him for less productive work?
Quote: Gandler
Yes smoking is excellent for governments, the more people who smoke the more money they save. If America still had the same smoking rates as the 1930s social security and pension reforms would likley not be an issue.
If not for smoking the entire British Colonies might not have been near as prosperous. For sure George Washington and others would not have been nearly as wealthy and thus not likely to be able to revolt. Tobacco has built many an empire.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf not for smoking the entire British Colonies might not have been near as prosperous. For sure George Washington and others would not have been nearly as wealthy and thus not likely to be able to revolt. Tobacco has built many an empire.
Yea the only reason we (as American) even exist at all is because of tobacco. If not for tobacco farming Europeans would have never settled here. That was (and still is) Americas most valuable and worthwhile crop to be grown here (well corn may be higher now). Jamestown was founded for tobacco. Tobacco did not exist in Europe which is why it was so exclusive here (Christopher Columbus and his crew were the first European smokers).
Innovations in shipping were driven by the China tea trade, England wanting its tea fresh.
China ended its opium problem by making growing or posessing opium an un=appealable death penalty.
Quote: GandlerYea the only reason we (as American) even exist at all is because of tobacco. If not for tobacco farming Europeans would have never settled here. That was (and still is) Americas most valuable and worthwhile crop to be grown here (well corn may be higher now). Jamestown was founded for tobacco. Tobacco did not exist in Europe which is why it was so exclusive here (Christopher Columbus and his crew were the first European smokers).
What about soybean? I'm from Indiana and i am used to seeing tons of corn and soybean fields. Farmers would rotate growing the two crops.
Corn of course sustained the American Indians and the settlers. Fifty hours of labor would bring in a corn crop. No wonder they even made pipes out of it.
Quote: FleaStiffSoybeans are oil seeds, not beans. A comparatively recent crop.
Corn of course sustained the American Indians and the settlers. Fifty hours of labor would bring in a corn crop. No wonder they even made pipes out of it.
How many ears of corn is a crop?
[Off Topic: Oh beats me, but at fifty hours of labor for one year ... it sure wasn't much work.Quote: rudeboyoiHow many ears of corn is a crop?
You cleared the land, planted the corn. left it alone... harvested it. And it was food, fire material, very portable medium of exchange when distilled ... and husks were even used at toilet paper./OffTopic]
Quote: FleaStiff
China ended its opium problem by making growing or posessing opium an un=appealable death penalty.
Bingo!
Quote: FleaStiffMany smoking bans have lead to enhanced economic experiences for bar owners despite bar owners being the most vigorous opponents of such legislation.
This was not the case with the Helena, Montana smoking ban of 2002. Voters in the city passed a smoking ban for bars/restaurants/casinos. Revenue fell 20% overnight and stayed that way as long as the ban was in effect. Business boomed in the business's outside the city limits. Revenue across the rest of the state remained the same. The Montana Tavern Owners Association was outraged. They made legal challenges and the law was eventually overturned. Revenue went back up to pre smoking ban levels. The Helena smoking ban was followed nationwide by pro and anti smoking groups.
The statewide smoking ban took effect on 1 Oct 2009. Revenue dropped 17%. It's been about 4 1/2 years now since the ban took effect and revenue is up to about 92% of the pre smoking ban years.
I make my living in these little bitty casinos in Montana. I quickly got used to smoking outside. It's no big deal at all. And, believe it or not, I actually got used to the clean air inside. This past summer my buddy Hap and me took a trip over to Coeur d' Alene Casino just south of Coeur D'Alene, Idaho. It was the first time in 4 years I had been inside a smoking casino. It seemed like everyone in the joint was smoking. The place STUNK TO HIGH HEAVEN!
All I found in the joint was Ulimate X's. I made a few hundred dollars....then got to twiddle my thumbs. No one was giving the game any action. I just caught the buildup because no one there was working it. I told Hap it wasn't worth the gas and hotel bill to drive over there.
Quote: FleaStiffActually its not quite true.
We measure emphysema costs virtually all of which are attributable to smokers but smokers die of other diseases too and have medical costs well before they start hacking away all day.
Alot of hotels and office buildings are non smoking and they went that way for business reasons involving cleaning rather than legislation or politics.
How much lost productivity do you want to chalk up to the effects of inhaled carbon monoxide? Do you want to charge the last two hours a day of a computer programmer at a high rate to "smoking costs" because you have to pay him for less productive work?
Thats exactly right; while I'm not anti tobacco by any means, the argument that smoking is so great for governments is kind of misleading; the taxes do at the end of the day bring in a profit but its not 100% by any means. Sure smokers die earlier but up until that point their health care costs are a boatload higher than nonsmokers. Know how much a lung cancer operation costs? How about extensive treatment for COPD, not to mention the general fact that smokers go to the doctor a lot more than non smokers. I'm not against TOBACCO on the other hand though, one thing that anti smoking groups don't like to admit: its not the tobacco or the nicotine that kills people, its the smoke. Any time you light something on fire and breathe in the smoke, its gonna screw up your lungs. Nicotine by itself, I don't give a shit what the FDA or the American Heart/Lung/(whatever body part the johnsnon and johnson corporation wants to create a "charity" in the name of to market and lobby for their drugs) Associations say, is no worse than caffiene. Thats why I suppourt harm reduction, which basically involves having smokers switch to other, far less hazardous forms of nicotine consumption, namely swedish style snus (type of snuff thats pasturized to reduce carcinogens rather then fermented like american chewing tobaccos which increases carcinogens), dissolvable tobacco, and E-cigs.
Quote: treetopbuddyI'm guessing that when the ban went in effect a higher percentage of sales did not go through register.
