| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"loose cannon" |
| Date: |
11 Jun 2005 10:07:42 PM |
| Object: |
Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
No doubt the government has gone easy on the tobacco industry in return
for payoffs but I can't help but wonder; should these companies be
penalized because of peoples stupidity? There can't possibly be one
American who didn't know the full dangers of cigarette smoking long
before they ever tried their first smoke. To lay all of the blame at
the feet of Big Tobacco is living in denial.
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050611/NEWS/506110374/1036
Tobacco Companies Get Big Break
Did the federal government try to go in the tank on a racketeering
lawsuit against the tobacco industry? All the facts aren't known, but
it sure looks that way.
When the Justice Department was summing up its case in federal court in
Washington this week, it asked for a judgment of $10 billion against
six major tobacco companies. That sounds pretty substantial -- until
you recall that a government expert witness had submitted written
testimony that the smoking-cessation program that the verdict was
supposed to pay for would cost $130 billion.
Even the tobacco companies were puzzled by the abrupt change. "We were
very surprised," one lawyer told The Washington Post. "They've gone
down from $130 billion to $10 billion with absolutely no explanation.
It's clear the government hasn't thought through what it's doing."
The Justice Department wouldn't elaborate on why it had made the
decision to seek sharply reduced damages, feeding the suspicions of
anti-tobacco groups that the decision wasn't based on legal
considerations.
"It feels like a political decision to take into consideration the
tobacco companies' financial interest rather than health interests of
45 million addicted smokers," said William V. Corr, of the Campaign for
Tobacco-Free Kids. "The government proved its case, but the levels of
funding are a shadow of the cessation-treatment program that the
government's own expert witness recommended."
The Post reported that the expert witness, Matt Myers, said the Justice
Department's lead prosecutor had called him a month ago to say that
"her superiors wanted him to scale back the recommendations he had made
in written testimony." He refused. The Post also reported that another
witness, Michael Eriksen, had altered his testimony and quoted four
unnamed sources that the request was made by Justice Department
lawyers.
The lawsuit was filed against the tobacco companies during the Clinton
administration, and supporters have worried for years that it wouldn't
be prosecuted vigorously in the Bush Justice Department. Former
Attorney General John Ashcroft wanted to settle the case out of court
but gave up the idea after a public outcry resulted.
Fortunately, the Justice Department's recommendation isn't binding.
U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler will make that decision -if she
rules against the tobacco companies. That verdict may be months away.
After a tobaccocompany lawer suggested that the government's case was
in "disarray," the judge did say that "other influences" could have led
to the request for lower damages.
The truth behind the decision may never be known for certain, but there
is enough smoke to suggest the presence of fire.
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of recirculation" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
11 Jun 2005 10:45:03 PM |
|
|
loose cannon wrote:
No doubt the government has gone easy on the tobacco industry in return
for payoffs
Yea, right. So they are paying billions to every single state in the
union and they got off easy.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Otis B. Driftwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
12 Jun 2005 02:16:06 AM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net>
wrote:
loose cannon wrote:
No doubt the government has gone easy on the tobacco industry in return
for payoffs
Yea, right. So they are paying billions to every single state in the
union and they got off easy.
Yes, that's right. They are paying to keep their drug and the way it
is administered legal. Their drug together with the way it is
administered is one of most dangerous drugs in the world, responsible
for tens of thousands of deaths, hundreds of thousands of illnesses,
and millions of days lost to illness, each year, in the US alone.
Despite these steep fines, they still make a profit, especially in
Asia, especially by selling their drug to children. So, yes, I'm sure
they see they are getting off easy. They should be out of business.
Either that or marijuana should be legal.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
11 Jun 2005 10:58:15 PM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote in
message news:42ABAFBF.C953CA89@nuj.net...
loose cannon wrote:
No doubt the government has gone easy on the tobacco industry in return
for payoffs
Yea, right. So they are paying billions to every single state in the
union
....while still managing to be immensely profitable...
and they got off easy.
In their case, being allowed to be in business at all is letting them off easy.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of recirculation" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
11 Jun 2005 11:00:13 PM |
|
|
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote in
message news:42ABAFBF.C953CA89@nuj.net...
loose cannon wrote:
No doubt the government has gone easy on the tobacco industry in return
for payoffs
Yea, right. So they are paying billions to every single state in the
union
...while still managing to be immensely profitable...
They just raised their prices and the addicts keep on buying.
and they got off easy.
In their case, being allowed to be in business at all is letting them off easy.
I suppose we'll hear this in a few years about Hostess.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
11 Jun 2005 11:11:11 PM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote in
message news:42ABB34D.B51D27CE@nuj.net...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote in
message news:42ABAFBF.C953CA89@nuj.net...
loose cannon wrote:
No doubt the government has gone easy on the tobacco industry in return
for payoffs
Yea, right. So they are paying billions to every single state in the
union
...while still managing to be immensely profitable...
They just raised their prices and the addicts keep on buying.
So they *did* get off easy.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of recirculation" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
11 Jun 2005 11:19:42 PM |
|
|
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote in
message news:42ABB34D.B51D27CE@nuj.net...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote in
message news:42ABAFBF.C953CA89@nuj.net...
loose cannon wrote:
No doubt the government has gone easy on the tobacco industry in return
for payoffs
Yea, right. So they are paying billions to every single state in the
union
...while still managing to be immensely profitable...
They just raised their prices and the addicts keep on buying.
So they *did* get off easy.
