As I recall from when Kulongoski first brought this Healthy Kids proposal up, taxing cigarettes was the plan all along... before it even got to the legislature. How does that now get blamed on Republicans?

Harry blathers on...

What realyl sucks Harry is that smokers cause one of the largest long-term costs on our health care system. It sucks that people voting against measure 50 will lead to MORE kids taking up smoking vs. less taking up smoking. It sucks you are worried more about keeping low-cost cigs for poor minorities, which will kill them, than funding healthcare for those same poor families kids.

Sell your schtick somewhere else, I ain't buyin' it.

Kevin, so you like the idea of keeping cigs affordable for young kids to get hooked?

You like the idea of keeping cigs affordable for poor people so they can die long slow deaths from it?

How progressive of you.

Blockquote>"I hate cigarettes, but this tax is unfair. We should just fund children's health care and not make smokers pay."

That's a very creative interpretation of the argument, Jeff.

It ignores the fact that the tax isn't expected to make more than a few percentage points difference in the consumption of tobacco products in the state. It ignores the fact that the amount the tax is increased is set where it is so that it doesn't adversely affect what could become -- as the Tobacco Free Kids report I quoted the other day said -- a revenue stream that is "Stable and Predictable for Years to Come". Why? Because "large drops in cigarette tax revenue from one year to the next are quite rare because of the addictive power of cigarettes.... After a major cigarette tax increase, state tobacco tax revenues typically decline by only about two percent per year, on average, because of ongoing reductions in smoking levels."

If the tax hike was two or three times as high, you'd see a lot more smokers quit, but then the state's skim wouldn't be very good. And the idea that the tobacco companies are going to be paying for this and not the consumers? Ross, you must think the oil companies are strapped for cash now that gasoline's up to $3/gallon.

Smoke 'Em If You Gotta

How does that now get blamed on Republicans?

It gets blamed on Republicans because this was the most politically viable option available to democratic legislators. This question has already been asked, but I've yet to see a good answer, if you don't like funding health care through a tobacco tax, where else are we going to get the money? For one, even if it's regressive, the tobacco tax directly taxes a product that has been proven to have a HUGE financial burden on our health care system. And it's also interesting that the people that are most likely to smoke are the same lower income citizens who are most likely to be on the state health plan, directly passing on the costs of their poor decision to taxpayers like you and me. So where else can we get the money? An income tax? That might fulfill some of the "society pays for it as a whole" requirements that some people have laid down, but guess what? It's not going to happen. So, the state legislature took the option that was the most politically viable and went with it, and it almost worked! Had Sal Esquivel not flipped his vote at the last second, we wouldn't be talking about this right now. If enough Republicans in the state legislature were willing to put children's health ahead of their "no new taxes" ideology, this wouldn't be an issue.

lestatdelc,

Setting your logically fallacious Strawman aside for the momment... If you'd followed the running debate here at Blue Oregon then you'd know that I've already stated that if all or even most of the money raised in a tobacco tax to be used to fund tobacco cessation then I'd never have raised an objection in the first place.

How taxing one group of poor, uneducated folks to pay for services to another group of poor, uneducated folks "progressive"?

It's not just regressive, it's morally reprehensible!

You can slice, dice and demagogue this six ways to Sunday and the fact will remain that the overwhelming majority of "progressives" who claim that they want to fund healthcare for kids won't have to pay a thin dime to actually provide healthcare for kids. Coincidence? I don't think so.

One of the things that most disgusts me about the Left is that unlike the Right, so very few of you have the courage of your convictions. Rather than fight to change the rules of the game so that a more progressive solution can become politically viable you just wimp out and willingly cooperate with a blatently classist meme because it's friggin' convenient.

It gets blamed on Republicans because this was the most politically viable option available to democratic legislators.

Why, Nick???

Why in the name of whatever you hold dear do you Democrats continue to bend over and grab your ankles rather than FIGHT to change the rules of the stupid game???

Why do you continue to let a damn MINORITY dictate the game to you???

WHY???

What's "progressive" about that???

I don't mean this personally but y'all really disgust me sometimes...

Darrel, do we disagree?

RE: Republican fault. The salient fact here is that Republicans blocked the effort to try to fund children's healthcare in the regular session. They have adopted a dogma that no tax increases are ever warranted (and tax cuts, no matter whether the economy is humming or stagnant, are always warranted--but that's another post). It doesn't matter where the taxes come from or what they're funding: Republicans oppose them.

