San Francisco wants a .33 tax on cigarettes for butt litter

[RamboLiberal]

SAN FRANCISCO — In what he casts as an attack on litterbugs and nicotine addiction alike, Mayor Gavin Newsom wants to impose a fee on an age-old inhabitant of city streets: the cigarette butt.

The proposal, to be introduced next month to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, would add 33 cents to the cost of a pack of cigarettes, to offset the estimated $10.7 million the city spends annually removing discarded butts from gutters, drainpipes and sidewalks.

The added cost, Mr. Newsom hopes, will also dampen smokers’ urge to light up.

“In general, fees help reduce the consumption and use of tobacco,” he said in an interview. “And we think that will have a very beneficial public health component.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/us/19smoke.html?_r=1&hp

Amazes me that smokers don't consider their butts litter.

[SidDithers]

1. The most littered item worldwide...

Go Mayor Newsom!

Sid

[JohnnyBoots]

26. Will also probably be the most widespread artifact left over from us. Cavemen had

stone chips from making tools...we have cigarette butts....

[Hannah Bell]

147. doubt it; butts disintegrate. more likely plastic bags.

[DJ13]

2. You know, that could backfire

I imagine those smokers who dont litter might start if they're paying for clean up.

I could see not just an increase in litter from that stupid idea, but as more people just throw their butts around after paying for the clean up there will probably be an increase in accidental fires too.

[joeybee12]

3. I rarely see a smoker look for a place to put the butt, like a trashcan...

...they almost always just toss it...it's disgusting.

[imdjh]

5. I "field strip"

The tip goes under my shoe, the filter goes in my pocket.

[Luminous Animal]

7. That is what I do.

I don't mind the extra tax for clean up but I have to question why Newsom is removing trashcans from our city streets while using a tax "penalty" to promote clean streets. Removing the trash cans has to be one of the stupidest things that he has done. It definitely has increased street trash in my party destination neighborhood.

[imdjh]

15. Around here, a tax on fast food trash clean up would appeal to me

Cigarette butts are unsightly- but fast food trash is really ugly and draws pests. It also shows a greater lack of good citizenship in my book. A cigarette needs to be put out at a specific time. A bag of KFC trash, even with bones, can wait until you get to a trash can.

Many seemingly sensible actions have adverse consequences. Ever since the local cops got more patrol boats and started pulling boaters over without probable cause (which they are permitted to do for "safety checks") you see more and more beer cans and garbage floating in the bay.The occasional can will fly off the boat- it's to be expected. But when you see a bag with cans and the plastic rings it's obvious that someone was getting rid of the evidence.

Mind you, I have no problem with banning alcoholic beverages from open boats entirely.

[inna]

72. are you serious??

i had no idea he removed trashcans from our city streets, not sure how i missed that.

i'll try to look this up, but if someone has a link that would be helpful.

[Luminous Animal]

131. Here's a link.

http://www.examiner.com/a-793808~S_F__to_kick_garbage_cans_to_the_curb.html


I live in the Castro and they've removed two within 4 blocks of my house. One of them on a corner with two small groceries. Naturally, the street trash has increased at that corner.

[inna]

132. now, talk about bad governing. it's a shame.

:mad:

[Kalyke]

16. Hmmm... I see quite the opposite.

Smokers looking for places to put them and finding none. No ashtrays at building fronts or in new automobiles.

[imdjh]

20. Anyone who would smoke in a new car needs help.

I have never smoked in my car. I may be gay, but I am the car NAZI when it comes to guy rules. No smoking. No cups. No food. Vehicles are supposed to look and smell good. I would no more smoke in my car than I would take a dump in it.

[Mythsaje]

81. Vehicles are supposed to get you from point A to point B...

Look and smell good? They're fucking cars, not princesses.

[imdjh]

94. Blasphemer! I'll bet that you don't have any car wax in your garage. Fess up.

[Mythsaje]

115. Nope...

Don't even have a garage. My sweet car has been dented, splattered with something that damaged the paint, and usually has at least three days worth of recyclables on the passenger floorboard.

[imdjh]

127. LOL. It's a phase with me.

This is my second new car in my adulthood. The first five years I'm like this. Except for the smoking thing; smoking in cars has never been a good idea.

[Mythsaje]

133. I'll be glad when I quit again...

The car is just about the only inside place I can smoke anymore. We don't smoke in our house (the dogs and cats don't need it), and, of course, there are few other places where it's okay. My dad's, but that's about it. And I always feel weird lighting up in the house. I'm just not used to it.

Weird thing I noticed about myself--I never walk into a place, even my father's, with a lit smoke. Even when it was legal in bars I didn't do it unless I was expecting trouble.

[imdjh]

136. It has always been against the rules to walk into a building with a cigarette

As a rule, a person isn't supposed to walk while smoking. Traditionally, there were a lot of rules about smoking. I think that most of them got lost along about 1970 which is probably partially why we are seeing such a backlash.

