The Boston Snus (Tea) Party

[pangloss]

empty space

[HK11]

I went with no, because I think if it gets too popular some asshole socialist in the govt will find a way to **** it while smiling behind her trendy square commie spectacles.

[pangloss]

empty space

[ctimb2002]

[quote="pangloss"
Gov't only has so much funding to spend on anti-tobac campaigns. Surely they will spend 70% of that money on soft toilet paper and the rest on anti-smoking ads![/quote]

lol this made me smile, especially considering im a connoisseur of toilet paper

I had to vote yes. Even though I made a post not long ago claiming that camel was going to ruin snus for all of us. I think it won't if we get the proper research over to the u.s.

[lxskllr]

Neither choice is applicable to me. I'm pro tobacco in all of it's forms. The government needs to remove all but reasonable taxes on tobacco, and get the hell out of people's business. Everybody knows that you don't use tobacco to get healthier. People need to weigh the risks, and act accordingly. It isn't the governments job to protect people from themselves.

[HK11]

But what if the American Government actually sees the research (for the first time in their lives) and realizes that this could be the answer to decreasing health care costs???

Even if they don't believe the hard numbers, they have bigger fish to fry. Sure its easier for a teen to hide a pouch under their lip during algebra, but isn't the reason they start with nic in the first place is to look cool? how are they going to do that with something that can't be seen. this isn't james dean with a leather jacket or a ball player spitting before a home run. their friends won't even notice it!

Gov't only has so much funding to spend on anti-tobac campaigns. Surely they will spend 70% of that money on soft toilet paper and the rest on anti-smoking ads!

I don't think they are concerned with people's health as much as revenue. I'm probably getting old and bitter, but I cannot remember anything the govt has done to actually benefit the working/middle class in a long time.

[Shownarou]

But what if the American Government actually sees the research (for the first time in their lives) and realizes that this could be the answer to decreasing health care costs???

Even if they don't believe the hard numbers, they have bigger fish to fry. Sure its easier for a teen to hide a pouch under their lip during algebra, but isn't the reason they start with nic in the first place is to look cool? how are they going to do that with something that can't be seen. this isn't james dean with a leather jacket or a ball player spitting before a home run. their friends won't even notice it!

Gov't only has so much funding to spend on anti-tobac campaigns. Surely they will spend 70% of that money on soft toilet paper and the rest on anti-smoking ads!

I don't think they are concerned with people's health as much as revenue. I'm probably getting old and bitter, but I cannot remember anything the govt has done to actually benefit the working/middle class in a long
time.

That's because it's been a very very long time since they have.

[pangloss]

empty space

[pangloss]

empty space

[9 Jack 9]

I think I've mentioned this before, but I voted No because I live in Massachusetts and tobacco products (and accessories now!) are taxed to high hell and back. American market snus would probably be terrible and terribly expensive. I'll gladly import from Sweden all the way, man.

[pangloss]

empty space

[Shownarou]

I think I've mentioned this before, but I voted No because I live in Massachusetts and tobacco products (and accessories now!) are taxed to high hell and back. American market snus would probably be terrible and terribly expensive. I'll gladly import from Sweden all the way, man.

But would it really be taxed to such great extents? The impetus for taxation of cigarettes is to provide further disincentive for smokers to continue their habit. Unfortunately alternative nic delivery systems like gum are reeeediculously expensive b/c they are made by private (unregulated?) companies that have a niche hold in the market and can charge outrageous prices b/c the alternative of quitting is deadly.

If it could be demonstrated that Snus is far less harmful and could be a step down from cigs then wouldn't it be in the governments favor to not tax snus, and encourage people to move from smoking to this less harmful product? Hell they could even provide incentives for smokers to switch over.

Side note: A paper was published in New England Journal of Medicine recently that offered current smokers financial compensation (varying amounts of money for different subgroups) if they stopped smoking for 6 months and 1 yr time periods. They found that this was a successful endeavor however the amt. of financial compensation to get smokers to stop was quite high. A more pleasurable, tasty, and discreet form of tobacco could be the incentive that smokers are looking for and at a cheaper cost to the government.

Yes, do you trust your states government enough to look in to snus and see the effects? A can of chewing tobacco is around 6 dollars and a pack of cigarettes the same in Iowa. They don't care what the effects are on the user and the people around, our governor is just anti-tobacco.

[pangloss]

empty space

[lxskllr]

I don't think it's the governments place to legislate health. There's many different things people do that negatively affect health, but tobacco is the only one that's unfairly taxed. A fair tax on any form of tobacco is in the range of 1¢ per gram. Any more than that is just racketeering by the government.

[justintempler]

Snus is much less harmful than the other two modalities, and my opinion is that if it becomes popular in the US, it will be the result of Sweedish companies, which are not under direct governmental oversight in the same way as Marlboro and Camel.

Just keep in mind that in comparison to other tobacco companies, Swedish Match is a small company and is a big target for aquisition by companies like Philip Morris, Lorrilard, Altria etc.. When they eventually do get bought out they will be under direct governmental oversight.

Also consider the effects of taxation, like in Canada. When the price of a carton of cigarettes is $80.00 and the government gets $60.00 of it in taxes, doesn't that make the government the defacto tobacco company? They set the prices and collect the majority of the "profits" At what point do the cigarette companies in effect become subcontractors?