Taxachusetts

First, here's a link to a piece that will run down the story for you:

"NPR's Tovia Smith reports on the ruling by a federal appeals court that upholds most of Massachusetts' restrictions on tobacco advertising. The court ruled that the restrictions do not violate the First Amendment. (3:30)"

Basically, Massachusetts has decided that certain tobacco advertising can be banned. Their excuse, as usual, is "it's for the children". Again, a horrific precedent is being set here: the gubmint can outlaw advertising anything that they don't like. How long before they decide that condom ads are bad because they encourage having sex?

Don't these "children" have parents? Isn't it the role of the parent role to warn kids about smoking and to make sure that they don't smoke?? Last time I checked, the only role the state had here was to enforce the law that says you can't sell cigarettes to minors. Fine. Occupy your busy-body Massachusetts selves by doing a better job of that.

Now I don't like cigarettes any more than your average non-smoker. In fact, my fiance smokes, and while I wish he would quit, I love him anyway. My disapproval does not extend to the tobacco companies because he's an adult and it's his choice. This is a serious industry in the U.S. (especially in my state!), and it's one in which we are the world market leader. We are, of course, rapidly losing that position. Whether we like smoking or not, it makes a lot of money for this country.

And speaking of money, what would Massachusetts do to make up the shortfall if the tobacco companies simply stopped shipping cigarettes to Massachusetts? What will the U.S. Government do to make up the shortfall if they succeed in severly reducing the number of smokers? I find it extraordinarily hypocritical for the US and various states to try and squash the tobacco industry at the same time that they rely on taxing the hell out of it to balance their budgets.

BTW, I don't support agricultural subsidies in any form, just in case you are wondering, but I'd like to point out that continuing subsidization of tobacco farming is yet another hypocritical move by the Feds. Sigh. The market (in the macroeconomics sense of that word) will take care of the farmers in the long run. In fact, most people don't realize that the commodities futures markets were actually developed to help farmers protect their investment in their crops (duh, that's why they are called 'futures', but most people never look too deeply into these kind of things). It's a fantastic idea, and it still works today, so why tamper further with the system by giving subsidies?

Gosh, I wish big tobacco would fight back by not selling cigarettes in Massachusetts. Wouldn't that be spectacular to watch?

I'm going to fall back on quoting Harry Browne here, after a fashion: If you want a project to fail, give it to the government. The government fails EVERY TIME it tries to change behaviors of the populace. For example, The drug war is a complete disaster. More teenagers smoke cigarettes now than did 10 years ago, so obviously that's not working. Kids still have sex. Adults still have unprotected sex. Teens and adults still smoke marijuana. These are all things the government wants to decrease and yet these things have increased AND created associated mayhem like these frivolous tobacco lawsuits and all the deaths because of the danger and expense created by the drug prohibition.