is your state's cigarette tax....

[WalterMitty]

http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/rate/cigarett.html

massachusetts cigarette tax is only $1.51, which is far too low.

i support a cigarette tax of at least $2.50 per pack.

[Jake]

Too low at $1.35 a pack. Should preferably be around $5.00 a pack.

[Rin-chan]

I think NJ's is $2.40.  I think it's too low.

Rin-chan

[YRABNNRM]

$1.50, too high.

[Gabu]

In BC the tax is 17.9 cents per cigarette.  I don't know offhand how many cigarettes there are in a pack, so someone else is going to have to fill that in before I can compare this with other tax rates.

[riceowl]

.41; too low.  But 1.50 is way too high.  A dollar sounds right.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In BC the tax is 17.9 cents per cigarette.  I don't know offhand how many cigarettes there are in a pack, so someone else is going to have to fill that in before I can compare this with other tax rates.

A standard pack is 20 cigarettes so BC's tax is CAN$3.78 or US$3.24 at today's exchange rate.

Anything under $1 per pack is too low anthing above $5 per pack is too high right now.

[Gabu]

A standard pack is 20 cigarettes so BC's tax is CAN$3.78 or US$3.24 at today's exchange rate.

Oh, okay.

BC, oddly enough (given its reputation for liking marijuana) is one of the strictest places I know of when it comes to cigarettes, so that high amount does not surprise me.

[MHS2002]

$0.30, too low. I think between $0.75 - $1.00 is about right.

[Dave from Michigan]

too high  $2 dollars a pack 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wow, California ranks only 23rd with $0.87. Clearly too low, but the crazy right-wing Republicans won't agree to raise any taxes no matter what. Stupid rule requiring a 2/3rds majority of both branches to raise taxes.

That rule is a large part of California's fiscal problems. The Republicans in the state legislature tend to be insane wingnuts. In 2003, they were pourposefully doing nothing, so that Gray Davis would get recalled. Horrible horrible people.

In any case, Republicans in states like New York or Vermont tend to be FAAAAR more liberal. Pataki decided to act all conservative as part of his plans for running for President, and the New York State Senate, which is controlled by the Republicans, unamiously overrode his vetoes a whole bunch of times to raise taxes by $10 billion.

[AkSaber]

Wow, Alaska ranks 7th at $1.60.

[© tweed]

$1.50, which seems about right.  Maybe a tad higher.

[dazzleman]

In general, I think that taxes should be a low percentage of the economic value of any product.

By this measure, cigarette taxes in most places are too high.

I am not a smoker, but I think that such high taxes on a particular legal product constitute effective a political 'ganging up' on the minority of people who smoke by the majority that doesn't smoke.

I hate cigarettes and would never smoke, but I think it's an abuse of the political system to keep targeting smokers to pay inordinate amounts for cigarettes so the rest of us don't have to pay more.

In addition, such high cigarette taxes encourage bootlegging and facilitate the expansion of organized crime in the business of cigarette distribution.

[Flying Dog]

Just right

[© tweed]

In general, I think that taxes should be a low percentage of the economic value of any product.

By this measure, cigarette taxes in most places are too high.

I am not a smoker, but I think that such high taxes on a particular legal product constitute effective a political 'ganging up' on the minority of people who smoke by the majority that doesn't smoke.

I hate cigarettes and would never smoke, but I think it's an abuse of the political system to keep targeting smokers to pay inordinate amounts for cigarettes so the rest of us don't have to pay more.

In addition, such high cigarette taxes encourage bootlegging and facilitate the expansion of organized crime in the business of cigarette distribution.

People should not be smoking due to health reasons.  High cigarette taxes do the smoker a favor; the more they spend, the more likely they are to realize they're dumbfcks and kick the habit.

[Democratic Hawk]

Georgia (my 'adopted' state) at 37c per pack is reasonable but I'm heading towards Missouri .

Until 3.00AM (GMT) I'm sporting a R-MO avatar

Dave

[dazzleman]

In general, I think that taxes should be a low percentage of the economic value of any product.

By this measure, cigarette taxes in most places are too high.

I am not a smoker, but I think that such high taxes on a particular legal product constitute effective a political 'ganging up' on the minority of people who smoke by the majority that doesn't smoke.

I hate cigarettes and would never smoke, but I think it's an abuse of the political system to keep targeting smokers to pay inordinate amounts for cigarettes so the rest of us don't have to pay more.

In addition, such high cigarette taxes encourage bootlegging and facilitate the expansion of organized crime in the business of cigarette distribution.

People should not be smoking due to health reasons.  High cigarette taxes do the smoker a favor; the more they spend, the more likely they are to realize they're dumbfcks and kick the habit.

There are lots of things people shouldn't do for health reasons.  It's really not the government's job to punish people for doing something that is bad for their health.

