On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 19:49:20 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Leon wrote:
>> On 2/5/2014 12:56 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
>>> in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.
>>>
>>> It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term you
>>> can't
>>> buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.
>>>
>>> Wonder whose next to join CVS?
>>>
>>> Lew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>Personally, I have frequently found it strange that pharmacies have/had
>such huge cigarette displays (I sensed a "conflict of interest").
>And crappy prices too! They apparently cater to people who are
>price-indifferent.
Conflict? They get you coming and going - profit at both ends of your
health. How is that a conflict?
Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Phil Everly, (The Everly Brothers), cashed in his hand at 74.
>>
>> Damn cigarettes claimed another one.
-----------------------------------------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
> At 74 any number of things could have folded his hand.
----------------------------------------------
Read the obit.
Lew
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Damn cigarettes claimed another one.
-----------------------------------------------
"Meanie" wrote:
> It took my father at 53. I hate those things.
-----------------------------------------------
Mine lived just 3 weeks past his 54th.
I still remember his nicotine stained fingers as he lay in the casket
and that was 55 years ago.
In all fairness, back then we didn't know what we know today.
Lew
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Damn cigarettes claimed another one.
---------------------------------------------------------
SFWIW
My mechanic had a massive heart attact and survived thanks
to the VA.
He survived but was still smoking.
He was read the riot attack by his doctors and thanks to the VA
stopped smoking with the help of a VA program.
Chances are he will die from something other than smoking and
he will see 60.
The message is pretty clear.
If you are a vet and a smoker who wants to stop, the VA has a program
that will help you stop smoking IF you want to.
I realize that to receive VA help may include a significant drive to
get to a VA hospital for some of you, but if it helps save your life,
isn't it worth it?
Lew
On 2/6/2014 10:13 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 08:03:38 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Meh. Damned progressives. If they can't constitutionally ban it, they will
>> attempt to tax it to death, thereby increasing crime, and more excuses to
>> fill the prisons:
>
> Really? You're complaining that taxing cigarettes is increasing crime?
> You've got to be kidding. You're one of the smartest people I know,
> but your IQ just dropped twenty points.
He is spot on. I see people going out of their way to circumvent that
taxes. Buying mail order, buying out of state, and it is a hot item for
thieves breaking into stores.
>
> Whatever crime and costs that might be attributed to taxing cigarettes
> is VASTLY overshadowed by the loss of lives and costs to the
> healthcare system from people smoking.
That may be true, but taxation has done very little to reduce the number
of smokers. Some sort of education program may help. Taking away the
"cool factor" for young teenagers would help a lot. I was about 13 when
I started, just like the big kids, but was able to quite in my 20's.
>
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 08:03:38 -0600, Swingman wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>> Smokes is big bucks. I recently spoke with a former manager of a
>>> convenience store in a border town. When his state increased the tax
>>> by a buck a pack, they dropped sales of 3,000 packs a day as people went
>>> across the border.
>>>
>>> A small grocery/deli where I used to buy my lunch said they were the
>>> biggest income and profit producer he had.
>>>
>>> Fellow at work is complaining he needs a new truck but can't afford
>>> one, yet he spends $80+ a week on cigarettes. And a six=pack and pint
>>> every week.
>>
>> It sure is big bucks - but so much of it is tax in NY. National brands are
>> now over $10 per pack in upstate areas and off brand nativie american
>> cigarettes are almost $9. Rolling your own brings the cost of a pack down
>> to about $1 per pack and takes about 10 minutes to produce a pack. They
>> finish just like a production cigarette, smoke the same and taste the same.
>> The RYO industry finally attracted the attention of NY State as they
>> realized they are missing out on that tax revenue. Expect that to change in
>> the not too distant future. Don't know how people can buy national brands
>> over the counter these days.
>
> Meh. Damned progressives. If they can't constitutionally ban it, they will
> attempt to tax it to death, thereby increasing crime, and more excuses to
> fill the prisons:
>
> http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/12/11/tobaccocontrol-2013-051244.abstract
>
> Government blatantly chasing revenue under the guise of social cost is a
> sign of the times, another way to fool the ever increasing gullible, and
> another nail in the coffin of freedom of choice.
>
> How soon that failed experiment in wielding 'social cost', Prohibition, is
> forgotten ... as if the current "war on drugs" isn't enough to foment crime
> and chaos.
Much like Alabama's very high tax on alcohol, some 40% of the total retail
cost, it doesn't seem to put a damper on peoples drinking habits.
It does make for a viable bootleg liquor market, both store bought and
moonshine.
It is a short trip to Kentuckey where the price is low and a pickup
load can net the bootlegger an easy $1000 dollar profit a trip.
(that's a very conservative figure)
The price of cigarettes are even more grossly distorted from NC to the
Nothern states, it's illegal but it is big business too.
None of this takes away from the fact that smoking does in fact kill
millions, however we are Americans and should be able to choose
our poison without much govt. interference.
basilisk
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> Smokes is big bucks. I recently spoke with a former manager of a
>> convenience store in a border town. When his state increased the tax
>> by a buck a pack, they dropped sales of 3,000 packs a day as people went
>> across the border.
>>
>> A small grocery/deli where I used to buy my lunch said they were the
>> biggest income and profit producer he had.
