There is a new federal tax going into effect April 1, 2009 that will tax all tobacco products.

$6.50 per carton for cigarettes.
$10.00 per carton tax for small cigars.
And a substantial tax on loose tobacco if you want to roll your own cigarettes.
10 cents per can of dip, chew, smokeless tobacco.

This new tax is supposedly to pay for the children who don't have health insurance. This bill was started back in Nov by Bush.

I was floored when I went into a tobacco shop on Friday to find that the tax bill had been passed and not a peep was said in the newspapers or other media.

Isn't this going to be the equivalent of double taxation if we have the health care plan jammed down our throats?

This means that the cost of a carton of name brand cigarettes will cost more than $50 per carton out the door (where I live in Ohio). Are they trying to make us stop smoking tobacco or what? Or are they "pushing" us into going for the smokeless tobacco instead?

Did they also tax the alcohol to fund the health care for children? Probably not.

No they are merely planning on you paying more for the smokes

This is just one of the many new taxes I would suspect that we will see.

I remember when people said when they get to 50 cents a pack I will stop, then a dollar a pack,
They will merely do without other things to smoke,

Hey Twinkie... right now it's $66 for a carton in NJ. This will put it over $70.

Hey Twinkie....right now it's $66 for a carton in NJ. This will put it over $70.

Yikes!! I quit over 25 years ago. Want to see my new Rolls Royce I got with all the dough I saved up? LOL! (It's only a replica).

Correction, make that 30 years ago when I quit.

What will the price of a carton be in California then? I remember that cigarettes cost an arm and a leg out there the same as they did in New York and the North East.

Lots of people buy their smokes where they buy their gasoline. I hear some of our brilliant lawmakers want to boost the federal tax on gasoline and diesel also.
There is just no end to the pain this priviliged clall will put the rest of us through is there?

I heard they were raising the price and the money never goes where they say it will. I agree with Fr_Chuck this stimulus is going to create the need for many new taxes.

Well, it's clear choice to tax something people are addicted to. Smoking has had such negative press in the last couple of decades, that placing a big old tax on them won't ruffle to many feathers.

That said, this countries will to tax has gotten about as out of hand as the deficit itself.

I don't smoke, never have, but this is an unfair blow to people who do.

But if they don't tax tobacco products, they will just tax the hell out of something else people have to have, maybe gas, maybe bread.

Perhaps it's time to throw a bunch of tobacco into Boston Harbor? While we are there, lets throw in our W2's, barrels of oil, automobiles, and about every other thing overtaxes.

It's funny, I'm sitting here trying to figure out what tax dollars fund. I quote the county in saying our tax dollars do not go to schools, I quote a spokesperson from VDOT who says our state tax dollars don't go to roads...

Where the hell do they go?

As for me, I'm off to leave bags of dog poo on the congressmans front step.

In this case, the subject of the tax is cigarettes; but the Obama crowd is pleased to tax 'the economy' into the ground.

Local sales taxes on tobacco has caused people to become criminals and in some cases has supported terrorist cell operations in this country . For all those who think hootch and other illegal drugs can be legalized and controlled by taxation to reduce crime, they should see what happens when a product like tobacco gets taxed to control consumption.

Increased cigarette taxes reduce legal sales, but not total sales (legal and illegal sales combined). Increased taxes lead to increased smuggling, resulting in less revenue for governments and undermining taxation as an effective health policy to curb tobacco consumption.

It is a big concern already in Europe where bootlegging and organized crime are involved in the smuggling of tobacco products... and it is a growing issue in this country where differences in State taxes becomes an issue.



The traffickers purchase a large volume of cigarettes in states where the tax is low, such as Virginia and North Carolina, transport them up Interstate 95 to states such as Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey and then sell them at a discount without paying the higher cigarette taxes in those states.
With huge profits -- and low penalties for arrest and conviction -- illicit cigarette trafficking now has begun to rival drug trafficking as a funding choice for terrorist groups, said William Billingslea, an ATF senior intelligence analyst who has studied the issue extensively.


