Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:48:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
286 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> Duane,
>
> I have to nitpick here a little.
>
> > The restriction of smoking is intended to protect the public at large from • the
> > effects of second hand smoke. Some people don't have the common courtesy to
> > know when their right to smoke is infringing on the right of other to breath
> > clean air. The cancerous effects of smoking are now costing the government
> > money through an increase in medical spending to try and nullify the cancer • in
> > those who smoke, or have smoked. To recover these costs, the government has
> > gone to the source of the problem, the cigarette manufacturers.
>
> No, the government is going after money. The smokers are the reason why
> they have health costs, they should be responsible.
They are making the smoker responsible by hiking the prices to cover those
costs. Think of it as medical payments in advance for procedures that you will
need in the future because of the habit.
> They don't give a
> whit about the children, or people's health, or that money would all be
> going to the health system, which it doesn't.
Now remember that the cigarette manufacturer must make a profit from its
product. They need the profit to re-invest in research to make their products
"safer". It also helps keep demand for their product up since smokers aren't
dying as quickly.
> Remember half the money
> for all of those suits go to the trail lawyers, not preventing health,
> etc.
True. Being a lawyer in a tobacco settlement for either side is big business. I
think that is the scapegoat defense, as was pointed out by someone else in
another post. "The cigarette maunfacturer never told me that smoking was
dangerous." What a sham. It has been known for decades. People are just out to
get a buck where they can.
> I didn't hear any of the press calling for them to give their
> wealth to the poor, etc, like a certain software companies owner. They
> are going to go after fatty foods and the like as well, mostly by some
> of the FDA and some in lobbyists circles, the food advocacy council, or
> something to that affect.
>
> Scott S.
> ______________________________________________________________________________ • ___________
> Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
> Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
> LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
> Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
-Duane
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| Duane, I have to nitpick here a little. (...) No, the government is going after money. The smokers are the reason why they have health costs, they should be responsible. They don't give a whit about the children, or people's health, or that money (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