>>
>> Fellow at work is complaining he needs a new truck but can't afford
>> one, yet he spends $80+ a week on cigarettes. And a six=pack and pint
>> every week.
>
> It sure is big bucks - but so much of it is tax in NY. National brands are
> now over $10 per pack in upstate areas and off brand nativie american
> cigarettes are almost $9. Rolling your own brings the cost of a pack down
> to about $1 per pack and takes about 10 minutes to produce a pack. They
> finish just like a production cigarette, smoke the same and taste the same.
> The RYO industry finally attracted the attention of NY State as they
> realized they are missing out on that tax revenue. Expect that to change in
> the not too distant future. Don't know how people can buy national brands
> over the counter these days.
Meh. Damned progressives. If they can't constitutionally ban it, they will
attempt to tax it to death, thereby increasing crime, and more excuses to
fill the prisons:
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/12/11/tobaccocontrol-2013-051244.abstract
Government blatantly chasing revenue under the guise of social cost is a
sign of the times, another way to fool the ever increasing gullible, and
another nail in the coffin of freedom of choice.
How soon that failed experiment in wielding 'social cost', Prohibition, is
forgotten ... as if the current "war on drugs" isn't enough to foment crime
and chaos.
--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
> Well - to answer that just from one perspective - they have had no
> effect The ads to me serve only to satisfy the people who want to
> believe they will have an effect - no other real effect on smokers.
> But if it makes non-smokers feel better then at least they get to
> feel good about them. Education - yes, it has probably had some
> effect on a percentage of smokers and that is good. Social
> movement - yes that too has had some effect on some percentage of
> the smokers. But - I believe those benefts are done. The ads -
> don't fool yourself - they only make people like you feel good. They
> don't have an effect on the remaining population of smokers. Or
> even future smokers. By this time we all know well enough the
> health hazards and those ads are useless.
>
> Not to argue a defense of smoking, because as I am a smoker, I think
> the act is defensless. But - to fool yourself into thinking that
> taxes and "education" and ads are going to have any great effect now
> is kind of silly in my opinion. Education can have its place (IMHO)
> in keeping younger people from starting but that's about as far as I
> seeing it have any benefit these days.
>
> Think about it Dave - who in this day and age does not know the
> hazards of smoking? Those things won't work on that crop of
> smokers. Will something else work? I don't know. I'd like to hope
> so, but hanging on to tactics that had a marginal benefit at best
> (the ads), is kind of pointless.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frankly Mike, as far as education is concerned, everybody who is 25 or
older is a
write off.
You accept the fact these people are probably going to die of some
form of
lung disease regardless of what is done to get them to stop smoking
and get
on with life.
No the target market is the 10-18 year old group and there is where a
real
turf war is going on with the tobacco companies.
A war that education forces are SLOWLY gaining ground.
It's going to require a saturation advertising campaign to defeat the
tobacco
companies and I have no problem at all forcing the tobacco companies
to pay
for their own defeat.
As far as your rights to smoke when ever and where ever you chose,
you have those rights as long as they don't foul the air I and other
non
smokers breathe.
When that happens, you no longer have the right to spew your tobacco
smoke where ever you choose.
Speaking as an ex-smoker (25+ years), stopping smoking is probably
the most difficult a human being will ever do, at least it was for me.
An ex-smoker who at one point or another in my life had a 2 pack a day
or a box of cigars a week or a pound of pipe tobacco a week habit and
all of which I inhaled, I can appreciate your addiction, but I don't
tolerate
it any more.
Today, I'm like stink on crap, when it comes to smoking.
I have no problem at all walking up to a complete stranger who is
smoking
and saying something like, "Aren't you're old enough to know better".
Very interesting the responses you get.
Lew
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 16:55:40 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>Think about it Dave - who in this day and age does not know the hazards of
>smoking? Those things won't work on that crop of smokers. Will something
>else work? I don't know. I'd like to hope so, but hanging on to tactics
>that had a marginal benefit at best (the ads), is kind of pointless.
Everything you've said maybe right. I can only argue my own
experiences with smoking. I started at sixteen and quit when I was
twentyfive as a pack a day smoker.
And to be honest, it was easy for me to quit because of the reasons I
mentioned previously. I realized how tired I was of the sore throat,
the bad taste in my mouth and the nicotine on my fingers. It was as if
I'd just flipped a switch in my mind and that was it. If I could
market that switch I'd become filthy rich overnight.
People have said to me that I wasn't addicted if I was able to quit so
easily. Maybe so, and now I've grown to hate the very act of smoking.
I lost both my parents to smoking related diseases and people like me
may be flailing uselessly against this smoking addiction that people
have. But, whether my actions are effective or not, I'll keep trying
because just accepting the status quo means complete capitulation. I
refuse to accept that.
On 2/6/2014 9:13 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 08:03:38 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Meh. Damned progressives. If they can't constitutionally ban it, they will
>> attempt to tax it to death, thereby increasing crime, and more excuses to
>> fill the prisons:
>
> Really? You're complaining that taxing cigarettes is increasing crime?
> You've got to be kidding. You're one of the smartest people I know,
> but your IQ just dropped twenty points.
Government restriction of any form causes crime.
Think about prohibition.
>
> Whatever crime and costs that might be attributed to taxing cigarettes
> is VASTLY overshadowed by the loss of lives and costs to the
> healthcare system from people smoking.
