Op Ed: Are YOU 'For Sale' On Measure 50? Your Vote Will Show

Big Tobacco is sweating this one out after poison-nicotine profits supply $12 millions for subverting Oregon voters.

(BEND, Ore.) - That old cliché “The nation’s eyes are on you” is quite literally true for Tuesday’s vote. Big Tobacco has been forced to wreak out the largest bribe-run of political-ad monies in Oregon’s history, with $12 millions already spent.

“Campaign contributions” alone may have set up this sequence by providing “confrontation” within the Legislature, but true-decision still remains right where it should be - with the citizens themselves.

Right or wrong, Oregon’s response may well shape up first the Congressional action on SCHIP --national children’s health insurance-- and then foreshadow final action for universal health insurance in this nation, too.

What we DO, here-and-now, will then have strong impact on upcoming rapid decisions for universal health care at the two basic-levels/demanded very soon.

Oregon may very literally “lead the nation” on this consummately consequential vote.

That fact is making many Oregonians face up irrevocably to their own conscience as they contemplate a very simple choice:

VOTE NO - resoundingly defying and denying “the money power” never more manipulatively-applied than by Big Tobacco, or be side-tracked into submission-AGAIN by the slickly-contrived ads, concentrated on “cooking the facts” to pervert votes by clearly-crooked presentations-everywhere; with repetition and wide release the keys to subversion of the well known public will.

That expensive flood of tv ads, thrown up over and over again on every Oregon screen, distorts and perverts the actual realities involved here.

That “headlong lie in the face of truth” is commonplace and always concentrated by the Big T. side; made entirely evident by the rapid-response rebuttal with fact and authoritative statement from supporters of this historic measure.

Well known to those paid profusely to provide propaganda-results, the “Big Lie” that is repeated provocatively, piled high in every media channel, and pronounced proper-truth by paid “authoritative persons”-- is simply standard procedure since there is nothing else left to provide.

That distorting/perverting overwhelming necessity for Big Tobacco is proven very prominently --over and over again, for all to see and understand-- by the extremely revealing “list of sponsors” supplying the working-dollars for all those ads.

“FOR this measure” lists every conceivable public-health/service group and working organization; while “Opposing” lists ONLY Big Tobacco firms, and the ostensibly-local (and surely well-paid !) Big T. “servant group” necessary to submit the ads.

Huge impacts of nicotine-poison lifetime peonage and permanent lung damage leading to premature death are too solidly and broadly “on the public record” to be ignored.

In fact that has become such a well known legal fact-of-life that it is widely cited as strong precedent in any new confrontation, as in damage suits now in process covering defective voting machines --surely an ironic note here!

Today everyone knows a relative or friend or associate already so stricken-- and now dehumanized by despair and depression-- while awaiting a painful death, proven by the millions already so removed.

The danger is not only for smokers but for others whose atmosphere is irrevocably also permeated and poisoned by the irresponsible actions of those so-addicted they are made regardless of decencies and consideration for others.

Those consequences of “getting hooked” are so widely known that nowadays anyone --even a small/business-owner retailing them-- must be keenly aware of what those “profits” really cost: Irresponsible damage to human life, peddled for pennies of profit by ANYone pandering to the propaganda and pressing approach of Big Tobacco.

Wonder what those-so-involved will answer when their growing child, keyed and informed by education and society generally, will, finally, ask: “Why did you sell that poisonous stuff, Daddy?”

That same question may well surface (and surely should !) within the family circle of those providing the perverted propaganda so widely seen-and-heard on every Oregon tv-”news” station and via radio, too.

For those who find themselves involved in helping supply that nicotine-poison today there is only one answer --the same one for any other such poisonous substance “on sale” once it is clearly and unmistakably so “discovered”: “NO LONGER from me, now that I KNOW the truth.”

That ID, ”infinitely deadly” - was made centuries ago, has been known ever since, and was never, ever, allowed to interfere with “profit”-taking no matter what human costs were concerned.

Our American slavery era, built on Big Tobacco colonial-produced profits, was wiped away only by one of the world’s most excruciating national spasms, costing our struggling nation many deaths and many millions in “war” costs --with that same “war” continuing to this very day, in pursuit of the same high levels of profit promised and produced by the absolutely addictive capture always consequential to any personal use.

Those social, cultural, economic and political damages are STILL far from cleared away with ongoing consequences still excruciatingly painful to millions. They carry with them extreme healthcare costs clearly consequential both for smokers and those caught in their miasma.

Those facts are too solidly and surely fully on record --and now too widely circulated to provide conscience-clear continuance for ANYone pursuing further pandering-for-profit from this universally-dangerous nicotine-poison.

“Unfair” to currently-caught smokers ? WHEN has it ever been “unfair” to snatch away poison from the hand about to imbibe?