I'm not sure what you want. They are an industry forced to spend their
money killing off their industry. Of course that's a good thing because
tobacco is an evil, but still that's not getting off easy, I don't
think.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
11 Jun 2005 11:25:42 PM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote in
message news:42ABB7DE.A38E40B2@nuj.net...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote in
message news:42ABB34D.B51D27CE@nuj.net...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote
in
message news:42ABAFBF.C953CA89@nuj.net...
loose cannon wrote:
No doubt the government has gone easy on the tobacco industry in return
for payoffs
Yea, right. So they are paying billions to every single state in the
union
...while still managing to be immensely profitable...
They just raised their prices and the addicts keep on buying.
So they *did* get off easy.
I'm not sure what you want...
If you're going to fine a company, it should at least be enough to make the
responsible executives feel something.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
12 Jun 2005 12:21:08 AM |
|
|
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:-5WdnciZYeonJTbfRVn-qA@cablespeedwa.com...
If you're going to fine a company, it should at least be enough to make
the responsible executives feel something.
The issue is much, much bigger than that. The $130 billion was to go to
states to pay for smoking prevention, cessation, and related health care
costs.
-Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
12 Jun 2005 12:58:20 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118553665.eeb78e886c751d41e35b07928390df3a@meganetnews2...
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:-5WdnciZYeonJTbfRVn-qA@cablespeedwa.com...
If you're going to fine a company, it should at least be enough to make the
responsible executives feel something.
The issue is much, much bigger than that. The $130 billion was to go to
states to pay for smoking prevention, cessation, and related health care
costs.
The issue is exactly the same -- the only coherent policy to come from this
administration is making the rich richer.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
12 Jun 2005 01:02:55 AM |
|
|
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:FY-dnah9E_rtUzbfRVn-gQ@cablespeedwa.com...
The issue is much, much bigger than that. The $130 billion was to go to
states to pay for smoking prevention, cessation, and related health care
costs.
The issue is exactly the same -- the only coherent policy to come from
this administration is making the rich richer.
Unquestionably. The broader point I guess is that this suit wasn't just
about punishing big tobacco - it was supposed to be about helping people not
be addicted to the stuff, and dropping the associated health care costs of
smoking addiction.
This ***** should be page 1 scandal on every paper in the country, and
leading every news story.
Me, I just hear crickets.
-Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
12 Jun 2005 01:31:56 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118556171.fc8523e03640e81bc6dc567e297c7e91@meganetnews2...
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:FY-dnah9E_rtUzbfRVn-gQ@cablespeedwa.com...
The issue is much, much bigger than that. The $130 billion was to go to
states to pay for smoking prevention, cessation, and related health care
costs.
The issue is exactly the same -- the only coherent policy to come from this
administration is making the rich richer.
Unquestionably. The broader point I guess is that this suit wasn't just about
punishing big tobacco - it was supposed to be about helping people not be
addicted to the stuff, and dropping the associated health care costs of
smoking addiction.
This ***** should be page 1 scandal on every paper in the country, and leading
every news story.
Me, I just hear crickets.
Papers aren't in the news business, you silly person.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie Wilkes" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
12 Jun 2005 02:08:33 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:02:55 -0700, "Jeff Welch"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:FY-dnah9E_rtUzbfRVn-gQ@cablespeedwa.com...
The issue is much, much bigger than that. The $130 billion was to go to
states to pay for smoking prevention, cessation, and related health care
costs.
The issue is exactly the same -- the only coherent policy to come from
this administration is making the rich richer.
Unquestionably. The broader point I guess is that this suit wasn't just
about punishing big tobacco - it was supposed to be about helping people not
be addicted to the stuff, and dropping the associated health care costs of
smoking addiction.
This ***** should be page 1 scandal on every paper in the country, and
leading every news story.
But what to do?
Why allow these companies to earn profit and then attempt to seize the
profit with litigation? Corporate senior executives are paid to be
good stewards of other people's capital. Tobacco executives cannot
realistically be expected to honor that contract and also act as
stewards of the public interest.
Perhaps it is time to nationalize the cigarette industry. Unbranded
cigarettes could be sold in plain brown wrappers by authorized
vendors. The actual fabrication and handling would be done by private
companies under gov't contract. National industries get a deserved
bad rap for being inefficient and resisting innovation, but who cares
if you're trying to shrink the industry rather than grow it?
Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Otis B. Driftwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
12 Jun 2005 02:23:23 AM |
|
|
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:02:55 -0700, "Jeff Welch"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:FY-dnah9E_rtUzbfRVn-gQ@cablespeedwa.com...
The issue is much, much bigger than that. The $130 billion was to go to
states to pay for smoking prevention, cessation, and related health care
costs.
The issue is exactly the same -- the only coherent policy to come from
this administration is making the rich richer.
Unquestionably. The broader point I guess is that this suit wasn't just
about punishing big tobacco - it was supposed to be about helping people not
be addicted to the stuff, and dropping the associated health care costs of
smoking addiction.
This ***** should be page 1 scandal on every paper in the country, and
leading every news story.
But what to do?
Why allow these companies to earn profit and then attempt to seize the
profit with litigation? Corporate senior executives are paid to be
good stewards of other people's capital. Tobacco executives cannot
realistically be expected to honor that contract and also act as
stewards of the public interest.
They certainly *can* be expected to do just that. We expect them to do
just that. But they don't. That is the fundamental problem with
capitalism.
Perhaps it is time to nationalize the cigarette industry. Unbranded
cigarettes could be sold in plain brown wrappers by authorized
vendors. The actual fabrication and handling would be done by private
companies under gov't contract. National industries get a deserved
bad rap for being inefficient and resisting innovation, but who cares
if you're trying to shrink the industry rather than grow it?