[Mythsaje]

137. Really?

Odd. No one ever taught me that. It seemed natural to me.

[Luminous Animal]

21. Indeed.

I carry my own "ashtray" and so do most of the people that I know. But the lack of receptacles goes a long way towards explaining the problem. I was in Barcelona recently and they do not have near the problem with street trash as does San Francisco. But Barcelona has small trash cans everywhere and workers that empty them regularly. They also have large trash & recycling bins on some street corners.

[imdjh]

31. I find soda cans to be really good ashtrays.

I'm sure someone will tell me that using soda cans as ashtrays screws up recycling, but then there are always folks who object both to the problem and the easiest available solution.

[Wednesdays]

109. That's probably part of the problem...not enough city workers

In this anti-tax, tea-bagging society, there's not enough money to hire workers to help beautify the streets. I've been to Canada many times, and city workers are everywhere...and the cities are pristine. Here, most urban areas look like third-world countries. But hey, at least everybody gets to keep their "hard earned dollars." :eyes:

[krispos42]

111. Doubtless the SF trashcans were removed 'cuz of the threat of terrorism

It wouldn't surprise me one whit.



There was probably a ginormous DHS grant to KBR to remove trashcans nationwide, and Bush probably called the pro-public-trashcan advocacy group "terrorist supporters".


:crazy:

[JVS]

33. It's more dangerous to put a butt in a trash can than to just stomp it out.

[inna]

44. exactly. good point.

i'm a (very light) smoker in San Francisco, and IMO the constant and ever-increasing scapegoating of smokers has gotten to be ridiculous.

smokers already pay insanely jacked up prices for cigarettes; enough is enough already!


to Newsom, it may seem as an attractive idea to generate revenue for the nearly bankrupt city/state at the expense of smokers (instead of increasing taxes for the super-rich), but... it's a wrong move.

[krispos42]

108. I think you're right

It's something that was discussed in "Freakonomics" regarding day-care centers charging late fees.


When the day-care centers started charging modest late-pickup fees, tardiness actually went UP. Why? Parents stopped feeling guilt about being late!




I think that what would be a good idea is a cigarette butt "deposit", like they do on soda cans. 5¢ per butt, a buck a pack.


People, especially children and the poor, would actually pick them up to turn them in for the cash.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

4. Is this for cigarettes or what?

just wondering.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. Yet More Discrimination On Smokers.

When is the tax on plastic bottles coming? The tax on napkins? The tax on gum?

What a crock of shit.

[Luminous Animal]

9. The recyling deposit...

has pretty much eliminated plastic and glass bottle litter. And I would not mind a tax on gum if the revenue was directed to clean up. San Francisco sidewalks are disgusting with gum litter.

[Oregone]

10. Not at all

Aren't you sooo persecuted.

Plastic bottles have deposits to discourage litter. Napkins, well, they normally have $500 dollar litter fines attached.

Im not sure why you don't think discouraging litter is a good idea.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. I Think Cigarettes Are Already Taxed Enough, And Smokers Already Targetted Enough.

And there are still plenty of plastic bottles, cans, napkins, and other debris littering the roadside and landscape.

[Oregone]

25. In terms of litter, they will be targeted "enough" when they stop littering

There is nothing wrong with creating an incentive to encourage cessation of a criminal behavior. But again, I think a deposit is a better idea than a tax for altering behavior.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. The biggest nicotine addicts are state and local governement. Taxes on cigs are used for

many things that are not smoking related. When smoking finally goes pretty much away, we are going to have to find way to make up than revenue "for the children" or whatever non-smoking related program was relying on cig taxes. Damn stupid way to govern.

I say the above as a rabid non-smoker.

[Aristus]

35. When smoking finally goes away, we won't have cigarette butts everywhere,

or the enormously expensive public health problems caused by nicotine addiction. Taxes on cigarettes pretty much go to pay for the problems caused by smoking. When cigarettes are gone, we won't need the tax revenue anymore, either.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. I suggest you look at where the funds actually go

its not toward respiratory services. Its not balanced, its not even close. Same with most sin taxes.

[Aristus]

39. You really think I give a shit where the funds go? Every time I have to walk through

some nicotine-freak's cloud of poison, my only thought is someone ought to tax them out of existence. I have a powerful addiction, too. I'm an insatiable reader. As far as I know, that doesn't cause respiratory problems in nearby people who aren't reading. And it doesn't stink up the air, or pollute the ground. And when I buy a book, a newspaper, or a magazine, I pay the regular sales tax and nothing more. If smokers gave up tobacco and took up a harmless addiction like mine, the world would be a better, cleaner, more fragrant place. With fewer taxes.

[tammywammy]

43. Your obsessive reading is causing the deforestation of the rain forest

All those trees cut down for your books. Less trees means more carbon dioxide in the air. And then do you recycle magazines or are they ending up in landfills?

