Here's the news article:

Senate OKs $12B Tobacco Buyout, Regulation



I've asked about the regulation question elsewhere. For now:

Should there be a buyout of American tobacco farmers?

Should there be a buyout of American tobacco farmers?

For those who rail on about "welfare queens"... is this ironic, or what?

No, there should not be a buyout, although it appears our tax dollars are going to be used to fund a Congressional compromise so that an agency can start regulating what goes into cigarettes. [Side note: You'd be shocked if you read the list of chemical additives that make its way into a product that people willingly ingest WITHOUT knowing what's in it. Oh, right, it's the good feeling you get. ]

And how will this additional deficit spending be paid for? And what are the costs to those local economies of removing those farmers and their crops? (Especially in North Carolina, which grows the most tobacco in the nation)

On the flip side, I can see why so many Senators voted for this. Not sure I would have voted differently, given the political climate in Washington... But it's still welfare.

No, there should not be a buyout. I don't want my tax dollars going to buy tobacco. Those tobacco farmers should be on their own. They should produce other crops like food instead of poison.

No buyout at all.

First, It is a legal product, the Farmers should be left alone. Second, It is a product produced for adult consumption.

If our Government would simply drop this type of foolishness, and get back to running the Country, we would all be better off.

Next thing you know, the Government will be buying off alcohol producers.



AMF wrote: [Side note: You'd be shocked if you read the list of chemical additives that make its way into a product that people willingly ingest WITHOUT knowing what's in it. Oh, right, it's the good feeling you get. whistling.gif ]

Take a match to a shotty full of JD sometimes. Oh, right, its the good feeling......

Since when do we allow our Government to determine how long we MUST live?

Respectfully, Orwell might have been right.

Take Care

Red

I haven't read the bill, but if it is a one-time payout to buy the farms, or to pay the farmers (again a one time payment for permanently changing to other crops) to no longer grow tobacco, and at the same time not allow any new tobacco farms to be established, then it might be a good idea.
If the public wants tobacco products that they are free to grow their own. Same for marijuana and alcohol, but only enough for their own consumption and on their own property. Producing more than personal use quantities would be a felony. A growers/distillers permit would be required to keep track of those who insist on shortening their lives so the insurance companies and medical service providers can charge them higher premiums. Selling it would be a major felony. Using it, or being under the influence of it on public property would also be a felony. No legal imports, and smugglers would be punished severely.
If you have to grow it or make it before you get to consume it, you just might learn to do without it. This in no way prevents anyone from producing and using these substances, it just de-industrializes the products. Certainly the improperly made stuff could be dangerous, but that just might eventually improve the national gene pool.
That is my humble opinion and I am sticking to it.

Whos bright idea was this? Our government cannot afford to buy out farmers just to eliminate there crop. This would cripple a lot of local economies in the south, and for what? Remember what happened with prohibition in the 1920s?

What other purpose would the Government have but elimination of the product?

There are some thing the Government needs to keep its nose out of, Republicans are supposed to want LESS Government, and this is not a part of their ideology.

As far as I'm concerned they can Tax tobacco in to oblivian and collect the reveneus. Eventually People will get fed up with the prices and quit smoking but a sudden change to a major economic facit like tobacco would be like removing Gasoline combustion engines from society in favor of Hydrogen overnight, this would obviously destroy an entire industry.

That is awesome. No really. Let's make that policy for everything. You can have all the burgers you want, but you gotta raise your own cow. Hell, let's set back industrialization by 500 years. I will produce the milk I can consume in my own shanty that I was able to build. I better not catching you trading butter for soap with Ms. Kellog next door....

Anyone who still believes we can compromise with the statist in this world, look around.
Bill55AZ is just the typical example. Who was silly enough to think these people will stop at tobacco. The attacks on alcohol will return as soon as they erradicate unhealthy foods. What's after that, cell phones, satellite tv? Who knows. Back in the caves we go.

In answer to the actual question, as though you haven't guessed, there should be no buyout. If people wish to stop consuming tobacco, the farmers will be forced to find anther product to sell. Until that time, I agree with Redline, since when do we allow the government to tell us how long we must live.

Now, you can't be putting words in my mouth and get away with it easily. Show me that soap, burgers, milk/butter are causing the kind of harm that drugs, alcohol, and tobacco cause and I will agree with your sarcastic effort at a witty response.

Come on, I can make a case that just about anything is unhealthy. You readily admit that you would have alcohol prohibited (or at least its mass production). "causing the kind of harm that drugs, alcohol, and tobacco cause"

Since risk is all relative, one those "threats" are wiped out something else will invariably take their place as the new "threat". I didn't place any words in your mouth. You said plenty.

Should there be a buyout of American tobacco farmers?