The American military is a nationalized industry. It is the most
powerful military in the world. So, apparently your claim is false, on
the face of it.
I say let the tobacco companies pay all health care costs attributable
to use of tobacco. An illness is caused by tobacco if (a) it is an
illness known to have a positive statistical correlation with tobacco
use, and (b) the person's personal doctor diagnoses the illness as
having tobacco use as a cause.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie Wilkes" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
12 Jun 2005 04:25:22 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:23:23 +0200, Otis B. Driftwood
<ANight@TheOpera.org> wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:02:55 -0700, "Jeff Welch"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:FY-dnah9E_rtUzbfRVn-gQ@cablespeedwa.com...
The issue is much, much bigger than that. The $130 billion was to go to
states to pay for smoking prevention, cessation, and related health care
costs.
The issue is exactly the same -- the only coherent policy to come from
this administration is making the rich richer.
Unquestionably. The broader point I guess is that this suit wasn't just
about punishing big tobacco - it was supposed to be about helping people not
be addicted to the stuff, and dropping the associated health care costs of
smoking addiction.
This ***** should be page 1 scandal on every paper in the country, and
leading every news story.
But what to do?
Why allow these companies to earn profit and then attempt to seize the
profit with litigation? Corporate senior executives are paid to be
good stewards of other people's capital. Tobacco executives cannot
realistically be expected to honor that contract and also act as
stewards of the public interest.
They certainly *can* be expected to do just that. We expect them to do
just that. But they don't. That is the fundamental problem with
capitalism.
Sure. You can expect them to sprout fairy wings and leave a quarter
under your pillow for every cigarette you don't smoke. But it won't
happen, which is why I think it's time to consider some other options.
Perhaps it is time to nationalize the cigarette industry. Unbranded
cigarettes could be sold in plain brown wrappers by authorized
vendors. The actual fabrication and handling would be done by private
companies under gov't contract. National industries get a deserved
bad rap for being inefficient and resisting innovation, but who cares
if you're trying to shrink the industry rather than grow it?
The American military is a nationalized industry. It is the most
powerful military in the world. So, apparently your claim is false, on
the face of it.
I say let the tobacco companies pay all health care costs attributable
to use of tobacco. An illness is caused by tobacco if (a) it is an
illness known to have a positive statistical correlation with tobacco
use, and (b) the person's personal doctor diagnoses the illness as
having tobacco use as a cause.
As it stands now, cigarette companies must earn an above-average
return on assets just to stay in business, because otherwise who would
keep their money tied up in a business facing such momentous political
risks? If the returns don't justify the capital requirements,
companies can and will discontinue operations. I see three
possibilities:
-- Status quo -- allowing hefty profits then garnishing them through
litigation.
-- Gray market -- penalize companies to the point where they exit the
cigarette business and bootleggers take over.
-- Regulated market -- Some form of cigarette distribution in which
industry returns are limited to contract fees, and retailing is
handled by the government or its private-sector agents.
What do you favor? Or do you see other models for the industry?
Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Otis B. Driftwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
13 Jun 2005 02:47:06 AM |
|
|
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:23:23 +0200, Otis B. Driftwood
<ANight@TheOpera.org> wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:02:55 -0700, "Jeff Welch"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:FY-dnah9E_rtUzbfRVn-gQ@cablespeedwa.com...
The issue is much, much bigger than that. The $130 billion was to go to
states to pay for smoking prevention, cessation, and related health care
costs.
The issue is exactly the same -- the only coherent policy to come from
this administration is making the rich richer.
Unquestionably. The broader point I guess is that this suit wasn't just
about punishing big tobacco - it was supposed to be about helping people not
be addicted to the stuff, and dropping the associated health care costs of
smoking addiction.
This ***** should be page 1 scandal on every paper in the country, and
leading every news story.
But what to do?
Why allow these companies to earn profit and then attempt to seize the
profit with litigation? Corporate senior executives are paid to be
good stewards of other people's capital. Tobacco executives cannot
realistically be expected to honor that contract and also act as
stewards of the public interest.
They certainly *can* be expected to do just that. We expect them to do
just that. But they don't. That is the fundamental problem with
capitalism.
Sure. You can expect them to sprout fairy wings and leave a quarter
under your pillow for every cigarette you don't smoke. But it won't
happen, which is why I think it's time to consider some other options.
Perhaps it is time to nationalize the cigarette industry. Unbranded
cigarettes could be sold in plain brown wrappers by authorized
vendors. The actual fabrication and handling would be done by private
companies under gov't contract. National industries get a deserved
bad rap for being inefficient and resisting innovation, but who cares
if you're trying to shrink the industry rather than grow it?
The American military is a nationalized industry. It is the most
powerful military in the world. So, apparently your claim is false, on
the face of it.
I say let the tobacco companies pay all health care costs attributable
to use of tobacco. An illness is caused by tobacco if (a) it is an
illness known to have a positive statistical correlation with tobacco
use, and (b) the person's personal doctor diagnoses the illness as
having tobacco use as a cause.
As it stands now, cigarette companies must earn an above-average
return on assets just to stay in business, because otherwise who would
keep their money tied up in a business facing such momentous political
risks? If the returns don't justify the capital requirements,
companies can and will discontinue operations. I see three
possibilities:
-- Status quo -- allowing hefty profits then garnishing them through
litigation.
-- Gray market -- penalize companies to the point where they exit the
cigarette business and bootleggers take over.
