ATTENTION MISSOURI VOTERS

November 7th is fast approaching, here's a great bit from STLToday.com about why you should vote YES on Amendment 3:

Yes on Amendment 3
10/29/2006

Missouri will collect about $107 million in cigarette taxes this year. At the same time, Missouri taxpayers will spend more than $2 billion — much of it through Medicaid and Medicare — to treat people with tobacco-related illnesses like heart disease, lung cancer and emphysema. The overwhelming majority of the money will come from taxpayers who don't smoke.

Anti-tobacco groups, including the American Cancer Society, the American Heart and Lung associations, doctors and hospitals, want to raise cigarette taxes by 80 cents a pack. That price hike would prevent many young people from taking up smoking; as it is, about one in five Missouri teens smokes. The tobacco tax revenue would provide money for anti-smoking campaigns in schools, increase payments to doctors who treat Medicaid patients and provide health care for the poor.

The tax increase, Amendment 3, is one of five ballot issues facing voters in the Nov. 7 election. It would raise Missouri's cigarette tax, now the second-lowest in the nation (behind South Carolina, a major tobacco-producing state), to about the national average.

Opponents of the tax, including convenience store owners and other retailers who sell tobacco products, argue that the amendment unfairly targets the poor. They've got it exactly backward. The tobacco industry unfairly targets the poor, and the poor suffer disproportionate harm because of it. The tax increase, in fact, would benefit poor people by giving them an additional incentive to quit smoking, by helping them learn how and by paying for some of the health care they need but can't afford.

The opposition is fueled by contributions from global tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds, and from stores that profit by selling a dangerous and addictive product. Their campaign against Amendment 3 is marked by the same shameless half-truths and outright lies that characterized decades of tobacco advertising.

They argue the tax will cost Missouri billions of dollars in extra Medicaid payments. But their facts — it may invite lawsuits that might make the state dramatically expand Medicaid coverage — are as insubstantial as smoke.

Opponents allege the tax will unfairly force smokers to pay for health care provided to others. Once again, they've got it backwards. Cigarettes would have to cost about $7.75 a pack in Missouri just to cover the cost of smokers' health care now. Even an 80-cent tax hike won't bring them anywhere near that amount.

With breathtaking hypocrisy, opponents criticize backers of the amendment because lawmakers in Jefferson City — most of whom don't support the tax increase — used tobacco settlement money to balance the state budget, rather than fund prevention efforts. Opponents also say the amendment is too complicated. But it has to be to keep tobacco tax money from being used for other purposes — like balancing the budget — by short-sighted legislators.

Opponents imply, falsely, that the tax is backed by big drug and health insurance companies. It's not.

Unlike the taxes we must pay to help cover the cost of health care for those with tobacco-related illnesses, the tobacco tax is entirely voluntary. If people don't want to pay it, they don't have to buy tobacco.

To reduce the incidence of smoking-related illnesses, to keep more Missouri children from starting to smoke, to help smokers quit and to help cover the cost of caring for those already debilitated by smoking, vote Yes on Amendment 3.

A Brief Rant

***Warning: reading or commenting on this post may result in a bunch of FBI guys showing up at your house with a warrant they don't have to tell you about, that you therefore can't complain about.***

I had to write a paper for my "Management Applications of Information Technology" class; something dealing with IT & ethics. I opted to write about the USA PATRIOT Act & the ethical dilemmas it creates. It's a 7-page paper, so I don't want to post it all, but I'm proud of it & want to share the intro & conclusion with you:

Adopted by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787; the United States Constitution was established, “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, ” and today remains the oldest working federal constitution. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, protect the people’s rights by expressly limiting the powers of the government. Among the rights guaranteed are:

. . . freedom of speech . . . right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances . . . The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure . . . [and assurance that] no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized .

Also described in the Bill of Rights are the rights to due process, trial by jury, and various rights afforded to individuals accused of crimes. The Bill of Rights was adopted because, “a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added ,” suggesting that our forefathers understood the need to regulate the power of government to prevent incursions upon the civil rights of the governed. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence states that the power of Governments is acquired through, “the Consent of the Governed,” and should be used to protect the rights bestowed upon them by their Creator, in the way that “seem[s] most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ” Thomas Jefferson once said, “The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object, ” and indeed the role and responsibility of Government should be to protect and increase the rights of the people, never to eliminate rights they have already been guaranteed. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act) allows governmental agencies to unethically infringe upon individuals’ Constitutionally guaranteed rights, often using information technology to do so.

...[lots of facts to back up my assertion]...

Ultimately, the ethical dilemma presented by the USA PATRIOT Act is this: we live in an age of unequaled technology, which can be used for positive or negative effect. The USA PATRIOT Act allows our government to utilize this technology to monitor individuals’ actions for the specified purpose of combating terrorism. The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights exist to protect citizens from the misuse of governmental power and infringement upon their rights as individuals. In the struggle to protect citizens from acts of terrorism, those in power must weigh the need to protect the civil rights of both U.S. citizens and non-citizens. Questions must be raised regarding who is responsible for all aspects of data collection and usage; and how these individuals and organizations will be held accountable for their use of the data. When the data is incorrect, or is used wrongly, systems must be put in place to determine who is liable for the damage that may be caused. To quote David A. Keene, Chairman of the American Conservation Union, “the line should not be drawn at 'what is helpful for law enforcement,' but at what is needed to protect us while preserving the proper balance between preserving civil liberties and our nation's national security needs. " Ultimately, society must decide what uses of this information are ethical; however, when information is gathered and used without public knowledge, questions must be raised to determine if the ends justify the means. Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, ” and citizens who willingly allow their government to use information technology to trample the civil rights of others should not be surprised when they find their own freedoms at risk.

Feel free to comment, or write your Congresspeople, or research.