verboten, with exceptions

Well, the county's smoking ban and ordinance went into effect, but there are, surprise ... loopholes. Look, I just think that smokers should pay for the following and then the issue is done:

1. forfeiture of one lung
2. denial of government or employer-paid medical services to smoking related illnesses (including cancer)
3. no-cap on insurance premiums on smokers' houses, vehicle, etc.
4. x multiplier for smoking related fires
5. no-cap on cigarette tax
6. logorithmic scale payments on government services related to smoking including, but not limited to:
a. trash removal
b. restoration of materials (including art, walls repainted, etc.)
c. ALL second-hand smoking issues, including, but not limited to:
A. child development
B. asthma, etc.


As a nation we should 'crap or get off the pot' on smoking. If it is bad, terrible, addictive, unhealthy, deadly, cancer-causing ... then we taxpayers should not be subsidizing it. There is no doubt smoking causes cancer in people. There is no evidence to support that smoking is healthy at all, and causes otherwise avoidable or postponable medical issues. Therefore, why are taxpayers on a national level paying for the tobacco industry?

Stop now.

If some hillbilly farm has a 1.6 acre plot to grow tobacco and he would otherwise be out of a job ... well, that stinks for him, for strawberries might have a good price too. How about pumpkins --- whereas the South has no Northern-typical heavy frost, generally.