Tobacco States Fume Over Bush Remarks

washingtonpost.com ^ | 05/16/04 | Marc Kaufman

[CSM]

"A lot of the states use the tobacco money on health care. If there are less cases of lung cancer and heart disease, not as money will be need to be spent on health care."

Name one! Just one state that spends the money on smoking related health care will do. I dare ya'!

[CSM]

"However if due to gov. policy the rules of the game are changed compensation is due. Just my thoughts"

Do you take the same point of view with regards to restaurant and bar owners? Once bans are put in place, the rules changed harming their business, should we use government money to subsidize their revenue?

BTW, I am against the Tobacco buyout, however, I am for less government intrusion on tobacco in general. Let's open the market and let the people decide if they want to buy it. Therefore, the free market will either provide motivation to farm tobacco, or not!

[kentuck]

Yea I do think that if the gov.imposes rules such as no smoking on existing est. and as a result they lose income they should be compensated for their lose.
More to the point I think everyone would be better off if the gov.stayed stayed away and have less rules not more

[FrankR]

"Sen. john kerry (d-Mass.) jumped into the fray by saying in Kentucky that he supports the buyout. "

We're obviously dealing with a bunch of one-issue voters if the tobacco issue would make these people vote for Prince Effin of Ketchup, who - according to his track record so far - is probably lying. He might vote for the buyout, but he'd probably pull a king william of Monica mass lawsuit against them to recoup the money.

People that STILL believe anything effin says, hasn't been reading their emails, or watching the current events close enough. Mr. Ketchup has already surpassed clinton in number of lies told, and gall to think we believe him.

I don't see how single-issue voters make it through their lives on a daily basis...to be that narrow minded is scary.