We should tax books and magazines highly to help prevent pollution.


:eyes:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

49. I probably hate smoking as much as you do, but how the sin taxes are spent does matter

Sin taxes are an instrument of social policy and regressive. To the extent they are used over and above to cover societal costs for that sin, they become addictive to the government. For example in the 2009 Reauthorization bill, SCHIP is partially funded by tobacco taxes. If smoking goes away, the money for SCHIP will have to come from somewhere else. That means higher taxes for all now that the smokers have gone away, not less as you state.

[TahitiNut]

64. So much for "peace and brotherhood," huh? Hypocrite.

"I truly believe we will all live in peace and brotherhood someday. And so that I don't lose my faith in humanity, I will live my life as if that day had already happened."

Bullshit.

[Aristus]

83. I'm sorry you feel that way. For my part, I'm setting an example of restraint and moderation

every time I don't jam somebody's cigarette down his throat after breathing in his second-hand toxins. I try to treat others the way I would like to be treated, and since I don't go around blowing smoke in peoples' faces, I would like the smokers to return the favor. To say nothing of the fact that I don't toss cigarette butts around everywhere. I'd like to see smokers get with the program.

[NeedleCast]

116. Pretty sure you don't understand that whole "golden rule" thing like you think you do

If we all treated each other the way you seem to want smokers to be treated, it would be a truly ugly world. Learn tolerance.

[imdjh]

71. Oh god. You're one of those.

The hell it doesn't affect me. I'm the one who has to come in and dejunk your house when you have piled the walls and every surface with your collection of slowly rotting paper products. I am the one who has to suffer through the clutter to do away with it. I am the one who has to listen to you whine about me getting rid of shit that I know you haven't touched in years, because I slipped a little piece of paper in the pile a long time ago so I could prove that it hasn't been touched.

You think that clutter doesn't affect other people? I know it's there. I have to go to sleep at night, knowing that your clutter is spreading and growing.

Sheesh.

[Midlodemocrat]

103. Unbelievable strawman. Thanks for playing.

:eyes:

He says he's a voracious reader, not a clutter collector.

Ever hear of a library?

[Mythsaje]

138. OMG

You should see MY house. My wife runs one of the largest book review websites--we have books coming out of our ears. She keeps on telling me that she wants to get rid of my collection (on bookshelves and in boxes in the back of the house) and yet her review books (mostly romances) are slowly taking over the place.

But, really? Readers are all obsessive hoarders? That's one of the weirdest things I've ever seen on DU.

[anigbrowl]

149. Humor appreciation fail.

[Midlodemocrat]

150. Not likely. You apparently don't know me.

That post had nothing even remotely funny in it. In fact, it was downright pathetic.

:thumbsup:

[anigbrowl]

151. I do now - you're one of those people who needs the 'satire' tag.

That post was, frankly, hilarious. But I can see why you might have found it confusing.

[Midlodemocrat]

152. It's sarcasm. And that post wasn't sarcastic in the least. It was just stupid.

Like everything you've posted in this thread.


Plonk.

[JitterbugPerfume]

128. Good grief

reading is as harmful as smoking? It was hard enough for me to quit smoking --and now you tell me my paper products (books) are fucking up your world?

[Kalyke]

18. Plastic bottles do NOT have deposits in most of the country.

And, despite the $500 litter fine, I still see a lot of food litter along the roads.

[Oregone]

27. And thats unfortunate for those other states.

Ive lived in states with an without a deposit, and the differences are immense in terms of litter. When I studied in a state without one, I was amazed at how disgusting the roadways were.

[XemaSab]

113. Wierdly enough

California is one of the most litter-covered states I've ever been to. :shrug:

[Oregone]

119. California is not bad at all

Try Virginia...for lovers my ass. :)

[cboy4]

42. In California, it's called CRV

California Refund Value

[tabbycat31]

82. I'm all for a tax on gum

I HATE it when people spit out gum in the middle of the street. Ruined a brand new pair of shoes that way.

[Mythsaje]

139. My father wouldn't let me have gum until I could dispose of it properly...

To this day I always wrap it in paper and dispose of it in the garbage. Just like I field strip my cigarettes and dispose of the butts in the proper receptacle.

[tabbycat31]

142. I was only allowed to have gum if flying

and to this day I'm not crazy about it. I'd rather have mints.

[Mythsaje]

143. I'm not a big gum chewer...

After a few minutes it starts tasting like I've been licking asphalt.

[tabbycat31]

144. exactly

my cousin (9) is still amazed that I'm not crazy about gum.

