Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on March 10, 2004, to raise the state cigarette tax by 75 cents a pack beginning July 1, 2004, increase taxes on other tobacco products from 20 percent to 32 percent, and use most of the money to avoid budget cuts by reducing general fund contributions to Medicaid

The vote was 44 in favor, 53 opposed and 12 not voting

(House Roll Call 370 at House Journal 44)

Click here to view bill details.

Not a good idea.

This sounds suspiciously like a good piece I read on WorldNetDaily this morning about the liberals version of The 10 Commandments, or in their case The 11 Guidelines.

Specifically, number 11.

11. Thou shalt realize the stupidity of thy citizenry and sue large corporations for selling such destructive products as cheeseburgers and cigarettes. For the people do not know what is good for them and thus must be stopped from their bad behavior.

Could it be that the good representative is in reality, a flaming liberal/progressive/whatever-the-term-is-this-week?

The single axis liberal/conservative continuum does not accurately express the reality of today's politics. The two-axis personal liberty/economic liberty model is better, but does not explicitly include the dominant characteristic of nearly every legislator on either side of the aisle: Statism. Rep. Julian is typical of Republicans and Democrats in legislative bodies at every level of government - local, state, and federal: He is a garden variety statist. Statists believe that there is a legitimate role for the state in almost every area of human life. When they oppose state involvement it is generally for political reasons, not ideological ones. For example, I would expect Rep. Julian to oppose the expansion of the state into dietary habits (a "fat tax") not because he necessarily thinks it lacks the legitimate authority to do so, but because the trial lawyers and health interests who would benefit give more to Democrats, and the restaurant and food distributors who would pay give more to Republicans. Apply this analysis to almost every bill in the legislature and you can predict where the parties will fall out. There is a tiny handful of legislators at any given time who believe that the government should be limited - and act on that belief.

My husband just answered a phone call where the caller rattled off a bunch of jarga about this bill and then 'offered' to connect him directly to an office to 'urge' them to vote affirmatively on this one. At the first ring I told my husband to quick hang up and that we had better research this better first. I am glad he did not stay on the line. That kind of pressure and catching people off guard is less than honest in getting their way. Beware everyone!

What will the cost be for enforcement of the "smuggling" that is certain to follow if this legislation is approved into law? How will law enforcement and the courts be impacted? Legislators, take a harder look at reducing expenses. Do not count on legislation such as this to provide additional revenue.

Reps. Sheen and Stahl, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I did not come to Lansing to raise taxes, fish for dollars, and grow government. I did come to shrink the bureaucracy, lower taxes, and limit government. The cigarette tax was raised 50 cents a pack two years ago and now Michigan wants to raise it an additional 75 cents, which would make us the second highest cigarette tax in the nation. This increase is not a positive health initiative as its proponents attempt to rationalize it. Governor Granholm, who said she wouldn't raise taxes, is simply revenue fishing in an industry pond, which is an easy catch. This Governor has stuffed her proposed budget full of taxes and fees, that inhibit job creation, raise estate taxes, and create new industry fees. This particular tax will cost jobs, hurt the Michigan economy, and encourage illegal trafficking of cigarettes. Now is the time to reduce government, it can not be done in good times, it can only be done in hard times. It can only be done when elected officials are forced to make hard choices and the public knows they have no other options. I will not bail the state out by giving them more money. We need to cut the budget now and cut it permanently, or we will find ourselves in the same position next year, looking for other taxes and fees to increase revenue."

Rep. Hoogendyk, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: Since 1982 the budget of the State of Michigan has grown from $10.8 billion to $39 billion, a 261% increase, if adjusted for inflation it would be 98%. Even after adjusting for the structural change brought on by Proposal A, and the growth of our state's population, the growth of government over the last 20 years is still at 31% above the rate of inflation. We do not need more revenue. The insatiable appetite of government will never be satisfied."