In order to pass tax increases, you need a three-fifths majority in state House. Republicans steadfastly refuse any tax hikes, whether it be raising corporate income taxes or whether it is used to fund sick kids or education. But you only need a simple majority to send a referendum to the people. That's how we ended up here.

The shit of it is, they didn't pass a tax hike--they passed a referendum. There's no reason in the world why it needed 36 votes, and the Parliamentarian told the House that. Legislative Counsel disagreed, and Merkley went with them. It was 100% possible to pass this out as a statutory referendum, however--leadership simply opted not to risk it. Me, I'd rather weather a spurious argument that a bill passed to voters somehow increases anyone's taxes, than have to deal with the very real argument that it doesn't belong in the Constitution.

You can slice, dice and demagogue this six ways to Sunday and the fact will remain that the overwhelming majority of "progressives" who claim that they want to fund healthcare for kids won't have to pay a thin dime to actually provide healthcare for kids. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Of COURSE it's not a coincidence. My family is paying well over $1000 a month for health care, and uses a tiny fraction of it--almost all of it in routine care. I have sympathy for what a bitch it is to quit smoking, but almost everyone still alive knew that when they started. The bottom line is the bottom line--smokers without health care are costing the rest of us a bunch of money. We have every right to seek some of that money back based on choice behavior.

And don't come back with the food angle; we need food to live, not tobacco.

"By definition, instituting a flat tax system is the most "fair" approach. Not the progressive approach,"

Thanks for the oxymoron!

Darrel, do we disagree?

I think we do. You think this is a good plan.

I think raising the tax rate to a level where tobacco consumption is affected only about 3-5% in order to create a stable source of revenue puts the state in the same reprehensible position as the tobacco companies, making money through nicotine addiction.

The state could raise the rate to a level that really puts a dent in the smoking level, but the resultant drop in consumption wouldn't raise as much money. For the kids! Then the Legislature would have to get off their asses and work to convince voters that they should get rid of the supermajority rule on tax votes.

Why do you continue to let a damn MINORITY dictate the game to you???

We're not letting the minority dictate the game, the Oregon Constitution (due to measure 25) states that tax increases require a 3/5 supermajority in the state legislature to pass.

Unfortunately, there's not a 3/5 majority of democrats in the state leg, and despite this the democrats got within 1 vote of passing this as a statuatory increase. Then, when 1 stinking republican changed his vote last minute, the democrats dictated the game by passing it on to voters, because they were willing to do whatever it took to get 100,000 children health insurance. I would say that is dictating the game to the Republicans by side-stepping their tactics. And I would further argue that the overwhelming amount of progress that was made this session on many other issues shows the resolve of house democrats to get things done.

Personally, I think that supermajority requirement shouldn't be in the constitution hamstringing the ability of state legislators to do their jobs. But the requirement is there, and it's just not going to be repealed any time soon by Oregon voters. We can't just ignore the constitution, and we shouldn't. That's not progressive either.

"I have a hard time believing that you are dropping a grand a month on health insurance."

Not personally, no--obviously the City, meaning all Portland residents, pay much of that tab. I wasn't trying to start a pity party for how much I personally pay for health care; that wasn't the point. It's that serious money is being laid out for the coverage of 4 mostly healthy people, some of which is unnecessarily subsidizing the extra costs of health care incurred by smoking. I say unnecessary because if you can recover it from the people directly responsible for incurring it, why WOULD you force it on the rest of society at large, who is already picking up some of the freight?

I don't quite understand Harry's point; he's also wrong about retirement contributions for most workers that I'm aware of. (The rest of it is in the ballpark). But what would they be ashamed of the compensation package (which is after all public record for the most part)? It's not like private workers don't get some paid health care, vacation, options, cars, food, etc. where they are employed. And the base salaries are markedly higher. Stronger benefits are what keeps qualified people willing to work in government, because the pay is lower and the advancement has a lower ceiling.

Oh! And it's an oxymoron to say a flat tax is fair OR or progressive. It's a giveaway to the rich, and has to be set insanely high (like 30% or more) to remain revenue neutral. No thanks.

Same crap from Kevin different date.

The tired dung heap that amounts to nothing more that poor abused smokers are unfairly being and regressively taxed, so don't raise taxes on them despite the fact it does fund smoking cessation programs and insures low-income kids.

