I've long been really angry that the manufacturers of cigarettes caved in to the demands of government and the Trial Lawyers of America in their settlements with the states, because these settlements are simply taxation without representation. But I thought the tactics of antis in the War on Smokers were pretty much unprecedented. I realize now, however, that they were not.

Many people are aware that the feds and many if not most states now have civil asset forfeiture laws. Another "benefit" of the insane War on Drugs, of which the War on Smokers is an outgrowth, asset forfeiture laws were designed to allow police to seize the property of people who were involved in illegal drug dealings of some sort or another. ("Illegal drug dealings" means drug dealings not controlled by the Big Pharmacy cartel, such as the manufacturers of horridly overpriced smoking cessation patches, gum, and pills.)

Horror stories about asset seizure are legion. For instance, some years ago in California, a sheriff up for re-election and his deputies coveted a rancher's property, and -- claiming from helocopter overflights that he was growing marijuana -- they seized his ranch, sold it, and used the money to buy bells & whistles for their department. That's just one story.

It turned out that these laws worked so well for the police that they got them broadened so that seizure of property could occur for SUSPICION of drug dealing.

Realizing that this was a wonderful way to get money, police officials in many jurisdictions and their "legislators" and "representatives" have now passed more such laws in expanding "Wars on Sin" generally.

Acouple years ago in Michigan, an out-of-work blue collar guy engaged a prostitute and got busted for being a john. The police seized his car. Turns out the car, an old clunker, had been bought and paid for by the guy's poor wife who was holding the family together with her minimum wage job. She needed the car to get to and from work, but that didn't matter. The car was guilty of abetting prostitution, so it was seized.

The Independent Institute, http://www.independent.org, in a newsletter discusses a recent California appeals court decision which upholds the right of police in that state to seize the cars of people suspected of using them in drug transactions OR prostitution. The newsletter in part quotes the authors of a report, Boudreaux and Pritchard, this way:

"In their study 'Civil Forfeiture as a Sin Tax,' Boudreaux and Pritchard explain that, like other excise taxes, asset forfeiture mostly benefits a small group of adept bureaucrats and imposes its relatively hidden costs on individuals with little political power—and the majority, who are unaware of the problems of such policies.

“Such shakedowns... are precisely the kinds of government overreaching that the rule of law and constitutional protections are supposed to prevent. The Bill of Rights is intended to restrain government’s scope of action in dealing with the criminally accused.”

This sounds like what's been done to us. With one exception. We've been specifically taxed not only without representation but without being accused of criminal activity. To antismokers (including the so-called liberals of both major political parties), our sin in being smokers clearly amounts to being criminals; therefore, we do NOT deserve representation, and we DO deserve taxation for behavior in which we engage, behavior which harms no one but ourselves -- and not even that in the majority of cases.

It may also be worth considering that the cigarette industry (PM, B&W, RJR, et al) could be and would be sued by the federal government under existing and long-established anti-trust laws if they had reached the conclusions of the Tobacco Master Settlement on their own instead of in open negotiations with the federal government. The Master Settlement not only has levied a tax specifically on us that the State's politicians can spend any way they please, but it also fixes prices, restrains trade, and prevents any American or foreign entrepreneur who would dare come out with a new cigarette from doing business.

We've been completely snookered by criminal rascals in government and the industry, and it's been so successful and lucrative (to business, government, and trial lawyers) that there will be plenty more such deals and asset forfeiture laws passed in local, state, and federal jurisdictions.

Don't doubt for a minute that fast food patrons, car drivers, and sports recreationalists will soon find themselves unwittingly involved as "members of a class" who are suing MacDonalds, General Motors, and the scuba diving industries because they got hurt doing something they agreed to do.

All of this, of course, is in direct violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I do believe it's time for another American Revolution. dq

[This message has been edited by dennis quinn (edited 08-08-2000).]

RIGHT ON DENNIS, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK,
I SURE LIKE THE WAY YOU THINK,!!!
YOU HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD, AND THAT IS WHAT MAKES THIS SO SCARRY, THE MASSIVE COLUSION OF OUR STATE AND FEDERAL GOVT. I HAVE THOUGHT FOR A LONG TIME NOW THAT THEY ARE IN BED TOGETHER, IE:BIG TOBACCO
AND THE STATES ATTORNEY'S GENERAL, THEY HAVE SOLD US OUT TO BIG TOBACCO, JUST LIKE AT&T SOLD US OUT 25 YEARS AGO WHEN THEY SURRENDERED TO THE US GOVT.ANTITRUST LAWYERS, AND WE HAVE BEEN PAYING THRU THE NOSE EVER SINCE.

