Guest Estrea Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 After reading the next paragraph, I am sure you will want to click on the link and go to a site which will give you a letter to email to Pres. Bush with your name on it. Big Tobacco gave over $26.5 million in political donations since 1997. Now the tobacco industry wants President Bush to kill the federal lawsuit against the tobacco industry. Big Tobacco doesn't deserve a presidential pardon. www.DontPardonBigTobacco.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gail Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 Just completed the letter and sent the site to my email mailbox. I always thought if the tobacco farmers grew food instead, would there be any famine in the world???? Thanks for posting the link gail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna G Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 As I have said before , it is all about money. Movies and TV shows show people smoking because the cigarette industry pays them, not because the character needs to smoke! The federal government will take a harmful product off the market in a snap, do a recall etc if just a few people are hurt especially kids. Why don't they take cigarettes off the market? Why don't they at least force the companys not to add hundreds of carcinogens to the tobacco? Why does the federal government acturally subsidize tobacco farmers? Money is power in this country and the tobacco industry is very rich at the citizens expense. They are tirents, just as bad as Bin Laden. ( Ooh, can you tell my Irish dander is up?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teresag Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 Done! Donna, keep that dander up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 ok it is not only tobacco with the government, but also the environment--sorry but we can choose to smoke or not---but when laws are passed regarding the decimation of our forests and wildlife, we really have no say --you can choose to smoke or not smoke---it is your choice-- The federal government will not take a product off the market if it benefits them---- also I disagree that the government should ban smoking---or take the product off the market---we have enough of big brother watching out for us---but if we allow them to do that, what next, ? should we take all harmful products off the market , alcohol (bad for liver and the crime rate, cakes and fatty foods, causes obesity, diabetes and heart attacks, etc.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 President Bush is horrible when it comes to the tobacco companies.. I think I have the right to say this as he was horrible as the governor too. ( lived through it ) When Texas accepted the monies from the Tobacco companies lawsuits, ole Georgy signed the settlement and in the settlement he disallowed any other persons in Texas to sue privately. Unbeleivable!!! Texas has used little of the funds collected from the tobacco companies to help or support the effort of "Stop Smoking" or "Medical Help" or "Research" or etc, however its not the government that needs the money for this but the individuals that are suffering from the diseases. No special funds were set aside to help those suffering from heart disease, lung disease, cancer or etc from any of the money collected, but then disallowed anyone that needs the help from suing the tobacco companies on an individual basis. Texas was only one of very few states with this stipulation added to the settlements. It is also obvious that Bush doesnt really care about the individual and health needs, look at what he wanted to do to the Alaska wildlife refuges, Drill oil. Anyway, off my soap box now... I am or was a republican and from Texas, however I am somewhat embarrassed of that fact now. Thanks Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MO_Sugar Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 Dear Guest, When they ban ephedra because 155 people have died from it but don't do a dang thing about tobacco you have to wonder. Yes we can choose to smoke or not and we can choose to drink or not and we can choose to jump off a bridge if we want to but that doesn't make it right. Tobacco, if not banned, should at least be taxed to the MAX to try and keep it out of the hands of children. If I had not been able to buy my first pack of cig in 1969 for .45cents I would most likely NOT be in this condition today. Thats just my 2 cents worth. MO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna G Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 Rick, it is not only President Bush. There are 50 states and none of them are spending the money on victims of tobacco, none of them spend the money on research, a miniscule amount is being spent on helping people quit smoking. In our state a small percent of it ( $ 200,000 a year) is being given to an organization called MPAAT ( Minnesota partnership against tobacco) It is made up of interested parties from other organizations. They have a meeting a pay each other the money!!!!!!!!!!! Connie lead us in a fight in the Minnesota supreme court to get MPATT to spend at least some of the money on helping people quit smoking. Now they must! Minnesota would rather balance the budget with this money, add new roads, collect more taxes etc. They love to raise the taxes!!!!!! Here in my city they have a law that stores loose their license if they are caught selling cigarettes to minors. Well Supra America , a gas station and conveinience store repeatedly was caught, fined and lost their licence to sell cigarettes. They claimed they would go out of business if they could not sell cigarettes,, the city let them pay a "penilty" fine and they got their license back . ( oops my Irish is up again) Donna G Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MO_Sugar Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Donna, I hear what you are saying about the money being spent on every thing BUT healthcare for smokers. I just read today that Missouri is rated 51st in spending of tobacco settelment money for ANY thing related to smoking. Neat trick with 50 states lol!!! We have not spent a dime on it but our state employess have had 2 days off with pay (at $4 million a day) so they didn't have to come in the Friday after Thanksgiving or the Friday after Christmas. Lets see what they do the Friday after New Years!! There are several of us who are considering a lawsuit against the state for mis-spending the money. We will see what happens, lol. God Bless, MO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 It was George Bush that.. When Texas accepted the monies from the Tobacco companies lawsuits, ole Georgy signed the settlement and in the settlement he disallowed any other persons in Texas to sue privately. and thats what really bugs me. For him to take the money and at the same time take every citizens rights away while doing so. Donna, it sounds like its bad everywhere. I hope we can make a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
