Quote:
Originally Posted by MD_Titus
how is any of that bad?
|
It's bad because people that choose to smoke already know of the risk by now. They have been very aware for a very long time. Common sense tells you when you stand in a smoky room and you start coughing and your eyes water, not good. Don't need a researcher to tell me that. And yes, lung cancer comes in many forms from many causes. So, special tax on the painters? The coal miners? The wind? This is California doing the double dip because the state is pro liberal/socialist and by nature they are completely fiscally irresponsible and they saw this as an easy way to steal some more money and pander to the dimwits that live here, to make up for declines in the other cigs tax revenue streams. The part you didn't post.
per wiki
"Approximately $75 million annually would have maintained existing tobacco tax revenue streams. The objective here was to avoid negatively impacting other revenue streams from other cigarette taxes such as from
Proposition 99 (1988 ) and Proposition 10 (1998 ). "
See, already taxed many times over. So, how much of the part you posted would have gone to fund the wild BBQs parties and pretty interns on short term contracts I wonder?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD_Titus
2. this is how science works. they keep on testing things, and when...
|
hum dee dum. Go back and google the marlboro man. that was a long time ago. they have been stretching this thing all that time. get a clue.
The antacid thing, just another $50 light-bulb scheme.
Research is fine, but it should be subject to rules of cost/benefit. Not guise for money grab to fix irresponsible state spending. wait, what???