Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That argument avoids the issue of self responsibility and the purpose of individual rights which is exactly the topic of this discussion. Be it good, bad, etc... the entire purpose is to support the individuals right to make that decision for themselves. The line should be drawn at that important stage and nobody should make decisions for another regardless of if it would be "better" for them or not. The entire point is the "choice" not the outcome of the choice.
Actually, the original point of the discussion was the taxes themselves.
If I put up a Straw Man argument, it was only because I was arguing with one. (Not that 2 wrongs make a right - like my meta-fallacy there? )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
In short, people should get their noses out of others businesses, stop trying to tell everyone else how to live and stop using the government as their own personal thug to oppress the will of others.
Seatbelts and cigarettes actually are not the best comparison, because smoking harms others far more than an individual's choice to wear a seatbelt does. I would have no problem with smokers if they were all forced to confine themselves to airtight bubbles when they did it, so they didn't endanger the rest of us.
But, back to the original point: No matter how high the taxes are, individuals still retain the choice to purchase cigarettes or not. They just have more of an opportunity to reflect on how really important it is to them.
It is a fact of psychology that people respond more to immediate self-interest than to generalized, long-term effects. Thus, a person might choose to smoke based on the belief that they will be in the minority that does not get cancer. (And they don't notice the dimished lung capacity and damaged immune system that begin immediately because it is gradual). However, if that same person is faced with an immediate loss of income, that person might choose differently.
It is still an individual choice, the tax just co-opts the principles of psychology to make people actually THINK about those choices.
Actually, the original point of the discussion was the taxes themselves.
If I put up a Straw Man argument, it was only because I was arguing with one. (Not that 2 wrongs make a right - like my meta-fallacy there? )
Misdirection
The topic is individual rights and freedoms and how it relates to taxation. The fatty food tax is an argument to push the problem with selective or over taxation to a level that shows its true nature. That is the point of this discussion, not quibbling over what we should tax and what we should not. Read what CDNE is talking about in each response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mearth
Seatbelts and cigarettes actually are not the best comparison, because smoking harms others far more than an individual's choice to wear a seatbelt does. I would have no problem with smokers if they were all forced to confine themselves to airtight bubbles when they did it, so they didn't endanger the rest of us.
SHS studies are inconclusive, but that is for another topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mearth
But, back to the original point: No matter how high the taxes are, individuals still retain the choice to purchase cigarettes or not. They just have more of an opportunity to reflect on how really important it is to them.
That is a devious manner of offering a choice as the consequence is not natural to the choices selection, but a manufactured consequence specifically designed to penalize a choice. That is oppressive taxation and specifically a violation of free will and individual rights.
For instance, I could say that you have freedom of speech, but then threaten to punch you in the nose anytime you said anything. You have the choice, but I am specifically manipulating the consequence and linking it directly to the action. It is not the same as saying you have freedom of speech, but you must be careful as to what you say as it may anger someone and create conflict. That is natural consequence to freedom of speech and does not specifically attempt to oppress its action.
Again, with a seat belt, If I said you are free to choose, but if you get in an accident, not having one on could increase your risk of death or severe injury, then I am stating a natural outcome to a choice. If I however said that if you do not wear a seat belt, I am going to charge you 1000 bucks, I am unnaturally affecting the decision of the choice. There is no logical consequence to not wearing a seat belt itself. No harm is done until an accident occurs and an accident may never occur so by artificially affecting that choice, the consequence is manufactured. The choice is being influenced directly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mearth
It is a fact of psychology that people respond more to immediate self-interest than to generalized, long-term effects. Thus, a person might choose to smoke based on the belief that they will be in the minority that does not get cancer. (And they don't notice the dimished lung capacity and damaged immune system that begin immediately because it is gradual). However, if that same person is faced with an immediate loss of income, that person might choose differently.
It is still an individual choice, the tax just co-opts the principles of psychology to make people actually THINK about those choices.
Again, a manipulation of the issue. You are personally affecting the choice, artificially inflicting a consequence on the assumption of a possible outcome. I could say that by you disagreeing with people on the internet, it could lead to someone hunting you down and doing harm to you and therefore, if you are "faced with an immediate loss of income," you "might choose differently."
Let me take your argument and place it in its original form.
If you do not do what I say, I will force you to comply by any means I can.
Or in a more short and concise manner...
Do as I say or suffer my response.
That is not a choice, there is no choice up there, there is merely choose my way, or choose my way. A true choice does not have artificial conditions such as these taxes are designed.
$7 a pack to suck filthy stenchy air full of poison? That insults my intelligence. Oh sorry I forgot it's hghly addictive and they can't stop sucking it.
What I see at that price are the young gullable kids who must feed their habbit will turn to petty crime to pay for it.
Isn't it just easier to just ban smoking from our society?
How should your family describe your cause of death?
Was it suicide, murder, an accident or stupidity?
How about:
Death by Smoking
Last edited by desertsun41; 04-02-2009 at 07:11 AM..
Reason: spelling
$7 a pack to suck filthy stenchy air full of poison? That insults my intelligence. Oh sorry I forgot it's hghly addictive and they can't stop sucking it.
What I see at that price are the young gullable kids who must feed their habbit will turn to petty crime to pay for it.
Isn't it just easier to just ban smoking from our society?
How should your family describe your cause of death?
Was it suicide, murder, an accident or stupidity?
How about:
Death by Smoking
Ban smoking?
OK, then let's ban fatty foods, Big Macs, french fries, Fritos, Cheetos, and flour tortillas. Ban any food that the FDA says is not good for health.
Let the government dictate which days you have to walk to work to get some exercise, and how many minutes one has to hold his heart rate at 120 bpm.
Let's take common sense and throw it out the window. Let the government think for you, and make those healthy decisions about your lifestyle.
- $96.7 billion is spent on public and private health care combined, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and each American household spends $630 a year in federal and state taxes due to smoking.
- $97.6 billion a year in lost productivity, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
I'm okay with raising the tax on tobacco to discourage usage, I only hope that the money goes into the health care budget. The medical costs listed above end up in the price WE pay for health insurance. The costs of lost productivity end up raising the prices of goods and services that we all use.
As far as taxing unhealthy foods, that's okay, it will shift consumption from hamburger to chicken and fish. The government could tax foods based on a simply formula that measures the ratio of fat calories to total calories in an item.
Major tax increases on all forms of drinking alcohol should also follow.
Sin taxes WORK at lowering consumption of items have a negative effect on society. Imagine the costs we pay for damages caused by alcohol, not just the passive costs, but the costs of the carnage on our highways, courts, jails and lost productivity.
Completely disagree with you here.
I think the analysis is greatly flawed. I've read multiple studies on the smoking subject, and they are filled with assumptions. For example, they will count the cost of additional health care as a cost, or lower value for a trade in vehicle as a cost (smoking impact inside the car). However, they won't factor in the savings to pensions or social security from premature death, nor factor in the savings to the buyer of the cheaper vehicle.
They also frequently factor in second-hand smoke damages, yet once again I request anyone to provide to me the scientific study that links second-hand smoke to severe health problems and premature deaths. Haven't seen it yet despite multiple request in multiple smoking threads.
Also, the loss in productivity also factors in the disgraceful way we treat smokers, making them go outside of buildings and then counting their loss production time.
And, BTW, I don't smoke and never have. Nor does anyone in my immediate family.
Well, duh. I said it was hypocrisy.
I don't smoke anything, but if the government should ban something it should be known carcinogens, doncha think?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
Death by Smoking
