virgil

i can see a restriction on the big bad military type firearm but a henry rifle? Not to Hijack the thread but just what rifles fall into that group? Which ones should we have the restrictions on? Uh oh Sidewinder. Now you've stepped in it.

When I was smoking last January the cost of a pack down south was less than $4 a pack while NY was just short of $10 so NY has to have at least $6 a pack coming in. Just found a link- NY State tax $4.35/pack, Florida $1.34.

I could be wrong about this, but as far as i understand, there are both federal and state taxes. I believe the federal tax money is specifically earmarked for certain programs. As far as the state tax money, i believe it's done differently in each state with some doing a better job than others of actually directing that money where it's supposed to versus dumping it into the state's general fund.

Yeah but if they can tax the hell out of it, can't they restrict the amount you buy? Not by legislating a limit- but by taxing the hell out it, they can achieve the desired effect, which is that people will buy less cigarettes, more people will decide to quit, and there will be a decrease in the number of new smokers. Plus, the tax revenue generated can offset the healthcare costs associated with smoking as well as fund the educational/advertising programs designed to reduce the number of smokers and encourage/assist people to quit smoking.

Yikes. Is that showing a full moon for the opener?

The reason that tobacco hasn't been banned is probably becasue the tobacco industry has a very powerful lobby. Since they can't make the product illegal, they tax the hell out of it in order to reduce consumption and to discourage new users.

I think virgil gave up on us... A long time ago. Just kidding....sort of.

antler, you didn't answer my question.

Antler, you seem to be too bitter and angry to consider anything objectively- you're right, I'm dragging this country down. Just curious, how do you feel about all of the taxes on cigarettes? If everyone is capable of 'making their own choices', how did the great protectors of freedom like yourself allow that to happen?

Moog and Culver make fair points. I agree that the law will likely have little to no effect and that there is no way to tackle obesity with legislation alone. But, something needs to be done. The 'soda tax' would have been a good start. I don't think there will ever be meaningful change until people's insurance premiums are tied to the costs related to illnesses that result from their poor habits/decisions.

Posted Today, 07:09 AM 'Sasquatch' At the risk of being laughed off of this site my interest in this topic got the best of me. Has anyone here ever seen a legit sighting while hunting in NY ? I've heard of sightings in the Whitehall area but I'm curious to see if there are any in the Catskill region. The above post from a guy that just accused me of 'blatant stupidity'. Now that's amusing.

I love to see liberals who hunt. Talk about conflicted. Your blatant stupidity amuses me Not conflicted at all. Just not narrow minded and short sighted either.

Doc, you give yourself too much credit. You didn't hit a 'sensitive spot' because, as I said, i think your post and accusation are nonsense. You make a lot of assumptions regarding my thoughts- then, you again compare that assumption to 'historical believers in government public behavior modification'????? I do not believe in giving up 'freedoms' easily. However, I also don't believe in 'biting off one's nose to spite his face'. In this case, the general public is being asked to endure a very minor inconvenience for the greater good- not that big a deal.

nyantler, as your post demonstrates, some people are just not smart enough to make intelligent decisions and need laws to keep them from doing harm to themselves and dragging society down with them.

Lol .... I just love those that champion the government's love affair with behavior modification of the masses. Some just can't get enough of it. They probably would have been supporters of any of history's more noteable dictators. It's pretty much the same mentality. I appreciate the love, but the rest of your post is nonsense. Another silly attempt to demonize anyone with a different opinion.

Man, you have a very odd way of looking at things sometimes. That's your opinion. A sensible tax on a product that contributes to the obesity epidemic that could have generated revenue in order to offset the healthcare costs associated with obesity was shot down. A tax like that might have had multiple benefits- generate revenue and decrease soda consumption- similar to the taxes on cigarettes. If you're so worried about out of control spending, you should also worry about lost revenue opportunities.

Maybe you should worry more about the 'tax dollars' that we could have been generating if the proposed 'soda tax' had been approved.

The whole thing is a waste of time. Then don't worry about it.

just go into a 7-11 buy a big cup of ice and a 2 liter bottle of coke You can still get your Big Gulps at 7-11- they're classified as grocery stores and so they're exempt from the new law.

Will you be hunting with a guide?

No doubt it is a problem. I just disagree the solution is an unenforcable law that does nothing. Do you really want to let the responsibility lay where it should? unhealthy habits should be reflected in each persons health insurance. just like auto insurance. That is the only fair way to do it. If you are taking care of yourself then you should have lower costs. Totally agree- and I have said for a while that I believe that this will eventually happen. Should people on food stamps be allowed to use those food stamps to buy only fruit, vegetables, whole grains and lean meat??? Done't name call I really want to know what you think. I do think that there should be restrictions on what can be purchased with food stamps- that's perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/18/health/us-obesity/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

It's posted in the 'political' section because there is no official 'nonsensical conspiracy theory' section.

You guys are ridiculous.

Culver, so you're saying that they're grading him not on his record, but by comparing his actions to what they expected of him? So, he's being graded by them on a curve? Why can't you concede that they're judging his record objectively?