Lets us start with the simple and unquestionable premise, smoking is addictive and everyone of European descent has known it for 500 years since it was introduced into Europe. In those 500 years everything including the death penalty has been imposed upon smokers and still it continues to this day. Smokers know it is useful, productive and friendly.

And those who hate tobacco have always found reasons to condemn it from religion to science. Personally I find it odd that science actually confirms religion. I find it interesting Hitler personally funded research which first found smoking harmful to health in 1939 and can understand the objection of Germans to smoking regulations. I also find it interesting that research was "reinvented" twenty years later in the US which claimed credit for originality.

On the assumption nicotine is addictive the rational cigarette manufacturer would work to reduce the amount of nicotine per cigarette in order to sell more cigarettes. In fact they worked to make cigarettes have a uniform amount of nicotine. Their detractors found uniformity a crime and demanded they reduce the amount of nicotine which would increase sales of cigarettes. One has to ask if the companies were financing their detractors as it would be to their benefit to do so.

The legal settlements have increased the cost of a pack of cigarettes by one dollar and ten dollars a carton. That money goes to the states to do anything they want with it. The lawsuits were based upon health care for smokers. Not one penny has yet been allocated to any health care much less that of smokers. The share Los Angeles got from California's share has been allocated to covering the judgements against it for its corrupt police.

The cigarette companies do not complain as they are dealing with a product known to be addictive for five centuries. The government has no problem making money from addicts as "sin" taxes has been a tradition for five centuries. While piously claiming these taxes are to discourage tobacco usage the government has no interest at all in success as that would end billions in revenue.

It is well known from actuarial studies that smokers cost less overall than non-smokers when medicare and social security are considered. They die younger and faster and their total cost to the system is less than the cost of non-smokers. Any rational government providing care and support to the elderly would encourage smoking for financial reasons. It is known to be false to claim overall financial reasons to discourage smoking.

So what is this all about? That is not a rhetorical question as I do not know. It appears to be a five century old vendetta against smokers by non-smokers. A rational non-smoker today would abjure the older "devil weed" view an commend smokers to their fate of lung cancer and other diseases and encourage smoking to keep their taxes down. But that is not what we get.

When the tobacco companies plea bargained they got federal law prohibitting competition by you and me from selling cigarettes without paying the same five cents per cigarette they pay. Meaning the government agreed to protect their tax based cash cow in the process. Any rational person would start a cigarette company and undercut the "guilty" by ten dollars a carton but federal law prohibits that. The government agreed to protect its cash cow which it also condemned in its lawsuits.

These are clearly unjust laws but this government is clearly unjust. I have no wisdom to tell me what is justice but I know injustice to the bone. So do we all.

Page reads: 8276