With Massachusetts set to increase the tax on cigarettes by $1 per pack over the next few months, the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program is offering free stop-smoking kits with nicotine patches. From the press release:

Beginning July 1, 2008, the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program will offer free nicotine patch kits to smokers who call the State's Quitline at 1-800-Try-To-STOP. This offer is good through August 31, 2008 or while supplies last.The kits include a two-week supply of patches, along with quit tips and information on resources for smokers who want to quit. Retail value is approximately $50 per kit.Research shows that people who use medications like the patch are more than twice as likely to quit for good as those who try to quit on their own.There are no income restrictions on this offer. Most smokers will qualify for free patches, though those with certain medical conditions – pregnancy, recent heart attack, and other medical conditions – will not qualify.We anticipate that a $1.00 per pack cigarette tax increase will go into effect in the next few months. Research shows that many smokers will attempt to quit at that time.

I'm not at all sold on the wisdom of increasing the tobacco tax but it's wonderful that free help is available. Hopefully more states will follow my home state's lead.

British smokers, upset over a recent cigarette ban, might have a solution to their desperate desire for nicotine. United Drinks and Beauty, a Dutch company, is about to release "Liquid Smoking," a non-addictive herbal beverage that, according to the makers, delivers the same kick as cigarettes. It will sell for £1.50 per can, or about 1/3 the price of a pack of smokes in New York City.

Anti-smoking groups are already moving to block Liquid Smoking,claiming that United Drinks should be more forthcoming about its product's ingredients and attacking its can, which resembles a pack of Marlboro cigarettes. Their argument is that the cigarette-like packaging is likely to drive people to smoke real cigarettes. Of course, this assumes that I smoked for over a decade because of an unhealthy attraction to camels, not because of an addiction to nicotine. Damn those evil, spitting, furry temptresses!

When I finally managed to quit smoking three years ago, I did so through a combination of generic Welbutrin, rubber bands, gum, and the grim realization that my wife would kill me if I skipped out of my daughter's birth to grab a smoke. Long before this, however, I had tried numerous methods to kick the demon weed, including herbal cigarettes, patches, nicotine gum, lozenges, jogging, and prayer. The most effective method, however, was probably absinthe, an herbal liquor which did a great job of distracting me from the miseries of nicotine withdrawal. Unfortunately, while the stuff is effective, it is also about 60% alcohol, which meant that I couldn't exactly start the day with a shot of it.

I have to admit that I am intrigued by Liquid Smoking. On the one hand, I agree that the company's vaunted "potent mix of roots from South African plants" is pretty vague, and could include a wide variety of dangerous substances. On the other hand, my own experiences with herb-infused liquids makes me think that this beverage could offer a workable solution for a lot of nicotine addicts. Given my delighted rediscovery of uncongested breathing, running, and lowered blood pressure, I hope that anti-smoking zealots won't let their blind hatred of addiction stand in the way of a potential solution for it.

Bruce Watson is a freelance writer, blogger, and all-around cheapskate. He's still trying to get over his absinthe addiction.

If health risks can't convince you not to start smoking, maybe future poverty will. The financial costs of this nasty habit are far more than the cost of a pack of cigarettes. Smokers pay more for insurance, dry cleaning, and dental care. Their homes and cars have less resale value and they are at higher risk of having a fire.

Smokers also don't make the bucks. They earn less and receive less in pension and Social Security benefits. They often have to pay additional premiums for insurance coverage. And they may have trouble getting a job. More and more employers are announcing they will no longer employ smokers.

• Kalamazoo Valley Community College in Michigan stopped hiring smokers for full-time positions at both its Michigan campuses.
• Alaska Airlines requires a nicotine test before hiring people.
• Union Pacific won't hire smokers.

Don't miss the rest of our series on 15 Ways to Ruin Your Financial Future!

So why on earth do people ever start smoking? That's easy--to feel "cool." I should know, I am an ex-smoker. Like most smokers, I started as a teenager. Approximately 80% of smokers start in their teens and the American Lung Association estimates that every minute four thousand eight hundred teens will take their first drag off a cigarette.

I remember my first drag. Some kids were passing around a cigarette and I tried it. I was hooked almost instantly and up to a pack a day within months. I felt cool and wiser when I smoked and it helped me belong with a group at school. Like most teenagers, I didn't worry about the health implications, those problems were a million years away.

