Re: Don't cry for me Colleen Garry -- Dracut Information Resource Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:12:54 06/23/01 Sat
Author: Naturally
Subject: Re: Don't cry for me Colleen Garry
In reply to: UNNaturally 's message, "Don't cry for me Colleen Garry" on 10:38:32 06/22/01 Fri

When this latest Taxpayer & business owner stick-up was initially discussed by our esteemed representative, it was to be the panacea for all the suffering children in the Commonwealth. Addicts were put on the same plane as cancer sufferers and that was seen for what it was.. Completely absurd.

Now, the excuse for picking our pockets and chasing business across the border is to rid our streets of drunk drivers. Hey, I got a novel idea.. Why doesn�t the legislature through its judicial committees enact a bill that provides mandatory sentencing for drunk drivers. Maybe first time offenders can get 5 years in the jug, (pardon the pun) and second offenders can go for ten. If we want to decrease the rate of drunken driving let�s start with tougher sentences rather than allowing liberal judges to grant these idiots 4 or 5 chances to maim or kill someone. Let�s punish the people responsible and not ALL the taxpayers.

As if this tax would ever result in there being fewer drunk drivers on the road. We were born at night, but not last night! The tobacco tax was going to halt teenage smoking. Despite all the added taxes on cigarettes, most initiated by the Government in order to prevent or �treat� teenage smoking, 750,000 teenagers become smokers annually.* In other words, these taxes have failed to provide the solution to the problem of tobacco use. I think we can look to the same degree of success for this alcohol tax.

Now, about gambling. Let�s stipulate for the sake of argument that addiction is in fact a disease. If we tax the citizens in order to treat those addicted to dope, booze and butts, should we not also look to treat degenerate gamblers? I mean, it�s basically the same disease just a different form. If your point is that we needn�t worry about gambling because nobody gets into gambling related car accidents, should we apply the same standard to cancer patients, because nobody gets into cancer related car collisions? I mean, like Colleen Garry says, addiction is akin to cancer in terms of medical conditions, right?

Gambling has many ill effects. Among them, child neglect, homelessness, personal bankruptcy, criminal activity (Bookmaking, loan sharking and any gambling outside of that sponsored by the State!) Perhaps this is the source of my over-reaching paranoia. Here we have the State proposing a tax designed to help addicts, and yet the State Government profits from exploiting another segment of the �addicted community� by operating a cynical numbers racket. I mean the whole concept of the scratch ticket is to provide �Instant Action� just like it says on the vending machines. If you can sit there with a straight face and tell me that�s not predatory in nature, then maybe you should consider running for office. (Or maybe, running again!)

The reason why nobody hasn�t been discussing rolling back the Bottle Bill or prohibiting the sale of alcohol over the Internet is because they are seen for what they are, empty gestures. We�ve got a better chance of seeing God before the Bottle Bill gets repealed because half the money that is generated by people who don�t redeem cans and bottles goes to the State. The purchase of alcohol over the Internet is very impractical. I mean can you imagine some poor sufferer of an acute medical condition (formerly known as a boozer) waiting for UPS to deliver his or her bottles of Mad Dog? It lacks the immediacy of �Instant Action.� Colleen won�t be feted at the Kennedy School of Government with a Profile in Courage Award for supporting those issues unless they start a category for window dressing.

It�s interesting.. A differing opinion is called bitching & moaning. I�m devastated. I guess when you would like to keep some of the money you earn because you�re not a drunk or a dope addict but actually a productive member of society, it�s called bitching and moaning. Sorry, but despite my hurt feelings I�m going to keep on. I have the sneaking suspicion there�s a bunch of bitchers and moaners who agree with me, namely anyone who pays taxes!

*Source: The American Lung Association 2000 �Teenage Smoking Fact Sheet�

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Don't cry for me Colleen Garry -- Michael H, 10:52:53 06/24/01 Sun