www.public4you.fora.pl

sunnyrauar

In Florida, where ongoing budget woes are anticipated, concern exists that legislators could jack up cigarette taxes again. Last year,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], the State Senate—including its Republican members, led by Senate President Jeff Atwater and budget committee chief J.D. Alexander—unanimously voted to increase cigarette taxes by $1 a pack. The House ultimately played ball,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], too, and Gov. Charlie Crist gave a thumbs up to the tax hike, which was expected to bring in anything from $700 million to $1 billion.
In New York, where cigarettes are already extensively taxed and can sell for as much as $9 per pack, further increases could be on the agenda, too.
At the end of the day, taxing those with a hard-to-break habit looks like easy pickings to those on the search for easy money. But, critics say, revenue from cigarette tax increases is more akin to Fool’s Gold than anything else, and those attempting to close state budget deficits should be wary of relying on them.
The Directive on Tobacco Products (2001) requires manufacturers to put warnings on tobacco products, bans terms such as ‘light’, ‘mild’ or ‘low tar’, forces producers to provide full information on all ingredients and sets maximum limits for tar,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], nicotine and carbon monoxide in cigarettes.[link widoczny dla zalogowanych].
The Directive on Tobacco Advertising (2003) bans cross-border advertising of tobacco products in printed media,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych],[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], radio and on-line services. It equally bans sponsorship of cross border events. Tobacco advertising and sponsorship on television has already been prohibited since 1989.
The Council Recommendation on smoking prevention (2003) encourages Member States to control all forms of tobacco promotion and sales to minors, as well as to improve awareness and health education.
The Council Recommendation on Smoke Free Environments (2009) calls on Member States to adopt and implement laws to protect citizens from exposure to tobacco smoke in enclosed public places, workplaces and public transport. It also calls for the enhancement of smoke-free laws with supporting measures such as protecting children, encouraging efforts to quit smoking and having pictorial warnings on cigarette packages.
Jennings said that his restaurant/ sports bar/ cocktail lounge picked up some Ohio smokers when the ban started there, but it lost just as many patrons to Ohio who wanted to eat and drink in a smoke-free spot. He said he doesn’t expect to lose too many customers and hopes for new patrons who didn’t frequent establishments that allowed smoking.
He said the ban will be healthier for his 25 or so employees, most of whom are nonsmokers.
“I think the hidden thing with the smokers, what I’m hearing from them — it isn’t necessarily the fact they have to go outside to smoke. They feel that big government is telling them more and more what they can and can’t do,” he said.
Kenneth Dean, 46, of Toledo, who was smoking at the Michigan Tavern,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], said the state ban is a “travesty against the Constitution.”
“I know it’s negative. I know it’s nasty. Are they my mom? No. Are they my dad? No,” he said.
Some nonsmokers agreed, saying it should be a business owner’s decision if smoking is allowed. Beth Richardville, 39,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], of Temperance, a nonsmoker sitting with smoking friends at M.T. Loonies, said she thinks Michigan’s ban is illegal.
“Cigarettes are not illegal. We are in a public establishment,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych],” she said.