• Ban on smoking in public places + high cigarette tax
    197 replies, posted
Do you think smoking in public places should be banned? I do. I believe it would not only reduce cigarette consumption (and in turn increase the average life expectancy) , but also reduce passive smoke inhalation for non-smokers, who don't want to inhale the toxic smoke. I also believe that there should be a very high tax on cigarettes, which would further lower the cigarette consumption, and increase the general life expectancy. On top of that, the taxes could be reinvested in health care, which could increase the general life expectancy more. The taxes could also go to science, technology and space programs, which could help technological innovation, and in turn boost the economic growth in the long run.
They have banned most places, but you can never eliminate smoking, It has been going on for centuries. I live in Australia, and the government makes millions of dollars on cigarettes, yet they still advertise that smoking is bad and pushing to rid of it, even pushing for plain black packaging... Yes it's very bad you, and personally I hate breathing it in, because I know every time I do breathe it in, that could be 2 minutes of my life gone. I would support a tax increase on smokers, but I couldn't trust the government where the money would go to...
I believe that smoking should be banned in public places, but not on private property. I do not want higher taxes in the hopes of "higher life expectancy". People have the right to do to their own bodies what they wish.
I don't think cigarettes should have any higher taxes than anything else. If something is legal than people shouldn't be punished for it. I also think luxury taxes are BS. If society is going to say smoking is an immoral action that people shouldn't do they should just ban it outright.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36419271]I don't think cigarettes should have any higher taxes than anything else. If something is legal than people shouldn't be punished for it. I also think luxury taxes are BS. If society is going to say smoking is an immoral action that people shouldn't do they should just ban it outright.[/QUOTE] exactly. Government's discouraging something that is legal makes no sense.
I doubt banning smoking in public places would reduce smoking all too much. People would still have the ability to smoke in their house or on private property that allows smoking. Not to mention, the people that start smoking generally do so when they're younger, and although I don't have a source I'd be willing to bet that they wouldn't care if there's a ban on it in public places.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36419087]I believe that smoking should be banned in public places, but not on private property. I do not want higher taxes in the hopes of "higher life expectancy". People have the right to do to their own bodies what they wish.[/QUOTE] "I do not want higher taxes in the hopes of "higher life expectancy". People have the right to do to their own bodies what they wish." No, they don't. The society allocating resources at harmful things wastes the resources which could be allocated at more beneficial things. On top of that, there's already a pretty fucking high cigarette tax in some European countries, just so you know. Very few people share the traditionally defined US values. In fact, most don't. Fuck static liberties. If abandoning a liberty produces greater benefit than not abandoning it, it should be abandoned. [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] Here you go, some information on the EU cigarette tax: [url]http://yesmoke.eu/blog/cigarette-taxes-example-of-france/[/url]
[QUOTE=GenPol;36423662]"I do not want higher taxes in the hopes of "higher life expectancy". People have the right to do to their own bodies what they wish." No, they don't. The society allocating resources at harmful things wastes the resources which could be allocated at more beneficial things. On top of that, there's already a pretty fucking high cigarette tax in some European countries, just so you know. Very few people share the traditionally defined US values. In fact, most don't. Fuck static liberties. If abandoning a liberty produces greater benefit than not abandoning it, it should be abandoned. [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] Here you go, some information on the EU cigarette tax: [url]http://yesmoke.eu/blog/cigarette-taxes-example-of-france/[/url][/QUOTE] I am an American. And just as very few in Europe share traditionally defined US values, few Americans share traditionally defined European values. And there's a really high cigarette tax here anyway. The problem with "abandoning a liberty to produce a greater benefit" is, you're abandoning [I]a liberty.[/I] There's lots of things individuals can "abandon" for the greater good, but you have to deal with the fact that we're all individuals with our own individual rights, desires and needs.
Cigarettes should be taxed at a rate which recovers the harms they cause to society, i.e the cost to healthcare, no more. It's not the job of the government to tell people what they can put in their bodies
Ban in public property, sure. Ban in private property, no. Why shouldn't I be allowed to smoke in my own privacy in my own home? It's not like my smoke will harm anyone else but my self (Assuming I am alone) and if they are going to be banning people to do legal things in the privacy of their own home then we are living in one messed up world. Also if you are going to tax cigarettes more than everything else because its harmful then you should also tax candy, unhealthy food, soda since if you look at the [url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Preventable_causes_of_death.png]death statistics[/url] in the USA then obesity is almost as harmful as tobacco smoking so you might as well tax sweets and soda the same as you tax cigarettes and alcohol. So that is pretty retarded.