>
You should move a little closer to the Texas Mexican border, you might
change your mind. On a slow day dozens of people are killed in any
given border town.
Now you might say that the drugs, which is the focus of all the
violence, would not exist if the government was not restricting its use
and or when cigarettes are eventually out lawed crime will increase even
more.
The government should only maintain the infrastructure and protect our
borders.
On 2/6/2014 7:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 18:58:56 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tough shit, Kemasabe, you want to be a victim, that's fine with me, but
>> you live with it, and leave me and mine out of it.
>
> I'd be ok with that sentiment if that's where it ended, but it
> doesn't. As a society, we all pay for people who can't or won't
> change. We all benefit greatly being part of a society, but there's
> decided disadvantages too. You and yours are part of it whether you
> like it or not.
You bet I'm an active participant in society, by serving when called
upon to do so, and paying my way throughout. It is those who are
purposely a parasite feeding on the body of society, and who have done
neither, who deserve no support from those who are.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 2/6/2014 3:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:20:29 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> Granted cigarette smoking is harmful to your health but if warning
>> labels and ads on TV and health education at the doctors office and in
>> schools is not enough then adding taxes is not going to do any thing but
>> prompt smokers to obtain their tobacco in another way, and that is
>> typically is illegal.
>
> So you're saying that it's a complete waste of time to tax tobacco and
> spend money on warnings and health education? I can't support that
> suggestion at all.
Nope, that is not what he said. You did not respond to what was said at
all, you responded to what your imagination provided as a justification
for your position. :)
Read again what he said actually said ...
In a nutshell, and as a former smoker of 30 years with a 3 pack at day
habit the last ten ending 23 years ago, when a person continues to smoke
despite knowing the very likely consequences to their health, they are
on their own, and should have to live with the consequences of their
actions.
The warnings and health education efforts are all admirable, and have
made a remarkable dent in the number of smokers in this country. I'm all
for continuing those efforts. And I'm fine with a company, like CVS,
deciding to do business as they see fit and putting their money where
their mouth/conscience is.
They are exercising freedom of choice.
But I am totally opposed to treating those who ignore the irrefutable
data as a "social cost"; and who ignore the well known consequences of
smoking because of a pleasurable experience they refuse to overcome
because of an innate personal weakness.
Tough shit, Kemasabe, you want to be a victim, that's fine with me, but
you live with it, and leave me and mine out of it.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 2/6/2014 6:58 PM, Swingman wrote:
> Tough shit, Kemasabe, you want to be a victim, that's fine with me, but
> you live with it, and leave me and mine out of it.
Rhetorical, for arguments sake "you", Dave, not you personally.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 2/6/2014 9:45 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:30:02 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> Government restriction of any form causes crime.
>
> Sorry, can't agree with that. While some of it maybe true, there are
> far too many benefits to regulating certain things that is ignored by
> your statement.
>
Regulation and restriction are two different things.
> And, you're missing my point. Whatever crime that might be attached to
> restricting or taxing cigarettes is easily outdone by the devastating
> effects and costs that tobacco use has on society.
>
I disagree, and those living in the southern US border towns that are
being murdered because of the trafficking caused by government laws
restricting any number of products would probably disagree too.
Granted cigarette smoking is harmful to your health but if warning
labels and ads on TV and health education at the doctors office and in
schools is not enough then adding taxes is not going to do any thing but
prompt smokers to obtain their tobacco in another way, and that is
typically is illegal.
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 18:58:56 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>Tough shit, Kemasabe, you want to be a victim, that's fine with me, but
>you live with it, and leave me and mine out of it.
I'd be ok with that sentiment if that's where it ended, but it
doesn't. As a society, we all pay for people who can't or won't
change. We all benefit greatly being part of a society, but there's
decided disadvantages too. You and yours are part of it whether you
like it or not.
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 08:03:38 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>Meh. Damned progressives. If they can't constitutionally ban it, they will
>attempt to tax it to death, thereby increasing crime, and more excuses to
>fill the prisons:
Really? You're complaining that taxing cigarettes is increasing crime?
You've got to be kidding. You're one of the smartest people I know,
but your IQ just dropped twenty points.
Whatever crime and costs that might be attributed to taxing cigarettes
is VASTLY overshadowed by the loss of lives and costs to the
healthcare system from people smoking.
On 2/7/2014 5:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 07:49:44 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Here's a better thought ... only the apathetic and stupid allow
>> corporations to dictate their choices in life.
>
> What do you call someone who allows government to dictate their
> choices in life?
> A: subject
Close ... serf
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 07:49:44 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 2/6/2014 7:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 18:58:56 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Tough shit, Kemasabe, you want to be a victim, that's fine with me, but
>>>>> you live with it, and leave me and mine out of it.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be ok with that sentiment if that's where it ended, but it
>>>> doesn't. As a society, we all pay for people who can't or won't
>>>> change. We all benefit greatly being part of a society, but there's
>>>> decided disadvantages too. You and yours are part of it whether you
>>>> like it or not.
>>>
>>> You bet I'm an active participant in society, by serving when called >
>>> upon to do so, and paying my way throughout. It is those who are >
>>> purposely a parasite feeding on the body of society, and who have done >
>>> neither, who deserve no support from those who are.