WE DESPERATELY NEED A MASSIVE HOUSECLEANING IN WASHINGTON AND EVERY STATE CAPITOL THATS PARTICAPTING IN THESE OUTRAGEOUS LAWSUITS.

I CAN'T BELIEVE THE NONSMOKERS OF THIS LAND ARE NOT UP IN ARMS AGAINST THESE GANGSTERS, FOR ALLOWING THEIR HEALTH TO BE JEOPARDIZED BY SECOND HAND SMOKE FOR A FEW TAX DOLLARS
IT WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE THEY KNOW THEY DON'T STAND A CHANCE IN CONGRESS TO BAN IT UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES ALREADY IN PLACE, I GUESS WE THE SMOKERS NEED A GOOD SPINMYSTER TO GET THE ATTENTION OF THE NONSMOKERS AND ADVISE THEM OF THE RISK THEIR ATTORNEY'S GENERAL ARE WILLING TO PUT THEM IN.

IF???. THERE IS A VALID SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR THE DANGERS OF SECOND HAND SMOKE, PRESENT IT TO CONGRESS AND BAN IT OUTRIGHT OR SHUT UP AND QUIT THIS HYPOCRISY, OF TAXING THE SINNER AT THE EXPENSE OF THE 75% NON SMOKER POPULATION.
IN OTHER WORDS PUT UP OR SHUT UP.!!!!.

IF ONLY WE HAD SUCH A PERSON.
RICK

Thanks, Rick.

But when you say, "If only there were somebody who could present the facts . . ." there is. There is us, or there are us, if you prefer. At the top of the main NSA page there is a little tab called Resource Library. Its URL is http://www.speakup.org/articles.asp?formmode=library

And if you and other readers of these pages go there you and they will find all sorts of information about the facts of the struggle.

Historians say that some 80-90% of the English colonists in North America did NOT want to revolt against the British in the 1770's. But the minority who were in the right DID want to do it, they DID do it, they DID sacrifice their lives, their liberty, and their fortunes to do it, and the result was a land based on liberty, the land that became our USA.

Smokers are about 25% of US people today. I say again, it's time for another revolution. Are we so weak we can't do it? Are we so fat we can't sacrifice? Is the current US federal government so much more powerful than King George III's that it can't be changed? We have one thing the Founders did not have: The Constitution. And I assert that the antis, Congress, the States' Attorney's General, and the state legislatures are all in violation of the Constituion.

In November,
If you're a smoker,
You know who to vote fer! dq

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT DENNIS, I HAVE BEEN THERE AND MANY OTHER PLACES THANKS TO THE LINKS PROVIDED BY THE READERS OF THIS FORUM AND BEEN VERY ENCOURAGED BY A LOT OF WHAT I READ, BUT THE SIMPLE FACT IS THE VAST MAJORITY OF US DON'T HAVE THE NATIONAL PLATFORM TO SPEAK FROM, I HAVE BEEN FRUSTRATED BY THIS ISSUE SINCE 1955 WHEN THE US SURGEON GENERAL FIRST STARTED TALKING ABOUT IT, THERE WAS NO WIDESPREAD INTERNET UNTIL THE LAST COUPLE YEARS, SO UNTIL THREE YEARS AGO, I LIKE SO MANY OTHERS WAS TERRIBLY BUSY TRYING TO RAISE A FAMILY, RUN A BUSINESS AND WORK A FULL TIME JOB.
SO ALL WE WERE PRIVY TO WAS WHAT THE TALKING HEADS DECIDED TO TELL US, AND WITH EVERY COMPROMISE I WAS LEFT SHAKING MY HEAD AND WONDERING HOW THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH THIS CRAP IN A FREE SOCIETY, NOW WE KNOW ITS BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN SOLD OUT.

AS WANDA AND MARTHA POINTED OUT ON ANOTHER POST, THE LAWYERS AND STATE'S AND BIG TOBACCO ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER, AND WE MUST TAKE COMFORT IN EVERY SMALL REFORM WE CAN FIND, SPEAKING OF GEORGE W BUSH'S STATEMENT ABOUT NOT PURSUING THE FEDERAL LAWSUITS, I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

BUT IN MY HUMBLE OPINION WE STILL NEED A NATIONAL LEADER WITH A PLATFORM TO SPEAK FROM AND A MESSAGE THAT WILL GET THE ATTENTION OF THE 75% NON SMOKERS, SUCH AS

HOW DARE YOU PUT MY HEALTH AT RISK THRU SECOND HAND SMOKE FOR A FEW TAX DOLLARS !!!

BAN IT IF YOU CAN,!!! OR REVERSE IT NOW.!!!!

