www.bewet.fora.pl

salelaioga

Other opponents of cigarette tax hikes espouse different reasons for their position, of course. For example, in Florida, one of the groups leading the charge last year against the $1 per pack hike was a collection of gas station owners. According to Jim Smith, president and CEO of the Florida Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association, “If you’re a customer and you’re not going in for cigarettes,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], you’re not going to go in at all. And a lot of sales at convenience stores are impulse buys. That cuts into the bottom line.” Smith also commented that “Any time you reduce [cigarette] sales by big percentages, you eliminate a significant portion of profit that retailers use for things like payroll and rent,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych],” something that retailers think represents an important consideration, given persistent high unemployment across the country.
Smokers,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], meanwhile,marlboro cigarettes website, object to cigarette tax increases as backdoor nanny-state initiatives,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and say they feel targeted, and unfairly so, given that smokers are disproportionately poorer. After last year’s SCHIP cigarette tax hike went through,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], CNN reported that Larry Jukes, a 65 year-old Coloradan, complained that ”They’re picking on us poor people, the ones that smoke… They have been for years.” Americans for Tax Reform, a staunch opponent of cigarette tax increases on principle, published data last year demonstrating that 55 percent of smokers qualify as “working poor,” and that 25 percent of smokers lives below the poverty line.[link widoczny dla zalogowanych].
Whether the trend that Mr. Jukes identified will continue remains to be seen; smokers, convenience store owners’ groups and fiscal responsibility advocates can however be expected to argue hard against further increases in the coming months.
What are the main possible changes in the Tobacco Products Directive that the Commission is analysing?
* Improving consumer information, for example by having bigger and double-sided picture warnings, standard packaging,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], qualitative information on harmful substances and information on cessation services.
* Introducing a control, restriction or ban, on harmful, addictive and attractive substances in tobacco products.
* Improving mechanisms for reporting and analysing tobacco products by introducing harmonised reporting systems and introducing accompanying fees.
* Examining the current rules on sales of tobacco products, in particular with regard to promotion at the point of sales, vending machines and distance sales.
* Addressing newly emerging products.
That’s how it looks to Daniel Skiba, president of the Connecticut Elks Association. Many potential Elks members are turned off by the health risk and what they view as the nasty funk of a smoke-filled room, Skiba said. He did not know how many lodges had banned smoking ― each lodge makes its own decision ― but he predicted that eventually all will be smoke-free.
“[Members] don’t want to come to our lodge because they can’t take the smoke and their clothes stink,” said Skiba, a member of the Rockville lodge. “It’s just inevitable that we’ve got to make things more accommodating to our membership.”
Rockville Elks are discussing a possible smoking ban,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], Skiba said. Lodge members in Danielson voted about a year ago to ban smoking in the bar area and function room, allowing it only in one room, lodge secretary Darlene Blain said.