Which is worse?

Dear editor:
I am writing in response to the article on the front page of the June 12 paper, “Water treatment plant working in overdrive.” It said Fort Frances has to bypass raw sewage into river, but there is no health concern.
Why would the government make all camp owners or people living near the lake or river put in new sewer and filter systems, then let someone dump raw sewage into the river? That water flows all the way to Lake of the Woods. If I was a fisherman, I would not want to eat the fish that came out of the river or lake.
With everything that is in the water already, why add raw sewage to it? Couldn’t they have filled tanker trucks and disposed of it later instead of putting it in the river?
Then they say the water may be dirty but there is no cause for alarm. I wonder how many of those people involved drink water straight from the tap.
Years ago, our water was safe enough to drink and even swim in. Now with all the new technology, you’re pretty leery about even going near it. They should have left well enough alone. Take, for example, Walkerton. They didn’t know how the bacteria got in the water and the government was accusing everyone else except themselves.
Well, if something is in our water, at least we have an idea how it got there. I hope the people involved remember this the next time it happens and they take a different approach of how to get rid of it.
Another subject is smoking. If it is so bad, why doesn’t the government just close down the tobacco companies? One reason is because the government makes lots of money off of people buying tobacco products. It doesn’t matter to them if someone gets cancer and dies—they’ve made a pretty penny one way or the other.
Marijuana can be used for medicinal purposes, but the government won’t legalize it because they may not get their cut of the money. But yet they will keep the tobacco companies going and people will continue dying from cancer so they can make their money.
I do not believe smoking or second-hand smoke is the cause for cancer. If the government closed down all the tobacco companies, then they wouldn’t have to worry about people getting cancer or targeting those who smoke.
When you think about it, they built companies that kill. Why would they let a company keep going that kills? If a person kills, they get jail. What’s the difference with tobacco companies killing people?
Every week there is a letter in the paper about smoking. Why doesn’t the government stand up and do something for the people who would benefit, for once?
Close down the tobacco companies, then people can’t smoke. So maybe you’ll lose all that tax money, but you’ll also be saving lives.
Think of what would be better for the people instead of filling your pockets with more of the taxpayers’ money.
Signed,
Tammy McQuaker
Emo, Ont.