I am opposed to this.

Wrong Bucko, It is 8 % Mark up which equals @ 2/1 gross prfit, not 8 % profit even close.:rolleyes:

True, the money has raised, is not at the retail or wholesale level, but at the State and Federal level.

So each level of Government wishes to use Tobacco as a cash cow, they are losing money, jobs, and taxes.

The disposable income is raising (?), well I am not so sure about that?

Little do you know or have a clue of how much profit is there for a Store like mine or others who have finally given up and said screw it.

Get a little experience from a store like mine and then Please come back and tell me what you find!:rolleyes:

If your business is no longer profitable, then you need to take steps to make it profitable. That may mean changing products, changing advertising methods, downsizing, etc. That's the nature of being in business. Times change, you have to be able to adapt in order to be a good small business owner. All business owners face challenges and hardships.

It's been no secret for the past several decades that cigarettes kill people and that the government and the public in general have been cracking down. Taxes, stricter laws, smoking bans in public places. This hasn't exactly just popped out at anyone.

If people quit smoking, they're not going to magically start saving that money under their pillowcase. They're going to spend it elsewhere, creating jobs in those fields.

Wow, how Proffetic you seem to be as you have never seem to have been in a small business.

Changing Product line up in My business is very hard, and I have tried to expand out somewhat. Say soft drinks, chips, nuts, incense or meat snacks.


Yes, there is a crusade about tobacco killing people per the AMA. But what else kills people? Perscription drugs maybe? Air quality from gasoline etal?

So, where are all of these Dollars that they use from not smoking going to?

What fields are they going to spend the $$ in?

Oh, maybe spend them over seas for outsourcing, or recalled Chinese lead based toys that Our Big Companies buy from? They then are recalled from the dangers of death?

Thanks for Your response, now are you going to send a report to Mod Corner about this post?

Tobacco kills 1000% more people than these, Tom. They're not even comparable.

This is just trite - if you really just want to whine, get a blog. If you actually want to discuss this topic, posts like this add nothing to the conversation, Tom.

There is no evidence that "money is going overseas" - the US economy is not exactly in shambles, and MORE MONEY is spent on tobacco each and every year, even while smoking is on the decline. If you want citations, I'll find them - but since you're in the industry, it's shocking you don't know these things.

This whole thing just rubs me the wrong way. God forbid the government taxes alcohol! Alcohol is more likely to injure someone else then tobacco is. Smokers, generally, only harm themselves.

But then again, it's not PC to smoke anymore. :rolleyes:

Big brother man... big brother..

This one goes even further. It's an employer who is charging employees if they are obese, smokers, diabetic or have high cholesterol or hypertension. Check it out:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/070802/au...&.pf=inusrance

I can understand charging smokers more because there is some life choice there but the others cannot always be controlled...

Really? Ever heard of 2nd hand smoke? It's just as, if not more dangerous than smoking the cigarette yourself. And, what's worse, normally the "victims" are the person's children that cannot speak for themselves... And while we're on that topic, let's discuss smoking while pregnant. I suppose that's only harming themselves as well? Cigarettes are just as bad as alcohol as far as harming others.

So? Even if we accept that they cannot be controlled (which I'm not sure is the case for obesity, and may be arguable for hypertension), these people cost more to insure and miss more time at work on the whole.

This means something has to give, and if they are more expensive to insure, their employer has every right to force them to pay the additional cost.

These people aren't "victims" - this is common sense and sound business.

So, where does it end? Is there anybody on this planet who doesn't have some health problem at some point in their life? Is someone with high cholesterol more expensive to insure than someone with all the other diseases in the world?

What about the logistics of this? Do you run blood tests and check blood pressure every pay period? How many times do you have to have a high reading to get fined? What if you typically have great blood pressure but just had a very stressful event happen and you have a one time reading of a high blood pressure? How in the world do you figure all this out? Aren't these people already paying by paying more co-pays for prescriptions and doctor visits?

When do we get to the point that everybody has to have genetic testing to make sure they aren't predisposed to illness because employers don't want to pay for their health insurance? Who would be employable then??? Where do you draw the line on this concept?

Hence the word choice "generally" in my statement. So there is no need for internet snarkiness...