The first large-scale cigarette trafficking case tied to terrorism was prosecuted in North Carolina in 2002. A federal jury in Charlotte convicted Mohamad Hammoud, 28, of violating a ban on providing material support to terrorist groups by funneling profits from a multimillion-dollar cigarette-smuggling operation to Hezbollah.
The jury also found Hammoud, whom prosecutors described as the leader of a terrorist cell, and his brother guilty of cigarette smuggling, racketeering and money laundering. The two men, natives of Lebanon, were accused of smuggling at least $7.9 million worth of cigarettes out of North Carolina and selling them in Michigan. Hammoud was sentenced to 155 years in prison.

Cigarette Smuggling Linked to Terrorism (washingtonpost.com) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23384-2004Jun7.html)

Moonshine is a prime example of tomder's post.

But as far as VA goes, your quote might soon be old news, word is Kaine has a whole new string of state tobacco taxes in store.

Hello twink:

Remember your buddy, the dufus in chief?? Well, he reduced taxes, started a very expensive war or TWO, and then he told us to go shopping...

Guess what?? The bill is coming due. What?? Don't conservatives believe in paying your bills??

excon

But is it fair to tax just smokers? I hate taxes as much as the next person, but we're all in this together, doesn't seem right to put the debt on the weight of smokers.

Reduced spending seems like the solution to me.

However, in hindsight, my dad, smoker for 40 years is finally trying to quit, on account of these new taxes. And he smoked like a frieght train, one after the other day and night. So I can only imagine this to be good for his health.

But then we must ask another question:
What if everyone quits smoking? Or enough quit to the point where the tax just isn't making all that much money? Then, from where does the money come from? Because let me tell you, if my dad can quit, ANYBODY can, he is the most stubborn man I know!

But is it fair to tax just smokers? Then, from where does the money come from?Hello again, andrew:

Don't you worry about that. He's going to tax rich people to make up the difference.

excon

Attached

Could just as easily be a swastika on his cap; one socialist is about as good as another.

Hello again, andrew:

TAXES do spread the wealth around. TAXES have ALWAYS spread the wealth around. That's exactly WHY we tax, and WHY we always will. TAXES are socialism. Obama's taxes aren't any more socialistic than Ronnie Raygun's were.

That's just so.

There is the view that the Obama is soaking the rich...

But, of course, the rich got UN SOAKED during the last 30 or so years, and they got wayyyyy richer... Then the dufus in chief gave them even more... It's instructive to remember who HE said was HIS constituency: "the haves... and the have mores".

The middle class, on the other hand, got wayyyyy poorer over the same amount of years.

All Obama is going to do, is put things back to where they were when things were working pretty good for America.

excon

Hello again, andrew:


All Obama is going to do, is put things back to where they were when things were working pretty good for America.

excon

Let's review this in 12 months and see if things are working good by that time.

Hey, how about this? De criminalize marijuana and slap a tax on it equal to a pack of cigaretts. That should bring in a TON of money. Ex might have to spend one of those little gold coins.:)

Cigs in MA is $6.80/pack.

I heard that MA is raising the gas tax to .19
Cents...

I would much rather have cigs cost more than gas.

Could just as easily be a swastika on his cap;Hello again, George:

This is where you guys go off the deep end. I understand your USSR comparison. But, your Nazi thing is just plain wrong. The Nazi's didn't like black people. They weren't Aryan enough. They murdered the ones they found.

To NOT know this, is ignorant. To know this, and still compare a black man to a Nazi, is offensive. But, I'm sure you thought comparing him to a monkey was just fine too.

George - your true colors are showing, and they're not pretty.

excon

Hello again, George:

This is where you guys go off the deep end. I understand your USSR comparison. But, your Nazi thing is just plain wrong. The Nazi's didn't like black people. They weren't Aryan enough. They murdered the ones they found.

To NOT know this, is ignorant. To know this, and still compare a black man to a Nazi, is offensive. But, I'm sure you thought comparing him to a monkey was just fine too.

George - your true colors are showing, and they're not pretty.

excon

Nazism is/was a mere offshoot of socialism, and you can take your pick. I reject all of it.