“Unwise” to add enforcement to Oregon’s Constitution ? WHY, when we have been doing so, in one way or another, ever since 1902?

Oregon’s citizens have long been known for their wit, wisdom and will --so much so I need not even cite examples, wellknown to most. Will we now prove up that prolonged and continuing protocol?

YOURS may be THE VERY VOTE --with others-- to DO THIS JOB NOW in “stopping Big Tobacco cold” and commensurately censored.

Let’s send “them” away seething, and make “them” seek somewhere else to recoup their rapidly-departing power from profits produced, not-so-purely, from poisons provided the unthinking public.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Pat November 5, 2007 12:43 pm (Pacific time)

Henry, thank you for your civil answer. I must apologize, subsection 5 does indeed earmark the funds for "health care to children, low-income adults and other medically underserved Oregonians and to tobacco use prevention and education". Found that online (since I'm at work and don't have the voter's guide with me), I must have been extremely tired to have missed that last night as I read it (after reading 49, can you blame me?) Neal, you could have corrected me, instead you chose to insult me. Lighten up, will you? And BTW, your argument of $11 per pack does NOT equate to $11 per person. Anyway, all is a moot point for this household, since I will vote YES, and husband will vote NO . . .

Henry Ruark November 5, 2007 12:29 pm (Pacific time)

Pat et al: What Big-T sees as "blank check" is simply Legislative wisdom in building reserves until processes can be brought up to speed. All public record puts Leg. solidly in pledged position to use funds as properly described; to state otherwise is simply to repeat Big-T propaganda, built that way for precisely this kind of confusion among citizens. $11 figure for everyperson subsidy to cover smoker's health costs in low by some newer estimates.

Pat November 5, 2007 11:44 am (Pacific time)

Neal, my husband's doctor says he is in excellent health (much to my chagrin) with slightly elevated blood pressure and cholesteral - due more to his diet than smoking. He's been smoking literally all his life (his dad smoked 8 PACKS A DAY and lived to be 70). Personally, I'd be glad if he dropped dead tomorrow, but that isn't the point. The point is that there is nothing in this amendment that enforces where that tax money will go - and like the funds from lottery that were supposed to go to schools - well they did, but their other funds got cut. So unless they spell it out, IT IS A BLANK CHECK.

Neal Feldman November 5, 2007 10:40 am (Pacific time)

Pat - does hubby pay $11 per pack in tax yet? If not then the costs of his habit are being subsidized by me and everyone else whether we like it or not. Everyone on the same insurance company you use, whoever that is, will have theuir rates raised and the finite medical services resources will be gobbled up by the increased need his habit creates. And yet you still whine. Anyone wondering what is wrong in this country should look at the selfishness of smokers who cannot see past their own selfish disregard for the wellbeing (health wise OR financial). Ah well...

Pat November 5, 2007 9:47 am (Pacific time)

Hmm, I read what was in the voter pamphlet, looks like a sizable tax. Missing is the part about WHERE that money will go . . . how does this help kids???? Can you refute the "blank check" argument??? All I see is that my husband will pay more for his habit, leaving less than now for the bills.

Henry Ruark November 5, 2007 7:33 am (Pacific time)

To all: You doubt "fix is in" re Big-T, other corporate perps, with Supremes ? Try this one for further size of how big it is: AlterNet Shocking: 18 Years on and Exxon Still Won't Pay $2.5 Billion for Valdez Oil Spill By Riki Ott, AlterNet http://www.alternet.org/story/66647/ The Supreme Court's recent decision to hear ExxonMobil's reasons to void the $2.5 billion punitive award in the Exxon Valdez case hit the town of Cordova, Alaska, hard. This small coastal fishing community -- my hometown -- along with the Alaska Native villages in Prince William Sound have borne the brunt of the largest crude oil spill in America's waters; a spill that took place more than 18 years ago, but one that continues to hold the region hostage. The second painful blow was the high court's decision to not even hear our reasons why the award should be restored to the full $5 billion that a jury of peers decided was necessary to punish the corporate giant back in 1994. While media pundits, lawyers, and scholars play the Supreme Court's decisions back and forth like a ping-pong ball, people in Cordova share a completely different perspective of this story. It's not about whether the Supreme Court should hear the case. To us, it's about justice and reparation -- making us whole, a promise Exxon made to the community five days after the spill. A promise that Exxon broke before the trial even started five years after the spill. To us, it's about more than an oil spill, the world's largest oil corporation, and a small fishing community in Alaska. It's about America's failed legal system that inherently cannot dispense justice in the face of corporate globalization. U.S. corporations have outgrown America's justice system. The system won't work for any community in America that is traumatized by disaster that triggers class action lawsuits -- hurricanes like Katrina, terrorist acts like 9/11, or oil spills like the Exxon Valdez. Yet sociologists warn such disasters will be a hallmark of the 21st century.

