----- Original Message ----- From: "gemgram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Steve Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 12:45 AM Subject: Re: [Mpls] New smoking ban approach
> If the government wants to make all that tax money off of smokers, which it > has for more than fifty years, then make the government pay for the lung > cancer from those taxes. If health care is too expensive then, lets slap a > seven dollar a pack tax on it. A tax that is totally and only dedicated to > health care for smokers. In that way the smokers pay for their own sins. > Talk about hypocrisy, how much, (or better yet what percentage) of the > tobacco settlement went to pay for health care or addiction prevention and > treatment for tobacco addiction. My, My, My! Those politicians sometimes > have sticker fingers than a snake oil salesman or some of the evangelical > "Profits of the Lord" in our midst. Tobacco settlement funds were to pay for the evils of smoking. Until the budget needed balancing. Then evidently those evils weren't too bad. I don't think there's any doubt that the tax on cigs will go up, but I highly doubt the money will actually go to a dedicated fund to pay for the evils of smoking. Just like the cross-country ski "fee" goes to ski trail maintenence. Not. > I know the ban language is only political pandering in Minneapolis, but we > might as well put some logic into it. I wonder if anyone but me sees the > ridiculousness of Minneapolis banning smoking in bars while the Federal > Government subsidizes the farmers who grow tobacco? Perhaps the City of > Minneapolis CM's should also limit the depths of their own hypocrisy and > stop licensing stores to sell cigarettes. Just remove any such licensed > sales within the City Limits. Minneapolis has apparently decided it does > not like tobacco, so why license the sale of it. It does not have to be > illegal to posses tobacco, just do not allow the licensed sale of it. That would take political courage and intellectual consistency. Both in really short supply in the city of Minneapolis. There's more political mileage and public relations gain in taking a "bold" public stand against the evil of "Big Tobacco" and smokers and show "concern" for the health of all those workers forced to work in smoky bars, than to actually make a stand that has some bold integrity and consistency. I hope I'm not "punked" in this debate. Mike Thompson Windom REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
