Oregon: Tobacco Tax Measure

`
News article from The (Portland) Oregonian ~ September 4, 2007

This week marks the start of what promises to be one of the most
expensive ballot measure campaigns in Oregon history as voters decide in
November whether to increase tobacco taxes to provide health care for
uninsured children.

Measure 50 on the Nov. 6 ballot would increase the tax on a pack of
cigarettes by 85 cents, raising an estimated $153 million this two-year
budget period and $233 million the next to provide health insurance to
an estimated 117,000 Oregon children. The tax increase would go into the
state Constitution.

The campaign will be costly chiefly because tobacco companies plan for a
spending blitz to try to stop the "Healthy Kids" proposal. Last fall,
voters in California and Missouri rejected higher tobacco taxes after
opponents unloaded serious money to convince them the tax was unfair and
ripe for bureaucratic bungling.

Tobacco companies spent more than $65 million in California to stop a
$2.60 increase, and about $6 million to halt an 80-cent increase in
Missouri. Both measures failed by 3 percentage points.

"There was no point where we thought we'd win it by a lot. We thought it
was possible to lose it by a lot," says John Hancock, lead consultant
for the pro-tax campaign in Missouri. "The tobacco companies put their
money in relatively late in the campaign here."

In Oregon, voters are known for their stingy take on general taxes, but
they have approved higher tobacco prices twice in the past 11 years.

A 60-cent increase in 2002 went toward the Oregon Health Plan, which
covers needy adults and children. And in 1996, voters approved a 30-cent
increase despite a $4.6 million pushback campaign by the tobacco
industry.

"Most people don't smoke, and so it's a really easy way to raise taxes
on somebody else," says independent Portland pollster Tim Hibbitts. "On
top of that, there is a stigma around smoking. Tobacco companies are not
exactly what I'd call beloved."

But opponents of the measure argue the dynamics are different this time,
with voters being asked to cement the tax into the constitution.

"What are you going to do if this program needs more money or has too
much money?" says J. L. Wilson, spokesman for the "Oregonians against
the Blank Check," a campaign funded largely by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

"You'll have to ask voters to go through the whole process of changing
the tax rate when the Legislature should be able to adjust it on its
own."

Cigarette tax timeline

The proposal ended up before voters after legislators spent all session
fighting over it. Though Democrats lawmakers controlled both houses,
they couldn't garner enough Republican votes to pass a cigarette tax
increase. Under state law, a tax increase needs three-fifths majority
vote. Democrats, however, had enough legislative votes to put it before
state voters.

If approved, the new tax of $2.03 would start Jan. 1. Oregon's tax would
go from the middle of the pack to one of the highest in the country.
Insurance coverage would begin July 1, 2008 for Oregon children 18 and
under who don't have coverage.

Supporters say they hope to have insured more than three-fourths of
Oregon's uninsured children by July 2010. The income eligibility level
for free insurance would rise from 185 percent to 200 percent of the
federal poverty level, or roughly $41,000 for a family of four. Families
that earn a little more will get subsidies to buy private plans offered
through the state.

Opponents argue that many uninsured children are already eligible for
coverage and there's no need to give more money to the state.

They also point out that uninsured children will get only a portion of
the new money -- $43 million out of $153 million this budget period --
as the proposal calls for spending on uninsured adults and leaves a
chunk in reserves that legislators can use on other health needs.

Supporters counter that they need to save some money to cushion the
program against downturns, and they promise to spend it on children's
health care. They also note that the amount of money projected to be
spent on children's health care zooms to $142 million of the estimated
$233 million raised in 2009-11.

"I think voters are going to agree with the Legislature that it's a fair
and responsible way to address one of the largest problems addressing
our state," says Rep. Tina Kotek, D-Portland.

The "Yes on the Healthy Kids Plan" campaign has raised more than
$900,000 in cash and commitments from deep pocket unions, hospitals and
insurance companies.

Tobacco battles back

On the other side, R.J. Reynolds says it's prepared to spend at least $3
million to win. Already the company has dumped more than $1.7 million
into its "Oregonians Against the Blank Check" committee.

Philip Morris USA has not disclosed how much it will spend. Its parent
company is also paying for a lawsuit to try to keep the measure off the
ballot.

One of the plaintiffs named in the lawsuit is Hugh Gingell, who owns the
Timber Valley Tobaccos shop in Beaverton.

"Here we are going after the smokers again for revenue that's supposed
to help all the children," says Gingell, surrounded by walls stacked
with boxes of cigars and cigarettes.

"Shouldn't all the people be paying for it?"
Dianne Stiles plops down $15 at the counter for four packs of
cigarettes. She's 55 years old, a former bartender who says she took her
first puff at age 5. She blanches and rolls her eyes when asked about
the proposed tax increase.

"I'm not going to quit smoking, but I don't think I should have to pay
so damn much for my cigarettes," she says. "It's not fair."

