Welcome to Ocala.com Blogs - Smoke 'em if you got 'em

Opinion

Ocala.com Bloggers

Search Blogs



KeywordsPhrase

Blog Archives

Archive

July 2008

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Monthly

July, 2008

June, 2008

May, 2008

April, 2008

March, 2008

February, 2008

January, 2008

December, 2007

November, 2007

October, 2007

Smoke 'em if you got 'em

Location: Blogs Broken News
Posted by: Bill Thompson	1/14/2008 4:06 PM
The decision by the city of Ocala and, more recently, Marion County, to ban the hiring of smokers illustrates that the war on smoking continues to be vigorously waged. Nothing like making a group of people feeling like second-class citizens for doing something legal. Nonetheless, we were treated to more salvos in this fight the other day, this time from the American Lung Association. The ALA, in handing down its annual tobacco report card, officially known as the State of Tobacco Control report, gives Florida an "F" on its cigarette tax rate. Florida taxes smokers 34 cents a pack, an amount that was enacted in 1990. To get an idea of how the ALA feels about this, they handed out only two A's, one to New Jersey ($2.58 a pack) and one to Rhode Island ($2.46 a pack). It seems to get above a B, states have to top $2 a pack. Here's the whole chart. The national average is $1.04 a pack. The ALA told the Associated Press that Florida should raise its cigarette tax by $1 a pack, and they have found someone in the Legislature to carry the load, Rep. Jim Waldman, D-Coconut Creek. Waldman's bill (HB 309) would raise the tax a dollar a pack. But the ALA's own report, "Trends in Tobacco Use," undermines the point of this. For one thing, the report notes that consumption of cigarettes per person in the U.S. was 4,345 in 1963, and has steadily dropped since then to the 1,654 observed in 2006. The 2006 level was the lowest per-person amount in 70 years. The percentage of the population that smokes fell 40 percent between 1965 and 1990, but has remained relatively flat ever since. Regarding raw numbers, the anti-smoking shift doesn't appear to be that great.In 1965, 50 million people smoked, while today, 45 million do. But today, just 21 percent of the adult population smokes today, about half the rate of 1965. Or in other words, the number of nonsmokers doubled. It can be argued that smoking reached its peak in 1965 because the U.S. Surgeon General began smacking his warning about the health effects of smoking on cigarette packs in 1964. Since then we've seen a relentless, almost religious, public relations campaign to denounce smoking and the tobacco industry, including Florida's landmark multibillion-dollar settlement with the tobacco companies, coupled with things like the growth of smoking alternatives (the nicotine patch) and programs to help people quit. What's interesting in the ALA report is the effect of taxes. Since 2002 the number of people who smoke has dropped from 22.5 million to 21 million. Yet in that time, 43 states plus Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico, have increased cigarette taxes, with several doing so more than once. The report shows that more people quit smoking in the first five years after the initial Surgeon General's warning than have in the last five years when taxes --- as opposed to education --- were thought to be more effective. Only in Bizarro World does increasing taxes as a way to get people to quit really make sense. Smokers die about 14 years sooner than nonsmokers, according to the ALA, so the government loses either way. It either has to hope to increase the number of smokers to keep the revenue stream going and growing, or if successful, and the number of smokers drops, we'll have to pay more for health care as these people age. Education, as with most things, is always better than government coercion, financial or otherwise.

Permalink \| Trackback

Comments (10) Add Comment

Re: Smoke 'em if you got 'em

By Gerry Brent on 1/17/2008 11:43 AM

I would never argue against education; however, with smokers, they've heard it all. They know the risks. I've seen a person who survived lung cancer and has one lung go back to smoking. Tell me that person isn't aware that there is a problem with that! At least give us the tax money. With the property tax situation, we need money any way we can get it. Maybe feeling the pinch in the pocketbook will encourage people to choose between their mortgage payments and cigarettes.

