🚀 go-pugleaf

hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:

>In article <26@compata.uucp>, Dave Close <dave@compata.ccss.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>My anger at these commercials is not caused solely by their intolerant
>>tone. I am also angry that I am forced to pay for them through my
>>state taxes. This is the same country which prohibits a trade union
>>from forcing members to contribute to political campaigns.  Now it
>>forces citizens to pay for politically-correct campaigns. Yes, I know
>>this is the result of a ballot initiative. But there ought to be some
>>grounds for overturning this terrible law! Where are all the civil
>>liberties groups when real liberties are being trampled?
>
>The commercials are paid for out of a special tobacco tax. If you are
>not a smoker, you are not paying for them.
>
>Find another windmill.

I believe this initiative passed by overwhelming numbers, in '88 or 
'92. I voted for it (and, yes I am paying for it since I smoke) since
I thought that by "education campaign" they meant something to do 
with the schools. I very seriously doubt many people would have voted
for it if they'd truthfully called it an "ad campaign". The powers
that be _know_ nobody likes ads. It peeves me to know that they're 
using my money - to peeve others with TV commercials!
 
I don't watch TV so I haven't been annoyed by them - too many 
commercials, no worthwhile programming around them. 

Dave Criswell