>>>
>>
>> Here's a thought that has occurred to me before. Don't people who take
>> "unnecessary chances"--say like people who run lathes, increase the cost
>> to society in the form of higher insurance premiums for those that don't?
>> I'm "not Saying Anything", I'm just providing an example, a data point.
>> I may get a lathe myself someday... if I'm feeling lucky... ; )
>
>Here's a better thought ... only the apathetic and stupid allow
>corporations to dictate their choices in life.
What do you call someone who allows government to dictate their
choices in life?
A: subject
On 2/6/2014 9:13 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 08:03:38 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Meh. Damned progressives. If they can't constitutionally ban it, they will
>> attempt to tax it to death, thereby increasing crime, and more excuses to
>> fill the prisons:
>
> Really? You're complaining that taxing cigarettes is increasing crime?
> You've got to be kidding. You're one of the smartest people I know,
> but your IQ just dropped twenty points.
No problem, just a drop in the bucket ... still got plenty left. ;)
> Whatever crime and costs that might be attributed to taxing cigarettes
> is VASTLY overshadowed by the loss of lives
Saving the life of someone willingly engaging in bad behavior is not my
concern in the least.
> and costs to the
> healthcare system from people smoking.
It is a demand on the healthcare system only because progressive make it so.
Progressive thinking rarely takes into account the unintended
consequences of their policies ... in this case rewarding bad behavior
by providing healthcare for the consequences of same only encourages
further bad behavior, of all types, including crime.
Look no further for the result of years of progressive policies by the
rampant bad behavior exhibited in places like Detroit and Chicago.
Only one thing is absolutely unarguable ... all the above
notwithstanding, a progressive politician can buy votes all the way to
hell by promising to do so.
--
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
Swingman wrote:
>
> Meh. Damned progressives. If they can't constitutionally ban it, they
> will attempt to tax it to death, thereby increasing crime, and more
> excuses to fill the prisons:
>
> http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/12/11/tobaccocontrol-2013-051244.abstract
>
> Government blatantly chasing revenue under the guise of social cost
> is a sign of the times, another way to fool the ever increasing
> gullible, and another nail in the coffin of freedom of choice.
>
> How soon that failed experiment in wielding 'social cost',
> Prohibition, is forgotten ... as if the current "war on drugs" isn't
> enough to foment crime and chaos.
The tax on 16oz of cigarette tobacco for making your own cigarettes is
approximately $28. The tax on 16oz of pipe tobacco is approximately $2.50.
Guess what everybody uses? Cigarette tobacco is chopped a little finer, but
the desktop injectors that people use will cut the pipe tobacco to the
proper size while injecting the tobacco into an empty cigarette tube. The
device itself costs about $35 on average. Like I say you can make a pack of
cigarettes that are essentially the same thing as a commercial cigarette for
about a buck a pack. NY realized that they lost (they figure...) over $70M
in tax revenue on people like me so I expect they will quickly find a way to
impose a new tax. Not because they really care about my health, the cost to
my neighbors, or any of that crap.
You are right - failed social experiment. Or better said - it's all about
how we fund things that are more politically popular.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 08:03:38 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Meh. Damned progressives. If they can't constitutionally ban it,
>> they will attempt to tax it to death, thereby increasing crime, and
>> more excuses to fill the prisons:
>
> Really? You're complaining that taxing cigarettes is increasing crime?
> You've got to be kidding. You're one of the smartest people I know,
> but your IQ just dropped twenty points.
Really Dave? You cannot see the connection? Yes you can - just think about
it for a moment...
>
> Whatever crime and costs that might be attributed to taxing cigarettes
> is VASTLY overshadowed by the loss of lives and costs to the
> healthcare system from people smoking.
So - how about some sort of definition for the word "VASTLY". It's
insurance Dave. All insurance plays odds against the pool. People around
you pay for your benefits, people all over pay for the life choices of
others, and people pay for all sorts of the risks that others take. I
contend that your "VASTLY" is just an emotionally charged word.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:20:29 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> Granted cigarette smoking is harmful to your health but if warning
>> labels and ads on TV and health education at the doctors office and
>> in schools is not enough then adding taxes is not going to do any
>> thing but prompt smokers to obtain their tobacco in another way, and
>> that is typically is illegal.
>
> So you're saying that it's a complete waste of time to tax tobacco and
> spend money on warnings and health education? I can't support that
> suggestion at all.
>
> The vast majority of smokers would quit immediately if it was easy. No
> more bad taste in their mouths. No more sore throats, no more nicotine
> stained fingers. No more watching their money go up in smoke. All of
> these things made me quit smoking thirtyfive years ago. Smokers and
> non-smokers alike know that it's an unhealthy, dirty habit. Education
> about smoking has had a huge effect the masses.
>
> The pictures and the ads of smoking caused cancer and other associated
> diseases have had an effect on people. If it was otherwise, everybody
> would be smoking and they're not. So how do you explain this? How do
> you explain people quitting smoking and people hating their smoking
> addiction if not for the education and the ads?
Well - to answer that just from one perspective - they have had no effect
The ads to me serve only to satisfy the people who want to believe they will
have an effect - no other real effect on smokers. But if it makes
non-smokers feel better then at least they get to feel good about them.
Education - yes, it has probably had some effect on a percentage of smokers
and that is good. Social movement - yes that too has had some effect on
some percentage of the smokers. But - I believe those benefts are done.
