🚀 go-pugleaf

In message <1994Apr6.164157.14463@spectra.com> from
johnson@spectra.com, Boyd johnson writes:

<Why would a tobacco company want to sponser an anti-smoking law?...
<Possibilities:
<This law would repeal all local smoking and tobacco regulations,
<making it easier for tobacco companies to abide by the laws while
<stretching them to the limits they made. Any future local laws are also
<banned.

This is essentially correct. The tobacco industry is sponsoring a weak
state law that would replace strong local ordinances; the intent is to
pre-empt any further local smoking ordinances, as well as repeal those
ordinances already in place. The tobacco industry would prefer to fight
one battle statewide, rather than attempt to put out hundreds of
"anti-smoking fires". The insidiousness of the law is that it
masquerades as an anti-smoking measure, with the hope that an uninformed
electorate will be fooled into voting for it. The result will be less
protection from second-hand smoke for the non-smoking majority.