Smoking in the Movies....oh the Depravity!

MPAA adds smoking as film-rating factor.

Apparently, it sends the wrong message to the masses when they see actors smoking in a movie. What's next? People eating ice cream in movies promotes obesity? Driving cars in movies promotes air pollution?

Since when did the movie industry take on the responsibility of correcting all of our society's ills (real and perceived)?

......oh, yeah.....I guess I forgot about the death penalty, and the environment, and the President of the United States, etc., etc.

In all fairness to the MPAA, even the U.S. Post Office got into the act by cleaning up a little of its history a while back. They airbrushed over the cigarette that an airmail pilot was holding in a classic photo from the 1920's that was used in one of their promotional posters. (see unaltered original at right)

With the snowballing effect of the anti-smoking hysteria, it's just a matter of time before tobacco is completely outlawed. Eventually we can expect our prisons to be over-crowded with people who have been caught smoking in public (and even in private).

But I have a better idea.

Let's force smokers to undergo an intensive "re-education program" that converts them into Anti-Smoking Activists. These former smokers will be so disgusted with what they've become, they will surely commit suicide.

Problem solved.

$moke 'em if ya got 'em

Ahh, whatever happened to the romance of smoking?

On January 1, 2007, many smokers will have a greater incentive to quit smoking. The Texas legislature and Gov. Perry decided that adding an extra dollar to the tax on a pack of cigarettes would be a great way to get more money for the things they want to spend it on.

Actuaries, no doubt, worked overtime to come up with a figure ($1/pack) that would, at least in the short term, earn the State the most revenue from everyone's favorite "whipping boy" (smokers) without causing so many of them to quit smoking that the State would pass the point of diminishing returns.

Aside from smokers, who seem to be in a minority nowadays, who would argue against the new tax?

Those who feel it is their duty to control other peoples' behavior (liberals) are almost giddy over the prospect of forcing even more smokers to finally quit as an economic necessity, if not for their own health.

Other non-smokers simply say: "To hell with smokers. That's what they get for smoking in the first place."

The politicians are not interested in the health of smokers, or the welfare of non-smokers. All they care about is the money.

I have an idea that would raise even more revenue and be a greater benefit to the welfare of my fellow Texans. Instead of taking out our anguish and greed on smokers (who have had it tough enough as it is), slap an extra $1 per drink tax on alcohol.

The non-smoking alcoholics that fill the State legislature probably wouldn't like that idea too much, though. But just think of the benefits!

How about it AA? How about it MADD? It would be a win-win situation for everyone but the alcoholics we despise (almost) as much as we despise smokers.

Next, we go after coffee drinkers.

Hmmm....aren't soft drinks bad for you? What about red meat?

"My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives." -Hedley Lamarr

$moker$

Starting January 1, 2007, smokers in Texas will have to pay an extra dollar per pack of cigarettes. The price of a carton of cigarettes will, therefore, increase $10.

The anticipated windfall in tax revenues will supposedly be used to help fund our schools. Just like some specialty license plates were supposed to fund state parks.

A large portion of the Texas state lottery (finally) is used to fund public schools, but school taxes are still high. The Texas legislature has reportedly been unable to come up with an adequate plan to fund

The new cash cow for Texas politicians comes in the form of people who refuse to quit smoking (how dare they keep lighting up!). The current taxes on tobacco products have not provided the politicians with the revenues they crave, possibly because the number of smokers keeps dropping.

You can bet that somewhere in the bowels of Texas state government, actuaries have been hard at work determining just how much more tax can be levied on smokers until the number of smokers is reduced to the point of diminishing returns.