The ads - don't fool yourself - they only make people like you feel good.
They don't have an effect on the remaining population of smokers. Or even
future smokers. By this time we all know well enough the health hazards and
those ads are useless.
Not to argue a defense of smoking, because as I am a smoker, I think the act
is defensless. But - to fool yourself into thinking that taxes and
"education" and ads are going to have any great effect now is kind of silly
in my opinion. Education can have its place (IMHO) in keeping younger
people from starting but that's about as far as I seeing it have any benefit
these days.
Think about it Dave - who in this day and age does not know the hazards of
smoking? Those things won't work on that crop of smokers. Will something
else work? I don't know. I'd like to hope so, but hanging on to tactics
that had a marginal benefit at best (the ads), is kind of pointless.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 16:55:40 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>> Think about it Dave - who in this day and age does not know the
>> hazards of smoking? Those things won't work on that crop of
>> smokers. Will something else work? I don't know. I'd like to hope
>> so, but hanging on to tactics that had a marginal benefit at best
>> (the ads), is kind of pointless.
>
> Everything you've said maybe right. I can only argue my own
> experiences with smoking. I started at sixteen and quit when I was
> twentyfive as a pack a day smoker.
>
> And to be honest, it was easy for me to quit because of the reasons I
> mentioned previously. I realized how tired I was of the sore throat,
> the bad taste in my mouth and the nicotine on my fingers. It was as if
> I'd just flipped a switch in my mind and that was it. If I could
> market that switch I'd become filthy rich overnight.
>
> People have said to me that I wasn't addicted if I was able to quit so
> easily. Maybe so, and now I've grown to hate the very act of smoking.
> I lost both my parents to smoking related diseases and people like me
> may be flailing uselessly against this smoking addiction that people
> have. But, whether my actions are effective or not, I'll keep trying
> because just accepting the status quo means complete capitulation. I
> refuse to accept that.
For what it's worth Dave - I really wasn't trying to suggest capitulation.
Not sure if that may have come across or not. I do think new dialog is in
order for anything like this that has bumped up against a wall and needs new
approaches.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Swingman wrote:
> On 2/6/2014 7:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 18:58:56 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Tough shit, Kemasabe, you want to be a victim, that's fine with me, but
>>> you live with it, and leave me and mine out of it.
>>
>> I'd be ok with that sentiment if that's where it ended, but it
>> doesn't. As a society, we all pay for people who can't or won't
>> change. We all benefit greatly being part of a society, but there's
>> decided disadvantages too. You and yours are part of it whether you
>> like it or not.
>
> You bet I'm an active participant in society, by serving when called
> upon to do so, and paying my way throughout. It is those who are
> purposely a parasite feeding on the body of society, and who have done
> neither, who deserve no support from those who are.
>
Here's a thought that has occurred to me before. Don't people who take
"unnecessary chances"--say like people who run lathes, increase the cost
to society in the form of higher insurance premiums for those that
don't? I'm "not Saying Anything", I'm just providing an example, a data
point. I may get a lathe myself someday... if I'm feeling lucky... ; )
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:20:29 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>Granted cigarette smoking is harmful to your health but if warning
>labels and ads on TV and health education at the doctors office and in
>schools is not enough then adding taxes is not going to do any thing but
>prompt smokers to obtain their tobacco in another way, and that is
>typically is illegal.
So you're saying that it's a complete waste of time to tax tobacco and
spend money on warnings and health education? I can't support that
suggestion at all.
The vast majority of smokers would quit immediately if it was easy. No
more bad taste in their mouths. No more sore throats, no more nicotine
stained fingers. No more watching their money go up in smoke. All of
these things made me quit smoking thirtyfive years ago. Smokers and
non-smokers alike know that it's an unhealthy, dirty habit. Education
about smoking has had a huge effect the masses.
The pictures and the ads of smoking caused cancer and other associated
diseases have had an effect on people. If it was otherwise, everybody
would be smoking and they're not. So how do you explain this? How do
you explain people quitting smoking and people hating their smoking
addiction if not for the education and the ads?
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:30:02 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>Government restriction of any form causes crime.
Sorry, can't agree with that. While some of it maybe true, there are
far too many benefits to regulating certain things that is ignored by
your statement.
And, you're missing my point. Whatever crime that might be attached to
restricting or taxing cigarettes is easily outdone by the devastating
effects and costs that tobacco use has on society.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
>> in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.
>>
>> It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term
>> you
>> can't
>> buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.
>>
>> Wonder whose next to join CVS?
----------------------------------------
"Leon" wrote:
> Goodwill, is that what they are calling it?
>
> It makes good ethical sense but the customers are going to give the
> competition $2 Billion worth of extra business.
>
> Sounds like a preemptive move to perhaps dodge any law suits
> Kalifornia is cooking up.
----------------------------------------------------
You are a little slow Leon.
This whole thing got started when the city of San Francisco enacted
city law
prohibiting sale of tobacco products in drug stores 8-10 years ago.
CVS, as well as the big box stores, and the tobacco companies tried to
fight
it but learned again that you don't fight city hall.
Everybody else dropped their law suits against S/F.
CVS decided to not fight and instead complied so extending this across
all
7600 stores is not such a big deal for them to implement.