[Mythsaje]

145. Well... at 9 anything even temporarily sweet is pretty nifty. LOL n/t

[Oregone]

8. Why not a deposit? They turn em in to get their money back. :)

[JVS]

41. Because although that would actually work to stop the littering, it doesn't fill the city's coffers

[Oregone]

121. Well, if this is just a tax disguised as a friendly incentive against littering...

Its sort of cowardly and bullshit. But, ya know, if it works (by curbing consumption) and also saves money from cleaning up streets (and treating those with ailments from smoking), then, well, who knows.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. To save $3.33 a carton, some people will just buy their cigarettes in the next town over

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Right answer

See it all over, Indian cigs bought for cash

[nichomachus]

46. Right -- they'll spend $4 on transportation to save $3.33

[ProgressiveProfessor]

53. No the would buy several cartons and make money on the ride.

This is CA, not NYC. BART will get you to a low tax venue easily. Also due to housing gentrification, many of the workers in SF do not live there so they too will not be touched by this. SF is too small physically to try the specialty taxes thing. It will end up being a regressive tax on the poor.

[nichomachus]

57. No, most people don't buy cigarettes that way

Some do -- but a lot of people who still smoke -- and a lot of those ones who litter -- don't have the money to buy a carton at a time, much less three or four. Many are lucky if they can buy a whole pack at a time.

And, if they're willing to drive to save money, then they can just drive to an Indian reservation and buy a truckload -- but they don't.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

60. So increased SF smoking taxes will only be on the poor and/or the stupid?

That's quite regressive. Also those that smoke are too stupid to buy in enough bulk to make it worth their while to find a better price? So much for the sense and dignity of the common man.

I used to see cases of smokes being placed on in and out of state licensed cars on reservations and smoke shops lining the roads at some state borders. They must all have been going broke.

When one place raises taxes the consumer within a reasonably large radius will find a way to avoid them. Look at NY chasing sales tax revenue at NJ malls. This would be just about the same. Newsom needs to find a better way

[nichomachus]

62. Selling people carcinogenic and addcitive poison at reduced prices enhances their dignity?

No wonder people scoff at Progressive Professors.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

74. Not at all, it that the prior poster claimed that many who smoke are too poor or too dumb to find

ways to bypass additional SF taxes on cigs. I think that is demeaning at best.

I hate smoking. It kills people including both of my parents. I want it gone from society. Sin taxes that have to be made up when smokers quit (or die more likely) are not the way for reasons I posted elsewhere in this thread. The answer is to make it so declasse that no one does it. It starts with education and leadership by example.

[Occam Bandage]

69. Cigarettes, being addictive, strip people of their sense and dignity of their own accord.

It's true that cigarette taxes do increase cross-border traffic, but it's also true that cigarette taxes lower smoking rates substantially; there is not a single means of anti-smoking legislation that has as broad and as consistent an evidence base in support of its effectiveness.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

78. But then there are the long term tax implications which are not good either

I really hate smoking, I lost both my parents to it, but we need to start early and keep at it that smoking is never coll or right

[Occam Bandage]

85. The implications are only negative if you rely on cigarette taxes as an irreplaceable tax income.

The primary purpose of cigarette taxes are and ought be to discourage cigarette smoking. The money from cigarette taxes ought be seen as a temporary bonus, and hopefully a bonus that diminishes with each passing year. That's part of the reason I prefer putting cigarette taxes towards particular programs and not into the general fund; it reminds legislators that cigarette taxes are not to be part of a long-term solution to budget problems.

[Freddie Stubbs]

87. Is that how the new federal cigarette tax money is being used?

:shrug:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

89. Its being used to fund SCHIP on the Federal level

something IMO that should have stable not sin tax funding

[Occam Bandage]

92. I know it was passed to fund SCHIP,

but is SCHIP funding coming directly from cigarette taxes, or is it coming from the budget with the cigarette taxes also going into the budget as an attempt to at least partially offset that spending?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

96. My understanding is that raising the tobacco taxed was the identified resource to fund it

Not sure what checkbook it goes through. IIRC the RYO guys really took it in the short on the tax hikes.

[Freddie Stubbs]

98. So, as cigarette use drops, do we then cover less kids in SCHIP?

Brilliant!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

101. No we take funds from other programs or raise taxes

That is why if we want SCHIP to be part of our core programs, it has no business being funded with sin taxes

[Occam Bandage]

105. Are you certain?

I hate to ask the question again, but I haven't found anything through Google. If SCHIP funding comes directly from cigarette taxes, then if cigarette taxes go down then so does SCHIP funding, unless money is specifically redirected. If SCHIP funding is offset by cigarette taxes in the general tax fund, then if cigarette taxes go down it doesn't hurt SCHIP funding, it simply adds to the deficit.

I should also be clear: when I said I wanted cigarette tax funding to support specific programs outside the general fund, I meant programs that are nonessential but nice to have around, like beautification, extra wetlands preservation, extra research funding, increased health outreach programs, etc. I think SCHIP is an absolutely necessary program, by contrast.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

106. Your second scenario is correct.

The measure would not have passed without identified funding to support it, so they upped the sin taxes. If the sin taxes decline, its a general fund/deficit issue

[Occam Bandage]

91. I honestly do not know,

nor do I know if the cigarette tax income is part of the long-term budget projections.