By Melissa Sue Robinson May 27, 2004 On May 26,2004 at a legislative voting session at the state capitol a, 75 cent tax increase was placed on cigarettes (a noble move), however where is the increase in taxes in beer,wine, and liquor? Why didn't Democratic Representatives such as State Representative in the 68th District Rep. Michael Murphy (D) Lansing and others fight Republican Representatives harder on this issue? We need money in a prodigious way here in Michigan and for Republican's in the legislature to be fiscally irresponsible by leaving the tax increase out of alcohol is something that is hard for me to fathom. Liquor,beer, and wine sales would probably remain the same if 25 or 50 cents were added on the tab to improve Michigan's budget, so the Republican argument that this would hurt business is a fallacy. Many Republicans speak of high morality and attempt to pass laws in that direction. With the amount of alcohol abuse that goes on and drunk driving isn't it morally right to add more tax on this as well? Maybe the extra 25 or 50 cents on a bottle of whiskey or beer could help pay for the health problems that they cause when abused. It is time for our state legislature to wake up, think about citizens, and less about the alcohol industry's lobby on this issue. I am 100% for Gov. Granholm and my party (which is the Democratic Party) on this issue and need to get elected this year for the House of Repesentatives in the 68th District so that I can help push for things that will improve "not harm" the Michigan economy. Now I find that the Republicans in the Senate will reject even the cigarette tax if its not tied to a jobs bill i.e. in forestry , biosciences, and other areas. Get real Republicans! Stop fighting legitimate ways to fix our budget problems because they aren't ideas proposed by you. It's time to work together.

Why does the state need more money? Why do the legislators in Lansing think they need to involve themselves in every facet of the lives of the citizenry? I'm beginning to understand the thinking of people like the Michigan Militia, which scares me.

In the area that I live in, raising the price on cigarettes only results in more theft of local small stores after hours. CASES of cigarettes are taken each time. This type of reasoning also only serves to give some smokers ideas on how to get more money for cigarettes, like stealing. Also, really, it is easy to bring in cigarettes from out of state, don't think it is not already happening. By the way, I am a non-smoker as is my whole family. But this is NOT the way to correct or even help the problem.

Senator George, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the substitute offered by Senator Emerson to House Bill No. 5632 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting "no." The motion prevailed. Senator George's statement is as follows: I am eager to vote to raise the tobacco tax in Michigan to help fund Medicaid and health care for our citizens. I understand the need and the importance of that. However, I am going to vote "no" on this substitute, and I would like to tell you why. I believe that the problem of smoking and tobacco-related illnesses that we face is larger than just funding Medicaid treatment for that illness. It is true that we do need to provide, and we find ourselves providing health care through the Medicaid system to people who have smoked all their lives, who now need their lungs removed or a cancer removed, and it is important that Medicaid be able to do that. I am eager to help Medicaid do that, but the problem is bigger than just paying for the treatment of smokers. We know that there are other ways we can reduce the incidence of this disease. That's by reducing the incidence of smoking, and two of the prime ways to do that are through education and through basic science research. That's why earmarking all of this money for the Medicaid trust fund overlooks some of the fundamental facts that play into smoking addiction. We know that as people's level of education rise, they are less likely to be a smoker. I heard the Governor recently, she was in Kalamazoo and she was decrying the low number of college graduates we have in Michigan. She was calling for more emphasis on education. We know that students who become better educated are less likely to smoke. So I think you could make a very good argument that money raised through tobacco taxes need not all be spent simply on treatment. You could make a very good argument that education is the key component of reducing the incidence of smoking. In the same way, you can make the same argument regarding basic science research. Look at the improvements that we have made in addiction science today, the tools that we have now, to treat those who are addicted to tobacco. The use of nicotine patches, for example, and other oral medications which can be used to help someone go from being addicted to tobacco to a nonsmoker. Well, where did those treatments come from? They didn't come through the Medicaid program. They came through basic science research, through life science research, through scientists, through universities, through investments, and pharmacology and studies that came through with medical breakthroughs that have helped millions of people. That is where the hope for reducing our tobacco costs lie, not just in paying for an intensive care unit stay for someone who is dying of emphysema or removing a tobacco-related cancer. Those are legitimate and important things that Medicaid needs to do. If that's all we are going to fund by raising the tobacco tax, then we are missing a golden opportunity to try and reduce the risk of smoking in this state through enhancing education and basic science research. For that reason, I am going to vote "no" on this substitute, though I look forward to voting "yes" on the measure that we will be seeing later today.

