Diversion of Tobacco Settlement Funds and Taxes Slows Anti-Smoking Progress

Newhouse News ^ | 8/9/2005 | Bruce Taylor Seeman

[Just A Nobody]

I need more coffee to digest this :)

LOL - yeah, I thought you would like it!

[Gabz]

The spectre of making an honest living must have pushed him over the edge.

How right you are. Losing their jobs is actually the impetus behind the whining about the use of settlement funds - those funds pay their salaries :)

[Psycho_Bunny]

Larry Downs, executive director of New Jersey Breathes, a coalition of anti-smoking groups, says program funding in the state has dwindled from about $30 million in 2000 to $11 million today. That's about 25 percent of the minimum needed........to pay the salaries of the slackers and hangers-on suckling off the teat of these organizations.

These people actually piss me off more than the "Homeless" racket.

[Snoopers-868th]

Because the "experts" say so. Seems quitting doesn't save you from lung cancer if you have the tendency toward it. At least that is what they are saying in conversations surrounding Peter Jennings death. He smoked period no matter how long ago. Furthermore, had he not all those evil smokers exposed him to secondhand smoke. The experts are bent on tobacco being the cause of death period. Wonder if no one smoked if we would live forever and free of cancer?

[Snoopers-868th]

Actually, I fully agree with this. As a smoker, I have paid the government and insurance companies thousands of dollars that other citizens are not required to pay. If this was for an established smoker's insurance program, then this money would have been wisely invested. Smoker's health costs would be self-funded and available to them when needed. Instead, smokers have been forced to pay thousands of dollars, which they will never see returned. When they do need health insurance, it will be denied them. This is a criminal action directed against 25 percent of the American population.

Under this premise smokers need to hold the State's liable for any "future" smoking related health care but that would then open the door to hold all others liable for like health related care, i.e., such as McDonalds, Smith & Wesson and so on. Makes no sense that the States are sucking from any sin/politically correct gravy train via taxes anyway. The taxes and false motives in my opinion are what need to be addressed. Until the States do not benefit in any way and are required to spend the tax on the related sin nothing will stop the targeting of certain individuals. Why do you suppose they do not go after beer--my guess is the votes from Joe six-pack (dems) they think they need to keep.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Wonder if no one smoked if we would live forever and free of cancer?

I think we probably would and we would no longer have to worry about global warming either, without those filthy cigarettes.

Everyone in my family smoked except my mother. An aunt and her son died of several kinds of cancer, one of which was lung cancer. She was 88, he was 61. My mother the non smoker died of natural causes at 88. Her mother smoked at least a pack a day of unfiltered cigarettes most of her life. She died at 87 of non smoking related causes. Same with my mom's dad. The three others died younger, one in her forties the two others in their seventies of non smoking related causes. All were heavy smokers. I am 67 and in good health although I have smoked for at least 50 years. I may develop lung cancer tomorrow but I suspect that most of that in in our genes rather than our environment unless the environment is an extreme one.

[The Foolkiller]

Finally!! Two people who say it like it is!! I agree with your attitudes 100%.!!! We aren't allowed to have our own section, or even get on the bus.

[Dr.Hilarious]

Thanks very much for the info.

[exnavychick]

You're very welcome. Glad to help. :)