Smokers are just a convenient target because their defensiveness and shame about their habit prevents them from fighting back.

[Citizen James]

Wow, California ranks only 23rd with $0.87. Clearly too low, but the crazy right-wing Republicans won't agree to raise any taxes no matter what. Stupid rule requiring a 2/3rds majority of both branches to raise taxes.

That rule is a large part of California's fiscal problems. The Republicans in the state legislature tend to be insane wingnuts. In 2003, they were pourposefully doing nothing, so that Gray Davis would get recalled. Horrible horrible people.

In any case, Republicans in states like New York or Vermont tend to be FAAAAR more liberal. Pataki decided to act all conservative as part of his plans for running for President, and the New York State Senate, which is controlled by the Republicans, unamiously overrode his vetoes a whole bunch of times to raise taxes by $10 billion.

Not to threadjack, but we brought that on ourselves in a way.  By gerrymandering, we made the dem seats safe, and the remaining districts in which we stuffed all the solid republican areas were hardcore.  It's a normal side effect of gerrymandering.  I bet Texas (republican gerrymandered) has some real loonie leftists in the few districts where they stuffed all the solidly democratic voters.

[dazzleman]

I bet Texas (republican gerrymandered) has some real loonie leftists in the few districts where they stuffed all the solidly democratic voters.

Look no further than Sheila Jackson Lee.

[dazzleman]

Smokers are just a convenient target because their defensiveness and shame about their habit prevents them from fighting back.

I fightback, dazzle. I blew my stack at a recent Labour Party meeting. Basically, in light of 90-days detention for terror suspects being rejected, and a 'total' smoking ban being approved, by the Commons; I stood there and said the Commons had their priorities wrong

Dave

Good point.  What is a 'total' smoking ban?  No smoking in any public places?

I don't have a problem with public smoking bans.  I hate the smell of cigarettes, plus it's unhealthy, so I generally support banning smoking where it can inflict the smell on other people against their will.

I also find it interesting that those most concerned with punishing smokers seem to have a more tolerant attitude toward drugs.  Which is worse?

[Democratic Hawk]

Smokers are just a convenient target because their defensiveness and shame about their habit prevents them from fighting back.

I fightback, dazzle. I blew my stack at a recent Labour Party meeting. Basically, in light of 90-days detention for terror suspects being rejected, and a 'total' smoking ban being approved, by the Commons; I stood there and said the Commons had their priorities wrong

Dave

Good point.  What is a 'total' smoking ban?  No smoking in any public places?

Not any. Pubs, clubs, restaurants that kind of thing. Cinemas, threatres, much of public transport banned them over a period of time. I don't have a problem with that

I agree with a blanket ban where food is served, but failing that bans should be a matter for the pub's owners, or the club's members, to decide

But bearing in mind that 90-days detention for terrorist suspects was rejected, such a ban that goes beyond where food is served only rubs salt into it

Dave

[dazzleman]

Smokers are just a convenient target because their defensiveness and shame about their habit prevents them from fighting back.

I fightback, dazzle. I blew my stack at a recent Labour Party meeting. Basically, in light of 90-days detention for terror suspects being rejected, and a 'total' smoking ban being approved, by the Commons; I stood there and said the Commons had their priorities wrong

Dave

Good point.  What is a 'total' smoking ban?  No smoking in any public places?

Not any. Pubs, clubs, restaurants that kind of thing. Cinemas, threatres, much of public transport banned them over a period of time. I don't have a problem with that

I agree with a blanket ban where food is served, but failing that bans should be a matter for the pub's owners, or the club's members, to decide

But bearing in mind that 90-days detention for terrorist suspects was rejected, such a ban that goes beyond where food is served only rubs salt into it

Dave

The terrorist detention is a separate issue, but surely it should take priority over anything smoking-related.  Why is the left side of the spectrum so willing to sacrifice the lives and security of millions to protect terrorists?

[ilikeverin]

The terrorist detention is a separate issue, but surely it should take priority over anything smoking-related.  Why is the left side of the spectrum so willing to sacrifice the lives and security of millions to protect terrorists?

Because we hate America, silly.

[Democratic Hawk]

They are, indeed, separate issues but you had some in my party saying that that 90-days detention went too far yet the intended smoking ban didn't do far enough. In answer to your question:

Why is the left side of the spectrum so willing to sacrifice the lives and security of millions to protect terrorists?

Because they are misguided

My MP supported the government on 90-days detention but voted for the total smoking ban. At least, she was half right . My consituency Labour Party is split between the more libertarianly-minded (albeit by-and-large anti-smoking) City delegates and the more populist-inclined District  delegates

Forgot to mention, that the total smoking ban was "unmanifestotutional" (as far as Labour go anyway) and I opposed it for that reason as much as any other

Dave