[Freddie Stubbs]

70. Many cities already have a thriving black market of untaxed cigarettes

Here in Florida they buy them on the Seminole and Miccosukee reservations and sell them at flea markets and out of the back of vans in poor neighborhoods.

[JVS]

80. People are capable of carrying more than one carton of smokes at a time

[Occam Bandage]

88. Some will. Some will quit. Some will smoke less.

The primary purpose of cigarette taxes is to lower smoking rates, not to make money for the state.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

95. Maybe once it was, I am not so sure anymore

[Occam Bandage]

102. Well, any source of income will be met by a pack of ravenous legislators,

each eager to direct it to programs he or she can brag about to his or her constituents.

[sakabatou]

12. I just hope

that this thread is kept clean.

[old mark]

13. Make it $5 a pack, maybe save a few more people who are too fucking stupid to quit. nt

[Luminous Animal]

14. $6.25 - $7.25 in San Francisco.

I'm too stupid to quit.

[Kalyke]

19. So, if we taxed intolerance, you'd make up more than my share. eom

[old mark]

77. I am very tollerant - I just think anyone who smokes it a fucking idiot.

If they are dumb enopugh to smoke, they are dumb enough to pay $8 or whatever a pack to do it.
Then they can be stupid and broke, too.

mark

[imdjh]

24. If we're taxing stupid, I have a list of common pharmaceuticals I'd like to tax

The ones who make co-workers wander around in a blissful fog, who then wander over to the grocery store and slowly float down the center of the aisle.

[able1]

23. Regressive taxes. Swells the hearts of rich folk everywhere. EOM

[Oregone]

28. Is carbon tax regressive?

It is a tax aimed at encouraging the reduction of harmful pollutants, much as this tax is aimed at reducing the amount of litter from cigarettes.

Although Im not a huge fan of carbon tax (I actually have one here), it is far from regressive in principle.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. It often is in practice

[Oregone]

51. How often is it practiced?

A few scandinavian nations have it, as will as British Columbia (where I live).

[imdjh]

34. Yes, says this professor

"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

[wuushew]

37. The man you cited is a consultant for big coal and oil

n/t

[imdjh]

40. Are his opponents working for free?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Are his opponents as stupid as he is?

No.

[Oregone]

55. Um, yes, many are

[Occam Bandage]

66. Most are paid by unbiased organizations, such as research universities. nt

[imdjh]

73. Unbiased? You're kidding, right?

[Occam Bandage]

79. No, I am not.

A research university has no particular interest in the results of its studies, so long as they are valid and respected by the scientific community. Claims that academia is inherently biased are the refuge of those who are bound to a position that has been demonstrated false.

[imdjh]

93. I disagee. I don't trust academic or corporate.

There are cases of both stating as fact that which we would consider a lie, and which they consider to be a difference of opinion. They also have similar considerations for what they do.

[Occam Bandage]

97. I get the feeling you see them as diametrically opposed,

like a prosecutor and a defense attorney, or like Democrats and Republicans, or like opponents in a debate. That is not at all the case. The opponents of corporatists would be activists and fringers; all have a reason to twist facts to their own means. Academic science is not the home team nor is it the away team in political fights over fact: it is the referee. Science sits outside such brawls and concerns itself primarily with fact. Activists, fringers, and corporatists all call science biased, of course--because science discredits the claims of all equally.

[Oregone]

117. So if you don't trust science (or business), where do you go, eh?

:)

There is always little buddy Jesus to help you out. But if you can't trust the scientific method, as employed by the academic establishment and scientists, well, hell, you don't have much to base your reality on. Why change any behavior you have? Once you don't trust empirical evidence derived by the scientific method, well, there is no reason to ever do anything different (no matter how dangerous it is proven to be). Just go about your merry way.

[imdjh]

129. There is room for scientists to see different explanations for the same thing

Look at the Neanderthal cannibal thread. You have a scientist drawing a conclusion which is at odds with the 'accepted science'. Does that mean that he's wrong? My objection in regard to this whole discussion is the scoreboard mentality of counting scientists as if it proves that one is on the right team.

The "global warming deniers" also have a point in that the cause often presents as having a religious aspect to it- that you believe in it or you don't. And to witness that, one merely needs to challenge even a small part of it in the company of certain people.

[Oregone]

50. Thats the stupidest fucking quote ever

No offense to you...

Carbon tax doesn't effect natural production of CO2. This entire argument is a moot point. It is aimed specifically at emissions created from industrial production. It taxes businesses that emit greenhouse gases. It can also be applied to potential emissions that may come from the burning of crude oil (it is added to our petro here).