Senator Switalski asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal. The motion prevailed. Senator Switalski's statement is as follows: I support a cigarette tax because we have a structural deficit that must be addressed through new revenue. Everyone has their own favorite solution to this, but the cigarette tax is one of the only proposals that could command a majority. These two votes today will show that there are enough votes to pass the tax. Unfortunately, they will also show we do not yet agree on where the revenue should go. I am not sure what holding these two votes accomplishes. Do they make the compromise the Majority Leader asked for more likely? I hope for everyone watching today the conclusion from these two votes is that there are enough votes to raise the cigarette tax in the Senate. There is just a dispute on where to spend it. I hope the message is to return to the table and bring us a proposal that unites the chamber.

Senator Garcia, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill No. 5632 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting "no." The motion prevailed. Senator Garcia's statement is as follows: I understand a compromise has been reached. I preferred the original substitute, even though I intend to vote "no" on this bill because I still think it's the wrong thing to do to tax the lower end of the economic stratum to help us solve our budget problems. While I understand that they contribute a great deal to our health care costs, we should not balance the budgets on the backs of the poor and the elderly, like the Governor said back in December of last year. My concern about this substitute is the fact that it takes out the life sciences provision, which I think would have been an investment in the future. I know there was a previous speaker who mentioned the fact that the Life Sciences is more money for certain districts. The truth is it's an investment in the future. It's an investment in areas like Ann Arbor and Detroit. I just came from Wayne State University where they have a life sciences program there that willhelp keep young people here in Michigan. Twenty years ago, the goal of the strategic fund was to diversify Michigan's economy. Twenty years later, we haven't achieved that. We have to think of the future, and I think that is what the original substitute did. I'm disappointed that it doesn't include it in there, and I'm very disappointed that we are going to raise taxes at least on this group of people. But, again, to the point of life sciences, I hope that in the future the Legislature can set aside some money for a very important investment in our future.

Senator Sikkema asked and was granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that the statements be printed in the Journal. The motion prevailed. Senator Sikkema's first statement is as follows: I rise to support this substitute. I, along with the sponsor, see this as a fair compromise. In fact, I see that as more than a fair compromise proposal on the cigarette tax. The history of the cigarette tax in Michigan, if you look at the increase in 1994 and then again in the year 2002, would suggest that because it is not the easiest vote to cast for a lot of members that it's important to find some middle ground and some bipartisan compromise. As the sponsor mentioned, one of the, I think, key features of this compromise is that in the current budget there is a $116 million shortfall in Medicaid, and this proposal begins the 75-cent cigarette tax on July 1 and dedicates all of the proceeds in the current year to the Medicaid Benefits Trust Fund. And that's about $97 million with the previous changes we've all ready identified--we, being House, Senate, and Department of Management and Budget--for the current year would close the gap, in fact, eliminate the gap in Medicaid for the current year. So 100 percent of the current year proceeds would go to the Medicaid Benefits Trust Fund. Starting October 1, and in all succeeding years, 75 percent would be dedicated to the Medicaid Benefits Trust Fund. So, as I suggested, more than meeting the Governor, in this case, more than half way, who seeks to dedicate 100 percent to Medicaid. And the reason its not 100 percent is there are other needs in Michigan. There are actually other needs in the General Fund that reflect other people's priorities. But I do think that the Life Sciences Corridor is a key economic development tool for Michigan. When this was initiated a few short years ago, we had dedicated $50 million to this corridor, and we really led the nation. Other states very, very quickly caught on to what Michigan was attempting to do by trading a central point in the country for life sciences research and product development, and lots of other states caught on and began their own initiatives. While the other states are doing that, because of budget problems, we whittle down our $50 million initiative to what today is $15 million. And so this dedication of a small piece of the cigarette tax to the Life Sciences Corridor for the long-term health benefits of that research and the long-term economic development benefits to Michigan across the state, I think, are very important. Now let me mention something else that is related to our discussions about the cigarette tax, and that is the jobs action plan the Legislature has been working on. We proposed last October and this January an 18-point jobs action plan initiative. I would like to have all 18 of those signed into law. I would like to approach this budget discussion and the cigarette tax by saying, "It's got to be 100 percent of what Ken Sikkema and the Republicans want. It has to be, I just, for what ever reason, can't recede from all 18 of them being signed into law." I can't take that position. It's not fair. It's not reasonable. It doesn't reflect the fact that a Republican Legislature and a Democratic Governor have to compromise. And so we have six of the 18 job action plan initiatives that have been signed into law. Of the 12 remaining, after meeting with the State Treasurer twice, personally myself, over the last two weeks, let's whittle those 12 down to five. Let's focus on the five that we can find some reasonable common ground, on and we get those signed into law before we break for the summer. Now, like I said, I prefer having all 18. I prefer having the remaining 12 that haven't been signed. But I don't think that is a reasonable position given the differences of opinion, and we are making headway on the five. I would suggest that that approach is going to have to be the same approach on a tough vote like the cigarette tax. I think it's more than fair to say that 100 percent of the current year proceeds go into the Medicaid Benefits Trust Fund. So there doesn't have to be a shortfall there, and starting next year, 75 percent will go into the Medicaid benefits Trust Fund. It's more than a fair proposal. I urge your support for it because I think it is the right thing to do, and it reflects a compromise position from the votes of last week.

