Comments on: Lawmakers lighting up $2 per pack cigarette tax hike

By: ca

ca — Sat, 29 Jul 2017 23:45:58 +0000

In reply to Ulysses Uhaul. what nut house did they let you out of

By: Helea

Helea — Wed, 09 Nov 2016 12:46:37 +0000

When people vote for higher taxes on things like cigarettes and soft drinks, it doesn’t mean that people will stop buying these things it means they pay a higher price for things like that which also means they won’t be going out to eat as often, buying clothes and going to the movies. This in turn makes the economy suffer. Movie tickets go up, people don’t hire as often and so the public just bites their own a….

By: C Morgan

C Morgan — Fri, 13 Feb 2015 22:17:08 +0000

I’m getting VERY tired of the smokers getting picked on with taxes upon taxes just because they’re in the minority. This is ridiculous and unfair

By: Pbconcerned

Pbconcerned — Sun, 01 Feb 2015 08:49:57 +0000

The tax hike is necessary to have enough revenue, to pay back the tobacco bonds issued. These bonds were issued and backed by money expected to be paid out to governments from the settlement with the tobacco companies 1998. They issued about $16B in bonds against the future payments of the settlement. They will have a shortfall as the rate of smokers decreases by 3% per year, and Expected decline was based on a 1.8% decrease per year. Now they are beginning to attack e-cigarette sales as they are an alternative to smoking and taxed as local sales tax only. They say they want you to be more healthy….. But it really is more important to just get the $$$$. The US will never try to stop alcohol as it too is very heavily taxed on the vendors, and then sales tax from the sale of alcohol, and the license to sell or serve, is too much revenue for all taxing authorities to give up. Anything that is addictive will be heavily taxed if it can be passed by the people! If it infringes on a higher tax revenue product, they will fight it in the media.

We are not far from US acceptance of marijuana sales, and when it has a strong foothold, the taxes will go through the roof! But first we must get everyone on board to legalize the “cash cow” of future tax revenue. Get em addicted and watch the money start rolling in!

By: Ulysses Uhaul

Ulysses Uhaul — Mon, 10 Feb 2014 02:36:52 +0000

The world is very imperfect…..most watch things happen while others make things happen…..web site posters generally pray for a perfect world…no happen….and they no make it happen!

By: LetitCollapse

LetitCollapse — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 21:22:25 +0000

In reply to Ulysses Uhaul.

Very simple for most to understand.

Cigarettes are being priced prohibitively high as a means to make people throw up their arms and quit. The article notes there’s another $2 tax increase in the works. All in the interest of saving lives.

But why haven’t we seen the same rate of increase over the years in liquor prices? A LARGE percentage of fatal accidents (like the one I referred to on the 60 freeway this morning) are caused by drunks. And ask any medical doctor. Many deaths occur as a result of alcohol abuse. Liver disease, heart disease, diabetes, renal disease, domestic violence influenced with alcohol, etc…

And why aren’t retail stores banning the sale of alcohol in addition to cigarettes if they are so socially conscious and want to protect us from the wrath that we impose upon ourselves?

I applaud freedom and the human’s right to choose. If a human wants to smoke 3 packs or drink a fifth of scotch a day that should be his right. As a result he should have to pay higher medical and life insurance premiums for his risky behavior – but he should be able to choose his habits in life.

When government (and now corporations) place extraordinary efforts to inhibit one insidious habit and not the other – one must question the motive of those organizations.

Now do you get it??

By: Ulysses Uhaul

Ulysses Uhaul — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 20:48:37 +0000

What does a bunch of drunkard rants have to do with the article?

By: LetitCollapse

LetitCollapse — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:48:25 +0000

It’s reported in the news this morning that at about 5am an alleged drunken female driver was driving in the wrong direction on the 60 freeway outside Diamond Bar and collided with 2 other vehicles killing 6 people.

Yet I do not see any socially conscious retail stores removing booze products from their shelves and banning the sales of liquor to their customers. Why?

Oh, I have another silly comment and question. We constantly hear about DUI checkpoints in our cities that force thousands and thousands of innocent law-abiding motorists to pull over and get subjected to intrusive police actions. But I never hear about any police sting operations on bars where drinkers actually load up on booze and exit the bar with a total buzz then drive away. Why is that? Wouldn’t it make more sense to pull over a drunk after he left a bar parking lot then to pull over a thousand innocent people in order to find him on a public roadway? If saving lives is so important to politicians and cops why not target the place where the drunks actually frequent? Does anyone on the board have a reasonable answer for me? Maybe I’m missing something.

By: Ulysses Uhaul

Ulysses Uhaul — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 16:19:53 +0000

Whacky conspiracies about government goose stepping down cobblestone streets grabbing the unfaithful on the way is poppycock.

The state teeters on being ungovernable due to lack of funds to train unproductive residents and build alternative distribution systems like high speed rail, the Alameda corridor in LA, new multimodal airport hubs.

By: billyBS

billyBS — Fri, 07 Feb 2014 19:15:21 +0000

It would be funny if pot is legalized and it is taxed less than tobacco. Is de Leon for legization of pot and other drugs?
From positions this guy has taken, his legacy is to be the face of the clueless California pol to the rest of the county? “They must all be doing drugs to elect these imbeciles.”