You can flap your arms all you want Kevin, but the bottom line of your sanctimonious crap is, you want to keep cigs cheap, not insure kids all because an excise tax in "regressive" because that is the outcome of your position.

YOU are arrogating the morally disgusting position that kids should go without healthcare and die because it would be immoral to raise the excise tax on a product which does NOTHING but kill people and drain health-care dollars while claiming to be "progressive" about it.

And you have the nerve to blather about being morally outraged?

Fucking pathetic.

You think this is a good plan.

Darrel, read the last paragraph. I don't think this is a good plan; I think it has serious flaws. I regard this with pure pragmatism, which was my intention of the post.

And as for point #3 -- as phrased, that is absolutely emotional manipulation.

David, where exactly is the emotionally manipulating phrase? I'll accept your revision with the word "continue" added--it's straightforward and honest. But so is the language in my third point. You can relate to those facts in any way you wish, but are they not the facts?

lestatdelc lies: "you want to keep cigs cheap"

proof

Isn't resorting to lies about your opponent supposed to be a classic tactic from the Right?

Darrel, read the last paragraph. I don't think this is a good plan; I think it has serious flaws. I regard this with pure pragmatism, which was my intention of the post.

Jeff, you're advocating a yes vote for the plan. Your may say some words like "it's the only choice", but you're also throwing out arguments about how taxes aren't fair, how the Republicans are mean, and how it's kids vs. smokers. You don't say it's "bad", otherwise you wouldn't be voting for it.

By "bad" I don't mean simply "not the best possible option". I mean "bad" as in the sense that this is going to addict the state to tobacco revenue in pretty much the same way that cigarette smokers are addicted. I mean that it's bad to calibrate the amount of the tax to a value that only slightly affects smoking use. I mean that it's bad to put the state in the position where it's almost certain in the future to continue to tinker with the amount of the tax to try to wring every drop of blood out of the diseased lungs of smokers without seriously cutting into consumption.

Little TB joke there.

Darrel, you're right, we do disagree on these points. They're not the ones I was addressing in my post, which is how the bill will go down to defeat, if it does--based on a gauzy sense of fairness by many liberals who fail to subject all taxes to this standard.

David, you're the one who's investing meaning into statements of fact, not me. What I wrote was this: "When you cast your ballot, either smokers will pay more for cigarettes or some sick kids will go without healthcare." All this business about which side that puts which team is an elaboration by you.

To both of you, the thing that's persuasive to me is pure pragmatism: while the remedy is a Rube Goldberg policy fix, the result will be insuring kids. The negatives of voting no (and I don't mean to suggest I agree with your speculation about the "state's addiction," Darrel) are outweighed by the negatives of voting yes.

Kevin, first your link goes nowhere, second, it is not a lie to point out that it is the bottom line upshot of voting no on 50 and arguing that it is an unfair regressive tax to to raise taxes on cigs. Arguments which you have trotted out for weeks on end here at BlueOregon. So accusing me of lying" about "my opponent" is laughably pathetic misdirection on your part.

You've got nothing Kevin, and you are arguing that not keeping cigs cheap for low-income propel is "regressive" since it would raise taxes on cigs which would disproportionately impact low-income people who smoke more, than high-income people who smoke less. Flap your arms all you like Kevin, but you have been in effect arguing that we need to keep cigs which kill poor people cheap because it is fair, even though those taxes go to not only smoking cessation programs but insures low-income children's healthcare coverage.

Bloviate all you like, but that is the bottom line.

It's easy to pass a tobacco tax. Last time it passed by 70%. Let's use poor addicts to fund needed services. Let's ammend the constitution because that's easier than passing a statute.

Are the people in Oregon too selfish to contribute to children's healthcare? I disagree and I'm sure others would also.

Where to begin? First of all, they tried the statuatory increase and it failed by one vote. One person was so arrogant as to think their ideological opinion was more important than healthcare for 100,000 children. So it's not like they went to the constitution right away. Second, it's entirely possible that people are too selfish to vote against a tax increase even if it does go to children. You might disagree because you are one of those people that are willing to shoulder the burden, but I assure you, there are many who are not. Also, we do tax alcohol.