Henry Ruark November 5, 2007 5:50 am (Pacific time)

To all: Rapid review of last-shot Big-T ads shows precisely PR-plan to distract, dissuade thinking voter into error of voting "No". Right-action here is health protection for kids. All else is secondary in both import and action. Do NOT fall for propaganda wizardry sold by those in the dirty-business of continuing distortion-for-profit, very well-paid by those entirely willing to deal in death for more dollars. VOT YES and torpedo Big-T !!

Henry Ruark November 4, 2007 3:42 pm (Pacific time)

Neal et al: Thank you for the prompt and further-informing response...it was precisely that case I sought, unsuccessfully, this a.m. I agree completely with your points, especially on punitive damages; original settlement mentioned runs to $250 billion but I understand is ongoing year to year, so may end up even larger and more infuriating to Big T, on record now as seeking to drain all possible dollars by strong defense, and surely now aided by Bush-constructed Supremes.

Neal Feldman November 4, 2007 3:04 pm (Pacific time)

Henry - If you mean Philip Morris USA v. Williams, Mayola the widow still won $821,00 in compensatory damages... it was just that the $79.5 million in punitives were reduced to ten times the compensatory damages... the entire case was not thrown out neither were punitives... just most of them since the USSC (wrongly imho) looks poorly on punitives in excess of ten times the compensatory amount. I feel punitive damages need to be able to be large enough in these days of multi-trillion dollar companies to actually deter the wrongdoing. The point of punitive damages is that they punish, not that they be affordable 'costs of doing business'. But this is the Shrub constructed Roberts Court... I am sure we will see the Little Guy get screwed a lot more before things get better. Ah well...

Henry Ruark November 4, 2007 10:11 am (Pacific time)

Patriot-Act et al: YOU can still sue, but good luck ! Big T has stranglehold on too many near the top. US Supremes negated a winning suit by widow from Oregon recently, carry-on from largest civil suit in history in late 90s joined by 40 states, on Medicaid costs for cancer induced by deathly nicotine-sticks; and youth advertising, with US winning $138 billions. (Amount in some question since.) See Wikipedia: Tobacco Master Suit Settlement for excruciating detail especially re Big-T seeking to bankrupt all who sue...

howwouldapatriotact November 4, 2007 5:40 am (Pacific time)

when the state took away my right to sue tobacco companys with their settelment the state got billions where is that money?

Henry Ruark November 3, 2007 6:00 pm (Pacific time)

Dale et al: Consequence unavoidable for some actions, Dale. Big-T pays literally billions for PR-counsel who know precisely what buttons to push. Yr state/of/mind re taxes open to some dialog, too; if protest-due, why not specify for what ? Child insurance, or Iraq/Iran war ? Or tax-cuts for crony capitalism and corporate control via "campaign contributions" ???

dale November 3, 2007 4:49 pm (Pacific time)

How dare this paper imply that our vote is "for sale" if we vote NO. I voted NO because I'm sick and tired of taxes. Make do with the billions ya got, Ted.

Henry Ruark November 3, 2007 9:38 am (Pacific time)

DD877: Why NOT ? "General welfare" surely covered, why NOT let force for essentials also be so covered ? Big-T spent half-million in "contributions" in recent years to make sure Leg. forced to go this route when time arrived, as they knew it would for sure, sooner rather than later. Don't fall prey to oldest trick in propaganda book: Protect the (fill in as needed for that vote.)

Neal Feldman November 3, 2007 9:24 am (Pacific time)

dd877 - there are many taxes in the oregon constitution already. Who do you think you are fooling? Or is it you just allowed yourself to be fooled by Big Tobacco? Ah well...

Henry Ruark November 3, 2007 6:53 am (Pacific time)

To all: Thank You, Neal ! Definitely VOTE YES ! --as intense rest-here surely states with deep and rational, reasonable reasons. Disclosure: First son now irrevocably "hooked", finding it impossible to continue longtime denial, forcing deep changes in lifestyle. Fact-of-life far too many must also face, while poison-peddlers push same fate on millions-more ! "NO" was early-draft on another issue - NOT 49 ! jy2r8

DD877 November 3, 2007 5:27 am (Pacific time)

Voted NO The reason is that I don't want a Tax in the constitution.

Neal Feldman November 2, 2007 11:25 pm (Pacific time)

Voted YES on M50 the day the ballot arrived (and NO on 49) and sent it out the next day. Reading this article I think, Henry, that you meant to say VOTE YES, not VOTE NO. Ah well...

[Return to Top]

Op Ed: Are YOU 'For Sale'
On Measure 50?
Your Vote Will Show

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News