Hello twink:

Remember your buddy, the dufus in chief??? Well, he reduced taxes, started a very expensive war or TWO, and then he told us to go shopping....

Guess what??? The bill is coming due. What??? Don't conservatives believe in paying your bills???

excon

Seriously! We've got to pay sometime.

Hello again, andrew:


But, of course, the rich got UN SOAKED during the last 30 or so years, and they got wayyyyy richer... Then the dufus in chief gave them even more... It's instructive to remember who HE said was HIS constituency: "the haves... and the have mores".

The middle class, on the other hand, got wayyyyy poorer over the same amount of years.

All Obama is going to do, is put things back to where they were when things were working pretty good for America.

excon



PLease actually post facts and not what the libs want you to believe

2007 and 2008 tax brackets -- MSN Money (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Common/Taxes/2007TaxBrackets.aspx)





For married couples filing jointly*



If taxable income is at least.. .
But not more than.. .
Your tax is:

$0
$16,050
10% of the amount over $0

$16,051
$65,100
$1,605 plus 15% of the amount over $16,050

$65,101
$131,450
$8,962.50 plus 25% of the amount over $65,100

$131,451
$200,300
$25,550 plus 28% of the amount over $131,450

$200,301
$357,700
$44,828 plus 33% of the amount over $200,300

$357,701
No limit
$96,770 plus 35% of the amount over $357,700










The math:

agi $40,000
tax = $5197. 5 effectively 13%

agi $120,000
tax = $22,686.75 effectively 19 %



Contrary to the kooolaid the libs have you drinking the rich DO PAY more in absolute dollars as well as percentage of income.















G&P

TAXES do spread the wealth around. TAXES have ALWAYS spread the wealth around. That's exactly WHY we tax, and WHY we always will. TAXES are socialism

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee of everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816.

"...a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be
such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be
oppressive to our constituents."

James Madison said the above while debating the 1st tax ever approved by the new nation... signed into law by Washington on the 4th of July 1789 .

It was not an imposition or a confiscation of an individual's wealth .It was an eqaully applied tax on "goods, wares, and merchandise".

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee of everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816.Hello tom:

Tis true...

But then we wouldn't have library's, fire departments, free education, mail, highways, trash collection, the army, police departments, clean water, and so on, etc.

I think we need those things and, I think we need to pay for them. Don't you?

excon

Besides the Army and the construction of roads to benefit interstate commerce I don't see anything on the list that is a federal responsibility .

You group all of these as socialism ? But socialism is government ownership or controlling the means of production and distribution of goods.The services of the state you mention are not government control of the economy . They are instead services that we may or may not agree are the role of our government .

"One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary." --Ayn Rand

You group all of these as socialism ? But socialism is government ownership or controlling the means of production and distribution of goods.Hello again, tom:

Cool. Then we don't have any thing to worry about. A bailout is not ownership. So, all the right wing noise is nothing more than obstructionism.

excon

... A bailout is not ownership. So, all the right wing noise is nothing more than obstructionism.

excon

"...(t)he Treasury increased its ownership in Citigroup to 36 percent." U.S. Government Gives Another $30 Billion to AIG (http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2009/03/02/government-30-billion-aig/)

"... $85 billion bailout that would give the U.S. government an ownership stake in the troubled insurance giant American International Group." And, $30 billion more today? http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/17/business/17insure.php

You are either mistaken, not informed, a cherry-picker, or what?

The gvt just took over 36% of Citi and it's not ownership ? Please show me where they plan on divesting of it's ownership in the future ?

That is not the only case. There is talk of gvt representatives sitting in the board of the auto makers .

His universal plans for health care being secretly negotiated in the office of Teddy Kennedy as we speak would seize an industry representing 1/3 of the GDP . That is socialism on a fast track

Tomder - it's not a state tax but a federal tax on the tobacco products.

Why was this not announced in the media that this has been passed? I only knew because the tobacco shop I frequent keeps its customers informed of any tax hikes.