As with any drug, which should all be legal Seems my automerge was broken
[QUOTE=download;36424321]As with any drug, which should all be legal Seems my automerge was broken[/QUOTE] Some less harmful drugs should be legalized, but taxed enormously. The ones which would make the life expectancy higher by them being legalized and then the tax being reinvested in health care should be legalized. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36424237]I am an American. And just as very few in Europe share traditionally defined US values, few Americans share traditionally defined European values. And there's a really high cigarette tax here anyway. The problem with "abandoning a liberty to produce a greater benefit" is, you're abandoning [I]a liberty.[/I] There's lots of things individuals can "abandon" for the greater good, but you have to deal with the fact that we're all individuals with our own individual rights, desires and needs.[/QUOTE] By individuals abandoning some rights, they can ensure greater rights.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36424423]By individuals abandoning some rights, they can ensure greater rights.[/QUOTE] Example?
GenPol, once again you're making claims without citing why. According to the rules, you can get banned for it As Robbi said. I'd like some examples
[img]http://mhultman12.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/map2.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.965malls.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/smoking-ban-around-the-world.jpg[/img] [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] Also: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States[/url] [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] Also [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_taxes_in_the_United_States[/url] [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] Also [url]http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/tax-revenue-from-tobacco/[/url] [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] Also [url]http://newssun.suntimes.com/business/13303369-420/1-per-pack-tax-hike-may-hurt-cigarette-sales.html[/url] [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] Oh, an outdoor smoking ban is also coming to Suffolk Country, NY: [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/AP58a2a6b74bb64e17862398a8f86c2c2f.html[/url]
Okay.. How is this proving your point? All it is saying that there's tax to be made and that there's bans in place. I don't see how that is relevant to [B]why[/B] it should be taxed and/or banned.
Sorry Robbi, I can't see your post. It says: This message is hidden because Robbi is on your ignore list. You're on my ignore list because you trolled my profile page with personal attacks.
"Show me where I insulted you, please. Sure I was a bit offensive with the no job part but that was just my theory of why you are a hardcore Socialist. As far as I can see you've been quite insulting to libertarians. " Yes, he was trolling I see. I wanted you to cite "By individuals abandoning some rights, they can ensure greater rights. " Prove that, you've already shown me you pretty graphs
[QUOTE=GenPol;36424862]Sorry Robbi, I can't see your post. It says: This message is hidden because Robbi is on your ignore list. You're on my ignore list because you trolled my profile page with personal attacks.[/QUOTE] We both know that's bullshit and we both know you can display my messages but what ever. This guy is nuts. [QUOTE=download;36424962]"Show me where I insulted you, please. Sure I was a bit offensive with the no job part but that was just my theory of why you are a hardcore Socialist. As far as I can see you've been quite insulting to libertarians. " Yes, he was trolling I see.[/QUOTE] Yeah check out my profile and check what I actually said, and check what he's posted on others peoples profiles before making any judgement's.
[QUOTE=Robbi;36424969]Hahah. We both know that's bullshit and we both know you can display my messages but what ever. This guy is nuts. Yeah check out my profile and check what I actually said, and check what he's posted on others peoples profiles before making any judgement's.[/QUOTE] Agreed. I was looking at his threads. I think I know why he has not friends, in answer to your question
[QUOTE=download;36424962]"Show me where I insulted you, please. Sure I was a bit offensive with the no job part but that was just my theory of why you are a hardcore Socialist. As far as I can see you've been quite insulting to libertarians. " Yes, he was trolling I see. I wanted you to cite "By individuals abandoning some rights, they can ensure greater rights. " Prove that, you've already shown me you pretty graphs[/QUOTE] "Prove that, you've already shown me you pretty graphs" Here you go: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_on_the_Han_River[/url] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/South_Korea%27s_GDP_%28PPP%29_growth_from_1911_to_2008.png[/img] Park Chung-Hee abandoned some rights to ensure a high unity of action as to industrialize South Korea and transform it into a highly educated, highly technological and advanced economy. And of course, one must abandon only the rights which lead to higher benefit than the loss by abandoning these rights in a given time frame.
