blogs.abcnews.com — Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former tobacco industry lobbyist, won a long battle in court to withdraw all funding for Mississippi's highly successful anti-smoking program, and last week the last dollar ran out.
Dec 4, 2006 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountDec 5, 2006
"Every year, smoking use costs Mississippians $1.85 billion in healthcare and lost productivity."<a class="user" href="http://www.healthy-miss.org/aboutus/">http://www.healthy-miss.org/aboutus/</a>How again does smoking help the state out?
Closed AccountDec 5, 2006
ITS NOT TAX MONEY. barbour should not be applauded for anything. It is part of a 280 billion dollar settlement from the Tobacco companies, to help offset the medicare health care costs burden on the taxpayer.
charlie55Dec 5, 2006
a better analogy would be that my parents gave me money for a ferrari, but i used it instead to eat. anti-smoking programs need zero funding, because they are not needed at all, but roads and schools are incredibly important, especially in poor state like mississippi.
culbedaDec 5, 2006
It's all about the Benjamins...And this guy is lighting his cigarettes with the ones he got from big tobacco./mmm... Tomacco.
techtom61Dec 5, 2006
If the facts had been accurately reported, what the Governor actually did was stop moneys owed to the State of Mississippi from going into a privately controlled political slush fund run by a former Attorney General with absolutely NO accountability for how the money was spent. If there is a corruption scandal here, it's on the part of the former AG (a democrat).
Closed AccountDec 5, 2006
If you can't be #1 in obesity and poor education the LEAST you can do is be #1 in smoking deaths.
mynameissimpsonDec 5, 2006
@sweetmartian"Barbour Stole the money...............Thats a good one. Where do you think the government got the money for the program he cancelled in the first place. They stole it from the tobacco companies. Love the logic, its not stealing when government does it, providing its being used for a cause you feel is just; it is stealing when you don't support the ends its being used for.
mynameissimpsonDec 5, 2006
"On May 23, 1994, Mississippi fired the first shot heard around the world to change the way the tobacco industry does business. Mississippi sought to make them pay for the damage they had done, recover monies taxpayers spent treating tobacco-related diseases and to stop marketing practices designed to recruit our children as customers."The tobacco companies did not create the problems associated with smoking, its the people that use their products that do. Tobacco companies exist simply because some people want to smoke and are merely satisfying this demand. If smoking was banned then black markets would sprout up over night or the people would grow it themselves just like marijuanna. Its not going to go away no matter what. No one is forced to smoke and roughly 75-80 percent of the population choose not to so don't hand me this argument that the tobacco companies are to blame for the choices of a minority. Its really stupid to say that they make 20-25 percent of the population smoke but the rest are somehow able to get around their evil influence. The fact is to some people enjoy smoking and the benefits of enjoying a smoke now outway the costs of future health problems. Better results could be achieved by making the smokers pay for the costs associated with their habits themselves; privatize healthcare In this way those who are so fervently opposed to smoking and paying the health costs associated with it could save money by leading healthy lifestyles. The only reason government goes after the tobacco companies is that they have lots of money and winning these lawsuits enhances their power over private industry. Personally I don't like government having this kind of power. What next are we going to have government dieticians telling us what we can and can't eat because it affects the cost of healthcare or will they be satisfied with just going after the junk food industry. Do we allow government to force everyone to exercise since a lack of exercise negatively affects our health and increases healthcare costs. If we follow the logic used by government and anti smoking activists justifying these lawsuits against tobacco companies then this is the type of things we can expect in the future.The truth is just about all of us in some way or the other make unhealthy choices. I say let people make their own choices and live with the consequences.
charlie55Dec 6, 2006
i would rather privatize all health care so i dont have a pay for either, and people learn to be responsible for themselves, instead of paying the government to manage their lives.
mynameissimpsonDec 6, 2006
"These anti-smoking programs are not there to stop you from smoking Mr high-and-mighty, they are to discourage young people from smoking.........."I thought thats what parents were for. 75% of the population doesn't smoke and a good many of them try to discourage others from smoking without government funding. Are you saying that they are incapable of influincing kids. Is this a function only government can provide. The facts about smoking effects are out htere and they are available for free. If 3 quarters of the population can't influence kids why do you think the government will have any better success. No one can totally control what kids are going to do, in the end they will decide for themselves and it doesn't matter how much you try to convince them otherwise because a lot of kids think they are bulletproof. Its rediculous to think that a government program is going to have a greater effect than parents, friends or anyone else in the community will have. If they can't get through to them, then some government hack sure the f**k isn't. If you are so concerned about waste then you need look no futher than at all the money that gets wasted on programs such as these and the loss of skills that would benefit the public if these workers were doing something a lot more productive. Governments could cut all these programs and give us a taxbreak and you would have as much money in your pocket at the end of the day than the alleged costs smokers cause the average person. I say alleged because the facts are we all are going to die someday and most of us will put pressure on the system when we age even if we live reasonably healthy lives. Non smokers just don't die in their sleep they get sick too, smokers just tend to die sooner. The majority of heathcare dollars are spent treating people in the last 6 months to a year of there life. Also smokers who die below the nations life expectancy average don't draw as much from social security either. I'm not saying this is a good thing only that they don't cost us anymore money. Probably less because they pay tax on a package of cigarettes as well. "So tell me this, would you rather your tax money wasted on idiots who chose to smoke their entire life and now cannot breathe properly because they were so incensed in their god-given right to screw up their own body, OR would you rather your tax money went into a significantly less expensive program to circumvent people from experiencing these negative health effects in the first place?"So tell me this would you rather have government micro-manage your life or just the people who do things you don't like. Are you so perfect that you never do or have done anything that is or was potentially detrimental to your health because if you are, you are the exception not the rule. Lots of people don't eat healthy or exercise should we go after junk food companies or force people to eat right (whatever the f**k eat right means, its purely arbitrary) and exercise. What about people who play sports, particularily rough sports like football or injury prone activities like skateboarding, these people drive up the costs of healthcare. Should we ban them. Maybe we should only allow walking or swimming as legitimate activites. We don't need anymore government intrusion and the expense that comes with it in our lives. Everyone has the right to live how they see fit. The only just solution is to let people do and consume the things they enjoy and let them face the consequences. Privatizing healthcare achieves this end. Think of all the money you preachy non smoking perfect health individuals would save.
mynameissimpsonDec 6, 2006
I didn't read anything in the article where it said the tobacco companies were not going to have to keep paying if that is what you are implying. Here merely cancelled one program and is spending the money on other programs. This will hardly benefit smoking companies.