I quite agree with the cigarette smuggling from one state to another. It has progressed to a big time money maker for the criminals.

Excon - no dear, I didn't vote for Dufus either time. He's dumber than a rock (sorry for the slur on rocks) and was just a puppet.

I hope America does not mandate that a tobacco user needs to get a prescription to smoke or use tobacco products when the Nationalized Health Care is mandated on us.

Citi's one stockholder is none other than Prince Charlie. Peculiar.

I quite agree about legalizing pot and taxing it like tobacco products. But then that would make way way too much sense and put a lot of cops and jails on the hurt.

It would definitely put a real meaningful dent in the Mexican drug wars currently going on now on the border and in Mexico.

George - I like this one also...

Hello again, tom:

Cool. Then we don't have any thing to worry about. A bailout is not ownership. So, all the right wing noise is nothing more than obstructionism.

Excon





Steven Rattner: Not The Car Czar, But A Lead Advisor - Behind the Wheel - Phil Lebeau - CNBC.com (http://www.cnbc.com/id/29354598)

While most of the members on this task force are political staffers, Rattner and Ron Bloom, also named as one of the advisers to the Obama administration's auto team, are two with private sector experience. The hope here, and across the country, is their view from the "business world" will help this task force approach the struggling auto companies as a business problem, not a political problem.




Government not trying to control means and production?





Obama drops plan for 'car czar' - U.S. Politics & Elections - Politico.com - MLive.com (http://www.mlive.com/us-politics/index.ssf/2009/02/obama_drops_plan_for_car_czar.html)

—The administration is establishing a Presidential Task Force on Autos to oversee the restructuring of the auto industry. Members of the task force will be drawn from relevant cabinet agencies and offices, including the Departments of Treasury, Labor, Transportation, Commerce, and Energy, the National Economic Council, the White House Office of Energy and Environment, the Council of Economic Advisers and the EPA





Can you imagine in the days of Washington and Jefferson a "Presidential Task Force on Ship Building?"

A bunch of bureacrats telling the ship builders what type and how much wood to use or how big their sails could be?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sorry this is beyond the OP

But if they can tax tobacco products how about this:


Federal Commission Endorses Higher Gas Tax And Miles-Driven Tax: Consumer Reports Money & Shopping Blog (http://blogs.consumerreports.org/money/2009/02/federal-commissions-endorses-higher-gas-tax-milesdriven-tax.html)



EX:

If all some politicians due is OBSTRUCT TAXES and GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF OUR LIVES - then that is not a bad thing for this administration.














G&P




















G&P

Here is another TAX - for all those that believe it is okay just to tax the smokers.





Cap and Trade: Will it happen and what does it mean for the economy? (http://caps.fool.com/blogs/viewpost.aspx?bpid=154576&t=01001019292467236494)


"Cap and Trade" legislation. For those of you who aren't familiar with the term, it essentially means that the government will levy a tax on companies whose operations produce carbon emissions and provide credits to "green" companies. These environmentally friendly companies can then turn around and sell the credits that they have earned to "dirty" companies.





Where are all the supposed libertarians on all these new proposed taxes?





I know the Obot's are so enthralled with their messiah's speeches they can't read the news and understand the implications of what Obama and company are wanting to do to it's citizens.






















G&P

"Cap and Trade" legislation. For those of you who aren't familiar with the term, it essentially means that the government will levy a tax on companies whose operations produce carbon emissions and provide credits to "green" companies. These environmentally friendly companies can then turn around and sell the credits that they have earned to "dirty" companies.Hello again, in:

This is bad, how?

excon

Obama's recently released budget assumes that the government will rake in $79 billion in revenue from an escalating cap and trade tax in 2012, $237 billion in 2014, and in $646 billion by 2019. A huge chunk of this money will come from power companies that use coal to produce electricity. $600 billion dollars is a lot of dough. That's $600 billion in additional taxes that won't get spent by consumers, unless Uncle Sam takes it upon himself to redistribute all of the money from this tax so that it theoretically finds its way back into the economy. Furthermore, cap and trade has the potential to drive what little manufacturing actually still happens here in the U.S. to other countries with more business-friendly emissions standards. Forcing manufacturing abroad would steal much needed jobs from the U.S. economy and actually limit the effectiveness of this legislation from an environmental perspective.