Senator Sikkema's second statement is as follows: I rise to support the Switalski amendment. I hadn't thought of doing it that way, but I think that is an excellent proposal, and I think it potentially breaks the logjam that we've had for several weeks here in the Senate. So I would urge the members to adopt the Switalski amendment. Get it on the, I guess, this is on the George substitute; adopt the Switalski amendment. As I understand it, it puts 100 percent of the cigarette tax money for the current year, and I'm going to ask the Senator to shake his head either vertically or horizontally--100 percent of the money for the current year for the Medicaid Benefits Trust Fund; 100 percent of the money for 2004-05 fiscal year for Medicaid, and then in subsequent years or one year, I assume it's subsequent years, it's 75 percent into the Medicaid Benefits Trust Fund and 25 percent in the General Fund. I guess the question I have is, as I read the amendment, when you go to the 75-25, is that just one year, or is it all subsequent years? I'm guessing. But irrespective, I think it breaks the logjam. It allows us to pass this bill today and meet our commitment to the people of Michigan.

Senator Sikkema's third statement is as follows: I'm perfectly willing to give the sponsor of the amendment time to read his amendment. I support it though. I think it's a good idea. I think that it advances the issues and discussions in front of us. It breaks the logjam. It allows the Senate to move this very important bill, which is part not only of the next year's budget, but of the current budget. So I would hope the members would adopt the amendment, and I would ask for the "yeas" and "nays" on the amendment.

Senator Sikkema's fourth statement is as follows: Just very briefly, I rise to support the Switalski amendment.

Senator Sikkema's fifth statement is as follows: I rise to support this bill. You know, I think one approach would be to focus on what it doesn't do. I'm kind of a half-glass-full kind of person, I like to focus on what it does do. It allows us to help balance the current year budget, particularly in this case the $116 million shortfall in Medicaid because it dedicates all of the current year revenue from the cigarette tax increase to Medicaid. I think it also reflects the fact that there are competing needs in the budget, and it's certainly education or environmental protection. I happen to believe that we ought to be looking at the issue of changing the economic structure of Michigan, at least from a state standpoint so that Michigan becomes a growth economy, attractive to new business growth and job growth. I mentioned earlier that the talks with the administration with the jobs action plan are going very well. I'm confident before we break for the summer when we complete this budget, that we will be able to enact five more of the job action plan that I think is so critical for the future of this state. I agree with the people who have earlier today discussed the importance of the Life Sciences Corridor for Michigan's future, from a health care standpoint and an economic growth standpoint. My thinking on that, frankly, has changed over 12 months. I was always a supporter of the Life Sciences Corridor, but the importance of it to me was brought home last October in our revenue estimating conference when we learned that almost a quarter of the jobs lost in America in the two years previous were lost in Michigan, the economy has changed in a fundamental way that some of the old-style manufacturing jobs are never coming back, and we've got to position Michigan for growth in the research-oriented and health care-oriented sectors of the economy. That's what the Life Sciences Corridor will do, and I'm committed to that. I'm confident at the end of the day, as we talk about the budget with the administration and our colleagues in the House, we will be able to see some investment, increased investment in our Life Sciences Corridor. And along with our job action plan that we can get enacted and signed, we can go home and say to the people of Michigan, "We not only balanced the budget in a very tough year to do it, but we have also made some investment in Michigan's future." I hope you will support this bill. It's a reasonable, fair compromise to help continue solving this short-term budget problem at the same time we do long-term economic investment.