Isn't it amazing how Americans pay tax so that big government can subsidize tobacco farmers, and at the same time Americans pay tax so that big government can encourage its citizens to avoid tobacco products? This is a sure indicator of a government which is too big. The hypocrisy gets worse. Nobody makes more money in the sale of tobacco products than big government. The large tax acquired in its sale is a huge source of revenue for big government. This is why you will not see a complete ban on tobacco products. The insanity continues. Politicians bemoan tobacco in one breath, but herald marijuana use in the next.

This buyout is nothing more than a severance package for unnecessary tobacco farmers who produce a product in excessive quantities. Can anybody smell welfare in this?

Government profits the most on tobacco sales:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA255.html

FlutePlayer Posted on Jul 16 2004, 02:32 PM:



Tobacco companies, for hundreds of years, have been doing quite well for themselves. We even have at least 1 college founded directly off the revenues from tobacco products (Duke). If the idea is to eliminate the "poisons," this measures is helping, as the FDA would regulate the industry and "eliminate harmful ingredients" as the article points out. Left alone, the tobacco industry will continue to thrive. The money in this bill isn't going towards distributing tobacco products to Americans...


deerjerkydave Posted on Aug 4 2004, 03:16 PM



I don't believe I've seen marijuana use oft-heralded... do you have a source to back this claim up?

BUT at any rate, I'm not sure what this bill will solve? Wouldn't it be better to simply give the FDA more regulatory rights and force the removal of the more harmful elements in tobacco products, meanwhile continuing to collect tax revenue on said products that helps keep federal income taxes lower? I'm not sure what the buyout is expected to accomplish that this solution couldn't.

ah, the slippery slope argument. if we de-industrialize/legalize one thing, the governement will de-industrialize/legalize another "bad" thing. The government isn't that stupid or that powerful. Most of the time our politicians are just repeating what is blowing in the wind, and the wind eventually dies down. They must be seen as having our best interests at heart, if they want to get re-elected.
Someone can always make a case for something if he tells enough lies and half-truths but the majority of us are smart enough to recognize a bucket of MALARKEY when we hear it on the TV or radio, whether it comes from business or government leaders.
The latest low carb/atkins craze is a fad that will die out as soon as the marketing gurus find something new with which to grab our attention and deplete our wallets.
The concept of a balanced diet was brayed at us until we were convinced that every meal of every day had to be "balanced". The food pyramid is taught in the lower grades to the extent that it is almost purley pro-agribusiness propaganda.
Yes, a case can be made for anything, but only by lying or telling a few selective truths while leaving out the rest of the story.
Alcohol, tobacco, and drugs have been disparaged as unhealthy for hundreds of years, and for good reason. The long term use and abuse of those substances have been shown to be detrimental to our health. Limited amounts of alcohol are thought to be good for some of us, but boozing it up isn't. Some supposedly illegal drugs have legitimate medicinal purposes for some of us, but excessive use of most drugs are proven to be dangerous. But I can't see any use for tobacco. Wait, I just remembered one use, snuff makes a good radiator sealer for small leaks.
Buy them out.

Well, let's see Bill, the anti-tobacco lobby was able to slowly recede the rights of smokers so that it is now illegal to smoke practically anywhere but your home. If it weren't for the failure of prohibition, we would probably see a stronger anti-alcohol movement, but in the meantime, the 'health zealots' have jumped on food. Junk food and sodas have been removed from schools. Lawsuits are being waged versus McDonalds and other fast food chains. The model they are using? The one that was used against the tobacco industry. Few will argue that smoking is healthy. My response is, who cares. It is a pleasure that some people enjoy. It only hurts themselves (there is no evidence second hand smoke is harmful to the average person). The evidence that had been touted by the anti-smoking lobby has been generally debunked as junk science. Alcohol and fast food certainly cannot be claimed as being harmful to anyone but the users. I have yet to hear of someone who has gotten drunk from second hand-drinking nor fat from second-hand eating. So, it is not like we are claiming public safety as a reason to repeal these bad habits. It is all about control Bill. There are people who would like to see pronography banned, drinking outlawed, smoking eradicated, and unhealthy foods eliminated for no other reason than, they simply don't like them. Is this how we should determine the extent of restrictive laws? By the subjective whim of people who just don't like certain things? It is one thing to restrict violence. It hurts someone else when they get punched, stabbed, or shot. This is an obvious activity which infringes on someone else's rights and a great time for government involvement. Me, smoking a cigarette on the beach, while mildly annoying to some, doesn't hurt anyone. If you can prove it does hurt people, then we can talk about restrictions.

If you truley want to save lives you would take the money for this proposed bailout and give it to the poor.

The number one killer of people in the United States as well as the world is POVERTY. Cigarette taxes, bailouts and settlements only serve to make the poor poorer. So, while saving a few, this would, most likely KILL many more.

Like any other "risk" issue, those who push them ahead are banking on parinioa, not common sense.

Red