As one person was quoted in the Barron's article, "Substituting more expensive energy for cheaper energy doesn't make sense." To that, I would add, at least not right now when we can least afford to do so.








What do you think will happen to your electric bill when the coal companies are taxed higher?



Again - the government, the politicians are NOT the workers that produced energy or distribute it - THEY WANT TO TAX IT.





G&P

this is bad how ?

higher costs of energy consumption will burden the consumers (that middle class and poor that Obama champions so much)

it is an unnecessary tax that assumes carbon dioxide a pollutant and does not address legitimate emission problems .Yes I know the boneheads in SCOTUS ruled CO2 a pollutant ,but it is absurd and not based on science. CO2 is essential for life on the planet . Nurseries will pump levels 3x atmospheric levels into their green houses to make their plants lush . According to the US Dept of Agriculture ;With a C02 increase of 300 ppm, plant growth increased 31% under optimal water conditions and 63% when water was less plentiful.
With a 600 ppm C02 increase, plant growth increased 51% under optimal water conditions and an astonishing 219% under conditions of water shortage. So how can the minuscule amts that are emitted by human activity possibly be harmful to the planet ?

Hello again:

I'm sure the flat earthers had good reliable scientific data on their side too...

No, I'm not going to argue whether CO2 in our atmosphere is bad.

excon

Flat earthers ? I'd say the science behind the Goracle's theory more resembles astrology... a comparison most recently made by the Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER).

higher costs of energy consumption will burden the consumers (that middle class and poor that Obama champions so much)


Of course, Obama and his kind are liars and care not for the middle class and poor; if they did, they would not be rushing willy nilly to destroy them. What about JOBS? Are we enhancing our competitive advantage by raising the price of goods and services to pay a tax, in the name of fake science?

Let's review this in 12 months and see if things are working good by that time.


How about 2-4 years at least? I voted for dubya twice (damn near threw up the second time when I left the booth) and Da Big B.O. gets a little more wiggle room than a doz. Months.

how about 2-4 years at least? i voted for dubya twice (damn near threw up the second time when i left the booth) and Da Big B.O. gets a little more wiggle room than a doz. months.

I feels yo pain, kp; but when the ship is taking on water, you need to know where the life boat's at, especially when the cap'n is opening the hatches.

Tax on miles driven... Gheeze, I hope there is a heaven, because if this is all life is about, it sure as hell is depressing.

Get ready, next thing you know they will be fitting little meters to our heads to tax us on the air we inhale. Followed by a tax on the air we exhale.

Then they will put counters on our legs to tax the steps we take.

I once said that I hope I live to be an old man, I've changed my mind, I want to die young now. America is the greatest country in the world, that in itself is very depressing... that means it don't get no better than this.

I think I'll just go down to Rick Bouchers office tomorrow and just throw my whole ____ing paycheck at him...

Because you know, that's what this is coming to, like those churches where the members turn their paychecks over to the church, and the church decides what you can and can't have, what you want, yada yada. It won't be long now, maybe 20 years, we won't work for money anymore, we'll just work for priviliages, when it gets to the point where every dime we make goes to taxes, then we have nothing left to pay rent with, or buy food, then we apply to the government for assistance. Then they tell us how much food we are qualified to eat, and what kind of house we qualify to live in...

But "at least I know I'm free!"... phssht!! Hahahahaha! You're kidding right?

Andrew , stop giving them ideas :eek::(












G&P

Andrew , stop giving them ideas :eek::(
G&P

Agreed!

Well, the increase Obama signed into law went into effect yesterday, and even the AP is sounding a little indignant (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090401/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_tax_promise;_ylt=AqK3zSE1FaS.pBzcQYUXbeBp24c A) over another of Obama's expired campaign promises... this one that affects the poor disproportionately.


One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.

The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.

This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.

The reporter notes how the Obama campaign specifically promised he wouldn't raise ANY tax on those making under a quarter million.