`

On Sep 4, 1:56 pm, (Paul Berg) wrote:
`
News article from The (Portland) Oregonian ~ September 4, 2007

There's a few groups that care.
However not alt.smokers
See ya.
Jack Mehough

On Sep 4, 10:56 am, (Paul Berg) wrote:
`
News article from The (Portland) Oregonian ~ September 4, 2007

This week marks the start of what promises to be one of the most
expensive ballot measure campaigns in Oregon history as voters decide in
November whether to increase tobacco taxes to provide health care for
uninsured children.

Measure 50 on the Nov. 6 ballot would increase the tax on a pack of
cigarettes by 85 cents, raising an estimated $153 million this two-year
budget period and $233 million the next to provide health insurance to
an estimated 117,000 Oregon children. The tax increase would go into the
state Constitution.

The campaign will be costly chiefly because tobacco companies plan for a
spending blitz to try to stop the "Healthy Kids" proposal. Last fall,
voters in California and Missouri rejected higher tobacco taxes after
opponents unloaded serious money to convince them the tax was unfair and
ripe for bureaucratic bungling.

Tobacco companies spent more than $65 million in California to stop a
$2.60 increase, and about $6 million to halt an 80-cent increase in
Missouri. Both measures failed by 3 percentage points.

"There was no point where we thought we'd win it by a lot. We thought it
was possible to lose it by a lot," says John Hancock, lead consultant
for the pro-tax campaign in Missouri. "The tobacco companies put their
money in relatively late in the campaign here."

In Oregon, voters are known for their stingy take on general taxes, but
they have approved higher tobacco prices twice in the past 11 years.

A 60-cent increase in 2002 went toward the Oregon Health Plan, which
covers needy adults and children. And in 1996, voters approved a 30-cent
increase despite a $4.6 million pushback campaign by the tobacco
industry.

"Most people don't smoke, and so it's a really easy way to raise taxes
on somebody else," says independent Portland pollster Tim Hibbitts. "On
top of that, there is a stigma around smoking. Tobacco companies are not
exactly what I'd call beloved."

But opponents of the measure argue the dynamics are different this time,
with voters being asked to cement the tax into the constitution.

"What are you going to do if this program needs more money or has too
much money?" says J. L. Wilson, spokesman for the "Oregonians against
the Blank Check," a campaign funded largely by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

"You'll have to ask voters to go through the whole process of changing
the tax rate when the Legislature should be able to adjust it on its
own."

Cigarette tax timeline

The proposal ended up before voters after legislators spent all session
fighting over it. Though Democrats lawmakers controlled both houses,
they couldn't garner enough Republican votes to pass a cigarette tax
increase. Under state law, a tax increase needs three-fifths majority
vote. Democrats, however, had enough legislative votes to put it before
state voters.

If approved, the new tax of $2.03 would start Jan. 1. Oregon's tax would
go from the middle of the pack to one of the highest in the country.
Insurance coverage would begin July 1, 2008 for Oregon children 18 and
under who don't have coverage.

Supporters say they hope to have insured more than three-fourths of
Oregon's uninsured children by July 2010. The income eligibility level
for free insurance would rise from 185 percent to 200 percent of the
federal poverty level, or roughly $41,000 for a family of four. Families
that earn a little more will get subsidies to buy private plans offered
through the state.

Opponents argue that many uninsured children are already eligible for
coverage and there's no need to give more money to the state.

They also point out that uninsured children will get only a portion of
the new money -- $43 million out of $153 million this budget period --
as the proposal calls for spending on uninsured adults and leaves a
chunk in reserves that legislators can use on other health needs.

Supporters counter that they need to save some money to cushion the
program against downturns, and they promise to spend it on children's
health care. They also note that the amount of money projected to be
spent on children's health care zooms to $142 million of the estimated
$233 million raised in 2009-11.

"I think voters are going to agree with the Legislature that it's a fair
and responsible way to address one of the largest problems addressing
our state," says Rep. Tina Kotek, D-Portland.

The "Yes on the Healthy Kids Plan" campaign has raised more than
$900,000 in cash and commitments from deep pocket unions, hospitals and
insurance companies.

Tobacco battles back

On the other side, R.J. Reynolds says it's prepared to spend at least $3
million to win. Already the company has dumped more than $1.7 million
into its "Oregonians Against the Blank Check" committee.

Philip Morris USA has not disclosed how much it will spend. Its parent
company is also paying for a lawsuit to try to keep the measure off the
ballot.

One of the plaintiffs named in the lawsuit is Hugh Gingell, who owns the
Timber Valley Tobaccos shop in Beaverton.

"Here we are going after the smokers again for revenue that's supposed
to help all the children," says Gingell, surrounded by walls stacked
with boxes of cigars and cigarettes.

"Shouldn't all the people be paying for it?"
Dianne Stiles plops down $15 at the counter for four packs of
cigarettes. She's 55 years old, a former bartender who says she took her
first puff at age 5. She blanches and rolls her eyes when asked about
the proposed tax increase.