judysdaughter Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 I, like many others, have been lurking and not responding. My mom (I'm not JudyB's daughter) has also suffered with lung cancer. As Dean Carl's letter to his local news station suggests, as well as many others, it's much, much larger than that. Also, as Katie B and others have pointed out, NO ONE DESERVES TO DIE SUCH A DEATH!!!!! Unfortunately, lung cancer carries that same stigma that AIDS once did. But for the grace of God, my mom was only diagnosed because she was a clinical screening program. Her doctor wasn't even testing her for it; still didn't even when she was showing symptoms! Early screening seems to definitely be a major component. As with all of us, time, energy, and hope are a precious resource. I too am interested in investing it with you all where and when I can. This site and all of in the info and support is the perfect seed. Kudos and thanks to the folks that had the vision, maintaince (huge), and the participants who respond with such care and thought. Praying for all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 sorry Katie that was me as guest, I forgot to log back on-after I had logged off previously I do not disagree with anything you said---I totally agree----I just do not think the goverment should ban cigarettes ---what they should do is spend the settlement money for more education about the perils of smoking and other things that tobacco causes ---but I also think that people should also have the right to choose ------I really have an aversion to government controlling too much. I too do not understand how the government can be so hypocritical and accept all the tax money and not do any thing for education about tobacco --in NYork City , cigarettes are taxed to the max---but not because they are bad, because we had to help the new york city deficit regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 I think Cis should be banned as well. The government bans and makes illegal anything that they are not making the profit on. Ephedrine was pulled from the shelves of all Stop n Go stores due to less than 200 deaths and it is so ironic, because at Stop and Go stores the ephedrine pill displays were screwed into the front of their Cig cases... So we ban the item that caused less than 200 deaths and keep the one that kills millions MMMmmm something is wrong with this picture. Cigs not only cause high death rate but also cost every individual by raising the minimum bar on health insurance pricing (significantly). So the general public pays for cigs whether they smoke or not. Sorry to rant and rave, it is just a very sore subject Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 It is ok to rant and rave----we can all voice our opinions here whether we agree or disagree regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna G Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Can we all agree that perhaps if they are going to allow the sale of cigarettes that at least they should not be allowed to add carcinogenic chemicals just because they enhance the addictiveness and such things? Donna G Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DaveG Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 An infregrent member of our support group at the U of Wisc, claimed the only smoking he ever did was "the recreational" type while he was in high school, which was 30 years ago. He, however, worked as an auomobile painter for 25 years. Until 5 years ago, when it became law, he never wore projection, as none of his employers enforced the protection. He got lung cancer, not from "recreational" smoking, but from his job. Now it is law that automobile painters must wear protective clothing and breathing gear. The governemnt has subsidized tobacco for over two hundred years, since the first George, or is it George I. What has been in effect, and amended thousands of times, over the past 200 years, will not be overturned very easily. Government is Tobacco, and tobacco is goverment. My point is, government responds to business before they respond to the run of the mill American voter. Tobacco is big business, drug companies are big business (look at our pharmacy bills), oil is big business, and war is big business. Lung cancer is affiliated with two of the above, one negatively, and the other gives token attention to lung cancer, because the government only gives token attention to lung cancer. My District Congressional Representative has seen fit to coorespond, positively, with me about lung cancer. She has offered 2 bills concerning lung cancer. I just sent Senator Feingold a rather lung email about a mutual frind, who died of lung cancer. I am hoping I got his attention also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy O. Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 All that I would like is for the tobacco companies to pay for health care for people who smoke, or have smoked in the past. For screening for diseases caused by the additives and for money for treatment for those of us that have lung cancer. At the very least they could pay part of the cost of tests and treatments for diseases caused by smoking cigarettes if that is the cause of the disease. It seems that even though they have been saying that tobacco use causes so many health problems is it the cause of is it just a contributing factor? One of many... perhaps? Is that one of the reasons for the reaction of people and government? I don't know. I just have to wonder why only 10 to 15 % of smokers get lung cancer. Why not everyone who has ever smoked? It's just seems too strange to me and I have a feeling there is a whole lot more to it. Just my 2 cents worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhioKat Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 Honestly when you think about all the other things that are banned because of chemicals & other things that they contain its amazing that cigarettes aren't banned. Thanks for sharing this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Estrea Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 I too think they should be banned. It is the only product that has no other purpose than to get the person who uses it hooked. It is the only product sold in this country THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE INGREDIENTS LISTED ON THE PACKAGE. Even water has to list its ingredients. Smoking isn't really a choice--kids start smoking because they (still) thinks it's cool. And Big Tobacco is still advertising it on TV -- what do you think happens when they spend zillions of dollars say how great they are. They are selling cigarettes--"look at us...we are not bad guys...don't smoke, but we wouldn't dream of hurting you." Quitting is the hardest thing to do. The only way to stop is to never start. And, how will we ever get kids to not do that as long as it is legal, in the movies, advertised...etc. etc. etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.