The 75 cent increase on tobacco is well warranted especially as it is the number one health threat against our citizens, however all of the money should go for Medicaid. The tax on liquor should be increased and go into the general fund as soon as feasible. Sen. Virg Bernero is right to ask for tax increases on junk food as Michigan is number one in the nation for weight and health problems created by poor diets. The taxes could also offset health costs. If your for a healthy Michigan Vote for Virg's increases and vote for Melissa Sue Robinson in the 68th District as I will continue Sen. Bernero's crusade on health issues.

I keep asking the same questions to our weak kneed senators and reps. Why don't you cut spending instead of raising taxes? I don't smoke, but I object to everytime you need more money, just raising someones taxes. Whether it is a new fee, or a user fee, or a registration or an outright tax, all you do is raise taxes. I can't say it enough, DO NOT RAISE TAXES, FOR ANYTHING, ANYTIME, FOR ANY REASON. DO NOT RAISE TAXES. LIVE WITHIN YOUR BUDGET, JUST LIKE THE REST OF US.

Ms. Robinson, It is clear that you are of the tax and spend school. Although I am opposed to the government increasing taxes to balance the budget, I would encourage the Mackinac Center to charge a fee to those who use this site for advertising purposes. BTW You would not want to know what the statue would look like that I would have "erected" of Clinton.

Challengers and sitting legislators are invited to post comments on MichiganVotes.org, under the same terms as anyone else. Comments must be concise, "G" rated, not contain threats or smears, and be related to relevant public policy issues. Other users are welcome to challenge those candidates, under the same guidelines. Editor

Now, by rasing the cigrette tax to $2.00 a pack, I already know individuals that will buy there cigrettes in Ohio and Indiana. Again, the State of Mich. will loose money. Now, why can't we raise the tax on liquor,beer and wine? This is the real problem with our young adults. Smoking takes years to kill, a drunk driver kills in seconds or minutes. Please wake up and focus on the real problems.

Senator Cassis, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against concurring in the House amendments to House Bill No. 5632. Senator Cassis' statement is as follows: I rise to make my "no" vote explanation on the cigarette tax increase, entitled "Ode to sacrifice, suffering cigarette and taxes." Puff on, oh smokers of Michigan. Take a deep and satisfying puff. Enjoy it! For every puff is furled with gold. Why eat caviar? Take a puff. You are the chosen ones. Your expensive taste will feed the hungry and heal the sick. Your sacrifice will bring you a glory and forever emblazon your name in the annals of history. You were the chosen ones to make the ultimate sacrifice to save your state's fortunes and glory. You are leading the fight against the scourge of disease. The cause is just; the aim is pure. Your leaders have nothing but the highest regard for your health and safety. With apologies to "Man of La Mancha," I add this quixotic and satirical summary: Hear me now, oh, the bleak and unbearable world Thou art base and debauched as can be And a knight with his banner all bravely unfurled Now hurls down his gauntlet to thee! I am I, Don Quixote, the Lord of La Mancha Destroyer of evil am I I will march to the sound of the trumpets of glory Forever to conquer or die. I am Sancho, yes I am Sancho I follow my master till the end I'll tell all the world proudly I'm his squire, I'm his friend. Hear me heathens, and wizards, and servants of sin All your dastardly doings are past For a holy endeavor is now to begin And virtue shall triumph at last! I am I, Don Quixote, the Lord of La Mancha My destiny calls and I go And the wild winds of fortune will carry me onward Oh whither so ever they blow Wither so ever they blow Onward to glory I go!

Why should all the money go to help pay Medicaid until 2005. This money could be used for school funding or for Seniors. It seems as though the general fund receives funds no matter where the momies come from. It wouldn't be bad if the general fund monies were used for the right purpose instead of squandering it.

I want to acknowledge the votes of Rep. Hune, voting NO, and Sen Garcia (excused). They did not vote to penalize smokers for the inability of state government to control its insatiable, cancerous growth. Thanks, guys. Maybe next time Michigan citizens can vote you some friends to help control excessive taxation and unending spending.