"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."


"No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised," Joe Biden said, "whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax."

Just words.

I got the real skinny on the tobacco tax hike from a very knowledgeable friend in the tobacco business.

She told me that the original tobacco tax hike bill was vetoed 7 times by Bush. He vetoed it because it was sponsored by Marlboro (owned by Philip Morris). It seems that Philip Morris wanted to get a cut of the tax hike money to put into some sort of cockamayme "kids nosmoking fund" or some such hogwash and Bush (or his handlers) didn't want a private company benefiting from any tax money. So he didn't sign this bill.

Then Bammy comes along and decides to get onto the "money" wagon of Philip Morris and signs the bill into law. That's why we suddenly get a tax law when the president changed.

She did tell me another rather interesting thing. That Philip Morris has bought up just about ALL the tobacco producing companies here in the US. There is one company that they haven't purchased yet - Swisher Cigars. They did purchase Copenhagen Snuff for 16 billion dollars!

Thought I'd pass along that info. She got all her info from the Tobacco trade magazines she subscribes to as she is the owner of the tobacco store I frequent.

The tax hike on the loose tobacco (16 oz) was 392%!! Yep. 392%. They obviously want to make it too expensive to "roll your own" and buy their premade cigarettes instead AND give Philip Morris some of the tobacco tax money to boot either way. Ain't that clever - double dipping!


And KP2171 I do like your jumping elephant..!

Did Philip Morris also praise the SCOTUS decision about the class action suit ?
Supreme Court Upholds $79.5 Million Punitive Award Against Philip Morris — Attorney At Law (http://www.attorneyatlaw.com/2009/03/supreme-court-upholds-795-million-punitive-award-against-philip-morris/)

I don't know much anyway, and I know even less about this subject... but a few of my brain cells seem to remember reading something of the following...

Hasn't our govt finally ended the hypocrisy of both sueing big tobacco for "health costs" while at the same time subsidizing the industry?. and the effect has been a boom for the industry, with a lack of govt restrictions tied to subsidies, hasn't the price for product has actually gone up... and not the other direction... loss of subsidies didn't drive farmers to other crops, it actually enabled them to get a better price.

I also seem to remember the trend of domestic sales being down, but exports being up... and isn't PM buying foreign tobacco companies up left and right, not just domestic co's?

When in doubt, control the marketplace?

I wonder if we could do the same with other farm subsidies... 80 years ago a third of our workforce was in ag... now its something like 2% or less.

I've recently been annoyed all to hell that we talk about free trade and open markets, but we prop up ag with subsidies that artificially inflates the domestic product... distorts the market... and strangles third world countries who often can only compete in ag and simple manufacturing. Don't know... maybe the subsidies aren't as important as id thought.. since tobacco seems better off without them.

Ultimately, we might tax like mad here, but I'm sure we will be very willing to sell to the poorest of the poor in third world countries once we buy up their industry.

Like I said, I don't smoke, but this new tax scares the hell out of me, because it has demonstrated how completley out of control our government is.

Anything they decide they want to pluck out of excistance need only be taxed out of excistance.

Get ready for the big gas tax coming down the line, because I know within the next decade they will be pushing green cars real hard, and I expect a hefty tax on gas, for two reasons, to push the technology, and since as we buy these green cars that get 200 mpg, they will have to increase the gas tax to compensate for the loss given less fuel is being purchased.

Bacon? Hamburgers, red meat? It's all on the table now. If the government decides they don't want you eating a hamburger - just place a $10 tax on every pound of ground beef being sold.

Impossible? Eating a hamburger is no more harmful to your health than smoking marijuana.

Tax the internet out? Impossible? No. The internet is probably the only true form of free speech we have left. Wouldn't the government love to stomp out that little privilege.

Make no mistake about it, this new cigarette tax prooves they we ARE just mere peasants in a much bigger monarchy than old Britain ever was. Bow to your king, the democratic/republican party, I don't know if you all realized this or not, but they are both on the same side...

Patrick Henry must be turning in his grave!