"I'm not going to quit smoking, but I don't think I should have to pay
so damn much for my cigarettes," she says. "It's not fair."

`



The tobacco industry has killed more US citizens than all the wars put
together, they have killed more people than the first (other) 7 causes
of death. Each pack of cigeretts costs the average US Citizen $7.00
http://no-smoking.org/april02/04-18-02-2.html
Evidently the tax on tobacco should be raised by about $5 a pack, not
80¢.

On Sep 4, 10:56 am, (Paul Berg) wrote:
`
News article from The (Portland) Oregonian ~ September 4, 2007

This week marks the start of what promises to be one of the most
expensive ballot measure campaigns in Oregon history as voters decide in
November whether to increase tobacco taxes to provide health care for
uninsured children.

Measure 50 on the Nov. 6 ballot would increase the tax on a pack of
cigarettes by 85 cents, raising an estimated $153 million this two-year
budget period and $233 million the next to provide health insurance to
an estimated 117,000 Oregon children. The tax increase would go into the
state Constitution.

The campaign will be costly chiefly because tobacco companies plan for a
spending blitz to try to stop the "Healthy Kids" proposal. Last fall,
voters in California and Missouri rejected higher tobacco taxes after
opponents unloaded serious money to convince them the tax was unfair and
ripe for bureaucratic bungling.

Tobacco companies spent more than $65 million in California to stop a
$2.60 increase, and about $6 million to halt an 80-cent increase in
Missouri. Both measures failed by 3 percentage points.

"There was no point where we thought we'd win it by a lot. We thought it
was possible to lose it by a lot," says John Hancock, lead consultant
for the pro-tax campaign in Missouri. "The tobacco companies put their
money in relatively late in the campaign here."

In Oregon, voters are known for their stingy take on general taxes, but
they have approved higher tobacco prices twice in the past 11 years.

A 60-cent increase in 2002 went toward the Oregon Health Plan, which
covers needy adults and children. And in 1996, voters approved a 30-cent
increase despite a $4.6 million pushback campaign by the tobacco
industry.

"Most people don't smoke, and so it's a really easy way to raise taxes
on somebody else," says independent Portland pollster Tim Hibbitts. "On
top of that, there is a stigma around smoking. Tobacco companies are not
exactly what I'd call beloved."

But opponents of the measure argue the dynamics are different this time,
with voters being asked to cement the tax into the constitution.

"What are you going to do if this program needs more money or has too
much money?" says J. L. Wilson, spokesman for the "Oregonians against
the Blank Check," a campaign funded largely by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

"You'll have to ask voters to go through the whole process of changing
the tax rate when the Legislature should be able to adjust it on its
own."

Cigarette tax timeline

The proposal ended up before voters after legislators spent all session
fighting over it. Though Democrats lawmakers controlled both houses,
they couldn't garner enough Republican votes to pass a cigarette tax
increase. Under state law, a tax increase needs three-fifths majority
vote. Democrats, however, had enough legislative votes to put it before
state voters.

If approved, the new tax of $2.03 would start Jan. 1. Oregon's tax would
go from the middle of the pack to one of the highest in the country.
Insurance coverage would begin July 1, 2008 for Oregon children 18 and
under who don't have coverage.

Supporters say they hope to have insured more than three-fourths of
Oregon's uninsured children by July 2010. The income eligibility level
for free insurance would rise from 185 percent to 200 percent of the
federal poverty level, or roughly $41,000 for a family of four. Families
that earn a little more will get subsidies to buy private plans offered
through the state.

Opponents argue that many uninsured children are already eligible for
coverage and there's no need to give more money to the state.

They also point out that uninsured children will get only a portion of
the new money -- $43 million out of $153 million this budget period --
as the proposal calls for spending on uninsured adults and leaves a
chunk in reserves that legislators can use on other health needs.

Supporters counter that they need to save some money to cushion the
program against downturns, and they promise to spend it on children's
health care. They also note that the amount of money projected to be
spent on children's health care zooms to $142 million of the estimated
$233 million raised in 2009-11.

"I think voters are going to agree with the Legislature that it's a fair
and responsible way to address one of the largest problems addressing
our state," says Rep. Tina Kotek, D-Portland.

The "Yes on the Healthy Kids Plan" campaign has raised more than
$900,000 in cash and commitments from deep pocket unions, hospitals and
insurance companies.

Tobacco battles back

On the other side, R.J. Reynolds says it's prepared to spend at least $3
million to win. Already the company has dumped more than $1.7 million
into its "Oregonians Against the Blank Check" committee.

Philip Morris USA has not disclosed how much it will spend. Its parent
company is also paying for a lawsuit to try to keep the measure off the
ballot.

One of the plaintiffs named in the lawsuit is Hugh Gingell, who owns the
Timber Valley Tobaccos shop in Beaverton.

