🚀 go-pugleaf

I heard on NPR this morning that before the multi-million-dollar
effort by the tobacco companies started, a poll showed tht 70% of the
people of MA will vote 'yes'.  It is now down to 58%.  So, the
campaign is working.  From the 'for what it's worth' dept.

	Steve

In article <GANDALF.92Oct29102633@damon.ccs.northeastern.edu>, gandalf@dworkin.ccs.northeastern.edu (Thomas M Farrell) writes:
|> If you think that's bad, you should see their TV commericals. They're basically
|> trying to portray cigarette smokers as downtrodden people on a par with 
|> abortion rights advocates and such. They imply that smokers are an
|> underprivilaged group being sought out for special attack by the government 
|> that hates them.

Not only that, but they've published literature showing people
at political rallies holding Paul Tsongas signs (among other 
signs).   When Tsongas, a cancer survivor, found out, he hit
the roof.

Vote yes on 1.   Tell the tobacco companies to go to hell.

-- 
Ron Newman		rnewman@bbn.com

In article <lf07vcINNpol@news.bbn.com> rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes:
> Vote yes on 1.   Tell the tobacco companies to go to hell.

How typically liberal.
It's fine for the govt to interfere in, tax, and otherwise discourage 
behaviors that you libs don't like, but as soon as they go after one of
YOUR sacred cows, it's whine, whine, whine.

Why don't you just grow up and lose the double standard?
-- 
Rich Carreiro                                  Home: (401)841-8514
rlcarr@animato.network23.com
uunet.uu.net!animato!rlcarr

In article <GORDON.92Oct28101712@lugh.think.com> gordon@lugh.think.com (gordon linoff) writes:

>Regardless of your
>position on Question 1, it is quite disturbing that they
>associate homosexuality with nonacceptance.

After reading the remainder of the messages in this thread, I think I
understand a little bit more about Question 1 and CAUT, and I
understand why you're so angry with them.  However, I don't find the
association of homosexuality with nonacceptance disturbing in and of
itself; merely a statement of fact.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham

In article <rlcarr.06nl@animato.network23.com> rlcarr@animato.network23.com (Rich Carreiro) writes:

   In article <lf07vcINNpol@news.bbn.com> rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes:
   > Vote yes on 1.   Tell the tobacco companies to go to hell.

   How typically liberal.
   It's fine for the govt to interfere in, tax, and otherwise discourage 
   behaviors that you libs don't like, but as soon as they go after one of
   YOUR sacred cows, it's whine, whine, whine.

hey, wait.  there's an idea.  immediately repeal all sodomy laws and
institute again a sodomy tax!  is gay sex a sacred cow?  how about gay
sex with a cow? anyway we could put a serious dent in the deficit,
while ceasing to send people to jail for 10 years for private
consensual behavior.

   Why don't you just grow up and lose the double standard?

you know, i swore never to read ne.politics again, and here it is in
ne.motss.  can't win.
   -- 
   Rich Carreiro                                  Home: (401)841-8514
   rlcarr@animato.network23.com
   uunet.uu.net!animato!rlcarr
--
<SIG>___________________________________________________________________
It's an old wall, Avon.  It waits.  I just hope you reach it
before you die.                                                    </SIG>

In article <DRG.92Oct30110116@candidus.ma30.bull.com> drg@candidus.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R. Guilderson) writes:

   In article <lf07vcINNpol@news.bbn.com> rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes:

      Vote yes on 1.   Tell the tobacco companies to go to hell.

   More importantly, you are telling people who smoke cigarettes to go to
   hell.  For example, this law will be very damaging to someone who is
   very close to me.  He is 62 years old and after 45+ years of smoking
   he is not about to quit.  He is very considerate of non-smokers,
   always asking if it is OK to smoke or smoking outside to avoid
   inconveniencing others.  He is also very poor.  He can't afford to
   subsidize more government bureaucracy that doesn't accomplish what it
   set out to do.  Can anyone even guarantee that the funds collected
   will be spent on programs to stop smoking?  The answer is no.

The point isn't what the funds go to. The point is to reduce the number of
smokers in Massachusetts. No matter how considerate your friend may be,
most smokers aren't considerate, and it's an almost daily occurance for me
to have some fool on the street blow a cloud in my face or some idiot sitting
in the nonsmoking section of a restaurant making so much smoke that I have to
leave. I'm an asthmatic and too much smoke will make me stop breathing, and I
think I should have a right to clean air in public places! I don't think I
should have to stand around on the street feeling like my insides are on fire
because some fool decided to smoke. I once had to withstand 8 hours in an
enclosed airliner on an overseas flight with the smoking section two rows
behind me... and I really honestly believed I might die before the flight
arrived. 

Beyond that, if your friend is so poor, he would do well to spend his money
on something other than smoking supplies. Perhaps a 25 cent per pack price 
increase will give him some incentive.

I know darn well I'm being an obnoxious twit about this, so don't bother
sending the nasty emails, but I've had too many asthma attacks because of
inconsiderate smokers. I could end up needing to go to the hospital because
of it... and I'm not insured, so that would cost me a fortune. I no longer 
have any sympathy for smokers.

In article <GANDALF.92Nov2122230@damon.ccs.northeastern.edu> gandalf@dworkin.ccs.northeastern.edu (Thomas M Farrell) writes:

   I'm an asthmatic and too much smoke will make me stop breathing, and I
   think I should have a right to clean air in public places!

I agree with you here and I too am greatly disturbed by inconsiderate
smokers.  However that problem is being very effectively addressed in
other ways.  I believe that it is now illegal to smoke on airliners in
the US.  I think that local ordinances have made great strides in
restricting the areas that smokers may smoke.  I think that it is now
becoming socially unacceptable to smoke in many circumstances.  This
question will not have any effect in addressing the problem that
effects you most.  It will only make cigarettes 25 cents more
expensive and create new government bureaucracy.