Hey

mnorton190:

I thought it would be fitting to see what others have in their “survival kits” during Hell week.  For example, my study kit always has:

1) Coffee

2) Some form of munchie (i.e. carrots, chips, cheese-its)

3) iPod

4) Spiral Notebook to keep random thoughts organized

and of course….

5) More coffee

What else is keeping all of you alive during this week?

 Carrots?! We’re too young for vegetables!

                         Why Smoking is Important to America

            Smoking is bad. Smoking bothers me. Smoking makes my boyfriend’s mouth significantly less appealing. Common scenario: discreetly holding my breath while walking past the only exit of a building, in which the Smoker americanus has chosen to perch and enjoy a delightful treat. With years of practice, Smoker americanus and I have co-evolved together: I have learned to not breathe for extended periods of time, and they have developed a less effective lung system. Of course I see the appeal of a lightheaded sensation followed by nausea, but I am a bit old fashioned about what I put in my body (anything deep fried will do). My opposition to smoking is obvious. It is exceptionally difficult to find and argument that would argue the contrary, unless one ignores modern science, which is almost as taboo as eating dogs. I would imagine that even the smokers out there would resist the urge to defend their habit. So why is smoking so important? What can this arsenic laced tobacco product possibly contribute to society (other than a growing market for throat vibrators)?  Well, it is what we all love most, money and free birth control.

            All non-smokers hate smokers and all people hate taxes, unless those people are non-smokers, and the taxes are sin taxes. I love sin taxes. I love sin taxes because they directly punish the smokers, and I hate the smokers. I love sin taxes on cigarettes because they allow me to get free birth control at the expense of a smoker. I believe this is an even exchange of goods. As a citizen of the United States who abides by the rules and social restrictions placed on me by “the man,” I am forced to contain my urge to act impolitely towards the smoking species. However, the smoking species is not required to abide by these social boundaries, and inconsiderately pollutes my air bubble with a variety of unsavory substances. My words are the only acceptable means of attack, but it is hard to form sentences without breathing. I am rendered defenseless. I walk away shamed by defeat with my head hung low to avoid the rising smoke. The smoker has no idea we battled, and continues to enjoy the overwhelmingly pleasurable and mysterious experience of smoking a cigarette.

            Sin taxes are one of the only socially acceptable forms of taxation, and increasing cigarette taxes seems to raise little opposition. The exception, of course, is the South Carolina Senate, who refuses to budge on the seven cents per box tax that citizens of the state are required to pay for their nicotine nourishment. South Carolina is number 51 on the taxation list, with Rhode Island at number 1, bringing in $3.46 on each box that is sold. The average tax rate for the United States is about $1.18 per box. For a pack a day smoker in South Carolina, that is almost $.50 a week! It would take about 130 weeks to raise money for my name brand birth control! I shudder to think that smokers in South Carolina are living bountiful lives with all this extra money. The legislature in the senate would raise the sin tax on cigarettes to $.57 per pack, which would bring in about $136 million dollars annually. The money raised would ideally funnel into a Medicaid trust fund, with smaller portions going to smoking cessation programs, cancer research, marketing for South Carolina Agriculture products, and a grant for counties along the I-95 corridor. The I-95 corridor is the poorest and most in need area in the state. Arguing against the tax hike, Larry Grooms stated in the Greenville News that “This Senate is all about what you can get for your people, not what is best for the state of South Carolina.” Apparently Larry Groom’s “people” are the smokers, and his goal is to save them $3.50 a week.

            Statistically, about one in five people in America are smokers. This means that the other four fifths of the population are not directly affected by cigarette taxes, but they are directly affected by smokers. For many people, having to be around second-hand smoke is reason enough to be in favor of a higher cigarette tax. For those who would rather not admit this, there are other benefits to having a higher taxation rate. The biggest one of these is increased revenue for the state. Even though cigarette taxes comprise a small portion of any states budget, the amount of revenue brought in is incredible. In 2005, cigarette taxes contributed about 13 billion dollars to state budgets across the country. That “small portion” of state revenue is all thanks to the 1.1 billion smokers who buy about 15 billion cigarettes every day. There is no denying that sin taxes are an easy and effective way to raise money for the state, but this is not the only benefit.

            It is a common economic principle that when the price of X rises, the demand for X falls. Cigarettes are not exempt from this equation, and with the implementation of higher cigarette taxes, it is inevitable that less people will continue to smoke. What’s more, less people will start smoking, avoiding the habit altogether. In a trip to the future, economists concluded that a $.50 increase in sin taxes would prevent 23,300 South Carolina children alive today from becoming smokers. The same tax is said to prompt 12,800 adults to quit. With less people smoking, the state would save about 10,000 lives from premature smoking related death, and about $529 million in long term health care savings. The extra tax is estimated to generate about $ 400 million when federal matching funds are calculated in. It seems apparent that increasing the sin tax is a great idea, so why are Larry Grooms and Mark Sanford opposed to any increase in sin taxes without a decrease in taxes elsewhere?

            Grooms and Sanford are not against making money or giving the citizens of South Carolina what they want, they are simply members of a different fiscal opinion. It is a common economic principle that when the demand for a product goes down, it is unlikely for the demand to go up again unless the price starts to fall. If the price of cigarettes is raised, and 12,800 adults stop purchasing cigarettes, and 23,300 children never start, the potential for revenue from the sin tax also falls. Every time the price goes up, less people will smoke, and the state will make less money. With an estimated $400 million dollars allocated to several different projects, losing the extra revenue would send the state budget into debt. With the rise in taxes, smuggling and internet sales of cigarettes begin to increase, which account for the greatest share of lost tax revenue. This tax avoidance affects the size of the gains from the tax hike, and may or may not cause decreased revenue. This varies on a state to state basis. It seems that while taxation of cigarettes is a good thing, too much of it can defeat the purpose of the tax: to make money from people who smoke. If people are not smoking, there is no one to exploit. Without the sugar coating, this is probably what Larry Grooms meant.

            It would be ideal to find equilibrium with the tax rate, making them just expensive enough to contribute a large sum to the state budget, but not so expensive that people stop smoking or begin purchasing cigarettes from the internet. With an impending statewide smoking ban, Minnesota Senator David Tomassoni is worried about the states lost tax money. According to Tomassoni, the state uses the funds from the sin tax to pay for healthcare, education, and “real things.” Apparently, smoking is too vital to get rid of. The state budgets have become addicted to the funds generated from cigarette taxes, so much so, that the number of states implementing higher sin taxes is on the increase. Raising taxes more will reinforce the dependency states have to their cigarette income. But in a time of deep recession, it seems like raising these taxes is the only answer.

            For everyone out there who advocates for a nationwide smoking ban, do not waste the time. There was enough evidence to make cigarettes illegal years ago, but the government relies on that money to help the penniless public pay for the $65.00 birth control they have grown accustomed to. It is no wonder that the legalization of harmful drugs is a reality lingering on the murky horizon. Can you imagine the revenues the government would acquire from marijuana?! Never mind that cigarettes are killing off people all over the world, or that second hand smoke irritates the people who chose not to scold their lungs. The choice has been made that cigarettes do more good than harm. This is a simple equation of cost and benefit; the cost being the lives of humans, and the benefit being a Medicaid trust fund. Really, we should thank our fellow smokers for doing such a great service in this countries time of need. I will conclude with a message to all the smokers out there: It may not be courageous, and you may never get a Medal of Honor, but by dying for our country you are doing an enormous good for the people of America. We will ignore your massive carbon footprint, and remember you fondly for preventing so many unwanted babies. So raise those taxes and keep lighting up, everyone! We really can’t do it without you.