Breathing? Plant life? Are you fucking kidding me. This is just stupid. It has nothing to do with what occurs in nature, but rather curbing man-made emissions due to manufacturing. If you do not think it is important to manage these, then it follows that you do not feel man-made emissions contribute significantly to global climate change.

[imdjh]

68. None taken - I expect spirited debate on this issue.

"then it follows that you do not feel man-made emissions contribute significantly to global climate change."

Significantly being the operative word. I have seen man's contribution expressed as a tiny tiny fraction, which would lead one to believe that AGW is a vehicle for advancing an extreme of environmentalism.... BUT then one has to ask what the threshold is. The effect of man might be tiny, but it might be all that is needed to cause large problems.

The bottom line is that I don't take anyone's word for it absolutely. I tend to view things in terms of what is a reasonable thing to do and what we can afford to do, rather than jumping in with both feet. A lot of it is like squeezing a balloon, especially when you consider that we have no control over other countries. So we cheer when Universal Explosives stops refining Xafterine in Montana, only to find that they had been building a new plant in Mongolia the whole time.

[Oregone]

114. Is the IPCC report just hippy bullshit?

Is all that pseudo-science just masking some "vehicle for advancing an extreme of enviornmentalism"?

"The warming over the past 100 years is very unlikely to be due to internal variability alone, as estimated by current models."

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/095.htm

I dont mean to make an argument from authority, but their findings are backed directly by science. Most of the modern world is past the entire denial stage, other than the US (but it follows, they still believe Jesus is their best buddy there). My own government's website on this states:

"Human activity has also directly changed the composition of the atmosphere. For centuries, people have burned large amounts of biomass such as wood and other combustible agricultural products for heating and cooking. However, during the last 150 years or so - our 'Industrial Era' - the combustion of fossil fuels (such as oil, natural gas and coal) has become central to almost all modern economic activity. It has also become the signature feature of human interference with the climate system.

Biomass and fossil fuels contain large amounts of carbon, and their combustion releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Roughly half of this carbon is taken up by plants and dissolved in the ocean, but the rest remains in the atmosphere increasing its concentration of this potent greenhouse gas (GHG).

Human activities are also causing increases in the atmospheric concentration of other GHGs, such as methane and nitrous oxide. The consequence is that we have increased the insulating properties of the atmosphere, intensifying the natural greenhouse effect."

This is beyond some radical hippies trying to force their purest ways upon you by using fake science. The rest of the world (argument from popularity) understands this.

The reality is that the current models based show that the current fluctuation is not possible without new variables, and the only variables that can be pointed to is the rapid increase in man-made burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and mass agricultural practices. Unless we think of something new that could be causing this, or all the historical data is refuted on CO2 levels, the only thing left that is causing the GHG build up and temperature rise could be human activity.

[Aristus]

32. Way to go, Mayor Newsom!

Stick it to 'em! I'll tell you, if you want to strew my planet with that shit, you gonna fucking-well pay for it!

How come you bone-stupid buttheads don't know how to field-strip a cigarette, put it in your pocket, and then throw it away, like they teach in the Army? Are you too fucking stupid???

Sorry for the :rant:, but I fucking HATE smokers!

[Dogtown]

38. Smokers hate you

Good luck with that hating thing.

:banghead:

[Aristus]

90. I know smokers hate me. They prove it every time they exhale.

Come to think of it: if cigarette smoke is so great, why do they exhale at all? Why not keep it inside? They're sure paying enough for it...

[Dogtown]

107. You certainly have a cause

Don Aristus.

[Raksha]

141. I'm not exhaling on you. In fact I'm not even smoking right now

because I don't smoke inside. I'm sitting at my computer reading your hateful post and typing this reply to let you know I hate you right back!

[imdjh]

76. I'm thinking that field stripping doesn't satisfy the zealot.

Surely there are those who would look upon field stripping as simply a lesser form of the original offense. Some cop will write a ticket to someone who field stripped a cigarette, or stopped him before he could pick up the butt (some people step on the butt and then pick it up).

I've always thought that the cops should have to produce the offending butt in court when charging someone with the offense.

[nichomachus]

45. How about a tax on toilet paper -- for "butt litter"

[Lyric]

47. As a smoker, I HATE people who fling butts anywhere.

As my better half, Rhythm, can attest, I go to extreme lengths to avoid doing so. I have carried around dead butts in my pockets or backpack rather than toss them on the ground, if no trash can is available.

However, I do not agree with a tax like this, as it punishes all smokers for the actions of a few.

I suggest a stiff fine and serious enforcement of littering laws against people who are too lazy to find a trashcan, or worse, the ones who'd rather dirty up the environment than dirty up the ashtrays of their cars and who toss butts out of car windows.

