"A federal health commission on smoking is recommending that the Bush administration raise the federal tax on cigarettes from 39 cents to $2.39 a pack, arguing that the huge increase could prevent 3 million premature deaths and help 5 million Americans quit smoking within a year."

I hope they are not trying to say this would prevent 3 million premature deaths a year. That's more than the total deaths we have each year.

So I'm guessing it's one of those figures we commomly see, where they pick some year in the future, whatever sounds good, and use that to make the number bigger. This would definitely fool people who have no idea how many people die each year.

"At least half of the $28 billion expected to be generated by the tax increase would be invested in anti-tobacco efforts such as a national quit line, a major advertising campaign and insurance coverage for federal workers seeking treatment."

And once again, something governments are known for, redundant programs. My state already has a quit line and advertising campaign. And I don't want MY money spent on federal workers seeking treatment. Let them spend their own money. And that's only half the money they want. The rest would go to unrelated programs.

"'The excess health care costs of tobacco use are estimated at $75 billion per year' and indirect costs such as lost productivity and fires push the figure to $150 billion annually, according to the report."

Anyone tired of this misrepresentation yet?

"Clearly, raising taxes on tobacco is a good thing from a health standpoint," he said, pointing to high disease rates in America. "The fact that we undertax cigarettes means we have more smoking and more death and disease associated with smoking."

From a health standpoint he is correct; it's a good thing. From a MYOB standpoint it's a bad thing.

"Anti-tobacco activists said the report is a powerful tool for pressuring the Bush administration and Congress."

This report says nothing new other than how much of a tax hike should be imposed. Why they feel the need to lie about every little aspect in their cause really baffles me. I would be embarrassed to be them.

STORY

And, as always, the money would go to the antis AND their Big Pharma partners. After all, the money goes directly to Big Pharma when funding is for cessation and the overpriced and largely ineffective "cessation" drugs ("snakeoil")they foist on an ignorant public.

I guess the billions the antis and Big Drugs is already getting from us isn't enough. Why don't they eliminate the middlemen and just push for legislation that would force every smoker to hand over their paychecks (or social security checks) directly to the antis and the drug companies?

Yesterday afternoon, I heard a radio report about the "jock tax" that a number of US cities have imposed on professional athletes who come to those cities to play -- baseball, basketball, football, etc. These cities have come to the conclusion that these athletes are really, really rich, so they figure out how much of some pro's annual salary is represented by the amount they get for the game or games played in that city and then levy an income tax on that amount. This strikes me as incredibly bad and unfair. First, the athletes themselves have had NO say on whether they should be taxed in this way or not. Second, the tax is imposed on all members of the pro team so that even low-paid people like equipment managers and trainers are hit as well. Third, many CEO-types and other business executives, who often make MORE than pro athletes, travel from town to town to do business but they are not singled out for this exceptional taxation.

Just goes to show that people with any political power at all will do anything they can to get their mitts on other people's money. Congre$$ is not alone in this. Obiviously, citie$ are. And as I have been forcefully reminded, so are homeowner$' a$$ociation$.

$crew 'em all!