-- Regulated market -- Some form of cigarette distribution in which
industry returns are limited to contract fees, and retailing is
handled by the government or its private-sector agents.
What do you favor? Or do you see other models for the industry?
I told you above what I favor: I say let the tobacco companies pay all
health care costs attributable to use of tobacco. An illness is caused
by tobacco if (a) it is an illness known to have a positive
statistical correlation with tobacco use, and (b) the person's
personal doctor diagnoses the illness as having tobacco use as a
cause.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
13 Jun 2005 11:43:09 AM |
|
|
Martin W Smurf" wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:23:23 +0200, Otis B. Driftwood
<ANight@TheOpera.org> wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:02:55 -0700, "Jeff Welch"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:FY-dnah9E_rtUzbfRVn-gQ@cablespeedwa.com...
The issue is much, much bigger than that. The $130 billion was to go to
states to pay for smoking prevention, cessation, and related health care
costs.
The issue is exactly the same -- the only coherent policy to come from
this administration is making the rich richer.
Unquestionably. The broader point I guess is that this suit wasn't just
about punishing big tobacco - it was supposed to be about helping people not
be addicted to the stuff, and dropping the associated health care costs of
smoking addiction.
This ***** should be page 1 scandal on every paper in the country, and
leading every news story.
But what to do?
Why allow these companies to earn profit and then attempt to seize the
profit with litigation? Corporate senior executives are paid to be
good stewards of other people's capital. Tobacco executives cannot
realistically be expected to honor that contract and also act as
stewards of the public interest.
They certainly *can* be expected to do just that. We expect them to do
just that. But they don't. That is the fundamental problem with
capitalism.
Sure. You can expect them to sprout fairy wings and leave a quarter
under your pillow for every cigarette you don't smoke. But it won't
happen, which is why I think it's time to consider some other options.
Perhaps it is time to nationalize the cigarette industry. Unbranded
cigarettes could be sold in plain brown wrappers by authorized
vendors. The actual fabrication and handling would be done by private
companies under gov't contract. National industries get a deserved
bad rap for being inefficient and resisting innovation, but who cares
if you're trying to shrink the industry rather than grow it?
The American military is a nationalized industry. It is the most
powerful military in the world. So, apparently your claim is false, on
the face of it.
I say let the tobacco companies pay all health care costs attributable
to use of tobacco. An illness is caused by tobacco if (a) it is an
illness known to have a positive statistical correlation with tobacco
use, and (b) the person's personal doctor diagnoses the illness as
having tobacco use as a cause.
As it stands now, cigarette companies must earn an above-average
return on assets just to stay in business, because otherwise who would
keep their money tied up in a business facing such momentous political
risks? If the returns don't justify the capital requirements,
companies can and will discontinue operations. I see three
possibilities:
-- Status quo -- allowing hefty profits then garnishing them through
litigation.
-- Gray market -- penalize companies to the point where they exit the
cigarette business and bootleggers take over.
-- Regulated market -- Some form of cigarette distribution in which
industry returns are limited to contract fees, and retailing is
handled by the government or its private-sector agents.
What do you favor? Or do you see other models for the industry?
I told you above what I favor: I say let the tobacco companies pay all
health care costs attributable to use of tobacco.
So you want to form a massive new bureaucracy to ascertain what is
caused by tobacco and force them to pay it? Health care is messed up
enough already, isn't it?
An illness is caused
by tobacco if (a) it is an illness known to have a positive
statistical correlation with tobacco use, and (b) the person's
personal doctor diagnoses the illness as having tobacco use as a
cause.
Who stuffed the tobacco in these peoples' mouths? They did this to
themselves.
--
"He's asking if you killed Freddie Miles and then killed Dickie
Greenleaf."
"No, I did not kill Freddie Miles and then kill Dickie Greenleaf."
-+Thomas Ripley using Bill Clinton logic, "The Talented Mr Ripley"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Otis B. Driftwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
14 Jun 2005 12:55:39 AM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<prepend@postpend.net.ru> wrote:
Martin W Smurf" wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:23:23 +0200, Otis B. Driftwood
<ANight@TheOpera.org> wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:02:55 -0700, "Jeff Welch"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:FY-dnah9E_rtUzbfRVn-gQ@cablespeedwa.com...
The issue is much, much bigger than that. The $130 billion was to go to
states to pay for smoking prevention, cessation, and related health care
costs.
The issue is exactly the same -- the only coherent policy to come from
this administration is making the rich richer.
Unquestionably. The broader point I guess is that this suit wasn't just
about punishing big tobacco - it was supposed to be about helping people not
be addicted to the stuff, and dropping the associated health care costs of
smoking addiction.
This ***** should be page 1 scandal on every paper in the country, and
leading every news story.
But what to do?
Why allow these companies to earn profit and then attempt to seize the
profit with litigation? Corporate senior executives are paid to be
good stewards of other people's capital. Tobacco executives cannot
realistically be expected to honor that contract and also act as
stewards of the public interest.
They certainly *can* be expected to do just that. We expect them to do
just that. But they don't. That is the fundamental problem with
capitalism.
Sure. You can expect them to sprout fairy wings and leave a quarter
under your pillow for every cigarette you don't smoke. But it won't
happen, which is why I think it's time to consider some other options.
Perhaps it is time to nationalize the cigarette industry. Unbranded
cigarettes could be sold in plain brown wrappers by authorized
vendors. The actual fabrication and handling would be done by private
companies under gov't contract. National industries get a deserved
bad rap for being inefficient and resisting innovation, but who cares
if you're trying to shrink the industry rather than grow it?