Re: Smoke 'em if you got 'em

By Sam Wilson on 1/17/2008 11:44 PM

Let me preface this by saying that I am a non-smoker. Smoking is either illegal or it's not, and if it's not then smokers should in no way be discriminated against(nor in favor of). over-taxation of a specific "vice" is a form of discrimination, I believe. If I wanted to kill myself would you try to stop me by imposing a tax on bullets? Is this just an excuse to raise tax revenue? <br> - S J Wilson <a href="http://www.samwilson3d.com>SamWilson3d</a>

Re: Smoke 'em if you got 'em

By Gerry Brent on 1/18/2008 4:25 PM

Whether it's legal or not, smoking infringes on my right to fresh air. When I have to walk past a group of smokers outside of a building, I'm subjected to their cigarette smoke. When I have to sit next to a person who just came in from their 90th smoking break for the day, I have to smell the tobacco on their clothing. Overeating, bungee jumping - all self-destructive acts - don't affect anyone but the person doing the act. You can't say that about smoking. Alcoholics who stay home and drink (and don't drive) don't affect anyone but themselves. But even though alcohol is legal, you don't see companies letting their employees imbibe on the job.

Re: Smoke 'em if you got 'em	By TBoutwell on 1/29/2008 1:17 PM
Smoking it public should not be allowed. Do it in your home if you want but don't make me have to be exposed.

Re: Smoke 'em if you got 'em	By debbie on 2/20/2008 10:22 PM
I also am a non smoker and I agree if they dont want people to smoke then make it illegal .The goverment should stop using it as away to get extra tax money! You know whats funny about this is when I was a kid both my Parents smoked and most of my friends parents smoked yet I did not know one Child that had any kind of breathing problems !

Re: Smoke 'em if you got 'em	By Scott on 2/20/2008 10:49 PM
If they want people to quit smoking then,Put that patch next to that pack of Cigs and make it affordable to buy!

Re: Smoke 'em if you got 'em

By Kyle Culley on 3/5/2008 12:02 PM

Wake up people. As I understand the way the ban on smoking to be written, you're not allowed to smoke at home either. This type of policy started years ago in the North Miami government. I do understand that it is a Healthcare Cost Issue, but it's scary to know that some companies drug test for nicotine and will fire accordingly.<br><br>My question for Marion County is: If new county employees are prohibited from smoking on breaks and at home what will happen to a new County Commissioner who likes to go out on the town and smoke a really good cigar?

STANK IN THE WORKPLACE

By MarlboroMan on 3/9/2008 12:19 AM

Granted, cigarette smoke is pretty nasty and I don't like smelling it either, but this is America. You'd have to be living underneath a rock not to be aware of the dangers associated with smoking. Having said that, I say let them smoke their selves to death if that's what they choose to do. You cannot discriminate against a co-worker because his/her clothing smells like smoke, no more than you can discriminate against a person who wears too much perfume/cologne, or a person who smells like they've just spent the last week living inside an Indian food establishment. My only suggestion for you is to surround yourself with a bunch of air fresheners of your choosing. I got so sick and tired of the stinky armpits, the cheap perfume, the passing of gas and a lot of others nasty odors that I won't go into, that I've made my personal workspace into a shrine of fresheners that GLAD would be impressed with. The funny thing about it is, one of the nasty smelling cigarette smokers is actually offended by the overabundance of my air fresheners and sprays!

Re: Smoke 'em if you got 'em

By gb on 4/6/2008 2:48 PM

being an x smoker myself, while I indulged I could not be around others that smoked. I dont understand how people could close themselves into a room and breath at the same time, or have thier car windows rolled up while they smoke. I hated going to clubs, my next door neighbors house, or anywhere that people closed themselves in and smoked. In did not even like my own second hand smoke. so I got tired of it and quit.

Re: Smoke 'em if you got 'em	By ADVICE IS CHEAP on 4/20/2008 10:56 AM
IT IS STILL A FREE COUNTRY! NO, I DO NOT SMOKE, BUT I COULD SMOKE A PACK OF CIGARETTES AND STILL DRIVE; HOWEVER, A CASE OF BEER WOULD DEFINITELY ENDANGER SEVERAL PEOPLE. A DRUNK DOES NOT HAVE TO LEAVE HOME TO HURT PEOPLE. HOW ABOUT MORE TAXES & CONTROL ON ALCOHOL?

Your name:
Title:
Comment:

Add Comment Cancel