Finally, you will have an option for all of society to fund universal healthcare in Oregon in 2009 when the legislature decides on a plan. Until then, this is stop gap measure because it is unconscionable that so many children go without health insurance in this state. You may have reservations about how the measure is funded, we've heard these arguments, many of which are valid concerns. Nobody is saying this measure is perfect. But, what it comes down to for me is are you really willing you prevent 100,000 children from getting health insurance because the measure doesn't go far enough? Do you really think that those children give a damn about whether their insurance comes from a tobacco tax or some other tax? You can say that we'll give them healthcare somewhere down the line, but then how many children will get sick in 2008 and can't afford to go to a doctor?

lestatdelc,

Repeating the lie won't make it any less of a lie. Although I will concede that Karl Rove has proven that using that tactic can fool some of the people some of the time.

I told you directly here that I wouldn't have a problem if M50 put all or even most of the money into smoking cessation efforts. I said the same thing several days earlier to Stephanie here.

...you have been in effect arguing that we need to keep cigs which kill poor people cheap because it is fair, even though those taxes go to not only smoking cessation programs but insures low-income children's healthcare coverage.

LOL you unwittingly reveal that you know you are lying about my position. Otherwise what possible relevance would how much money goes into smoking cessation have to do with whether I just want to keep cigs cheap? If my position were as you've deliberately mischaracterized it then where M50 money would go would be utterly irrelevant to me.

What's interesting is that M50 itself has a special clause in it to allow cigar smokers (but ONLY cigar smokers) to totally evade M50 taxes. But of course if we're to believe your line of BS then the fact that cigar smokers are concentrated among the highest socio-economic demographics is irrelevant to whether M50 is a crass, heartless, patently regressive attempt to force the poor to fund their own services.

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but related to Jeff's opening statements about Republicans blocking progressive legislation for health, education etc: Help Get More Good Democrats Elected! We have 31 Dems in the OR House, a simple majority, but we need 36 to pass revenue related bills. Go to the website of your County Democratic Party today and get involved. Drag along a couple of friends when you go. In Washington County, Jessica Adamson has announced her run for HD26 (Gaston/Sherwood/Wilsonville) currently held by Jerry Krummel (R). Contact www.washcodems.org and ask how you can support her. And put your money where your mouth is. You'll feel really great when we start to get things done in this state under a solid Democratic legislature!

I don't mean to suggest I agree with your speculation about the "state's addiction," Darrel

Jeff, do you want to speculate on why the increase in the tobacco tax is pegged at $0.84/pack rather than, say, $3? Or why one of the groups advocating for Measure 50 identifies it as a stable revenue source for years to come?

Why do you think Tobacco Free Kids thinks it'll be stable, Jeff? If the number of smokers went down significantly as a result of the increase, there wouldn't be enough money to fund the programs the state intends to use the money for. If it was high enough to incur an annual drop of more than two percent, then it wouldn't be stable.

The state ought to be getting people off of cigarettes, not making money off of them. Despite the claims of the Measure 50 backers, the decrease in tobacco consumption expected from this bill is negligible.

I don't think people are voting against this out of a "gauzy sense of fairness". I think a lot of people are smart enough to understand that something about the state joining into a devil's pact with tobacco dealers to suck money out of smoker's lungs for the rest of their lives stinks like a jacket that's been in a poorly-ventilated bar. They may not know the particulars, they may not have researched the numbers, but they know something's wrong.

Jeff, do you want to speculate...

No.

More blathering bullshit from Kevin. Because most of the money goes to insuring kids, you don't support M50, and for weeks you have argued it was unfair because it was "regressive". So the bottom line is that you are for keeping cigs cheap which will kill more poor people than rich people, and not insure poor kids because you want cigs cheap because it is "regressive".

You want me to labor the point by going back over the past several weeks to link to the numerous posts where you rail against M50 because it is "regressive" here, here, here, and here to cite ones just this past week and a half?

There is no lying on my part, you can blather on and on but the bottom line is, you oppose M50, so you are for keeping cigs cheap which will kill more people while not insuring children of low-income families. And you feign "disgust" with those who want to make it less likely young people will start smoking in the first place, while insuring low-income children. At least own up to the fact that you are for keeping cigs cheap which will kill more people and not for insuring low-cost children because M50 is "regressive" taxation, since that is the bottom-line of opposing M50.