The American military is a nationalized industry. It is the most
powerful military in the world. So, apparently your claim is false, on
the face of it.
I say let the tobacco companies pay all health care costs attributable
to use of tobacco. An illness is caused by tobacco if (a) it is an
illness known to have a positive statistical correlation with tobacco
use, and (b) the person's personal doctor diagnoses the illness as
having tobacco use as a cause.
As it stands now, cigarette companies must earn an above-average
return on assets just to stay in business, because otherwise who would
keep their money tied up in a business facing such momentous political
risks? If the returns don't justify the capital requirements,
companies can and will discontinue operations. I see three
possibilities:
-- Status quo -- allowing hefty profits then garnishing them through
litigation.
-- Gray market -- penalize companies to the point where they exit the
cigarette business and bootleggers take over.
-- Regulated market -- Some form of cigarette distribution in which
industry returns are limited to contract fees, and retailing is
handled by the government or its private-sector agents.
What do you favor? Or do you see other models for the industry?
I told you above what I favor: I say let the tobacco companies pay all
health care costs attributable to use of tobacco.
So you want to form a massive new bureaucracy to ascertain what is
caused by tobacco and force them to pay it? Health care is messed up
enough already, isn't it?
No, Bill, the determination is quite simple. If one is a smoker and
one contracts a disease known to be caused or enabled or enhanced by
smoking, you send your medical bills for treatment of that disease to
an insurance company funded by the tobacco companies, and that
insurance company pays the bills.
An illness is caused
by tobacco if (a) it is an illness known to have a positive
statistical correlation with tobacco use, and (b) the person's
personal doctor diagnoses the illness as having tobacco use as a
cause.
Who stuffed the tobacco in these peoples' mouths? They did this to
themselves.
Then make all illicit drugs legal. End the double standard. Be
consistent. Have integrity. Change your life, Bill. Do the right
thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
14 Jun 2005 01:28:11 AM |
|
|
"Otis B. Driftwood" wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<prepend@postpend.net.ru> wrote:
Martin W Smurf" wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:23:23 +0200, Otis B. Driftwood
<ANight@TheOpera.org> wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:02:55 -0700, "Jeff Welch"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:FY-dnah9E_rtUzbfRVn-gQ@cablespeedwa.com...
The issue is much, much bigger than that. The $130 billion was to go to
states to pay for smoking prevention, cessation, and related health care
costs.
The issue is exactly the same -- the only coherent policy to come from
this administration is making the rich richer.
Unquestionably. The broader point I guess is that this suit wasn't just
about punishing big tobacco - it was supposed to be about helping people not
be addicted to the stuff, and dropping the associated health care costs of
smoking addiction.
This ***** should be page 1 scandal on every paper in the country, and
leading every news story.
But what to do?
Why allow these companies to earn profit and then attempt to seize the
profit with litigation? Corporate senior executives are paid to be
good stewards of other people's capital. Tobacco executives cannot
realistically be expected to honor that contract and also act as
stewards of the public interest.
They certainly *can* be expected to do just that. We expect them to do
just that. But they don't. That is the fundamental problem with
capitalism.
Sure. You can expect them to sprout fairy wings and leave a quarter
under your pillow for every cigarette you don't smoke. But it won't
happen, which is why I think it's time to consider some other options.
Perhaps it is time to nationalize the cigarette industry. Unbranded
cigarettes could be sold in plain brown wrappers by authorized
vendors. The actual fabrication and handling would be done by private
companies under gov't contract. National industries get a deserved
bad rap for being inefficient and resisting innovation, but who cares
if you're trying to shrink the industry rather than grow it?
The American military is a nationalized industry. It is the most
powerful military in the world. So, apparently your claim is false, on
the face of it.
I say let the tobacco companies pay all health care costs attributable
to use of tobacco. An illness is caused by tobacco if (a) it is an
illness known to have a positive statistical correlation with tobacco
use, and (b) the person's personal doctor diagnoses the illness as
having tobacco use as a cause.
As it stands now, cigarette companies must earn an above-average
return on assets just to stay in business, because otherwise who would
keep their money tied up in a business facing such momentous political
risks? If the returns don't justify the capital requirements,
companies can and will discontinue operations. I see three
possibilities:
-- Status quo -- allowing hefty profits then garnishing them through
litigation.
-- Gray market -- penalize companies to the point where they exit the
cigarette business and bootleggers take over.
-- Regulated market -- Some form of cigarette distribution in which
industry returns are limited to contract fees, and retailing is
handled by the government or its private-sector agents.
What do you favor? Or do you see other models for the industry?
I told you above what I favor: I say let the tobacco companies pay all
health care costs attributable to use of tobacco.
So you want to form a massive new bureaucracy to ascertain what is
caused by tobacco and force them to pay it? Health care is messed up
enough already, isn't it?
No, Bill, the determination is quite simple. If one is a smoker and
one contracts a disease known to be caused or enabled or enhanced by
smoking, you send your medical bills for treatment of that disease to
an insurance company funded by the tobacco companies, and that
insurance company pays the bills.
Or you could just pay your own health care costs which would also be
defined by the sicknesses you got including those from smoking.
An illness is caused
by tobacco if (a) it is an illness known to have a positive
statistical correlation with tobacco use, and (b) the person's
personal doctor diagnoses the illness as having tobacco use as a
cause.
Who stuffed the tobacco in these peoples' mouths? They did this to
themselves.
Then make all illicit drugs legal. End the double standard. Be
People who make this argument are being absurd.
consistent. Have integrity. Change your life, Bill. Do the right
thing.