"Here we are going after the smokers again for revenue that's supposed
to help all the children," says Gingell, surrounded by walls stacked
with boxes of cigars and cigarettes.

"Shouldn't all the people be paying for it?"
Dianne Stiles plops down $15 at the counter for four packs of
cigarettes. She's 55 years old, a former bartender who says she took her
first puff at age 5. She blanches and rolls her eyes when asked about
the proposed tax increase.

"I'm not going to quit smoking, but I don't think I should have to pay
so damn much for my cigarettes," she says. "It's not fair."

`



Health & Medicine [04/12/02]

Source CDC

A new study says every pack of cigarettes sold in the United States
costs the country more than seven dollars in expenses.

The Centers for Disease Control announced Friday that medical costs
and lost productivity from cigarettes cost more than $150 billion in
1998. Previous estimates said the cost was less than $100 billion.

Among adults, most deaths between 1995 and 1999 were from heart
disease and lung-related diseases.

The report says the average cost of cigarettes is just under three
dollars a pack.

The CDC suggests state and local communities do more to control the
use of tobacco.

In article 6hpDi.10545$tB2.8898@trndny05,
Lobby Dosser wrote:

MEG wrote:

The tobacco industry has killed more US citizens than all the wars put
together, they have killed more people than the first (other) 7 causes
of death. Each pack of cigeretts costs the average US Citizen $7.00
http://no-smoking.org/april02/04-18-02-2.html
Evidently the tax on tobacco should be raised by about $5 a pack, not
80½.

IOW, tax the victims! Now that's Liberal thinking!!

Tax the users. Sounds fair.

On Sep 4, 11:15 pm, JSM wrote:
On Sep 4, 10:56 am, (Paul Berg) wrote:





`
News article from The (Portland) Oregonian ~ September 4, 2007

This week marks the start of what promises to be one of the most
expensive ballot measure campaigns in Oregon history as voters decide in
November whether to increase tobacco taxes to provide health care for
uninsured children.

Measure 50 on the Nov. 6 ballot would increase the tax on a pack of
cigarettes by 85 cents, raising an estimated $153 million this two-year
budget period and $233 million the next to provide health insurance to
an estimated 117,000 Oregon children. The tax increase would go into the
state Constitution.

The campaign will be costly chiefly because tobacco companies plan for a
spending blitz to try to stop the "Healthy Kids" proposal. Last fall,
voters in California and Missouri rejected higher tobacco taxes after
opponents unloaded serious money to convince them the tax was unfair and
ripe for bureaucratic bungling.

Tobacco companies spent more than $65 million in California to stop a
$2.60 increase, and about $6 million to halt an 80-cent increase in
Missouri. Both measures failed by 3 percentage points.

"There was no point where we thought we'd win it by a lot. We thought it
was possible to lose it by a lot," says John Hancock, lead consultant
for the pro-tax campaign in Missouri. "The tobacco companies put their
money in relatively late in the campaign here."

In Oregon, voters are known for their stingy take on general taxes, but
they have approved higher tobacco prices twice in the past 11 years.

A 60-cent increase in 2002 went toward the Oregon Health Plan, which
covers needy adults and children. And in 1996, voters approved a 30-cent
increase despite a $4.6 million pushback campaign by the tobacco
industry.

"Most people don't smoke, and so it's a really easy way to raise taxes
on somebody else," says independent Portland pollster Tim Hibbitts. "On
top of that, there is a stigma around smoking. Tobacco companies are not
exactly what I'd call beloved."

But opponents of the measure argue the dynamics are different this time,
with voters being asked to cement the tax into the constitution.

"What are you going to do if this program needs more money or has too
much money?" says J. L. Wilson, spokesman for the "Oregonians against
the Blank Check," a campaign funded largely by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

"You'll have to ask voters to go through the whole process of changing
the tax rate when the Legislature should be able to adjust it on its
own."

Cigarette tax timeline

The proposal ended up before voters after legislators spent all session
fighting over it. Though Democrats lawmakers controlled both houses,
they couldn't garner enough Republican votes to pass a cigarette tax
increase. Under state law, a tax increase needs three-fifths majority
vote. Democrats, however, had enough legislative votes to put it before
state voters.

If approved, the new tax of $2.03 would start Jan. 1. Oregon's tax would
go from the middle of the pack to one of the highest in the country.
Insurance coverage would begin July 1, 2008 for Oregon children 18 and
under who don't have coverage.

Supporters say they hope to have insured more than three-fourths of
Oregon's uninsured children by July 2010. The income eligibility level
for free insurance would rise from 185 percent to 200 percent of the
federal poverty level, or roughly $41,000 for a family of four. Families
that earn a little more will get subsidies to buy private plans offered
through the state.

Opponents argue that many uninsured children are already eligible for
coverage and there's no need to give more money to the state.

