Hello Matt,   
      
   MM>Tobacco has awful health risks and the government wanted to put   
   MM>graphic labels, but the DC appeals court rejected this idea because   
   MM>they said it inhibited the free speech rights of those companies.   
      
   Is it free speech for executions to be denied television coverage?   
   We used to shoot 'em by firing squad in the public square.   
   We used to hang 'em by a rope in the public square.   
   We used to fry 'em in a chair in the public square.   
   So why can't we give 'em the juice in the public square?   
      
   England forces tobacco companies to put gruesome pictures of what   
   happens to smokers on labels.  Australia forces tobacco companies to   
   have simple boxes rather than colorful packs for labels.  And now the   
   US is forcing tobacco companies to limit their free speech by retaining   
   colorful packaging that appeals to smokers?   
      
   MM>Maybe we can have an incentive. Taxes would be lower for the tobacco   
   MM>if the graphic packaging stays.   
      
   Better would be to tax tobacco products at the same rate   
   as marijuana products.  The Republicans "no new taxes" pledge   
   would be doomed, for sure, and America would be completely   
   out of debt forever.  :)   
      
   --Lee   
      
   --- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb   
    * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)