OK, this tobacco thing is completely out of control.

I have long been a critic of these tobacco settlements. To me, it is akin to legislation via litigation.

If Congress wants to ban tobacco, fine. It should ban tobacco.

But, of course, Congress will never ban tobacco. Government profits too much from it.

Tobacco is taxed like crazy. The government is as dependent on tobacco revenue as smokers are dependent on nicotine.

In fact, I bet it would be easier for everybody in the country to stop smoking than it would be to wean the government off tobacco revenue.

Of course all those taxes are over and above tobacco profits. The taxes don't come out of the pockets of the tobacco companies, they come out of the pockets of consumers.

You know, all those people Bill Clinton likes to talk about when he says things like, "Ah feel yer poin."

I guess he feels it while simultaneously contributing to it.

But I digress.

So instead of banning tobacco, government decides to get even deeper in the pockets of tobacco companies.

State governments, under the direction and in the good graces of the federal government, file suit.

The premise is that smokers aren't responsible for illnesses they get that may or may not be related to smoking.

Smokers are victims of the cigarette companies and the cigarette companies must pay.

They must pay the states to help recoup lost revenue from health care problems and to fund programs to get people to stop smoking.

Isn't that a hoot? The tobacco companies forced to fund programs aimed at reducing tobacco use.

If you think that's oxymoronic, wait. It gets worse - so much worse.

It was bad enough when state governments committed what I perceive to be legal extortion, but what's going on now borders on lunacy.

You see, the state settlements with the tobacco industry secured revenues somewhere in the neighborhood of $250 billion.

That's a lot of money.

The states decided to spend that money here and there and everywhere - not just on programs to keep young people from smoking.

But really, how much can you spend on programs to keep young people from smoking?

So now we have all these states who are somewhat financially dependent on tobacco companies.

Not wholly, dramatically dependent, but at least a little dependent. They have programs in place that are being funded at least partially by tobacco money. They're a little hooked.

Imagine the states' surprise, then, when a group of smokers in Florida won a settlement against the tobacco companies.

A Miami jury found for the smokers in a class-action suit that could wind up costing the tobacco companies countless billions in punitive damages.

But hey, that cuts in on the states' action. What happens if tobacco companies go bankrupt? Then everybody stops riding the gravy train.

So what do the states do?

Florida is now scrambling to manipulate the laws to protect the tobacco companies.

Other states have actually secured the services of a major bankruptcy law firm to seek ways to keep the tobacco companies financially healthy.

I wonder how the states are paying for these legal services? With tobacco money or tax dollars, I suppose. But all the dollars come out of the same pot.

Ah, how I love the smell of irony in the springtime.

We have states hiring bankruptcy attorneys to keep tobacco companies solvent so tobacco companies can fund state programs to get young people to stop smoking, thus eliminating the market for cigarettes and running the tobacco companies out of business.

The absurdity is almost obscene. It is nearly incomprehensible to me that this logic-defying situation could occur in modern times.

But then I remember money, and it becomes clear that this whole tobacco lawsuit nonsense isn't really about people or health at all. It's all about money.

*****

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Joe Thallemer for his very measured response to Meijer's rezoning request at the Warsaw City Council meeting Monday night.

Trish Brown made a motion to deny the Meijer request. She and council members Jeff Grose and William Rhoads voted in favor of that motion. But four votes were needed to kill Meijer's hopes of rezoning and building a store on Husky Trail northeast of U.S. 30.

Council members Paul Siebenmorgen and Charles Smith abstained.

Thallemer and Jerry Patterson voted against Brown's motion.

Siebenmorgen then moved to table the request and that passed 5 to 2, with Brown and Grose voting no.

I think waiting another month is a good idea. Thallemer has expressed concern that the Meijer proposal was too extensive, with outlots being developed into a restaurant, convenience store/gas station and other small retail stores.

Perhaps the city and Meijer can work together to scale down the project to something acceptable to everyone. Maybe even an alternate site could be discussed.

I think Thallemer's vote took a bit of courage. He voted against the project at the plan commission level. And I'm sure he took some heat from the not-in-my-back-yard people who wanted him to just say no.

Whatever happens, I think the extra time to decide is positive. Hopefully, something positive can come out of it. [[In-content Ad]]