Lew
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
> Smokes is big bucks. I recently spoke with a former manager of a
> convenience store in a border town. When his state increased the
> tax by a buck a pack, they dropped sales of 3,000 packs a day as
> people went across the border.
>
> A small grocery/deli where I used to buy my lunch said they were the
> biggest income and profit producer he had.
>
> Fellow at work is complaining he needs a new truck but can't afford
> one, yet he spends $80+ a week on cigarettes. And a six=pack and
> pint every week.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My how times have changed.
I worked in a smoke shop while in high school.
Cigarettes cost $1.86/carton except for Pall Mall which was
$1.88/carton.
Both sold for $1.95/carton and individual package sold for
$0.20/package retail.
Tried to float a price increase to $2.05/carton retail, but it didn't
fly until 2nd or
3rd attempt.
This was also about the time that a package had a couple of pennies
taped on
the side so you could use a quarter to buy a pack and automatically
get
$0.02 change.
Anybody remember Hav-A-Tampa cigars?
Came complete with a wooden mouth piece and was such a deal at
$0.15/pair.
Lew
Lew
On 2/5/2014 2:18 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/5/2014 1:56 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
>> in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.
>>
>> It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term you
>> can't
>> buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.
>>
>> Wonder whose next to join CVS?
>>
>> Lew
>>
>
> Smokes is big bucks. I recently spoke with a former manager of a
> convenience store in a border town. When his state increased the tax by
> a buck a pack, they dropped sales of 3,000 packs a day as people went
> across the border.
>
> A small grocery/deli where I used to buy my lunch said they were the
> biggest income and profit producer he had.
>
> Fellow at work is complaining he needs a new truck but can't afford one,
> yet he spends $80+ a week on cigarettes. And a six=pack and pint every
> week.
>
Sounds like he needs a new truck to haul his cigs and booz. Catch 22
On 2/5/2014 12:56 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
> in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.
>
> It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term you
> can't
> buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.
>
> Wonder whose next to join CVS?
>
> Lew
>
>
>
>
Goodwill, is that what they are calling it?
It makes good ethical sense but the customers are going to give the
competition $2 Billion worth of extra business.
Sounds like a preemptive move to perhaps dodge any law suits Kalifornia
is cooking up.
Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> Personally, I have frequently found it strange that pharmacies have/had
> such huge cigarette displays (I sensed a "conflict of interest").
I agree completely.
On 2/5/2014 1:56 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
> in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.
>
> It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term you
> can't
> buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.
>
> Wonder whose next to join CVS?
>
> Lew
>
Smokes is big bucks. I recently spoke with a former manager of a
convenience store in a border town. When his state increased the tax by
a buck a pack, they dropped sales of 3,000 packs a day as people went
across the border.
A small grocery/deli where I used to buy my lunch said they were the
biggest income and profit producer he had.
Fellow at work is complaining he needs a new truck but can't afford one,
yet he spends $80+ a week on cigarettes. And a six=pack and pint every week.
Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 2/6/2014 7:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 18:58:56 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Tough shit, Kemasabe, you want to be a victim, that's fine with me, but
>>>> you live with it, and leave me and mine out of it.
>>>
>>> I'd be ok with that sentiment if that's where it ended, but it
>>> doesn't. As a society, we all pay for people who can't or won't
>>> change. We all benefit greatly being part of a society, but there's
>>> decided disadvantages too. You and yours are part of it whether you
>>> like it or not.
>>
>> You bet I'm an active participant in society, by serving when called >
>> upon to do so, and paying my way throughout. It is those who are >
>> purposely a parasite feeding on the body of society, and who have done >
>> neither, who deserve no support from those who are.
>>
>
> Here's a thought that has occurred to me before. Don't people who take
> "unnecessary chances"--say like people who run lathes, increase the cost
> to society in the form of higher insurance premiums for those that don't?
> I'm "not Saying Anything", I'm just providing an example, a data point.
> I may get a lathe myself someday... if I'm feeling lucky... ; )
Here's a better thought ... only the apathetic and stupid allow
corporations to dictate their choices in life.
--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)
On 2/7/2014 5:45 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/7/2014 3:15 PM, Bill wrote:
>
>> Can you think of the dog and the horse scenario without thinking of
>> Budweiser?
>
> A letter to the editor in the Hartford Courant lashed out at the
> commercial. She said it glorified puppy mills, showed poor treatment
> since the puppy escaped and sent a wrong message to children. I thought
> they were selling beer.
>
I thought last years ad was better.
On 2/7/2014 3:15 PM, Bill wrote:
> Can you think of the dog and the horse scenario without thinking of
> Budweiser?
A letter to the editor in the Hartford Courant lashed out at the
commercial. She said it glorified puppy mills, showed poor treatment
since the puppy escaped and sent a wrong message to children. I thought
they were selling beer.
Swingman wrote:
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 2/6/2014 7:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 18:58:56 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Tough shit, Kemasabe, you want to be a victim, that's fine with me, but
>>>>> you live with it, and leave me and mine out of it.
>>>> I'd be ok with that sentiment if that's where it ended, but it
>>>> doesn't. As a society, we all pay for people who can't or won't
>>>> change. We all benefit greatly being part of a society, but there's
>>>> decided disadvantages too. You and yours are part of it whether you
>>>> like it or not.