Not a smoker, but why are they constantly being harassed. Most MI smokers are not on the MI welfare insurance plan but are being treated by the state as if they are. If there are problems with welfare recipient's health issues related to smoking then address that problem specifically but let's not tell MI residents what is good/bad for them, they're smart enough to make their own decision. Besides last I knew we were not a socialized society. Why don't we lower the cigarette taxes so we will get business from Ohio and Indiana and cut/reduce benefits to those who are on welfare and we'll win/win.

you are 100% RIGHT!!! and also my smoking is not going to kill other people, like drinking and driving how many people are killed by drunk drivers. compared to a person smoking.

Greedy!! I have quit you will not get my tax dollars and come your time for reelection my memory is long. If you have any compassion for our shrinking incomes pull in those greedy claws.

If Lansing is so gung-ho about raising taxes to cover their own inadequate ability to control their own spending, wouldn't it stand to reason that they also de-fund the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) simultaneously? After all, the MDCH is the agency responsible for all of those no smoking ads and smoking cessation programs. What sense would it make to raise taxes in order to cover a deficit, while at the same time, fund a program whose goal is to discourage the very same people you intend to tax to cover the deficit?

Hey, lets tax people with dangerous hobbies like water skiing, snow boarding, stuff like that. They are a minority that we, the majority, can impose our will on.... there must be thousands of little groups like smokers who can be singled out for tyranical taxation. Hey, what's a few liberties in comparison with a balanced budget... ... sooner or later we will all be in one minority or another. Fight Tyranny Now!

I am not a smoker. Never have I been. By raising the cigarette tax you will eradicate smoking problems, but I don't think that is your main objective. Your objective is more revenue,but I think it is going to back fire on you and you will end up losing your revenue stream from cigarette taxes, because people will quite smoking, or will inport them from other states. When that happens you will tax something else to make up for the revenue loss.

As a state representative I am disappointed by the continual raising of taxes on our citizens. It is unnecessary. During an economic downturn the state should cut unnecessary spending, just like the private sector does. Instead, we see $1 million boondoggles like the “Cool Cities” program and three new MEDC offices overseas. In the cigarette tax, you will note that in the third year the money gets diverted from health care, which was the impetus, to the general fund. It was no coincidence that several weeks earlier the legislature passed the internet tax - they knew anyone who smoked would be looking to get around the state's greed. We will now face tremendous problems with contraband and smuggling. Here’s a better way to create a good business climate, attract jobs, improve Michigan’s economy, and keep talent here in Michigan: 1. Abolish the SBT Tax that hurts small business; 2. Get rid of “Living Wage” ordinances; 3. Eliminate the Personal Property Tax that makes business pay more taxes when they invest in new plant and equipment. Policies like these are why firms are leaving Michigan! Rep. John Garfield, R, Rochester

John, you sound like my kind of people. You and my rep, Joe Hune, need to get some more friends and vote out these tax & spend lunatics. If you are ever over this way, I'll buy you a beer, depending on the alcohol tax, and new campaign finance laws to eliminate corruption. Maybe you should by me a beer!

Less Government + Less Taxes + Less Regulation = More Prosperity

I started rolling my own cigarettes almost a year ago - $5 for the bulk tobacco to make a carton, $1.50 for the tubes & $5 for the machine to make 'em (which lasts for at least a year. That's about 65 cents a pack - and no unfair tax from Republicans love to increase our taxes (and many other things) under the guise of "user fees", while stating they are for lowering taxes. They ain't gettin my money.

What is it with this state constantly attacking us smokers? We pay just as much taxes as everyone else, but now even more thanks to these unfair taxes. Why not tax beer and alcohol more for a change? I don't drink and it would kind of even it out for me a little. Of course cigars didn't get taxed because thats what you all smoke along with your brandy. I have friends that now "roll thier own" and yes, I go to Ohio now. Is all this what you were trying to achieve? I am tired of us smokers being treated like we have the plauge and we are trying to infect everyone else. People cry about racisim, what is this? Please start picking on someone else.

I LIKE YOU ALOT!!!!!

I'm always against raising taxes, however this IS a good idea. Smoking is different than other vises. At least drinking makes you feel good, not to mention nobody ever has gotten cancer from second hand drinking. Smoking does nothing but stink and cause cancer. This is a tax that you can choose to pay or not pay. If you don't want to pay it, quit. If you are too stupid or weak-willed to quit, that's on you. If you won't do it for your own good maybe you'll do it to save money. Furthermore, I would ban it at any indoor public place.