--
"He's asking if you killed Freddie Miles and then killed Dickie
Greenleaf."
"No, I did not kill Freddie Miles and then kill Dickie Greenleaf."
-+Thomas Ripley using Bill Clinton logic, "The Talented Mr Ripley"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Otis B. Driftwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
14 Jun 2005 01:36:39 AM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<prepend@postpend.net.ru> wrote:
"Otis B. Driftwood" wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<prepend@postpend.net.ru> wrote:
Martin W Smurf" wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:23:23 +0200, Otis B. Driftwood
<ANight@TheOpera.org> wrote:
Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:02:55 -0700, "Jeff Welch"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:FY-dnah9E_rtUzbfRVn-gQ@cablespeedwa.com...
The issue is much, much bigger than that. The $130 billion was to go to
states to pay for smoking prevention, cessation, and related health care
costs.
The issue is exactly the same -- the only coherent policy to come from
this administration is making the rich richer.
Unquestionably. The broader point I guess is that this suit wasn't just
about punishing big tobacco - it was supposed to be about helping people not
be addicted to the stuff, and dropping the associated health care costs of
smoking addiction.
This ***** should be page 1 scandal on every paper in the country, and
leading every news story.
But what to do?
Why allow these companies to earn profit and then attempt to seize the
profit with litigation? Corporate senior executives are paid to be
good stewards of other people's capital. Tobacco executives cannot
realistically be expected to honor that contract and also act as
stewards of the public interest.
They certainly *can* be expected to do just that. We expect them to do
just that. But they don't. That is the fundamental problem with
capitalism.
Sure. You can expect them to sprout fairy wings and leave a quarter
under your pillow for every cigarette you don't smoke. But it won't
happen, which is why I think it's time to consider some other options.
Perhaps it is time to nationalize the cigarette industry. Unbranded
cigarettes could be sold in plain brown wrappers by authorized
vendors. The actual fabrication and handling would be done by private
companies under gov't contract. National industries get a deserved
bad rap for being inefficient and resisting innovation, but who cares
if you're trying to shrink the industry rather than grow it?
The American military is a nationalized industry. It is the most
powerful military in the world. So, apparently your claim is false, on
the face of it.
I say let the tobacco companies pay all health care costs attributable
to use of tobacco. An illness is caused by tobacco if (a) it is an
illness known to have a positive statistical correlation with tobacco
use, and (b) the person's personal doctor diagnoses the illness as
having tobacco use as a cause.
As it stands now, cigarette companies must earn an above-average
return on assets just to stay in business, because otherwise who would
keep their money tied up in a business facing such momentous political
risks? If the returns don't justify the capital requirements,
companies can and will discontinue operations. I see three
possibilities:
-- Status quo -- allowing hefty profits then garnishing them through
litigation.
-- Gray market -- penalize companies to the point where they exit the
cigarette business and bootleggers take over.
-- Regulated market -- Some form of cigarette distribution in which
industry returns are limited to contract fees, and retailing is
handled by the government or its private-sector agents.
What do you favor? Or do you see other models for the industry?
I told you above what I favor: I say let the tobacco companies pay all
health care costs attributable to use of tobacco.
So you want to form a massive new bureaucracy to ascertain what is
caused by tobacco and force them to pay it? Health care is messed up
enough already, isn't it?
No, Bill, the determination is quite simple. If one is a smoker and
one contracts a disease known to be caused or enabled or enhanced by
smoking, you send your medical bills for treatment of that disease to
an insurance company funded by the tobacco companies, and that
insurance company pays the bills.
Or you could just pay your own health care costs which would also be
defined by the sicknesses you got including those from smoking.
You could, but then the tobacco companies would continue destroying
the health of the world and make big profits doing it. The idea is to
eliminate tobacco production from the economy as much as possible
without creating a huge black market. It can't be eliminated
completely, but if the true costs are forced back onto the source,
then it will be reduced as much as possible.
It's a general rule, if the true costs of pollution are forced back to
the source, the source will go away. For another example, if oil
companies had to pay the true cost of air and water pollution caused
by burning oil, the cost of gasoline would be so high we would develop
better and cleaner forms of transportation.
An illness is caused
by tobacco if (a) it is an illness known to have a positive
statistical correlation with tobacco use, and (b) the person's
personal doctor diagnoses the illness as having tobacco use as a
cause.
Who stuffed the tobacco in these peoples' mouths? They did this to
themselves.
Then make all illicit drugs legal. End the double standard. Be
People who make this argument are being absurd.
Really? Smoking kills more people each year than all the illicit drugs
combined.
consistent. Have integrity. Change your life, Bill. Do the right
thing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of recirculation" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
12 Jun 2005 12:42:22 AM |
|
|
Jeff Welch wrote:
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:-5WdnciZYeonJTbfRVn-qA@cablespeedwa.com...
If you're going to fine a company, it should at least be enough to make
the responsible executives feel something.
The issue is much, much bigger than that. The $130 billion was to go to
states to pay for smoking prevention, cessation, and related health care
costs.
What did many of the states use the money for? General expenses, am I
right?
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of recirculation" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
11 Jun 2005 11:44:25 PM |
|
|
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote in
message news:42ABB7DE.A38E40B2@nuj.net...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote in
message news:42ABB34D.B51D27CE@nuj.net...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote
in
message news:42ABAFBF.C953CA89@nuj.net...
loose cannon wrote:
No doubt the government has gone easy on the tobacco industry in return
for payoffs
Yea, right. So they are paying billions to every single state in the
union
...while still managing to be immensely profitable...
They just raised their prices and the addicts keep on buying.
