Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
I'd agree with that assessment if I thought that congressmen were writing these bills using their own judgment. Maybe I'm cynical, but I suspect that PM had something to do with the form this bill takes.
|
I dont have any doubt that PM influenced the bill to a greater extent than the public health organizations that also support it.
PM contributes to Congressional candidates through its PAC; public health organizations dont. Thats the dark side of US politics....money is often more influential than the public health or the public good. That should come as no surprise.
I also wouldnt be surprised if they (PM, the anti-smoking groups and the Congressional staff bill righters) met privately and crafted mutually acceptable provisions for the bill.
But the fact remains, the bill (initially proposed 4 years ago) is the first meaningful attempt to regulate tobacco products beyond the limited labeling and advertising restrictions enacted in the 70s.
For me, thats a good thing...even if PM benefits at the expense of other producers. I suspect that is why every major national public health organization supports it as well.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I don't think good starting points are when you compromise your principles. If I thought smoking was as harmful to society as some say it is, I could not support it being legal.
|
I dont agree that the public health organizations compromised their principles....they accepted the political reality in order to get "half a loaf" instead of none. Thats the real world of politics as opposed to the "Disney" version you often allude to.
And I wont be buying PM stock.