* * * This message was from Wendy of NJ to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

{at}MSGID: 
{at}REPLY:
<0
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:17:26 -0400, Josh Hill 
wrote:

>On 24 Sep 2006 10:00:51 -0700, kruegerb76{at}hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>I hate cigarettes, too, but what's going on now seems... rather odd to
>>me.
>>
>>There's another bond issue up for a new tax on cigarettes here.  The
>>money will go to a good cause, kids in need.  I think it'll add
>>something like 60 cents to the price of a pack of ciggies.
>>
>>Now, I find it interesting that slamming the smokers has gotten to be
>>so popular these days.  Quite frankly, when the rules started to be
>>enforced about having to be away from the building to smoke, I found I
>>didn't mind at all the smokers on campus.  :)
>>
>>And yes, it's a horrible addiction, yadda, yadda.  But am I the only
>>person who finds it a bit... odd that when money is needed the first
>>thing people think anymore is "raise taxes on cigarettes"?
>>
>>I'd rather see them take huge cuts out of the casino business that is
>>so lucrative in Arizona.  (For those who don't know: on an Indian
>>reservation, they can make their own rules to a certain extent.  So in
>>a state that doesn't allow gambling you can have casinos, they just
>>have to be located on the reservations.)
>>
>>And while we're talking sin taxes, why not ask for a tax increase on
>>alcohol to pay for the poor kids in need?
>
>There was originally a good reason for the tax increases -- the rate
>of teen smoking goes down significantly as the price of cigarettes go
>up. Then state governments discovered that they had a new revenue
>stream for which they wouldn't be blamed by the voters, and the rest
>is history.
>
>To me the real crime here is that they don't make available safer
>nicotine delivery systems. There's really no reason why anyone should
>die of cancer at this point. But when companies try to make it
>available in non-carcinogenic forms, the FDA stops them. Go figure.

That's because they'd have to finally admit that cigarettes are drugs.

-Wendy
                                                                           
                                         
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32