So they *did* get off easy.
I'm not sure what you want...
If you're going to fine a company, it should at least be enough to make the
responsible executives feel something.
Tobacco is a legacy product that we all knew was killing people but
everyone just winked and all that about it. Since the sort who would buy
tobacco products today is only the addicted, I don't see a lot of way to
fine them and not just see the price go up to pay for it. And you cannot
make the price go up too high or you'll get bootlegging activity.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Otis B. Driftwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
12 Jun 2005 02:42:05 AM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net>
wrote:
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote in
message news:42ABB7DE.A38E40B2@nuj.net...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote in
message news:42ABB34D.B51D27CE@nuj.net...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote
in
message news:42ABAFBF.C953CA89@nuj.net...
loose cannon wrote:
No doubt the government has gone easy on the tobacco industry in return
for payoffs
Yea, right. So they are paying billions to every single state in the
union
...while still managing to be immensely profitable...
They just raised their prices and the addicts keep on buying.
So they *did* get off easy.
I'm not sure what you want...
If you're going to fine a company, it should at least be enough to make the
responsible executives feel something.
Tobacco is a legacy product that we all knew was killing people but
everyone just winked and all that about it. Since the sort who would buy
tobacco products today is only the addicted,
Whoa! What about children who are the target of tobacco marketing?
I don't see a lot of way to
fine them and not just see the price go up to pay for it. And you cannot
make the price go up too high or you'll get bootlegging activity.
Require the tobacco companies to pay all health care bills
attributable to tobacco use. Just allow people to send their tobacco
related medical bills to the tobacco companies, which must pay them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ArWeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
12 Jun 2005 06:22:43 AM |
|
|
"Otis B. Driftwood" <ANight@TheOpera.org> wrote in message
news:blpna116gs594jsn2qvch1ornsnlgub46u@4ax.com...
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net>
wrote:
Require the tobacco companies to pay all health care bills
attributable to tobacco use. Just allow people to send their tobacco
related medical bills to the tobacco companies, which must pay them.
And make Boeing pay for all airline crashes. And make McDonalds pay for
all heart attacks for people who've eaten a Big Mac. And make me pay for
all the AIDS related deaths of my unsuspecting male partners who I do on
the "down low".
--
ArWeHard2Please
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
12 Jun 2005 06:35:04 AM |
|
|
ArWeGod wrote:
"Otis B. Driftwood" <ANight@TheOpera.org> wrote in message
news:blpna116gs594jsn2qvch1ornsnlgub46u@4ax.com...
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net>
wrote:
Require the tobacco companies to pay all health care bills
attributable to tobacco use. Just allow people to send their tobacco
related medical bills to the tobacco companies, which must pay them.
And make Boeing pay for all airline crashes.
Airline crashes are accidents.
And make McDonalds pay for
all heart attacks for people who've eaten a Big Mac.
Eating a Big Mac is a voluntary act and no one ever had a heart-attack
from living with someone who eats Big Macs...
And make me pay for
all the AIDS related deaths of my unsuspecting male partners who I do on
the "down low".
Unless the AIDS did NOT come from homosexual acts....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
12 Jun 2005 09:50:40 AM |
|
|
ArWeGod wrote:
"Otis B. Driftwood" <ANight@TheOpera.org> wrote in message
news:blpna116gs594jsn2qvch1ornsnlgub46u@4ax.com...
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net>
wrote:
Require the tobacco companies to pay all health care bills
attributable to tobacco use. Just allow people to send their tobacco
related medical bills to the tobacco companies, which must pay them.
And make Boeing pay for all airline crashes. And make McDonalds pay for
all heart attacks for people who've eaten a Big Mac. And make me pay for
all the AIDS related deaths of my unsuspecting male partners who I do on
the "down low".
Or we could choose a free society where individuals and their familys,
churches and health care providers get to decide what is an acceptable
risk and what is not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
12 Jun 2005 03:03:09 AM |
|
|
"Otis B. Driftwood" wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net>
wrote:
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote in
message news:42ABB7DE.A38E40B2@nuj.net...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote in
message news:42ABB34D.B51D27CE@nuj.net...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote
in
message news:42ABAFBF.C953CA89@nuj.net...
loose cannon wrote:
No doubt the government has gone easy on the tobacco industry in return
for payoffs
Yea, right. So they are paying billions to every single state in the
union
...while still managing to be immensely profitable...
They just raised their prices and the addicts keep on buying.
So they *did* get off easy.
I'm not sure what you want...
If you're going to fine a company, it should at least be enough to make the
responsible executives feel something.
Tobacco is a legacy product that we all knew was killing people but
everyone just winked and all that about it. Since the sort who would buy
tobacco products today is only the addicted,
Whoa! What about children who are the target of tobacco marketing?
You have to be a pretty stupid kid to start using tobacco today.
I don't see a lot of way to
fine them and not just see the price go up to pay for it. And you cannot
make the price go up too high or you'll get bootlegging activity.
Require the tobacco companies to pay all health care bills
attributable to tobacco use. Just allow people to send their tobacco
related medical bills to the tobacco companies, which must pay them.
That would bankrupt all the legal tobacco sellers and instantly create
the bootleg market I was talking about.
--
"He's asking if you killed Freddie Miles and then killed Dickie
Greenleaf."
"No, I did not kill Freddie Miles and then kill Dickie Greenleaf."