Posted by: Eric J. | Oct 25, 2007 11:11:38 AM Even if one vote kept it from being a statute, it still exhibits a true measure of laziness for them not to even TRY to get that vote changed without the constituents involvement.

This is simply dishonest. The Dem leadership in the Lege tried for weeks on end to get the votes throught the session. They would be negotiating with a GOP hold-out and get them onboard only to have another one break their previously given word and renege, in a game of orchestrated musical chairs from the GOP to rope-a-dope this. So to claim that those "vermin" (nice) in Salem "didn't even try" is simply wrong on numerous levels.

Jeff:

No.

I guess you'd rather just portray people who disagree with you as fuzzy-headed, "good-spirited" folk who are just too stupid to understand the realpolitik as you see it than explain why the state isn't actually going to try to reduce the number of smokers.

Why don't we just sell crack and heroin to support children's health care? Do you think those people don't add a burden to the public health bill? They can just stop whenever they want, too.

lestatdelc,

1. It is regressive. That much is easily proven, as I have done repeatedly.

2. The touted reduction in smokers is negligible to the point of being an obvious Red Herring point as Darrel as patiently pointed out over and over.

3. Until you are willing to pony up your own money to provide healthcare for kids I don't see much evidence that you really care about them as much as you just want to avoid having to pay to deal with the problem - a classic trait of conservatism.

4. Raising cig taxes and then turning around and plowing that directly into smoking cessation efforts strikes me as inherently more progressive than crassly calculating the effect so as to insure that enough folks keep smoking and thereby insure that funds that you are unwilling to provide will keep rolling in.

5. I don't see any way that providing healthcare to kids will result in all that many fewer poor folks bleeding their own economic future away on an addiction. Yes, some will quit due to the higher prices and thereby improve their financial status. But I don't see any real causual connection between funding health care to folks who weren't paying for any in the first place and improving their financial status. Whereas funding a full-blown, serious effort to reduce smoking would reduce that same economic hemoraging and thereby directly impact the economic status of those same poor tobacco addicts. The latter would be an I-N-H-E-R-E-N-T-L-Y more progressive program.

Miles, if it passed in the Lege we wouldn't be having this conversation. It isn't either deceitful or naive to point out that the Dem leadership did try, incessantly, to get the votes to pass this outright.

Why you think it is bad to be ready to make the GOP accountable for not passing it in the Lege escapes me. You see it as a bad thing to be able to rightly pound the anti-social ludites in the GOOP over the head wioth this, just like the SCHIP verto is kind of baffliong.

So the Dems should have simply packed it in and let the minoirty kill SCHIP funding or the Oregon version of it (M50) because the GOP played rop-a-dope to try and kill it in the Lege?

So you support Bush's veto of SCHIP expansion?

1. You lied. Nowhere have I called for keeping cigs cheap as the means to any end, much less the end that you insinuate.

More bullshit form Kevin. Try reading comprehension.

I said "at least own up to the fact that you are for keeping cigs cheap which will kill more people and not for insuring low-cost children because M50 is "regressive" taxation, since that is the bottom-line of opposing M50."

You oppose raising taxes on cigs to pay for insuring kids. Don't make shit up that I am "lying" by my pointing out that the bottom line of your opposition amounts to the end-effect of keeping cigs cheap which will kill more poor people, while keeping more kids uninsured. Whether you oppose M50 because you don't think it targets enough money to cessation programs or not, the bottom line is you are arguing to keep cigs cheap which will kill more poor people, and not insuring low-income kids. You can rationalize that you are doing it for "principled" reasons of taxing cigarettes is regressive if you like. The bottom line is, the effect of opposing M50 is you are keeping cigs cheap which will get more kids addicted, kill more poor people and deny an means to fund insuring low-income kids.

But like many a purity troll, you let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

FYI, show me a single payer UHC plan that is viable and I will fight like hell to support that and shift 100% of the M50 revenue to smoking cessation programs. In the mean time, I will gladly tax a deadly "product" that is one of the biggest drains on our healthcare system in order to insure low-income children, and I will sleep well in voting yes on 50. (which I already have)

lestatdelc,

Your conclussion doesn't follow because your premise is fatally flawed. In short, it's logically fallacious.

If M50 were the very last opportunity to ever raise taxes on tobacco AND/OR if using those funds to pay for healthcare for poor kids were the last possible chance to ever fund said healthcare THEN your premise and conclussion would be in the realm of the rational. But alas they're not.