They also point out that uninsured children will get only a portion of
the new money -- $43 million out of $153 million this budget period --
as the proposal calls for spending on uninsured adults and leaves a
chunk in reserves that legislators can use on other health needs.

Supporters counter that they need to save some money to cushion the
program against downturns, and they promise to spend it on children's
health care. They also note that the amount of money projected to be
spent on children's health care zooms to $142 million of the estimated
$233 million raised in 2009-11.

"I think voters are going to agree with the Legislature that it's a fair
and responsible way to address one of the largest problems addressing
our state," says Rep. Tina Kotek, D-Portland.

The "Yes on the Healthy Kids Plan" campaign has raised more than
$900,000 in cash and commitments from deep pocket unions, hospitals and
insurance companies.

Tobacco battles back

On the other side, R.J. Reynolds says it's prepared to spend at least $3
million to win. Already the company has dumped more than $1.7 million
into its "Oregonians Against the Blank Check" committee.

Philip Morris USA has not disclosed how much it will spend. Its parent
company is also paying for a lawsuit to try to keep the measure off the
ballot.

One of the plaintiffs named in the lawsuit is Hugh Gingell, who owns the
Timber Valley Tobaccos shop in Beaverton.

"Here we are going after the smokers again for revenue that's supposed
to help all the children," says Gingell, surrounded by walls stacked
with boxes of cigars and cigarettes.

"Shouldn't all the people be paying for it?"
Dianne Stiles plops down $15 at the counter for four packs of
cigarettes. She's 55 years old, a former bartender who says she took her
first puff at age 5. She blanches and rolls her eyes when asked about
the proposed tax increase.

"I'm not going to quit smoking, but I don't think I should have to pay
so damn much for my cigarettes," she says. "It's not fair."

`

Health & Medicine [04/12/02]

Source CDC

A new study says every pack of cigarettes sold in the United States
costs the country more than seven dollars in expenses.

The Centers for Disease Control announced Friday that medical costs
and lost productivity from cigarettes cost more than $150 billion in
1998. Previous estimates said the cost was less than $100 billion.

Among adults, most deaths between 1995 and 1999 were from heart
disease and lung-related diseases.

The report says the average cost of cigarettes is just under three
dollars a pack.

The CDC suggests state and local communities do more to control the
use of tobacco.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


MEG checks back in with more mouthfulls of
horse**** and brainless twaddle.

Why can't you find the link to back up that BIG
MOUTH with the link to show tobacco is narcotics.

MEG your still an asshole.
How bout the name of the people and death certs for the
cup of your coffee?

Bull**** is a main ingredient of your point of view.


Hey MEG if you BLOW it out your ass
you can make a bigger stink ~ Eh?

$50 buck loser MEG, 5 th return and still no
proof of tobacco being narcotics.

What a jackass ! !




Go get help Meg
Before you turn into a Shawn Hirn.

Try here MEg

http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html




http://tinyurl.com/28tnm2
misc.health.alternative Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:36:11 -0000
I have known for a fact a number that coffee was responsible for
killing. They were heavy coffee drinkers and they usually spaced
the
coffee with whiskey, but lots of coffee and sure enough it killed
them.


gem View profile
More options May 14, 10:23 pm

Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web
From: gem
Date: 14 May 2007 19:23:28 -0700
Local: Mon, May 14 2007 10:23 pm
Subject: About to give up
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Report this message | Find messages by this author
I'm about to give up on my home-network. I wanted to share printers
&
files but neither computer sees the other one. I disabled the
windows
firewall and temporarly disabled McAffee but no help. I've run the
windows small network program probably 20 times but nothing. Both
computers see work to the internet fine. One computer id Ethernet
connected to the router and the other through the built in Wireless.
I exchanged several dozen e-mails with 2Wire the router/modem
manufacture and you would have thought operating instructions were
state secrets. About I managed to pull from them was; yes it could
bridge the wireless port to the Ethernet and the wireless IP # was a
little strange. Thats it. Nothings in my manual because I didn't
get a manual. On-line info has been no help. Anyone know anything
about routers let me know if this is configured correctly.

Route List
Subnet IP Subnet Mask
Gateway Interface
71.221.83.142 255.255.255.255
71.221.83.142 ppp0 This
is the wireless


172.16.0.0 255.255.0.0
172.16.0.1 bridge0 This is the
Dell


I'm just learning about routers out of necessity.
Shouldn't the 71 IP actually be closer to 172?
They both don't say bridged but bridging and routing are different I
realize.




