Minnesota lawmaker wants to reduce welfare payments for smokers.

[Muzzle Tough]

While I do understand his point, I am agasint this, because testing people for tobacco use is a violation of civil liberties.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5143471.html

On welfare? Do you smoke? Read on

Conrad Defiebre, Star Tribune

December 18, 2004

State Rep. Marty Seifert, a conservative with a knack for inflammatory proposals, wants to mandate testing to determine whether welfare clients smoke cigarettes. He'd reduce their benefits if they do.

"If you're going to take the taxpayer's money, we're going to expect good behavior," the Marshall Republican said Friday.

"I'm not interested in subsidizing bad habits. It makes no sense to give out health and welfare subsidies if the payments go to smoking and the detriment of people's health and welfare."

Seifert said the welfare recipients who use tobacco -- up to 40 percent of them, at a cost of at least $1,200 a year for a pack-a-day smoker -- could be offered cessation programs through the private Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco.

<snip>

His latest plan drew laughs and criticism from Teresa Nelson, legal counsel for the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union.

"That's pretty wild," she said. "Certainly, giving up the right to put legal substances in your body should not be a condition of qualifying for government benefits."

Nelson said the Civil Liberties Union "believes people should be able to smoke," although it does not oppose smoking bans in public places. "But we would object to any effort to prohibit smoking in your own home," she added.

<snip>

[Warpy]

1. This is dumb on too many counts

First, tobacco is a legal drug. Yes, it's stupid to start smoking and stupider to keep smoking, but most start when they're immortal teenagers and find they can't quit later on. Blaming them for being suckers for advertising 30 years earlier is not good practice, not legally and not ethically.

Second, this is an invasion of privacy.

Third, trying to modify peoples' behavior by starving them has never worked. You just end up putting them out on the street or having them turn to crime. This is stupid and unchristian.

Only a Repuglican could possibly have thought of it.

[Malva Zebrina]

2. Reminds me of prohibition

next--no welfare benefits for those who consume alcohol?

Never ever would I ever, never would I ever hope to be a welfare recipient--and I hope I never have to find myself in that position. However, there is that possibility, if I should become seriously ill and rack up serious medical bills, over and above which Medicare will not cover, which I could not pay for and need to petition for help, I will lose my modest little house and land. The government will take it then. Am I supposed to be jubulant over that prospect?

Hell, may as well smoke and drink and become an joyful Epicurean.

It is an utter disgrace to have the state dictate how one should live their life just because they are poor and desperate and get money from those who hate giving it to them--who despise them.


Poor people--- who have no choice if they want to survive.

[lojasmo]

3. What do you think about.....

No insurance for smokers?

I like that a little better.

[Muzzle Tough]

4. My answer

Insurance premiums are based on risk.

I think it would make perfect sense to charge higher insurance premiums for smokers. I have noticed that the TV advertisements for life insurance always specify the cost of premiums for non-smokers. This implies that they charge higher premiums for smokers, which makes perfect sense.

[kodi]

5. marty is an idiot who knows less than dick about the US Constitition

Amendment 14:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[livinginphotographs]

6. Whatever happened to small-government Republicans?

I was raised a Republican (and luckily, came to my senses), but one of the biggest things I was taught was that govt should stay out of people's lives (which is why I became pro-gay rights, pro-MJ legalization, etc).

And now the Repubs want to test people for cigarettes? Fucking hypocrites.

Luckily, this will never pass. The tobacco industry is way too powerful to allow this sort of thing.