Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (154871)	6/22/2001 2:47:57 AM
From: ManyMoose	Respond to of 769670

I don't understand why exempting pipe tobacco would subsidize drug smugglers. I'm a non-smoker, although I smoke cigarettes for a year or so in college and pipes for a year or so just afterward. I've smoked a few cigars too, but smoking is not my bag. Where I live and travel, smokers are required to smoke outside of public buildings and restaurants. The federal building has a room for them in the basement. With the exception of extraordinarily rude smokers who flick butts out of their cars or crowd around the door of a mall, I'm fairly happy with the situation. As far as lawsuits against the tobacco companies go, most are ludicrous. Heck there were cartoons done in the 1930s showing how smoking was bad for you. Nick O Teen, or something like that, was the name of it as I recall. It says right on the package that it's bad for you. I can't imagine what standing smokers have in lawsuits in view of the knowledge they had. I have no tolerance for drug smugglers. It's just too bad that we can't give them their due. They are worse than murderers. >>>>>>To do otherwise would subsidize drug smugglers.