I think it is safe to say that everyone knows smoking is an expensive habit. Besides the increased use of cost of health care for smokers the amount spent on cigarettes over a lifetime can be mind-numbing, especially with prices on the rise. Thankfully if you need to really see how much that nicotine addiction is costing you; you can use a free Windows tool called CostofSmoking to find out your current smoking tab.

While there are already more online calculators out there to help you figure out the cost of smoking, none of them offer the range of options that CostofSmoking does. This program takes increases in cost as well as future savings and inflation rates into calculating the cost of smoking. You can also set up multiple periods to account for any times in the past where you did quit, to get a more accurate total cost of smoking.

While we all have our vices and weaknesses when it comes to budgeting and saving, I don't see how anyone can be a smoker and still complain about not having enough money. Even though the estimation of my video game habits adds up to an awakening $10,000 over the course of 10 years, it still doesn't touch the out of pocket cost of $89,000 a smoker would spend on his addiction over a 20 year period, 10 years past and another 10 into the future. If you invested in a savings account over the same 20 year period you'd be looking at savings of at least $120,000 in money not spent on butts.

If this tool doesn't convince you that smoking is a fiscally irresponsible activity, then you must be pretty well off!

Every day, WalletPop will be bringing you information about a fantastic freebie. Like what you see? Check back tomorrow for more!

When I think of great reasons not to smoke, the fact that Tony Hawk doesn't partake isn't the first one that comes to mind. But maybe it will inspire your kids not to waste their money on something that makes them smell bad and die. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are mailing out free "Be Tobacco Free" posters featuring Tony Hawk.

From the website:

Pro-skateboarder Tony Hawk, who started the extreme sports movement, has turned away big-money offers from tobacco companies.

This poster, featuring Hawk in action, clearly demonstrates that this mega-sports star would rather use his celebrity status to teach kids about the dangers of using tobacco.

You can order a bunch -- this is one of the few anti-smoking posters a lot of kids would feel cool hanging on their walls.

Yesterday it was reported that Whirlpool Corp. suspended 39 employees for lying about tobacco use. The employees had signed paperwork indicating that they did not use tobacco, but they were seen smoking or chewing tobacco on company property.

The company's stance is simple: They have employees fill out paperwork that asks them about tobacco use. The paperwork says that they could be suspended or terminated if they lie. Whirlpool then uses the paper to charge tobacco users an extra $500 per year toward their health insurance premiums.

Personally, I don't care if people smoke or not. But I do care if they lie to their employer about it. The simple fact is that health insurance premiums are higher for tobacco users. The reasons are obvious: They cost insurance companies more. I think that employer should have every right to recover part or all of that additional premium based upon the smoking factor.

A little while before my daughter was born, I quit smoking. I had tried for years to give it up, and had managed to go from smoking more than two packs of Marlboro Red 100's a day to sucking down one measly pack of Basic Ultra Lights. However, the pending arrival of my daughter, combined with the fact that my self-imposed smoking exile meant that I couldn't hang out with my wife, convinced me to take that final step. I got my doctor to set me up with Welbutrin, laid in a huge stock of rubber bands and gum, and quit cold turkey. In the ensuing two and a half years, I haven't had a single cigarette, although I've been known to suck nicotine off the fingers of total strangers.

I figure that I've saved myself somewhere around $3,000, and I've never felt better; in fact, the smell of cigarette smoke now makes me a little nauseated. Still, I can't quite buy into the smoking harassment that the media and the government seem so ready to lay out. I remember my years of sucking cancer sticks, and recall that the nasty looks, fake coughs, and snide comments only made me more stubborn in my determination to keep my habit. Besides, it was cheaper for me to continue smoking than it was to quit. Zyban, the pill that finally helped me quit, cost more than my cigarettes; until I had health insurance, it was a deal-breaker.

Over the last few days, I've seen a fresh round of the "let's bash a smoker" laws that unpleasantly remind me of the days I spent chained to the demon weed. For starters, New York is talking about jacking up the taxes on a pack of smokes by $1.50. Currently, New York State charges $1.50 per pack tax and New York City charges the same. The state, however, is pursuing a $1 a pack hike and the city is looking to add another $0.50. This means that smokers in New York City could soon be looking at paying $4.50 per pack in taxes.