If such a tax is passed, then it's only fair that similar taxes be passed on ALL goods that irresponsible people litter with--beer and pop cans, bottles, candy wrappers, fast food drink cups, and so on. The problem is not smokers--the problem is people who LITTER. Littering and smoking are not inherently related, and should not be punished as if they are so.

[mike_c]

104. tax the living shit out of them....

Sorry cigarette smokers. MY preferred smoke is WAY more persecuted than yours, so don't even begin to whine to me about your "rights."

If I was king of the world, the tax on tobacco would be so high that only the very wealthy could afford to smoke it, and the rest of us would neither have to breathe the smoke against our wills or clean up after the mess cigarette smokers leave all over the landscape. If you smoke, and have NEVER discarded a butt on the ground and left it there for someone else to clean up, I applaud you, but I'll bet few, if any, cigarette smokers can occupy that moral high ground.

Look, it's a nasty, disgusting habit that infringes on the rest of us no matter how much you protest that it's your bodies and your right to poison them. Take cyanide instead-- at least that way we won't have to share your poison or it's littered aftermath.

Fair disclosure-- I smoked for nearly a dozen years. I left cigarette butts all over the place. My SO smokes, as did her predecessor. I HATE tobacco smoking. I can tolerate it-- indeed, it's the SO's choice, not mine-- but I am not sympathetic toward smokers who demand that the rest of us breathe their fumes and clean up their mess.

Tax it into oblivion.

[Lyric]

112. A rebuttal.

Sorry cigarette smokers. MY preferred smoke is WAY more persecuted than yours, so don't even begin to whine to me about your "rights."

Why the hell does it MATTER? You're basically saying that it's okay for one minority to ignore the plight of another just because one believes that THEY suffer "more." How sick is that?

And what, exactly, makes you think that cigarette smokers aren't also supportive of marijuana legalization? Why are you putting the two into conflict, as if one excludes the other? The vast majority of maryjane smokers in *my* personal experience have also been cigarette smokers. But yeah--since one party is being unjustly persecuted, the other party should totally use that as an excuse to trivialize someone else's rights. That makes TOTAL sense.

If I was king of the world, the tax on tobacco would be so high that only the very wealthy could afford to smoke it, and the rest of us would neither have to breathe the smoke against our wills or clean up after the mess cigarette smokers leave all over the landscape.

If *I* were Queen of the World, the tax on alcohol would be so high that only the very wealthy could afford to drink it, and the rest of us wouldn't have to deal with drunken college students or drunk drivers anymore. 'Cause banning something ALWAYS means that people stop using it!!! People don't manufacture and/or produce illicit substances on their own when they can no longer reasonably buy them on the market!!! Oh wait...

If you smoke, and have NEVER discarded a butt on the ground and left it there for someone else to clean up, I applaud you, but I'll bet few, if any, cigarette smokers can occupy that moral high ground.

If you eat food or drink beverages and have NEVER discarded trash on the ground and left it for someone else to clean up, I applaud you, but I'll bet few, if any, human beings can occupy that moral high ground. Sniff.

Look, it's a nasty, disgusting habit that infringes on the rest of us no matter how much you protest that it's your bodies and your right to poison them. Take cyanide instead-- at least that way the we won't have to share your poison or it's littered aftermath.

Bullshit. It doesn't infringe on ANYONE so long as it's in an open-aired space. "Nasty" and "disgusting" are subjective--you claim to be a pot smoker. Would YOU care if someone else called pot "nasty" and "disgusting?" I've smelled it often enough that I have to agree--cigarette smoke is a THOUSAND times more pleasant to smell than pot smoke. And yet, somehow I don't find myself compelled to join in with the nuts who want to keep it illegal. Go figure.

As for "sharing poison"--you only have to do that if you're stupid enough to enter a building that permits smoking. Nobody forces you to do any such thing. All buildings that are necessary for everyone to enter are ALREADY smoke-free. Beyond that, do you honestly claim that we should be allowed to "tax into oblivion" everything that we, personally, find to be icky? Well fuck. I'm all for an ENORMOUS tax on fast food and unprotected sex!

Fair disclosure-- I smoked for nearly a dozen years. I left cigarette butts all over the place. My SO smokes, as did her predecessor. I HATE tobacco smoking. I can tolerate it-- indeed, it's the SO's choice, not mine-- but I am not sympathetic toward smokers who demand that the rest of use breathe their fumes and clean up their mess.

Ahhhh. There's no zealot like a convert. So far as I know, no smokers "demand" that you breathe their fumes any more so than pot smokers or car drivers "demand" that you breathe THEIR fumes. Grow up, whiner.

Tax it into oblivion.

And the same with pot, and fast food, and candy, and bottled drinks, and cars, and EVERYTHING ELSE that causes health problems, pollution, litter, and "nastiness." Have at it! Let's see how it works out for you.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

118. San Francisco is a tourist town and the law punishes resident smokers

and not the tourists who are here for a weekend or a week and who have no stake in keeping the place clean.