Lucy Linkowski

J.B. Field

March 31, 2010

English 190

Samuel Green

            In Jill McDonough’s Habeas Corpus, McDonough brings attention to the unfamiliar history of various criminals, convicts, and the accused. Guilty or innocent, all of the subjects in this compilation of sonnets were sentenced to death and executed, including Samuel Green, who met his end on April 25^th, 1822 in Boston, Massachusetts. Written in the form of a letter, this sonnet stands out from the others included in Habeas Corpus, making the appeal to invest time in Samuel Green more intriguing. Not only is the sonnet structurally different, but the content seems to be unique to Samuel Green’s letter as well. There is a lack of consistent rhyming, making the sonnet seem more like a letter than a work of poetry.  The emphasis of this sonnet is placed less on his execution and diverts the attention of the reader to the relationship between he and his mother. It is interesting that McDonough would choose to focus on this aspect of Green’s life instead of what he is notorious for, but this decision is exactly what makes this sonnet so stimulating.

            The initial impression from reading the sonnet and the final opinion after doing research on Thomas Green differs drastically. Reading the sonnet for the first time, there is an overwhelming sense of remorse from, and pity for, Green. The sonnet begins “My Dear Mother,” which sets the tone for the entire poem (1) . The idea of writing a letter to one’s mother is heartwarming and loving, deriving an immediate sense of compassion from the reader. Green again addresses his mother stating, “Dear mother, I might have lived, might have been happy if I had staid at home and taken your advice,” adding to the overall tone of regret and remorse that the reader may easily believe (7-9). Green ends this letter with a dark farewell asking his mother to “try to forget [she] ever had a son,” reinforcing the sense of pity and sorrow for Thomas Green (13-14).

            After reading through the poem the first time, the sense the reader gets of Thomas Green is that he is a man who has made mistakes and is sorry for them, but this sonnet provides no information about Thomas Green’s life, his mistakes, or his “misfortunes.” We are told that he was tried for murder, but there is not mention of guilt from Green. Green himself does not admit guilt of any crime, stating that he was to be executed because “Prisoners, to gain their liberty, swore against me; and now I am condemned to die” (4-5). To some extent, Green blames his execution on others who were only acting in their own self interest. This further enhances the identity of Green as someone who has been through hardships and adversity brought on by others, placing the responsibility on others and none on himself. On the surface, the language used in Green’s letter to his mother seems to portray a man who is wishes to repent, but his usage of language is deceiving.

            The passage McDonough includes in the back of the text informs the reader of a very small history involving Green, leaving the initial impression of the sonnet virtually unchanged. We learn that Green confessed to stealing various items, “a bottle of brandy, some crackers and cheese, a mare” and so forth, all of which seem like trivial objects in light of Green’s conviction for murder (56). We also learn that Green was convicted for the murder of Billy Williams, a man who informed on plans Green and other inmates formed for escape from prison. Green really did write a letter to his mother whom he not spoken to since he was young, but the full extent of Green’s history is missing from Habeas Corpus all together.

             Green was troubled growing up, killing a family dog and pig to spite his parents. He disobeyed his parents often and was disciplined just as often for his behavior. His parents beat him frequently and eventually sent him away from home to live with a man named Dunne. Dunne also partook in the abuse, beating Green regularly when he broke rules. Green set up traps to try and murder Dunne, but his attempts were unsuccessful. He was beaten for these attempts at murder, which only drove him to continue trying to murder Dunne. Once, Green and a friend Ash (who is mentioned in McDonough’s notes) tried to crash a sleigh of schoolchildren by throwing a log underneath its wheels. Almost killing the children, the schoolmaster beat Green and Ash for their crime. Later, the two would retaliate by beating the schoolmaster and leaving him to freeze in the cold. Green later joined the army and promptly deserted, choosing to counterfeit money and steal from others instead. He began working as a servant for the rich, but stealing from the rich suited him better. He and Ash later became highway robbers, leaving a trail of murder and thievery all across America. Raping and murdering countless innocent people, Green became America’s first “Public Enemy Number One.” He was jailed many times but never convicted, and huge bounties were put out for his capture.

            Green was a terrible man who did terrible things during his lifetime. He took advantage of others, killed for fun, and chose to live life by his own set of rules. The image of Green as a remorseful thief is much different from the image of Green as a horrible murderer. The sonnet and history portray two different men: one who is easy to pity, and one who is easy to hate. The letter to his mother brings a human quality to Green that one does not find in a biography; leaving the reader torn between compassion and hatred for the notorious Samuel Green.