>>> You bet I'm an active participant in society, by serving when called >
>>> upon to do so, and paying my way throughout. It is those who are >
>>> purposely a parasite feeding on the body of society, and who have done >
>>> neither, who deserve no support from those who are.
>>>
>> Here's a thought that has occurred to me before. Don't people who take
>> "unnecessary chances"--say like people who run lathes, increase the cost
>> to society in the form of higher insurance premiums for those that don't?
>> I'm "not Saying Anything", I'm just providing an example, a data point.
>> I may get a lathe myself someday... if I'm feeling lucky... ; )
> Here's a better thought ... only the apathetic and stupid allow
> corporations to dictate their choices in life.
MARKETING makes that a tough battle (did you watch the Superbowl?) But
its a battle I have been increasing vigilant in fighting, as least to
some degree (for myself).
I think to do this, one much even take the time and effort to understand
the psychological techniques that marketers use. I don't think
most people are willing to invest even as much energy at this, as
evidently you and I have. By the way, they say "If you tell someone
something 6 times, that they will start to believe it".
Can you think of the dog and the horse scenario without thinking of
Budweiser? They want to be your "friend"! To me, that's sort of
scary. The people who greet you as you enter or leave a casino door,
they want to be your "friend" too, just like the greeter at Walmart. I
think I got interested in this "battle" when one of my junior high
teachers pointing out "hidden images" in the art work of liquor
advertisements in magazines. It's a jungle out there! ; ) Newport,
Alive with ....
Bill
On 2/5/2014 6:56 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>>> CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
>>> in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.
>>>
>>> It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term
>>> you
>>> can't
>>> buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.
>>>
>>> Wonder whose next to join CVS?
> ----------------------------------------
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> Goodwill, is that what they are calling it?
>>
>> It makes good ethical sense but the customers are going to give the
>> competition $2 Billion worth of extra business.
>>
>> Sounds like a preemptive move to perhaps dodge any law suits
>> Kalifornia is cooking up.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> You are a little slow Leon.
>
> This whole thing got started when the city of San Francisco enacted
> city law
> prohibiting sale of tobacco products in drug stores 8-10 years ago.
>
> CVS, as well as the big box stores, and the tobacco companies tried to
> fight
> it but learned again that you don't fight city hall.
>
> Everybody else dropped their law suits against S/F.
>
Perhaps Lew, if you had given all of the details it would have made more
sense the first time around.
>
> CVS decided to not fight and instead complied so extending this across
> all
> 7600 stores is not such a big deal for them to implement.
And you call that move, giving up at fighting the law, a good will
gesture???
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> Phil Everly, (The Everly Brothers), cashed in his hand at 74.
>>>
>>> Damn cigarettes claimed another one.
>>>
>>
>>
>> At 74 any number of things could have folded his hand.
>
> I'm not arguing that cigarettes didn't take his life, just that at 74 any
> number of things could have. I just consider that after 70 you're counting
> lucky stars for each year.
>
And so I am!
--
GW Ross
I'm setting my phaser on 'tickle.'
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Phil Everly, (The Everly Brothers), cashed in his hand at 74.
>
> Damn cigarettes claimed another one.
>
At 74 any number of things could have folded his hand.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 1/4/2014 9:43 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> Phil Everly, (The Everly Brothers), cashed in his hand at 74.
>>>
>>> Damn cigarettes claimed another one.
> -----------------------------------------------
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>
>
>> At 74 any number of things could have folded his hand.
> ----------------------------------------------
> Read the obit.
>
> Lew
>
>
It took my father at 53. I hate those things.
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Phil Everly, (The Everly Brothers), cashed in his hand at 74.
>>
>> Damn cigarettes claimed another one.
>>
>
>
> At 74 any number of things could have folded his hand.
I'm not arguing that cigarettes didn't take his life, just that at 74 any
number of things could have. I just consider that after 70 you're counting
lucky stars for each year.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Meanie wrote:
> On 1/4/2014 9:43 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > > > Phil Everly, (The Everly Brothers), cashed in his hand at 74.
> > > >
> > > > Damn cigarettes claimed another one.
> > -----------------------------------------------
> > "Mike Marlow" wrote:
> >
> >
> > > At 74 any number of things could have folded his hand.
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > Read the obit.
> >
> > Lew
> >
> >
>
> It took my father at 53. I hate those things.
They took one of my close friends at 42 via his heart. His first heart
attack was at 35 after 20 years of smoking, but quitting at that point
didn't help. He died 2 days before Christmas 2012, and his younger daughter
still believed in Santa Claus.
--
Reply in group, but if emailing, add a zero and remove the last word.
On 2/5/14, 12:56 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
> in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.
>
> It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term you
> can't
> buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.
>
> Wonder whose next to join CVS?
>
> Lew
>
I hope they can do everything they need to make that happen in only 100
years. :-p
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/5/2014 1:56 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
>> in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.
>>
>> It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term you
>> can't
>> buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.
>>
>> Wonder whose next to join CVS?
>>
>> Lew
>>
>
> Smokes is big bucks. I recently spoke with a former manager of a
> convenience store in a border town. When his state increased the tax
> by a buck a pack, they dropped sales of 3,000 packs a day as people
> went across the border.
>
> A small grocery/deli where I used to buy my lunch said they were the
> biggest income and profit producer he had.
