7 thoughts on “Nanny Bloomberg: ‘Even one new smoker is too many’”
One new or old Bloomberg is too many.
With regard to the 1.50/pack tax. To understand their real objective, follow the budget process.
Each time NY or CT raises their cigarette taxes, they claim it will reduce smoking. But their proposed budgets always show a big income increase (which would not occur if smoking was reduced).
Their real goal is just to raise revenue – they don’t care at all about the citizens.
He’s talking about smoking tobacco, smoking pot is another matter.
Even one new ban is too many. Nanny, Ban-ny, don’t let the door hit you in the Fo-Fanny.
This guy is the great aunt I had back in the 1950s made into an iron-fisted mayor. And New York is into it.
I suppose one new soft drink guzzler is too may also. What an idiot.
Well, I guess if he was honest he also would say: “Even one new drinker of alcohol is too many” – since alcohol is far more destructive than nicotine ever was.
Okay, smoking and other tobacco use is a poor idea. Where does the city of New York get its waiver on the First Amendment, though?
Taxing the heck out of tobacco is a highly regressive tax, since it tends to be paid heavily among low-educated people who have low-wage jobs. I’ve heard an ad in Montana that says “Smoking can cost $3,000 per year.” That would be $60 a week — most of which is taxes! Now there’s a tax that really DOES take food from the tables of people who are poor.
Leave a Reply
Discover more from JunkScience.com
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
One new or old Bloomberg is too many.
With regard to the 1.50/pack tax. To understand their real objective, follow the budget process.
Each time NY or CT raises their cigarette taxes, they claim it will reduce smoking. But their proposed budgets always show a big income increase (which would not occur if smoking was reduced).
Their real goal is just to raise revenue – they don’t care at all about the citizens.
He’s talking about smoking tobacco, smoking pot is another matter.
Even one new ban is too many. Nanny, Ban-ny, don’t let the door hit you in the Fo-Fanny.
This guy is the great aunt I had back in the 1950s made into an iron-fisted mayor. And New York is into it.
I suppose one new soft drink guzzler is too may also. What an idiot.
Well, I guess if he was honest he also would say: “Even one new drinker of alcohol is too many” – since alcohol is far more destructive than nicotine ever was.
Okay, smoking and other tobacco use is a poor idea. Where does the city of New York get its waiver on the First Amendment, though?
Taxing the heck out of tobacco is a highly regressive tax, since it tends to be paid heavily among low-educated people who have low-wage jobs. I’ve heard an ad in Montana that says “Smoking can cost $3,000 per year.” That would be $60 a week — most of which is taxes! Now there’s a tax that really DOES take food from the tables of people who are poor.