Second hand smoking cannot be compared to the devestation created by drunk drivers.

I would rather see more rules in place to prevent drunks from behaving violently or possibly murdering someone by getting behind the wheel, then extreme taxes on smokers. Obviously hard time isn't effectively controlling people's will to drink and drive.

Anyway, second hand smoking has been controlled a great deal by states banning it in public places. We have no right to say what people do inside their homes, so we have to rely on education and proper resources to take care of young children exposed to it. I know plenty of smokers with children and they smoke outside to prevent just that. My mom smoked, but quit when she was pregnant with me. Lots of women do just that, the women that don't... well that's their idiotic choice. Hopefully their growing child won't be punished for the mother's poor judgement.

ETA: I looked up a few state laws and apparently Louisiana has a state law that bans smoking in vehicles when anyone under 12 is present. I couldn't really find any concrete information on any other state laws that are similar to this.

Sins of the Fathers...
 

The ole "sin taxes"...

Well, I don't like smoking although I myself have tried it... I drink alcohol, but drunk drivers suck. And well, abusing drugs--I have "scripts" for them! :rolleyes:

And what your med insurance pays for vs. Medi-who-cares pays? If you get hospitalized you will be paying for the 2X2 gauze...

What to do? I dunno. I guess they are legislating more ways to get money from the taxpayer. Make folks pay for their sinful delights? Is it right? Probably, because we all are adults that know these things are harmful for us. To think it is not, is to live in denial.

But, like I said, we are ADULTS... We make decisions all the time. The difference is, the kids. Especially for fattening food, like french fries and sodas everyday. Kids' brains are still developing, you get your knowledge of satiety from what you are eating and the timing you fed. Who knows?

On another note: Hypertension have several affected genes that are environmentally responsive. Increased blood pressure may precede organ failures: namely kidney, brain, and heart. There are others. Diabetes is dysregulation of blood sugar and may be due to loss of pancreatic function and/or insulin resistance. Heart Attack, the genes are numerous. And we have not started the discussion about cancers...

Unless a smoker is alone 100% of the time when they smoke, I don't think that "generally" works either.

My mother owned a DUI counseling center, where I worked for MANY years. I've seen all the videos, training materials, etc, etc. and I've met the clients...hundreds of them, and out of all of them, more rules might have stopped 10 of them from drinking & driving. You can make all the rules you want, but until car companies start putting foolproof BAC meters on ALL cars, there will always be drinking and driving. I wish rules and stipulations and fines and etc would stop people, but it doesn't.

Oh, and about "hard time" controlling people's will to drink and drive...you must be talking about the 5 hours before their buddy comes and bails them out of the city jail, DUI offenders don't do "hard time" unless they kill someone. At least not in most states.

No, but people with "other diseases" often . . . pay more!

If you have AIDS and switch employers, see how quickly you're placed onto their insurance - or see what rates you get when you go outside your employer if you've had even something like plantar warts removed.

This is just employers catching onto what the insurers have done for decades - and that's how it should be.

Insurance is nothing more than pooling risk among a large group - and if you make up more of that "risk pool" why on Earth shouldn't you pay more? For that reason, who cares "where it ends"? It SHOULDN'T end!

Co-pays are a small to negligible amount (depending on the type of visit), and don't account for the increased risk you carry . . .past that, all of these are logistical elements that the company can work out on its own, and don't seem particularly invasive to me.

Why is this so scary? If you're predisposed to, say, MS, shouldn't that affect what you pay in? If it doesn't, aren't you charging the healthy people more?

I think you're being needlessly alarmist - especially since if people do indeed find this offensive or invasive, then market forces will handle whether employers do this sort of thing.

If you're a healthy individual and you're paying the same as an obese smoker with a tendency toward long-term, expensive, debilitating illness, you are getting screwed by the system, right?

Ummm . . . the government does tax alcohol.

Well, last I heard, one couldn't be criminally charged with smoking and driving. In many places, drunk driving that results in death is being prosecuted as murder.

You're right that hard time isn't deterring some people, but I'm not sure what "rules" would be more effective than the threat of prison. Not higher taxes, certainly.