OCR Text |
Show V1 Government smokoeug policy smacks of hypocrisy America's tobacco industry is already subsidized CEttnlcb ldztz by the taxpayers. Imposing a the detriments of nicotine addiction, huge additional tax on the cigarette conoutward appearances, the Washington has currently decided that the sumer to pay for health care preserves .the From all administration and its legisla- only way to help curb the habit is a heavy lucrative status quo enjoyed by the tobacco tive counterpart are awfully concerned tax on the product itself. industry while punishing the public with excess of $28 billion a year. Despite all the governmental furor over To with the nation's smoking problem. help support his health plan, further taxes. Few will refute conclusive evidence that Amidst damaging reports from the President Clinton suggested a 75 cent per Federal Drug Administration concerning pack tax on cigarettes. The House of smoking kills. But if the House and the president are as concerned with the health risks of tobacco as they appear, they should first consider the validity of current tobac- nicotine levels in cigarettes, Washington Representatives upped the proposed sin tax has become abuzz with proposals to ease to $1.25. On the surface, this tax seems like a wise the health burden millions of smoking deterrent, considering the assumption that Americans currently shoulder. From an outright ban on cigarettes to fed- smokers are contributing to unnecessary eral regulation, policy makers seem puz- death and illness simply because of their zled in finding a workable solution to a habitual behavior. After all, if smokers are going to kill themselves, they should at tough national health concern. co subsidies. The tax is merely a smokescreen which conveniently places the problem in the laps of smokers and away from the corridors of Congress and the White House. If the federal government is starting down the path to a smoke-ffe- e society," the first stop should be a visit to its own pork barrels. Industry is even claiming the amount of least pay for it. But once again, the government's modus time smokers use in breaking from daily work schedules is costing companies in operan di smacks of hypocrisy. The Chronicle is an independent student newspaper. Unsigned editorials reflect the majority view of the Editorial Board. THIS S AWR1L... THEY'RE tAWiNS ME UTTBFwUCY flofST-eALtr- tE fits Daily Weil C&raiElB Business Hours Monday through Friday 8 am to 5 pm 581-704- rk.. WT Tb BE A... A... A... A REPOBUCNH! I 1 The Chronicle welcomes reader response. Please letters, not exceedbring typed, double-space- d ing two pages, to 240 Union Building. Each letter should include your name, major, year in school and telephone number (for verification purposes only). Unsigned letters will not be considered for publication. The Chronicle reserves the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar and SCANDAL i space. COVFR-im- n ELENI VATSIS Political apathy damages noble intent of Funny nomenon like U.S. Rep. Bill Orton, who says he's a Democrat, but hasn't done much to show for it, wasn't thing about mass meetings. They're just not so The phrase, "mass meeting" is clearly a misnomer. Why don't they call it by a more appropriate title,. like "mini meeting," if they want to preserve the alliteration? More accurately, it could be called "a collection of politically active poseurs who heard there'd be free food here meeting," or "hey, we have enough people for so why don't we do that instead meeting." Mass meetings, of course, have their historical origins and placed in their .historical context, the ideas behind mass meetings make perfect sense. But years after "power to the people" became the rule, the people have rejected taking advantage of the political power they're entitled to wield. Mass meetings were born out of discontent with parties. Originally, the parties themselves selected the didate who would represent them; the populace could then decide which party would better represent them,' rather than which person. This also gave the parties more clout, as party members who had an interest in eventually holding political office had to pander to party interests rather than stand on their own. The political hopefuls had to work their way up through the party system, rather than just appear out of thin air (Doug Anderson ring a bell?). Party control over candidate selection also meant that candidates couldn't deviate from the party line, lest they evoke the wrath of the party hierarchy, A phe decision;: the "masses", who showed up at the meeting would select a couple of delegates to represent them at the party caucus,: and vote for' which candidate the t. "masses" decided would best represent their voting s ; v possible. Now there are so many varying shades of Democrats : ; and Republicans, they might as well not claim affiliax W ' " The obvious flaw in this system is that enough people tion with either party, except that by doing so they can don't show up at the mass meetings to significantly alter get a lot more money than by claiming political inde' what originally bothered the populist reformers: the pendence. The party system of choosing candidates fell apart. idea of a small group of people making decisions for the '. masses. American public just isn't trained to be the Perhaps Now there are so many varypolitically active; case in point, a poll recently conducting shades of Democrats and ed proved that when it comes to being informed about current events, Americans ranked second to last, beating Republicans, they might as well not claim affiliation with only Spain. It's easy to not take an interest in politics, voting and either party... current events. It's easy to become part of the apathetic crowd, even with the knowledge that political activity is part of being a responsible member of society. Even some political science majors have been known to over-- . when populists complained the parties possessed too dose on political events, causing them to take a sabbati. ; much power, and that the common people didn't have cal from reading the daily newspaper. ',V The American public has been given the opportunity enough power in choosing who would represent them..' for full political participation and have clearly rejected party's selected candiSimply saying yes or no to the " . it. If the parties were to regain control of candidate dates just wasn't enough. Thus the oddity "mass meeting" was born. The idea selection again, at least then the populace would know ' was that people could meet together, discuss the Candi- ' party candidates would be truly held accountable to an dates who wanted to run, then select which candidate Interested group, rather than to just a flaky bunch of . the group would like to represent them. To seal the ers. '''''-- ' dis-tric- " rac-quetb- all . 'mass meetings' ".-- . :. ; . - . . |