71.221.83.142
0 0 Eugene, OR, US

OrgName: Qwest Communications Corporation
OrgID: QCC-22
Address: 1801 California Street
City: Denver
StateProv: CO
PostalCode: 80202
Country: US

NetRange: 71.208.0.0 - 71.223.255.255
CIDR: 71.208.0.0/12
NetName: QWEST-INET-118
NetHandle: NET-71-208-0-0-1
Parent: NET-71-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: AUTHNS1.MPLS.QWEST.NET
NameServer: AUTHNS2.DNVR.QWEST.NET
NameServer: AUTHNS3.STTL.QWEST.NET
Comment:
RegDate: 2005-05-06
Updated: 2006-05-11

RAbuseHandle: QIA2-ARIN
RAbuseName: Qwest Abuse
RAbusePhone: +1-877-886-6515
RAbuseEmail:

RNOCHandle: QIN-ARIN
RNOCName: Qwest IP NOC
RNOCPhone: +1-877-886-6515
RNOCEmail:

RTechHandle: QIA-ARIN
RTechName: Qwest IP Admin
RTechPhone: +1-877-886-6515
RTechEmail:

OrgAbuseHandle: QIA2-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Qwest Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-877-886-6515
OrgAbuseEmail:

OrgNOCHandle: QIN-ARIN
OrgNOCName: Qwest IP NOC
OrgNOCPhone: +1-877-886-6515
OrgNOCEmail:

OrgTechHandle: QIA-ARIN
OrgTechName: Qwest IP Admin
OrgTechPhone: +1-877-886-6515
OrgTechEmail:

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-08-25 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database



Gem View profile
More options May 31, 5:47 pm

Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology, misc.health.alternative,
sci.med.nutrition
From: Gem
Date: 31 May 2007 14:47:25 -0700
Local: Thurs, May 31 2007 5:47 pm
Subject: Soy nuts reduce blood pressure and cholesterol
Reply to author | Forward |author
On May 31, 7:52 am, Roman Bystrianyk wrote:


If you can't win a tax you'll know why...
No brains !


Betten_Mann

wrote:
On Sep 4, 11:15 pm, JSM wrote:
On Sep 4, 10:56 am, (Paul Berg) wrote:





`
News article from The (Portland) Oregonian ~ September 4, 2007

This week marks the start of what promises to be one of the most
expensive ballot measure campaigns in Oregon history as voters decide in
November whether to increase tobacco taxes to provide health care for
uninsured children.

Measure 50 on the Nov. 6 ballot would increase the tax on a pack of
cigarettes by 85 cents, raising an estimated $153 million this two-year
budget period and $233 million the next to provide health insurance to
an estimated 117,000 Oregon children. The tax increase would go into the
state Constitution.

The campaign will be costly chiefly because tobacco companies plan for a
spending blitz to try to stop the "Healthy Kids" proposal. Last fall,
voters in California and Missouri rejected higher tobacco taxes after
opponents unloaded serious money to convince them the tax was unfair and
ripe for bureaucratic bungling.

Tobacco companies spent more than $65 million in California to stop a
$2.60 increase, and about $6 million to halt an 80-cent increase in
Missouri. Both measures failed by 3 percentage points.

"There was no point where we thought we'd win it by a lot. We thought it
was possible to lose it by a lot," says John Hancock, lead consultant
for the pro-tax campaign in Missouri. "The tobacco companies put their
money in relatively late in the campaign here."

In Oregon, voters are known for their stingy take on general taxes, but
they have approved higher tobacco prices twice in the past 11 years.

A 60-cent increase in 2002 went toward the Oregon Health Plan, which
covers needy adults and children. And in 1996, voters approved a 30-cent
increase despite a $4.6 million pushback campaign by the tobacco
industry.

"Most people don't smoke, and so it's a really easy way to raise taxes
on somebody else," says independent Portland pollster Tim Hibbitts. "On
top of that, there is a stigma around smoking. Tobacco companies are not
exactly what I'd call beloved."

But opponents of the measure argue the dynamics are different this time,
with voters being asked to cement the tax into the constitution.

"What are you going to do if this program needs more money or has too
much money?" says J. L. Wilson, spokesman for the "Oregonians against
the Blank Check," a campaign funded largely by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

"You'll have to ask voters to go through the whole process of changing
the tax rate when the Legislature should be able to adjust it on its
own."

Cigarette tax timeline

The proposal ended up before voters after legislators spent all session
fighting over it. Though Democrats lawmakers controlled both houses,
they couldn't garner enough Republican votes to pass a cigarette tax
increase. Under state law, a tax increase needs three-fifths majority
vote. Democrats, however, had enough legislative votes to put it before
state voters.

If approved, the new tax of $2.03 would start Jan. 1. Oregon's tax would
go from the middle of the pack to one of the highest in the country.
Insurance coverage would begin July 1, 2008 for Oregon children 18 and
under who don't have coverage.

Supporters say they hope to have insured more than three-fourths of
Oregon's uninsured children by July 2010. The income eligibility level
for free insurance would rise from 185 percent to 200 percent of the
federal poverty level, or roughly $41,000 for a family of four. Families
that earn a little more will get subsidies to buy private plans offered
through the state.

Opponents argue that many uninsured children are already eligible for
coverage and there's no need to give more money to the state.