>
> Fellow at work is complaining he needs a new truck but can't afford
> one, yet he spends $80+ a week on cigarettes. And a six=pack and pint
> every week.
>
I think I've been quit for 10 years now. Its sort of frightening how
easy is would be to start back up. One of the things that helps me stay
quit is the cost. I remind myself that if I'm going to buy a pack,
then I might as well buy enough cigarettes for the month. That quickly
snaps me back to my senses! I wouldn't even leave the house on Friday
night with "only 1 pack"... If I was going to buy cigarettes today I
don't think I could buy only 1 pack. In fact, even allowing 2 packs a
day isn't a guarantee you won't run out ("Oh, the horrors...").
Although he quit years earlier, 25+ years of smoking Pall Mall's may
have led to to my dad's death of lung cancer (among several other types)
at age 72.
Bill
Leon wrote:
> On 2/5/2014 12:56 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
>> in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.
>>
>> It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term you
>> can't
>> buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.
>>
>> Wonder whose next to join CVS?
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>>
Personally, I have frequently found it strange that pharmacies have/had
such huge cigarette displays (I sensed a "conflict of interest").
And crappy prices too! They apparently cater to people who are
price-indifferent.
Doug Miller wrote:
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> Personally, I have frequently found it strange that pharmacies have/had
>> such huge cigarette displays (I sensed a "conflict of interest").
> I agree completely.
On a slow day, I inquired about this to the cashier at Walgreen
(Pharmacy), more than 10 years ago. But she didn't seem to understand
what I was talking about, and she that she "only worked there
part-time". So in case you have any questions about what some of these
cashiers are really thinking about, I offer you that data point! ; )
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>
>> Perhaps Lew, if you had given all of the details it would have made
>> more sense the first time around.
> -------------------------------------------------
> Taken from the web on background for much of the day after the
> original post.
>
> I'm just a parrot on this one.
>
> Lew
>
I saw the "announcement" on the evening news.
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> Smokes is big bucks. I recently spoke with a former manager of a
> convenience store in a border town. When his state increased the tax
> by a buck a pack, they dropped sales of 3,000 packs a day as people went
> across the border.
>
> A small grocery/deli where I used to buy my lunch said they were the
> biggest income and profit producer he had.
>
> Fellow at work is complaining he needs a new truck but can't afford
> one, yet he spends $80+ a week on cigarettes. And a six=pack and pint
> every week.
It sure is big bucks - but so much of it is tax in NY. National brands are
now over $10 per pack in upstate areas and off brand nativie american
cigarettes are almost $9. Rolling your own brings the cost of a pack down
to about $1 per pack and takes about 10 minutes to produce a pack. They
finish just like a production cigarette, smoke the same and taste the same.
The RYO industry finally attracted the attention of NY State as they
realized they are missing out on that tax revenue. Expect that to change in
the not too distant future. Don't know how people can buy national brands
over the counter these days.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:28:49 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 2/5/2014 12:56 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
>> in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.
>>
>> It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term you
>> can't
>> buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.
>>
>> Wonder whose next to join CVS?
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Goodwill, is that what they are calling it?
>
>It makes good ethical sense but the customers are going to give the
>competition $2 Billion worth of extra business.
Perhaps more, as the smokers get used to shopping elsewhere.
>Sounds like a preemptive move to perhaps dodge any law suits Kalifornia
>is cooking up.
On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 23:53:13 -0500, Meanie <[email protected]>
>It took my father at 53. I hate those things.
Agree completely. Took both my parents at the age of 69, eight years
apart.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> CVS/Pharmacy just announced they will stop selling tobacco products
> in their 7600 retail stores 10/01/2114.
>
> It will cost them at least $2 billion up front; however, long term you
> can't
> buy that kind of goodwill this will generate.
>
> Wonder whose next to join CVS?
This morning's news say Walgreens is examining the policy contemplating a
similar policy change.
"CVS cigarette move urges action by Walgreens, rivals"
"Walgreen instead launches a free, Internet-based smoking cessation program"
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-02-05/business/chi-walgreen-cigarettes-20140205_1_tobacco-sales-cvs-caremark-walgreen-co
Dave in SoTex
On 2/5/2014 7:08 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
>
>> Smokes is big bucks. I recently spoke with a former manager of a
>> convenience store in a border town. When his state increased the
>> tax by a buck a pack, they dropped sales of 3,000 packs a day as
>> people went across the border.
>>
>> A small grocery/deli where I used to buy my lunch said they were the
>> biggest income and profit producer he had.
>>
>> Fellow at work is complaining he needs a new truck but can't afford
>> one, yet he spends $80+ a week on cigarettes. And a six=pack and
>> pint every week.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> My how times have changed.
>
> I worked in a smoke shop while in high school.
>
> Cigarettes cost $1.86/carton except for Pall Mall which was
> $1.88/carton.
>
> Both sold for $1.95/carton and individual package sold for
> $0.20/package retail.
Over seas while on the ship my dad paid 4 cents per pack, 5 cents on
land. 1946
>
> Tried to float a price increase to $2.05/carton retail, but it didn't
> fly until 2nd or
> 3rd attempt.
>
> This was also about the time that a package had a couple of pennies
> taped on
> the side so you could use a quarter to buy a pack and automatically
> get
> $0.02 change.
>
> Anybody remember Hav-A-Tampa cigars?
Yes