You are smart enough, that much is readily apparent. So I can't think of any other option other than that you are simply trying to muddy up and otherwise obfuscate what I've been saying as your motive for putting forward what you had to have known was logically fallacious BS.

Anything for the cause, eh? Rove would be proud.

Nick, you're blathering on and on about the 100,00 kids without health insurance is silly and pointless. I grew up in Oregon as a kid without health insurance and so did most of my friends. Almost everybody went without health insurance in the 50's and 60's. Guess what, most of us survived just fine.

Yes, and back in my day we walked to school, in the driving snow, 20 degrees below freezing, uphill both ways.

Come on, this is the best argument you can make? It's not even factually correct, first of all, child and infant mortality is down since 50 years ago. So actually more people are surviving just fine now with greater health insurance coverage. Your case is falsely inflated because the people that got the short end of the stick back then are DEAD. Obviously some of that is bolstered by medical advances since then, but nonetheless preventative medicine is the best way to maintain health and not affording to visit the doctor puts a hold on preventative medicine.

Saying it is for the kids just shows how dim you are. Everything is for the kids if you want to phrase it that way. Smaller school class size is for the kids. MAX is for the environment which is for the kids. Libraries are for the kids. Blah, blah, blah, everyone is for the kids.

Yes andy, damn those children for thinking they are entitled to adults taking care of them. They're so lazy, they just sit on their ass in school all day and get doddled on by the government. Why aren't they out laboring away so they can afford their own insurance and books and transportation?

In any case, smaller class sizes ARE for the kids. But the rest of your comparison is bull: environmental programs or libraries or other government programs are for EVERYONE, which includes children among others. Measure 50, by contrast, spends over 70% of its revenue on the Healthy Kids program, which is funding health insurance for CHILDREN, and then spends even more money on tobacco prevention for children. So the vast majority of the cigarette tax increase actually goes to children, making it very much for the kids. I'm not saying measure 49 is for the kids, I'm saying measure 50 funding health insurance for children is for the children. 100,000 of them in fact.

Darrel, one of the reasons I'm not going to go into the debate with you is because it always feels like a dialogue quicksand. Comments like this make me think there's no real opportunity for discussion: "Why don't we just sell crack and heroin to support children's health care?" I get it, you disagree. Ain't no way in the world I'm changing your mind. I get that, too. Fair enough.

To argue some purity on the part of the Dem leadership means you are either purposefully being deceitful, or you're hopelessly naive.

Miles, you're unhinged if you think the only reason this is on the ballot is as a political ploy. I think this is what results from a Rove period in politics--motives are always regarded as political because for one side, that's what they are. For 100 years Democrats have fought poverty. It's the heart of the party. This measure is the RESULT, not the cause, of successful Democratic campaigns.

For 100 years Democrats have fought poverty. It's the heart of the party. This measure is the RESULT, not the cause, of successful Democratic campaigns.

Jeff, I've told you before that you're one of my fav writers over here and nothing has changed since the last time I said it.

That said, from your quote above it seems to me that there's a fundamental disconnect between what Darrel is writing and what you're reading. He's patiently laid out in detail why M50 runs contrary to the very Democratic tradition you cite. Yet it's as if you read it and got something totally different out of it.

I dont' get it...

Nice try Kevin, at palming off as a logical fallacy skipping to the bottom line effect of the position you advocate (voting no on M50). A claim of logical fallacy on my part which is pure hokum. Passing universal healthcare in the future (which I Iwould fully support) does nothing to address the needs of kids without insurance now, who will get sick or die because of lack of preventative care now who will be instead covered by M50.

You simply won't succeed in spinning it away when you are indeed for keeping cigs cheap for poor people, which will kill more of those same poor people when you advocate voting no on M50 all because you think the tax is "unfair", though you are trying your best to.

lestatdelc,

The faux crocodile tears over smoking deaths in the context of M50 just underscores the calculated crassness of your position.

M50 doesn't make any pretense of trying to reduce smoking deaths as much as possible or even as much as practical. Indeed it depends upon only a relatively small percentage of smokers quitting in order that the money will continue to roll in, thus absolving you of personal responsibility for the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile M50 treats affluent cigar smokers very differently than it does poor cigarette smokers.

Thanks, Kevin. That quote of mine was a response to Miles, not Darrel.