They also point out that uninsured children will get only a portion of
the new money -- $43 million out of $153 million this budget period --
as the proposal calls for spending on uninsured adults and leaves a
chunk in reserves that legislators can use on other health needs.

Supporters counter that they need to save some money to cushion the
program against downturns, and they promise to spend it on children's
health care. They also note that the amount of money projected to be
spent on children's health care zooms to $142 million of the estimated
$233 million raised in 2009-11.

"I think voters are going to agree with the Legislature that it's a fair
and responsible way to address one of the largest problems addressing
our state," says Rep. Tina Kotek, D-Portland.

The "Yes on the Healthy Kids Plan" campaign has raised more than
$900,000 in cash and commitments from deep pocket unions, hospitals and
insurance companies.

Tobacco battles back

On the other side, R.J. Reynolds says it's prepared to spend at least $3
million to win. Already the company has dumped more than $1.7 million
into its "Oregonians Against the Blank Check" committee.

Philip Morris USA has not disclosed how much it will spend. Its parent
company is also paying for a lawsuit to try to keep the measure off the
ballot.

One of the plaintiffs named in the lawsuit is Hugh Gingell, who owns the
Timber Valley Tobaccos shop in Beaverton.

"Here we are going after the smokers again for revenue that's supposed
to help all the children," says Gingell, surrounded by walls stacked
with boxes of cigars and cigarettes.

"Shouldn't all the people be paying for it?"
Dianne Stiles plops down $15 at the counter for four packs of
cigarettes. She's 55 years old, a former bartender who says she took her
first puff at age 5. She blanches and rolls her eyes when asked about
the proposed tax increase.

"I'm not going to quit smoking, but I don't think I should have to pay
so damn much for my cigarettes," she says. "It's not fair."

`

Health & Medicine [04/12/02]

Source CDC

A new study says every pack of cigarettes sold in the United States
costs the country more than seven dollars in expenses.

The Centers for Disease Control announced Friday that medical costs
and lost productivity from cigarettes cost more than $150 billion in
1998. Previous estimates said the cost was less than $100 billion.

Among adults, most deaths between 1995 and 1999 were from heart
disease and lung-related diseases.

The report says the average cost of cigarettes is just under three
dollars a pack.

The CDC suggests state and local communities do more to control the
use of tobacco.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


MEG checks back in with more mouthfulls of
horse**** and brainless twaddle.

Why can't you find the link to back up that BIG
MOUTH with the link to show tobacco is narcotics.

MEG your still an asshole.
How bout the name of the people and death certs for the
cup of your coffee?

Bull**** is a main ingredient of your point of view.


Hey MEG if you BLOW it out your ass
you can make a bigger stink ~ Eh?

$50 buck loser MEG, 5 th return and still no
proof of tobacco being narcotics.

What a jackass ! !




Go get help Meg
Before you turn into a Shawn Hirn.

Try here MEg

http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html




http://tinyurl.com/28tnm2
misc.health.alternative Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:36:11 -0000
I have known for a fact a number that coffee was responsible for
killing. They were heavy coffee drinkers and they usually spaced
the
coffee with whiskey, but lots of coffee and sure enough it killed
them.


gem View profile
More options May 14, 10:23 pm

Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web
From: gem
Date: 14 May 2007 19:23:28 -0700
Local: Mon, May 14 2007 10:23 pm
Subject: About to give up
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Report this message | Find messages by this author
I'm about to give up on my home-network. I wanted to share printers
&
files but neither computer sees the other one. I disabled the
windows
firewall and temporarly disabled McAffee but no help. I've run the
windows small network program probably 20 times but nothing. Both
computers see work to the internet fine. One computer id Ethernet
connected to the router and the other through the built in Wireless.
I exchanged several dozen e-mails with 2Wire the router/modem
manufacture and you would have thought operating instructions were
state secrets. About I managed to pull from them was; yes it could
bridge the wireless port to the Ethernet and the wireless IP # was a
little strange. Thats it. Nothings in my manual because I didn't
get a manual. On-line info has been no help. Anyone know anything
about routers let me know if this is configured correctly.

Route List
Subnet IP Subnet Mask
Gateway Interface
71.221.83.142 255.255.255.255
71.221.83.142 ppp0 This
is the wireless


172.16.0.0 255.255.0.0
172.16.0.1 bridge0 This is the
Dell


I'm just learning about routers out of necessity.
Shouldn't the 71 IP actually be closer to 172?
They both don't say bridged but bridging and routing are different I
realize.