Cigarette taxes aren't a deterrent, they're a high tax upon the lower class. People who are addicted don't just stop because it's expensive. You just happen to make shitloads of money exploiting their addiction.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36425043]"Prove that, you've already shown me you pretty graphs" Here you go: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_on_the_Han_River[/url] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/South_Korea%27s_GDP_%28PPP%29_growth_from_1911_to_2008.png[/img] Park Chung-Hee abandoned some rights to ensure a high unity of action as to industrialize South Korea and transform it into a highly educated, highly technological and advanced economy. And of course, one must abandon only the rights which lead to higher benefit than the loss by abandoning these rights in a given time frame.[/QUOTE] You'd have to prove a link that fascism (or totalitarianism I believe it is in this case) did that. It would also mean you've have to cede that removing freedom of speech would help countries
The fact that OP seems to think he gets any say as to what goes in and out of my body speaks volumes.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36425070]The fact that OP seems to think he gets any say as to what goes in and out of my body speaks volumes.[/QUOTE] Yeah, except your crackpot extremist values aren't implemented in the vast majority of even Western values. Harmful drugs are illegal in most Western countries, as well as non-Western countries. Smoking restrictions are applied in most of the EU, most of the non-EU countries and even some US states.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36425070]The fact that OP seems to think he gets any say as to what goes in and out of my body speaks volumes.[/QUOTE] This. Reminds me of 1984 where they have to exercise and prove they are able to remain healthy. They still had cigarettes though.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36425095]Yeah, except your crackpot extremist values aren't implemented in the vast majority of even Western values. Harmful drugs are illegal in most Western countries, as well as non-Western countries. Smoking restrictions are applied in most of the EU, most of the non-EU countries and even some US states.[/QUOTE] That's funny, I thought your views were crackpot and extremist
[QUOTE=GenPol;36425095]Yeah, except your crackpot extremist values aren't implemented in the vast majority of even Western values. Harmful drugs are illegal in most Western countries, as well as non-Western countries. Smoking restrictions are applied in most of the EU, most of the non-EU countries and even some US states.[/QUOTE] and your point is?
[QUOTE=GenPol;36425095]Yeah, except your [B]crackpot extremist values[/B] aren't implemented in the vast majority of even Western values.[/QUOTE] Yeah extremist values like individual liberty and non-interventionist government. fucking EXTREME! because liberals turn into suicide bombers all the time and not authoritarians who think they know what's best for everyone else, totally
[QUOTE=GenPol;36424423]Some less harmful drugs should be legalized, but taxed enormously. The ones which would make the life expectancy higher by them being legalized and then the tax being reinvested in health care should be legalized. By individuals abandoning some rights, they can ensure greater rights.[/QUOTE] Exept a higher tax rate on cigs and ban in public places, is not an abandoning of certain rights by certain individuals. a) The public space banning is portecting the rights of others against them being attacked by others actions. Smoking would still be permissible in private spaces and other areas. b) Taxing smoking higher isn't an alienation of rights either. It's soft pressure to abandon certain bad behaviour. And essentially soft pressure has always been a fairly good method of doing something. As opposed to hard pressure which would be an outright ban or taxing it so high that people can't buy it. Soft pressure has always been used in countries and that to either positively influence certain behaviour or make people less likely to do certain other behaviour. Want more people to have kids - give tax exempts for having kids, add in legislature that makes it easier to have a growing up kid (supporting kindergartens and similar) - perfect example of positive soft pressure Want more people to stop smoking - increase the taxation rate on smoking, add laws to limit ads on smoking, warning stickers and similar. - perfect example of negative soft pressure. [QUOTE=GenPol;36425043]"Prove that, you've already shown me you pretty graphs" Here you go: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_on_the_Han_River[/url] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/South_Korea%27s_GDP_%28PPP%29_growth_from_1911_to_2008.png[/img] Park Chung-Hee abandoned some rights to ensure a high unity of action as to industrialize South Korea and transform it into a highly educated, highly technological and advanced economy. And of course, one must abandon only the rights which lead to higher benefit than the loss by abandoning these rights in a given time frame.[/QUOTE] That's because this authoritarian rule does indeed help to fuel early stage of industry. It really does. Another good example are the soviets who went into a period of rapid industrialisation when it transformed into an industrial economy. But it also illustrates how authoritarian systems tend to begin struggling once the economy goes over into a post industrialisation phase. They just can't keep up with countries that are suddenly moving away at a faster rate. Secondly it's not entirely a perfect example of authoritarianism but more of a show of a unified front. Authorianism helps to facilitate this better as you can actually exclusively focus on stuff a bit differently than in more open societies. But were a party to hold power in a democratic state in a similar way, they could work on similar legislation as well.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.