But now that he's back, maybe he could learn...
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Too bad he couldn't self-censor...
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
There's plenty of reasons for quitting smoking.
And there's plenty of reasons to be civil, but some people who post here might not even know one.
3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Admit it Bill Garr, you are a liar.
4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Your right disgusted. But good ole PJ thinks that land owners don't own what's under their land either. And what's under "my land" I do own. Now stick 10.00 tax on cigarettes. I'm quitting anyway. But will keep what's under "my land".
4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
So true digusted.
Oh, for pete's sake. Quit whining. fighting Sioux was a name of honor. You are so whiny--bitter, envious. so sad
5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"Health care costs wouldn't be bankrupting this nation if you people weren't such huge obese drunks."
Very nice. And correct usage of the phrase "you people" to boot.
4 stars. Or teddy bears. Or avocados. Whatever is best, of course.
4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Locomotive, your post of 5:07 speaks volumes of truth. Of course, they can't prohibit the sale of tobacco because the tax generated from it pays for CHIPS or health care for children. Convoluted tactics of the government.
6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
disgusted, good point.
"The new health care law being implemented on 2014, can allow health insurers to charge 50 percent higher premiums, then those who do not use tobacco."
While searching for info about this point--gotta verify sometimes--I got stuck on heathcare.gov and its "smoking cessation" pages.
Wow. After reading all that, WHY hasn't our benevolent gov't banned tobacco outright? Why would a gov't, so prepared to "help" people to quit smoking, still be levying taxes on such an activity?
And get this...our gov't is still subsidizing the growth of tobacco, I suppose to "help" those tobacco growers.
Here is where a charge of DID, or suffering from multiple personalities, fits to a T--for tobacco, natch.
ZRider's point is now ringing more true than ever.
"I've never smoked, but this obsession with punishing people who do is ridiculous."
of course you are right. The bill should be called Sebelius' bill. It is she who runs roughshod over the President. I won't use his name because in your mind any reference or statement with his name implies racism against blacks, which I, of course, think is weird.
5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
ZRider, good post.
6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I hope it's not mean but please don't bump the tax or cause any more problems for the smokers. I think this could be a way for the State to make up for the tax dollars already lost from so many people quitting after the smoking law recently passed. I'm afraid to think of what part of our bodies and lives will be the next taxable source of income for our State to draw from to replace the tobacco taxes if more people quit. Thank you.
I don't see how they can charge someone who smokes higher rates for health insurance. Is it a risk? Yes, but so it snow skiing and eating too much fast food.
I've never smoked, but this obsession with punishing people who do is ridiculous.
9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Am I the only one that thinks this state legislature is a waste of time! We have measures to open up liquor establishments on sundays earlier to 10:00 a.m. to get more drunks on the road in order to create more deaths on our roadways! Now we have another tax on cigarettes which will do nothing to stop addicts from smoking! Waste of time! Let's get down to some serious legislative matters like state tax reform for our citizens.
7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
BGWGTD has no idea of what he is talking about.
If I found gold in your backyard and you didn't, would you let me take it all or would you want to be compensated with payment of royalties from the profits realized from the gold find?
Finders keepers, losers weepers? I don't think so, you'd scream 'not fair'. You would want your fair share. You'd sue if you didn't get it.
The State of North Dakota has every right to be compensated for the oil in its ground. It is not the oil companies oil, it belongs to the mineral owners. Includes the state too.
Oil extraction tax is a compromise. The oil is a natural resource inside the state's boundaries. Extraction comes at a cost and one is the depletion of the resource and another is the cost of extraction.
As for tobacco, people who smoke can take a chance at growing their own and can be pesticide-free organically grown tobacco. Tax free too!
10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
What a waste of time and energy. This is another example of why the legislative session could be over in half the time.
11 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Raise it 2 dollars per pack and watch the illegal cigarette trade go to the moon in sales volume and the state will have to have an enforcement program to catch black marketers selling tax-free cigarettes.
Don't think it won't happen.
Absolutely not...unless you also want to increase the sales tax on alchohol NOT to increase income, but to HELP drinkers to stop drinking, or at the grocery store, why not just charge an extra tax on customers who look OBESE...of course, not to raise or increase income, but to help the obese people lose weight by charging them more for their purchases. Get real!
13 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
301 4th St SE , Minot, ND 58703 | 701-857-1900