[Lyric]

123. Very true.

[Politicalboi]

48. Why not fine the litterers

Fine them $100 first time offense. It's not hard to roll the end tobacco out of your cigarette, step on the cherry, and throw the butt away, or store in back pocket. LOL! I like Newsom but this is unfair. Maybe the tobacco company can pay 5 cents refund for butts. Now that would work.

[pleah]

52. Because actually enforcing the litter laws would be to easy.n/t

[nichomachus]

56. Actually, more like the fact

that they're laying off all the freaking cops due to 30-years of GOP tax-dodging policies. Who's going to enforce this -- they don't have enough people to stay on top of crimes of violence.

[pleah]

59. So, that makes a bullshit tax ok?

:crazy: I can't wait until they start coming after other groups of people that are all for this shit. I'll just sit back and watch them scream and I'll laugh.

[nichomachus]

63. I can hear you laughing now

HA HA HA HA HA COUGH COUGH COUGH HACK HACK HACK GASP GASP WHEEZE WHEEZE

So cute.

[pleah]

67. I don't have smokers cough, I don't litter and

I don't even smoke in my own house.

But, go ahead and act like an ass. That is your right.

[Oregone]

58. I think it would be tough to enforce/catch people with the size of this litter

Although it is important because despite the size, it is a poison. But with just a few tickets issued, it could significantly help.

[Politicalboi]

61. More businesses have cameras

And if you think you might be caught on camera you might think twice. It wouldn't take too long for some to wise up. The camera age and ID are coming, so we may as well get used to it. Minority Report comes to mind.

[EFerrari]

120. The first step would be to have a lifeguard or two on the beach

instead of the nothing we have now. Every two weeks or so, one of the rangers from GGP drives by. Right now, there is little or no enforcement of anything and the litter problem is handled by volunteer groups most of the time. And, they are super but the city / county gets what it pays for.

[CreekDog]

135. fine litterers? they can't even catch car thieves!

:rofl:

have you spent any time here? :banghead: :rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

65. Fine by me. nt

[rucky]

75. Isn't there a fine for littering that covers that?

I guess it's easier to put the burden on smokers who follow the law.

[EndersDame]

84. Then there should a tax on anything that comes in a wrapper

smokers are not the only ones to litter

[Occam Bandage]

86. I'd be fine with that, so long as the tax money went to cleanup programs and not the general fund.

I like your handle.

[Kajsa]

99. We just had a big tax increase of tobacco products,

less than two months ago.

I believe it is a Federal tax increase.
( on top of big tax increases in CA)
It upped the price $4.00/carton.

It hit the tobacco shops around mid March.

[CreekDog]

100. I refuse to pay 33 cents for something called "butt litter"

:wtf: :rant:

[krispos42]

110. I don't buy this number

Cigarette butts are swept up as part of general debris-cleaning. Leaves, twigs, dirt, sticks, wrappers, broken toys, glass, etc.

It's not like they have to have a special hazmat section to tackle butts.




This just reinforces the right-wing talking point that a)Democrats know what's best for you and will use the law to make you do it, and b) Democrats love to tax everything.



Stuff like this is why Democrats lose elections. It's a kitchen-table issue that makes people cranky. It's an immediate and personal government intrusion into their lives. In the 2010 election, stuff like this will be on the forefront of people's political though, not nebulous economic theories of free-trade, corporatization, or the undue influence of lobbyists in America.



If they want to reduce discarded butts, put a deposit on them. 5¢ a butt, $1 a pack. People will keep them, people will pick them up from the street, to turn them in for the money.

And they can be recycled!

[ohheckyeah]

122. That's interesting.

Where I live there is a tax on stores and bars that sell cigarettes for the purpose of cleaning up butt litter.

[Iggo]

124. Quit smoking. That'll show 'em.

B-)

[Quantess]

125. There is too much litter in San Francisco in general.

SF is a multicultural city, and from my perspective, different cultures seem to have different attitudes about the acceptability of littering.

Cigarette butts, however, is the type of litter that most smokers perpetrate, regardless of cultural background.

[me b zola]

126. You may want to trim that broad brush of yours

I'm a smoker and never throw my butts nor any other garbage on the ground.

[Mythsaje]

146. Me either...

It's an ignorant, repulsive, barbaric habit.

[JackRiddler]

130. Saw it coming years ago: The war on butts. Thought it would be Bloomberg...

But he'll join this new crusade tomorrow, no doubt.

[CreekDog]

134. May I reiterate:

"butt litter" :thumbsdown:

:rofl:

[Taverner]

140. YES - and as an ex-smoker let me say this is fair

Totally fair

[mwooldri]

148. OK then, how about a tax on gum?

Now gum usually needs some specialist removal... so why not tax gum?

Yes I do consume the occasional piece of chewing gum... but still...