THERE I GO AGAIN SORRY DENNIS FOR THE RANT.
RICK
PS
THEY HAVE USED THE FEAR TACTIC ON US, I THINK MAYBE SOMETHING LIKE THE ABOVE WOULD TURN IT AROUND ON THEM.
OF COURSE I AM COUNTING ON THEM NOT BEING ABLE TO PROVE THEIR CASE !!!.

I have brought up the idea of having a national spokesman for the cause a number of times here and elsewhere, but nothing came of it. It would have to be a "celebrity" of some ilk to get media attention of any kind.

If we had such a spokesperson (or if the tobacco comapnies had had one) the whole show might have been different; we might be in the position the NRA is with Charlton Heston.

We still could improve the situation that way as it would be a means of informing the general public, a task we all realize is sorely needed in our present situation.

Ah, smoker lethargy!

Felt, I've said, and believe, the same thing. We need a hero with press appeal, whether he be a celebrity (a Mel Gibson would be nice) or a politician. In our ill-fated fight with Robber Reiner, we were beaten before we began because whenever he opened his mouth,the press fell all over itself to immortalize it in print and over the airwaves. Without such a hero, we're without a voice in essence, no matter what we have to say.

You may be interested in checking out the Libertarian Party; their national web site is : www.lp.org.

They believe in SMALLER GOVERNMENT. keeping gov out of our private lives, repealing taxes, etc.

My husband, for the first time in his life, is running as a candidate for the LP for House Rep in our state.

I am a smoker, he is not.

I do believe there would be many positive changes in our gov if we could get more Libertarians elected. Harry Browne is the LP candidate for Pres.

Best wishes ...

Thanks, momofstorm, for reminding us. I've voted Libertarian for the past several years and intend to do so again. Unfortunately, it doesn't address our problem of getting the word out regarding the abuse of smokers. Today the trial balloon which will lead to a drive to ban smoking in the home can be found on the Reuters news service. We're running out of time, folks.

Spinner I tend to disagree with you about us now running out of time. I think now is OUR time. This attitude coming out of the Windy city this week is going to put a lot of people over the line - over the line with disgust for the whole bloody situation.

I don't know about your local papers, but mine have had very little in them about this stuff this week. People are starting to get tired of it.

This is one time I hope I am right and you are wrong (something I don't think has ever happened in the time we've known each other!)

Ditto here in Connecticut, Gabz. So far all I've seen in response to the surgeon general's "new" report is yesterday's Hartford AP wire where an anti-smoking activist whines that Connecticut isn't spending enough of its tobacco settlement money on tobacco control.

I really don't think anyone gives a diddly squat.
.

I haven't seen much in the media locally either about the anti love fest. In fact, about the only thing that's made news is some reportage on the S.G. report.

When you consider that the antis coordinated everything to get the biggest media splash possible, the relative lack of media interest must be ticking them off in a big way. They first had the WHO's two-hundred-and-some page "expose" (exposing nothing except the fact that the tobacco industry wanted to find out what stealthy deals the WHO was trying to pull in order to destroy their industry--oh, whoopie-doo!). That got some media coverage, as it was designed to do.

Then just before the big anti meeting, the WHO came out with its all-tobacco journal, as did the British Medical Journal and JAMA. All sent out tons of press releases, but there were few takers except the BBC on this obviously coordinated effort.

The pharmaceutical companies sent out tons of press releases about the meeting, as did some anti orgs, but those got virtually no press.

Finally--TA-DA!--the "new" U.S. Surgeon General's report is unveiled at the big meeting. That did get some press, but no one could get too excited about it, because it said the same old thing that every anti strategy report and every anti "blueprint" has been saying for at least the past seven years: raise taxes, increase smoking bans to "denormalize" smoking, do counter-advertising against the Big Bad Tobacco Industry's Irresistible Advertising, and "educate" the "kids." None of this is new; it's the same strategies the antis have had--and stuck to--all along.

The only major newish wrinkle is the heavy emphasis on "cessation" and "cessation" products. Oh, and that couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the pharmaceuticals are doling out dollars to the antis, could it? Yes. So now the U.S. Surgeon General, the WHO, the American Cancer Society, the ALA, AHA and AMA have all come out of the closet as flacks for Johnson & Johnson, Glaxo-Wellcome, Pharmacia, and SmithKline-Beecham.

Yeah, I think people are tired of it, and the media has finally begun to realize all this is old news, no matter how it's been repackaged.

What worries me is that if Gore and Lieberman are elected, and ESPECIALLY if they have a "friendly" Congress, the antis WILL get a higher federal excise tax on tobacco, robbing smokers yet again to pay for their own persecution.

[This message has been edited by Wanda Hamilton (edited 08-11-2000).]