71.221.83.142
0 0 Eugene, OR, US

OrgName: Qwest Communications Corporation
OrgID: QCC-22
Address: 1801 California Street
City: Denver
StateProv: CO
PostalCode: 80202
Country: US

NetRange: 71.208.0.0 - 71.223.255.255
CIDR: 71.208.0.0/12
NetName: QWEST-INET-118
NetHandle: NET-71-208-0-0-1
Parent: NET-71-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: AUTHNS1.MPLS.QWEST.NET
NameServer: AUTHNS2.DNVR.QWEST.NET
NameServer: AUTHNS3.STTL.QWEST.NET
Comment:
RegDate: 2005-05-06
Updated: 2006-05-11

RAbuseHandle: QIA2-ARIN
RAbuseName: Qwest Abuse
RAbusePhone: +1-877-886-6515
RAbuseEmail:

RNOCHandle: QIN-ARIN
RNOCName: Qwest IP NOC
RNOCPhone: +1-877-886-6515
RNOCEmail:

RTechHandle: QIA-ARIN
RTechName: Qwest IP Admin
RTechPhone: +1-877-886-6515
RTechEmail:

OrgAbuseHandle: QIA2-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Qwest Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-877-886-6515
OrgAbuseEmail:

OrgNOCHandle: QIN-ARIN
OrgNOCName: Qwest IP NOC
OrgNOCPhone: +1-877-886-6515
OrgNOCEmail:

OrgTechHandle: QIA-ARIN
OrgTechName: Qwest IP Admin
OrgTechPhone: +1-877-886-6515
OrgTechEmail:

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-08-25 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database



Gem View profile
More options May 31, 5:47 pm

Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology, misc.health.alternative,
sci.med.nutrition
From: Gem
Date: 31 May 2007 14:47:25 -0700
Local: Thurs, May 31 2007 5:47 pm
Subject: Soy nuts reduce blood pressure and cholesterol
Reply to author | Forward |author
On May 31, 7:52 am, Roman Bystrianyk wrote:


If you can't win a tax you'll know why...
No brains !


Betten_Mann

Nice Job !

Good day ! BM

Punishment works too...Eh?

Here's what you do with a welcher like Meg.

Ya make her drink a spitoon.
Like this one here...humm..half full.

Since yer a 5 time loser, MEG ya gotta
take a drink....

Yea, it's bout half full....Here ya go !
So after a bout of kicking and scratchin
MEG started downing the siptoon...
Glug !...Glug!....Glug !....Glug....!
Glug!...Glug!.......Glugg!...
Gee's,,,, she's turning green,,,....
Ok,, .....that'll do..........
Glug!....Glug!....Glug!.....Glug!......Glug!
Stop...That's enough.....Glug!.........Glug!
Glug!......Ok, That's way over board......
Glug!.........Glugg!......Glug!.....For God's
sake stop Meg !
Glugg!......Glugg!......Glugggg!
Gluuuuuggggg!........Gluuuuuuggggghhhh!
BLLUURRRRRPPPPPPPPPP!

Oh my God why didn't you stop when I told you enough?

MEG: I couldn't.....it was all one piece...
Oooooo all that tobacco spit....Yucckkk

Well let that be a lesson to ya !
You stop that lyin nah hear.

Better than yer coffee huh...
HWOS

Shawn Hirn wrote:

In article 6hpDi.10545$tB2.8898@trndny05,
Lobby Dosser wrote:

MEG wrote:

The tobacco industry has killed more US citizens than all the wars
put together, they have killed more people than the first (other) 7
causes of death. Each pack of cigeretts costs the average US
Citizen $7.00 http://no-smoking.org/april02/04-18-02-2.html
Evidently the tax on tobacco should be raised by about $5 a pack,
not 80½.

IOW, tax the victims! Now that's Liberal thinking!!

Tax the users. Sounds fair.


Bbbbut what about the children!

In article V2GDi.4575$pm2.347@trndny08,
Lobby Dosser wrote:

Shawn Hirn wrote:

In article 6hpDi.10545$tB2.8898@trndny05,
Lobby Dosser wrote:

MEG wrote:

The tobacco industry has killed more US citizens than all the wars
put together, they have killed more people than the first (other) 7
causes of death. Each pack of cigeretts costs the average US
Citizen $7.00 http://no-smoking.org/april02/04-18-02-2.html
Evidently the tax on tobacco should be raised by about $5 a pack,
not 80½.

IOW, tax the victims! Now that's Liberal thinking!!

Tax the users. Sounds fair.


Bbbbut what about the children!

Tax them too!

Shawn Hirn wrote:

In article V2GDi.4575$pm2.347@trndny08,
Lobby Dosser wrote:

Shawn Hirn wrote:

In article 6hpDi.10545$tB2.8898@trndny05,
Lobby Dosser wrote:

MEG wrote:

The tobacco industry has killed more US citizens than all the
wars put together, they have killed more people than the first
(other) 7 causes of death. Each pack of cigeretts costs the
average US Citizen $7.00
http://no-smoking.org/april02/04-18-02-2.html Evidently the tax
on tobacco should be raised by about $5 a pack, not 80½.

IOW, tax the victims! Now that's Liberal thinking!!

Tax the users. Sounds fair.


Bbbbut what about the children!

Tax them too!


Haachaa!!