The gambling machines keep their own stats and are audited by the state.
Quote: mickeycrimmThe gambling machines keep their own stats and are audited by the state.
I was primarily referring to ma pa bars and restaurants........no doubt casinos are highly regulated. Hard to skim.
Quote: Zer0its not the tobacco or the nicotine that kills people, its the smoke.
I suppourt harm reduction, which basically involves having smokers switch to other, far less hazardous forms of nicotine consumption, namely swedish style snus (type of snuff thats pasturized to reduce carcinogens rather then fermented like american chewing tobaccos which increases carcinogens), dissolvable tobacco, and E-cigs.
Smokeless products are much less obnoxious to innocent bystanders, especially snus since apparently there's no spitting.
But there's a perception of smokers as tortured addicts that doesn't ring true with me. Surveys show 75% of smokers would like to quit, which I find hard to believe. For many people, smoking is an anti-intellectual lifestyle choice that enables them to conform without conforming. It helps them fit in with their peers, while differentiating from the mainstream. They enjoy every aspect of smoking, and they don't seek a replacement, nor would snus be a suitable one.
Quote: treetopbuddyI was primarily referring to ma pa bars and restaurants........no doubt casinos are highly regulated. Hard to skim.
In Montana a bar is a casino and a casino is a bar. There are 1700 bars in Montana. Good luck finding one that doesn't have machines in it. A licensed establishment has booze, and has up to 20 machines, and they may have a restaurant. The machines are the main revenue. When video poker and video keno were legalized in Montana it caused the going price of a liquor to go from about $100,000 up to $1,000,000. The price of a liquor license dropped way off after the smoking ban. One owner sold his for $500,000. Typically, the Montana Tavern Owners Association was outraged. They talked the legislature into throwing them another bone. They legalized video line games. It has been a revenue booster. The going price of a liquor license has gone back up.
As a long time smoker I agree with the anti-smoking lobby that smoking should not be allowed in bars/casinos. But what I don't like about the anti-smoking lobby is their intellectual dishonesty. Everywhere a smoking ban has been implemented revenue has dropped. The bar owners complain about it. The anti-smokers blame the revenue drop on everything but the real cause, the smoking ban itself. I never heard an anti-smoker say something like "Yeah, sure, revenue drops because of the smoking ban, but that's the price we have to pay to protect our health." No, anti-smokers make statements like yours, Treetop. "They are robbing the till to make it look like they are losing revenue." You betcha!
With the anti-smoking lobby the end justifies the means.
Quote: mickeycrimmThis past summer my buddy Hap and me took a trip over to Coeur d' Alene Casino just south of Coeur D'Alene, Idaho. It was the first time in 4 years I had been inside a smoking casino. It seemed like everyone in the joint was smoking. The place STUNK TO HIGH HEAVEN!
Quote:But what I don't like about the anti-smoking lobby is their intellectual dishonesty.
With the anti-smoking lobby the end justifies the means.
I see a lot of questionable analysis from all directions.
I think the government-ban proponents usually claim (falsely) that casino patrons are regular, ordinary people, so a ban would be no big deal because most people don't smoke anyway. I'm not sure the anti-smokers are dishonest, it's just that they never visit casinos, so they have no experience.
The status-quo proponents understand that a ban would be disruptive because casinos are cesspools of degeneracy, but they ignore that the industry as it presently exists is severely limited by its close association with smoking.
To achieve its full potential, IMO, the industry must confine smoke to areas that can reasonably be avoided by non-smoking patrons. Government intervention is always a risk, but I only support voluntary action, which I believe is possible within my lifetime ... assuming I live to the age of 100,000,000.
Quote: gpac1377Smokeless products are much less obnoxious to innocent bystanders, especially snus since apparently there's no spitting.
But there's a perception of smokers as tortured addicts that doesn't ring true with me. Surveys show 75% of smokers would like to quit, which I find hard to believe. For many people, smoking is an anti-intellectual lifestyle choice that enables them to conform without conforming. It helps them fit in with their peers, while differentiating from the mainstream. They enjoy every aspect of smoking, and they don't seek a replacement, nor would snus be a suitable one.
While that may be true for some people, you'll find that many tobacco users are smoking to self-medicate. It's not just nicotine they're addicted to; tobacco naturally contains MAOIs that are shown to have a positve effect on people with many mental disorders such as depression, bi-polar, and even schizophrenia (which by the way studies show around 80% of people with are smokers). Nicotine is also very benefical to those who suffer from ADHD, in fact many ADHD medications' mechanisms are based on what nicotine does; they both target the exact same receptors. Why do you think smoking and gambling go hand in hand? Whats one thing those two have in common? Impulsivity. Smokers are shown time and time again to be among the most impulsive people.
The mind says one thing and the body keeps asking, "are you sure, are you sure, are you still sure?"Quote: gpac1377Smokeless products are much less obnoxious to innocent bystanders, especially snus since apparently there's no spitting.
But there's a perception of smokers as tortured addicts that doesn't ring true with me. Surveys show 75% of smokers would like to quit, which I find hard to believe. For many people, smoking is an anti-intellectual lifestyle choice that enables them to conform without conforming. It helps them fit in with their peers, while differentiating from the mainstream. They enjoy every aspect of smoking, and they don't seek a replacement, nor would snus be a suitable one.
Life's a gift: try not to piss it away.
Quote: MrVI was talking with an old girl friend from Back in the Day, and she said she was surprised that the two of us were still alive, as most of the people we knew died of drugs, violence or a car wreck.
Life's a gift: try not to piss it away.
Everyone does. Sadly, many people never truly live.