The premise is simple: A hotel does not have any smoking rooms because of the stench and the filth smoking creates. You stay at the hotel, you're expected to abide by the no-smoking rule. If you smoke, you pay a fee, often in the $200 to $250 range (but at some chains as much as $500!). Sounds fair to me.

The truth is that cleaning a room following a smoker can be expensive because often anything cloth (curtains, couches, etc) needs to be cleaned. After all, what non-smoker wants to stay in a non-smoking room that has just been smoked in? Yuck.

But even non-smokers have to be careful. Last year I was put into a room in one of these strict non-smoking hotels, and the room reeked of stale smoke. I didn't stay in it, because I didn't want to pay the penalty the following day when the cleaning staff smelled the odor. Plus I didn't want to smell the stale smoke all night and then smell like it all next day when the smell invaded my clothing. So I went straight to the front desk and asked for a different room. They were happy to help.

More chains are moving toward having all rooms non-smoking, including Sheraton, Marriott, Westin, and Walt Disney. They say it's just too expensive to allow smoking in the rooms, and I don't blame them. If you get one of these charges and you haven't smoked in the room, you can often dispute it. But for those who really are smoking, hotel staff is on the lookout for evidence, so don't think that you'll have an easy time getting out of the smoking fee.

Tracy L. Coenen, CPA, MBA, CFE performs fraud examinations and financial investigations for her company Sequence Inc. Forensic Accounting, and is the author of Essentials of Corporate Fraud.

Sheraton and Four Points by Sheraton recently added a new revenue stream: a $200 fine for smoking when all of the chains' hotels become smoke-free by the end of 2008.

According (subscription required) to the Wall Street Journal, Disney World will charge you as much as $500 if you light up in one of their hotel rooms, all of which are non-smoking. Swissotel Chicago pays its maids $10 for every smoker they catch.

Of course, plenty of smokers are complaining about the policy, but I think it's a good one: if you can afford to stay at Disney World and spend money on cigarettes, you can afford to pay a fine. Efforts to create inconveniences for smokers -- some hotels won't allow their guests to smoke within 15 feet of the entrance -- will encourage people to quit smoking.

And a hotel that charges $500 for smoking might be an excellent location for a "quit smoking" retreat -- Add in some spa treatments and hypnosis services, and chains like the Sheraton could probably market it as a "Stop Smoking 1-Week Getaway."

The National Association of State Fire Marshals is lobbying government officials to ban novelty-lighters that resemble toys, and a few states are giving the idea consideration. In California, Washington, and Arkansas, local ordinances have been passed banning the sale of these lighters have been passed.

According to the Associated Press, "Novelty lighters can look like anything from tiny skateboards and cell phones to farm animals and butterflies. Some light up or make noises, including the tiny green frog that elicits a "ribbit" when its flame is ignited."

The fire marshals are concerned that children, and even adults, can be burned by the lighters because it's hard to figure out how they work and they resemble toys.

Another concern I have is that associating cute animals and skateboards with smoking may send the wrong message to kids. In 1997, RJ Reynolds stopped using Joe Camel as a mascot for its products after Congress put pressure on the company due to similar concerns. I know: lighters aren't cigarettes, but that's their primary use.

You've probably heard about people paying more for their health insurance if they smoke or have a pre-existing health condition. That's not new. What is new is that now your company might make you pay for your own health-compromising vices.

Health insurance costs have been a major sore spot for employers over the last several years. It can easily cost a thousand dollars or more per month to insure a family, and much more if a company has sick employees or a particularly generous health plan. In an effort to help cut those costs, employers are turning to their employees who smoke, eat poorly, and are overweight to foot the bill. 16% of employers are now making smokers pay the toll for their bad habit.

Of course, workers are fighting back, saying that this isn't fair. What seems unfair to me is an employer not charging employees for their bad habits, but having to cut benefits across the board to save money. That hurts those with a healthy lifestyle, and that seems awfully unfair.

Other companies have tried the flip side of this, offering wellness rewards to the workers who maintain healthy lifestyles. Companies who do penalize workers with vices most often offer programs to help them change their bad habits. Maybe now's the time to consider giving up cigarettes and eating better?

Tracy L. Coenen, CPA, MBA, CFE performs fraud examinations and financial investigations for her company Sequence Inc. Forensic Accounting, and is the author of Essentials of Corporate Fraud.