Master Settlement Agreement
Posted by Hua Kul on Monday, 28-May-2007
I wasn't a cigarette smoker when the MSA was signed and so paid it scant attention, but I vaguely remember reading that the money was to be used by the states for addressing health issues related to smoking, or alleviating the cost to the states of treating smokers (which of course would mean smokers on Medicaid, I assume). Can someone tell me if the agreement requires the states to do anything specific with the money? The reason I ask is because of this article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, some of it quoted below.
"Gov. Ted Strickland's suggestion that Ohio should get as much money as it can now from a national tobacco settlement makes sense. Less obvious is whether the governor's plans for those dollars represent the best investment for Ohio's future. Strickland proposed "securitization" - essentially selling the rights to Ohio's annual payments in exchange for a lump sum - as part of his State of the State address. It's a move that several states have embraced and is well-timed, given uncertainty about future allocations. Strickland says the state would receive $5 billion, which he would use to finish school construction work statewide and to expand the Homestead Property Tax Exemption for senior citizens and the disabled."
[link]
It appears the money is being treated like the pot of gold at rainbow's end, ludicrous largesse picked from the pockets of millions of smokers who had no say in the matter. I don't get it.
--Hua Kul
Comments [ new ]
- Re: Master Settlement Agreement
- Posted by cheap & chippy chopper on Monday, 28-May-2007
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ topic | top ]
Where's the confusion? This is the govsters at work, this is what they do. It's their nature. They are NOT accountable to the disarmed peons. Period.
Besides, it seems a waste of time to argue with a thief about what he DOES with the stolen money. The real issue is the theft itself, don't you think?
:-)
- Re: Master Settlement Agreement
- Posted by Hua Kul on Monday, 28-May-2007
>
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | topic | top ]
> Where's the confusion?...The real issue is the theft
> itself, don't you think?
I must have naively assumed that such a complex legal agreement would have spelled out very specifically the purposes for which the money must be spent. If it can be spent on anything the state wants then it was not really necessary in the first place.
--Hua Kul
- Re: Master Settlement Agreement
- Posted by Wazmo Nariz on Tuesday, 29-May-2007
So did many others, I'm sure. But that has never stopped politicians before. Look at the wonderfully complex legal document known as the Constitution...our government hardly resembles that which was originally conceived and built around via that document, either.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | OP | topic | top ]
Maybe at least we could bombard that so-called governor with e-mails and such. At least then it can be said something was done other than just the wringing of hands.
- Re: Master Settlement Agreement
- Posted by mike c on Tuesday, 29-May-2007
ok I'm in
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | OP | topic | top ]
couldn't agree more that people at LEAST need punishment and harassment if effecting reality negatively...and believe me, I stand behind my words...a lot of why I am home so frequently (you don't win popularity contests telling everyone you will remove their head)(doesn't stop me)
I can't pay attention to much very long, and politics has always lost me in it's slimy tentacledness, of which I never trust ANY option, I ask a question: To Wazmo and anyone else if they care to reply:
it seems like the Government wants to "keep us alive" and even "encourage reproduction and families" (people with a family seem to get more/better breaks), which is THE OPPOSITE of how I think it should be....
are they wanting lots of people alive so they can just keep paying taxes??? is that it???
- Re: Master Settlement Agreement
- Posted by David Brown on Tuesday, 29-May-2007
This has been going on for years, in 91 or 92 in California there was a big referendum on a .50 cent per pack tax for "indigent smoker health costs"
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | OP | topic | top ]
I remember various tv ads where the person would say "i don't smoke but i don't believe in taxing a lifestyle, etc"
Now we didn't figure it would pass, poles showed there was a 20 point lead for the no vote.
But low and behold election night it passed in a landslide. Pete Wilson and later Greyout Davis and their cronies couldn't wait to split the take and I cant remember ever reading or hearing of one indigent smoker program.
Then just this year here in Arizona they passed a 80 cent per pack tax using the same tired slogan and I will guarantee the money will never see anything but the pockets of the thief's who stole it.
- Re: Master Settlement Agreement
- Posted by Wazmo Nariz on Monday, 28-May-2007
Join the club. Smokers are routinely overtaxed and under-represented in this country..."sin taxes" in general are ludicrous rip-offs and nothing more than pure, common thievery. I don't understand why we, as a group, put up with it, especially when ethically and morally we are right and the moochers and leeches who legally gouge us are ethically and morally wrong and, just that--moochers and leeches.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ topic | top ]
- Re: Master Settlement Agreement
- Posted by Hua Kul on Monday, 28-May-2007
I think smokers who make their own are doing a little something about one aspect of it, but what will we do when the "authoritays" up the taxes on bulk tobacco to $60/lb? That day may not be far off. I chose that price because that would bring the cost of making cigarettes to about even with the cost of premades, and that's what it's really about. There's too much tax money at stake. Governments have funded way too much to even allow smokers to quit now. That's why I believe many smoke-free laws will be rolled back to some extent if they prove to actually reduce cigarette sales. The next step would be grow your own, and when that is stopped it will be a move underground. I really don't see any effective way to wrestle things back to the way they were, and I definitely don't think the MYO industry will remain as cheap as it is for much longer. The more popular it becomes the quicker that will happen. Just my opinions.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | topic | top ]
--Hua Kul
- Re: Master Settlement Agreement
- Posted by Wazmo Nariz on Monday, 28-May-2007
Just to see how easily it could be done and for practice just in case, I'm growing 30 Virginia tobacco plants right now in a greenhouse I built. They're all about two feet tall at the moment and doing nicely. If all goes well and the tobacco is tasty, I may put in double that next crop. I agree that increased thievery by the government on bulk tobacco isn't too far off.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | OP | topic | top ]
There are ways to wrestle the monster that American government has become back to the ground, but most people are too lazy, scared or like things the way they are so long as their little group is getting a cut of the action/power. Sad.
- Re: Master Settlement Agreement
- Posted by Warren on Tuesday, 29-May-2007
Keep us posted on your tobacco growng experiment. The way it is going presently, soon that may be the only way to get a smoke without breaking a law.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | OP | topic | top ]
- Re: Master Settlement Agreement
- Posted by Jim on Friday, 20-Jul-2007
I have a small crop (64 plants of 5 varieties) growing in northeast Ohio and would be interested in reading about your experiences in growing, and how the drying and curing goes, as well as any tips you may have on making the process go smoothly or yield a good quality tobacco.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | OP | topic | top ]
It's a shame there isn't an area of this forum dedicated to growing, drying, and curing.