-+Thomas Ripley using Bill Clinton logic, "The Talented Mr Ripley"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Otis B. Driftwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
12 Jun 2005 03:08:38 AM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<prepend@postpend.net.ru> wrote:
"Otis B. Driftwood" wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net>
wrote:
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote in
message news:42ABB7DE.A38E40B2@nuj.net...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote in
message news:42ABB34D.B51D27CE@nuj.net...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote
in
message news:42ABAFBF.C953CA89@nuj.net...
loose cannon wrote:
No doubt the government has gone easy on the tobacco industry in return
for payoffs
Yea, right. So they are paying billions to every single state in the
union
...while still managing to be immensely profitable...
They just raised their prices and the addicts keep on buying.
So they *did* get off easy.
I'm not sure what you want...
If you're going to fine a company, it should at least be enough to make the
responsible executives feel something.
Tobacco is a legacy product that we all knew was killing people but
everyone just winked and all that about it. Since the sort who would buy
tobacco products today is only the addicted,
Whoa! What about children who are the target of tobacco marketing?
You have to be a pretty stupid kid to start using tobacco today.
That's your argument? You have to be a pretty stupid kid to start
using cocaine today. You have to be a pretty stupid kid to start using
___________ today. You have to be a pretty stupid not to see that the
tobacco compaines are stillmaking a profit precisely because they
continue to gain millions of new smokers.
I don't see a lot of way to
fine them and not just see the price go up to pay for it. And you cannot
make the price go up too high or you'll get bootlegging activity.
Require the tobacco companies to pay all health care bills
attributable to tobacco use. Just allow people to send their tobacco
related medical bills to the tobacco companies, which must pay them.
That would bankrupt all the legal tobacco sellers and instantly create
the bootleg market I was talking about.
You misunderstood. The medical bills would go to the growers as well,
as they are part of big tobacco. It is simply not possible to smuggle
enough tobacco into the country to supply even a fraction of the
market.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
12 Jun 2005 09:52:05 AM |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
"Otis B. Driftwood" wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net>
wrote:
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote in
message news:42ABB7DE.A38E40B2@nuj.net...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote in
message news:42ABB34D.B51D27CE@nuj.net...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote
in
message news:42ABAFBF.C953CA89@nuj.net...
loose cannon wrote:
No doubt the government has gone easy on the tobacco industry in return
for payoffs
Yea, right. So they are paying billions to every single state in the
union
...while still managing to be immensely profitable...
They just raised their prices and the addicts keep on buying.
So they *did* get off easy.
I'm not sure what you want...
If you're going to fine a company, it should at least be enough to make the
responsible executives feel something.
Tobacco is a legacy product that we all knew was killing people but
everyone just winked and all that about it. Since the sort who would buy
tobacco products today is only the addicted,
Whoa! What about children who are the target of tobacco marketing?
You have to be a pretty stupid kid to start using tobacco today.
I don't see a lot of way to
fine them and not just see the price go up to pay for it. And you cannot
make the price go up too high or you'll get bootlegging activity.
Require the tobacco companies to pay all health care bills
attributable to tobacco use. Just allow people to send their tobacco
related medical bills to the tobacco companies, which must pay them.
That would bankrupt all the legal tobacco sellers and instantly create
the bootleg market I was talking about.
If you were not such a lying hypocrite you would see why drug laws are
so stupid and never work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
12 Jun 2005 12:49:48 PM |
|
|
Tim Crowley wrote:
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
"Otis B. Driftwood" wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net>
wrote:
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote in
message news:42ABB7DE.A38E40B2@nuj.net...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote in
message news:42ABB34D.B51D27CE@nuj.net...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote
in
message news:42ABAFBF.C953CA89@nuj.net...
loose cannon wrote:
No doubt the government has gone easy on the tobacco industry in return
for payoffs
Yea, right. So they are paying billions to every single state in the
union
...while still managing to be immensely profitable...
They just raised their prices and the addicts keep on buying.
So they *did* get off easy.
I'm not sure what you want...
If you're going to fine a company, it should at least be enough to make the
responsible executives feel something.
Tobacco is a legacy product that we all knew was killing people but
everyone just winked and all that about it. Since the sort who would buy
tobacco products today is only the addicted,
Whoa! What about children who are the target of tobacco marketing?
You have to be a pretty stupid kid to start using tobacco today.
I don't see a lot of way to
fine them and not just see the price go up to pay for it. And you cannot
make the price go up too high or you'll get bootlegging activity.
Require the tobacco companies to pay all health care bills
attributable to tobacco use. Just allow people to send their tobacco
related medical bills to the tobacco companies, which must pay them.
That would bankrupt all the legal tobacco sellers and instantly create
the bootleg market I was talking about.
If you were not such a lying hypocrite you would see why drug laws are
so stupid and never work.
Tobacco is legal and pot isn't and a lot more people smoke tobacco than
smoke pot therefore the making of pot illegal could be reducing overall
use.
--
"He's asking if you killed Freddie Miles and then killed Dickie
Greenleaf."
"No, I did not kill Freddie Miles and then kill Dickie Greenleaf."
-+Thomas Ripley using Bill Clinton logic, "The Talented Mr Ripley"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Tobacco Companies Get Big Break |
12 Jun 2005 01:10:50 PM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<prepend@postpend.net.ru> wrote in message
news:42AC75BC.D8D041F@postpend.net.ru...
Tim Crowley wrote:
Tobacco is legal and pot isn't and a lot more people smoke tobacco than
smoke pot therefore the making of pot illegal could be reducing overall
use.
There's nothing to prove that ratio.
Pot smokers aren't exactly chomping at the bit to stand up and be counted.
Willie Nelson's a famous toker, and he won't even touch a cigarette.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
