Add new comment


ignorant or complicit. Like Nixon's choices, as it happens.
To argue the money should have gone to things the industry could easily argue are unfair to make smokers pay for, the general fund being at the top of the list, is to agree with industry doubletalk. The money's no good here; the money's no good there. Can't general; can't be special; can't do it. The LATimes never even mentions this. They'd have you believe it somehow never even occurred to them. Are they really that ignorant? That's the entire depth and breadth of their thinking here? Or are they complicit?

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.