>         Personally this ban is completely silly to me, they aim at
>eliminating the
>smallest users of the toxic substance and completely ignore that LARGEST
>users of the toxic substance.
>
>         But hey, it's government, I'm not sure why I'm surprised...

There's the rub.  Usually, when a "smallest group" gets eliminated, its so
the
pols can say "See what we did!", without making any deep-pocketed
enemies.

This has happened recently in the US, with a rash of laws against posession
of domesticated ferrets, usually based on their "viciousness" or the thought
that they will wipe out endemic species.  Never mind the fact that dogs
kill more people than ferrets injure every year, and feral cats destroy
ecosystems with great alacrity (just ask anyone from Tasmania or Hawaii).

Could you imagine what would happen to a lawmaker who tried to outlaw
ownership of cats and dogs?  They wouldn't pass another election, that's
certain.

The surprising exception to this rule has been smoking.  Lawmakers seem
to have no trouble making widespread laws against smoking, despite the
incredible revenues and resources of tobacco companies.  Maybe it's the
allure of double-dipping, squeezing money out of them first in taxes and
again in lawsuits...

Mike H.

_________________________________________________________________
Mother s Day is May 9. Make it special with great ideas from the Mother s
Day Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04mothersday.armx

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu