backgammon online - backgammon online

You will be awarded some great honor.

backgammon online - backgammon online

Q: Why is Christmas just like a day at the office?

A: You do all of the work and the fat guy in the suit

gets all the credit.

online poker - online poker

The bone-chilling scream split the warm summer night in two, the first

half being before the scream when it was fairly balmy and calm and

pleasant, the second half still balmy and quite pleasant for those who

hadn't heard the scream at all, but not calm or balmy or even very nice

for those who did hear the scream, discounting the little period of time

during the actual scream itself when your ears might have been hearing it

but your brain wasn't reacting yet to let you know.

-- Winning sentence, 1986 Bulwer-Lytton bad fiction contest.

online poker - online poker

Every why hath a wherefore.

-- William Shakespeare, "A Comedy of Errors"

Did the 311 thing last month and got a 2 week supply right away. They gave me a coupon for another 2 weeks (lower dosage) that I sent in but never got. This whole thing is to shill for the company that makes the patch (pfizer, I think). Still smoke free but those lower dosage patches ain't cheap so I don't know what I am going to do. Probably start smoking again since it is cheaper in the long run.

rants said: It takes a village but rather than have the other villagers foot the bill for your bypass surgery maybe the villagers can take better care of themselves first - and without suing KFC.

I completely agree; I think the fact that lawyers are seriously considering how to approach fast food litigation is sad. Everyone knows McDonald's is bad for you, but they eat it anway. Same with smoking. People make these decisions, so they should have to face the consequences themselves.

However, as we live in a relatively compassionate society, we foot the bill for sick people who do not take care of themselves. As such, I think a tax on fast food is not such a bad idea - as long as the taxes go towards obesity prevention programs and health care for poor people with diabetes, etc.

They should just ban cigarrettes like they ban smoking in bars.

Exactly what New York needs. More taxes, and more reasons for people to leave the city because of the ridiculous expense it takes to live here. Plus with the black market for cigarettes already growing, this is just the push it needs. We really have some stupid politicians.

Smoker, I have two simple words of advice to you: chewing tobacco.

Look, I know smoking is bad for you and blah blah blah, but it's a major pain in the ass to go out with friends to a night club, have your coat in the coat-check in the basement, then you have to weave and wrangle your way past bouncers just to find a little smoking pen outdoors, and you can't even bring your drink outside. It really does dampen the fun on a Saturday night.

I'm fine with a smoking ban, but please allow a couple exceptions for obviously sinful places, such as nightclubs and bars. Or at least allow them to have a smoking room, so that patrons don't have to risk being mugged or raped by smoking outside in the night.

Smoke em if you got em. There's something to be said about allowing a little bit of vice into our lives. It gives this city character, something beyond health and puritanism.

Nice Ad, gothamist.

I switched to roll your owns a few months ago - pouch is $4, and 200 cigarette filters are $1.50. This equals at least three packs of cigarettes, and lasts me about a full work week. (FYI, for those who care, and I kid not, I think the tobacco is much better and they're less harsh on the lungs). Generally speaking, people - whether through the mob or other channels - will ALWAYS find a to get their fix. Though I did go jogging yesterday and found myself scared at how out of shape I am. So one day i'll quit (i'm young, foolish and don't care; sorry govt).

These pouches are taxed under tax class "J", which is probably far down the ladder of taxes. Why? I guess a) people don't buy them in the quantities of Marlboros and Camels, but more importanyly, b) I think people are too lazy to learn how to roll your own smokes.

I'm always amazed by this taxing double standard - its much more of the same product, essentially (i.e, dunhills and nat shermans get taxed like marlboros, i think) except they aren't ready-to-smoke-out-of-the-box, cost considerably less.

Now, i smoke more because the cigs are so bloody cheap. Though it is tough to roll when you're smokin' and drinkin'.

FYI, in the UK there is consideration of passing a Coke and Pepsi tax.

Do you really think a tax on fast food will make much difference? I think the number one reason people eat fast food is that they are lazy. For less money you can pack a lunch at home and bring it to work. And anyone that brings home a bucket of KFC to the kids more than once a month should be forcibly sterilized (kidding!).

The other day I saw something on TV (60 Minutes maybe) where someone condemned the advertising aimed at two and three year olds. If your two year old dictates your household purchases, again, maybe you shouldn't be a parent. McDonald's advertised when I was a kid but my mom used McDonald's as a treat, not as a replacement for cooking.

And finally, don't people see a cause and effect? By the time you pass 200 lbs and don't have an athlete's body don't you see it's probably your diet and/or lack of exercise?

It takes a village but rather than have the other villagers foot the bill for your bypass surgery maybe the villagers can take better care of themselves first - and without suing KFC.

I agree that people should be able to smoke all they want, but when you make that decision, you should also give up your right to access the health care system.

And yes, I think there should be a tax on fast food; let's tack 2.5 cents onto every dollar and use that money exclusively for obesity awareness programs in poor neighborhoods as well as giving incentives to good grocery stores to open in poor neighborhoods such that people have access to decent produce (often the reason people eat at McDonald's anyway).

People can't expect to be able to smoke, drink, and eat terribly their whole lives and then be able to get heart transplants, liver transplants, stomach stapling, etc. If you want to live that way, either foor the bill yourself or suffer the consequences.

give them time on the fat food taxes. the tax nannies are here to help you - for the children!

"This will only increase mafia involvement in the shipping of these cigarettes as well."

well, yeah. you say that as if it were an unintended consequence.

if people want to smoke let them smoke, god dammit! why aren't public advocacy groups speaking out against this. the country is fat, why dont we put higher taxes on fast food?

Duderinoo, I totally agree. Rangel is being a putz on this. Oh, sure, let's not tax those poor people, who really should be spending their money on food and shelter anyway. Hey, Chuck, nobody on God's green Earth absolutely needs to smoke. Wait, by his reasoning, aren't all sales taxes regressive since both rich and poor pay the 8.6% on everything they buy? Get rid of them all! Sounds good to me.

I work on and off in the 'Clinton' building, plus theres good food nearby.

Duderinoo, you made some very interesting points.

Kojak, aside from checking out bootleg cigs, what are you doing at 125th & Lenox? Trying out at the Apollo?

I think anything that might even possibly create the slightest incentive for people to quit or not start smoking should be done. Not to get all preachy, but if you've ever seen someone slowly and painfully die of cancer firsthand, when you see people smoking, who know the possible effects of smoking include lung cancer - ok, I'm going off on a tangent. I'll just stop now.

A cigarette tax has to be regressive for several reasons. The most important is that someone who makes $10,000 most likely does not have good (if any) health insurance, and the state will have to pay for his/her care when they get lung cancer. They guy who makes a mil does have insurance, so even if the tax is pocket change for him, the overall effect is minimal on state and ciy finances.

It's imperative that smoking be made prohibitively expensive for poor people as the financial impact they have on the city and state affects everyone adversely in the long run.

One would hope, however, that this tax money would be saved for the care of poor people with lung cancer and fund anti-smoking campaigns, but that may be wishful thinking at best.