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.
Ask all of those anti-smokers if they have a gun in their home.
People still insist on the "right to bear arms" even though it is CLEARLY not the best thing for society, or in fact individuals.
However, they will fight tooth and claw for this right.
It is an analogy to me...the right of the individual in America outweighs the better good - always has done...so none of these hypocrites has a leg to stand on.
You smoke because you live in a free country where it is your RIGHT to die by lung cancer (or friendly fire) if you so choose.
I love it when people who don't actually live in the United States want to make a gratuitous swipe at what is clearly a domestic issue, i.e., gun ownership. Hey, Canadians I get, especially those who live across the river from Detroit. But Australians?
What's more, smoking-related diseases causes 443,000 deaths annually in the United States, while roughly 12,500 people are murdered by gunfire. So for every person murdered by a handgun, 35 are killed by cigarettes. What's more, 32,885 were killed in automobiles. So with that in mind, I'm not sure why you're not outraged by automobile ownership given how a car has roughly double the chance of causing societal damage than a snub-nosed 38.
To be sure, we'll say the nice and pious things that all these deaths are tragic and completely unnecessary. But in the sliding scale of tragedy in this country, 443,000 wheezing out their last in hospital beds is far, far more injurious in terms of raw social cost than firearms. Explain why your indignation is so selective, then, and why you feel the need to bellow it across the 6,000 miles of the Pacific Ocean.
Second, a smoker's behavior doesn't affect only himself. It affects others around him as well. If he chooses to sit in his apartment or car alone and smoke, more power to him. Smoke ten packs a day for all I care. Just don't ask for me to pay for it as a taxpayer. And, for God's sake, just don't do it next to me in a place of business or a theater or elsewhere. As one example, smoking in a restaurant destroys the enjoyment of food. It's akin to taking a boom box into a symphony performance and cranking the volume way up.
In any event, neither cigarettes, guns, nor automobiles are banned in this country, because we believe in individual liberty as long as responsible use is possible. So there goes your argument. However, all are regulated in terms of who can buy them and how they many be used.
Now that you've gotten that off your chest, let me get this off mine.
Do not tell us how you do not intend to quit smoking and then, by using Medicare or Medicaid for treatment, ask me to pay for it. Thanks.
Fair enough.
Now, in the same spirit, if you or any of your family members are obese, don't ask me to underwrite their heart surgeries via Medicare. If you or anyone in your family is into any sort of enhanced risk activities such as boating, mountain climbing, vacations in remote places etc, don't ask me to pay taxes to support the Coast Guard or Park Rangers who have to rescue you when misadventure occurs.
For that matter, why should the childless have to pay to educate other people's kids? And why should parents with normal kids have to pay for the higher costs associated with special ed kids? Or if no one in your family has been convicted of any crimes, why should you have to pay for the incarceration and upkeep of criminals? Why can't we just charge their families for these services?
If you want to compartmentalize justice, cpg, just remember to spread it around a bit.
Now, in the same spirit, if you or any of your family members are obese, don't ask me to underwrite their heart surgeries via Medicare. If you or anyone in your family is into any sort of enhanced risk activities such as boating, mountain climbing, vacations in remote places etc, don't ask me to pay taxes to support the Coast Guard or Park Rangers who have to rescue you when misadventure occurs.
For that matter, why should the childless have to pay to educate other people's kids? And why should parents with normal kids have to pay for the higher costs associated with special ed kids? Or if no one in your family has been convicted of any crimes, why should you have to pay for the incarceration and upkeep of criminals? Why can't we just charge their families for these services?
If you want to compartmentalize justice, cpg, just remember to spread it around a bit.
Actually, I'm leery of Medicare and Medicaid for just that reason. Because it creates a situation where the state becomes heavily involved in people's lifestyle choices in order to protect its own costs. Why, just now, the city of New York has decided exactly how big a soft drink you can buy. Mind you, I think sodas are the next best thing to poison, so I don't buy them for myself or my children as anything but the very occasional treat. At the same time, with this decree, New York has decided to save people from themselves.
In a government-designated wilderness area where the entire purpose of the place is to encourage people to hike and the whatnot, rescue is just the cost of doing business and is factored into the fees for park usage. The same is true for the Coast Guard. However, the growing consensus is indeed to charge for behavior in those settings that is deemed reckless, flouting well-posted warnings. Canada is doing it already, as are states such as New Hampshire. And I think that's a pretty good thing. If you want to hike away from the trail or whatever else, then buy an insurance policy to cover your evacuation. Seems reasonable to me.
As far as the rest of your examples, they are captious and absurd. Education -- special or not -- benefits all, regardless of whether one has children or not. For a successful society depends on a regular supply of well-educated workers to provide the next generation of labor. Likewise, as far as prisons are concerned, removing criminals from the general population is of benefit to all, not just the people who were afflicted with crime.
As far as the rest of your examples, they are captious and absurd. .
All my examples were meant to be absurd, in the same class as your idea of selective Medicare distributions based on bad habits other than your own.
Everyone's ideal tax system is one where nothing you enjoy is taxed, but everything you enjoy is underwritten by public funding. Your particular sense of a just distribution seems to reflect that.
Quote:
Education -- special or not -- benefits all, regardless of whether one has children or not. For a successful society depends on a regular supply of well-educated workers to provide the next generation of labor.
Sure, but it is a far greater benefit for the parents and children involved. No problem though, we will have a scaled property tax where the childless pay a lower rate.
Of course what would really be fair would be if someone invented the means to measure everyone's individual public resource consumption and tax them according to the percentage consumed.
All my examples were meant to be absurd, in the same class as your idea of selective Medicare distributions based on bad habits other than your own.
Everyone's ideal tax system is one where nothing you enjoy is taxed, but everything you enjoy is underwritten by public funding. Your particular sense of a just distribution seems to reflect that.
Sure, but it is a far greater benefit for the parents and children involved. No problem though, we will have a scaled property tax where the childless pay a lower rate.
Of course what would really be fair would be if someone invented the means to measure everyone's individual public resource consumption and tax them according to the percentage consumed.
exactly! the only kids i've known lately were the ones that broke in and ripped me off. two different neighborhoods, two different kids. so somebody decides to have 12 kids and the rest of us foot the bill!
All my examples were meant to be absurd, in the same class as your idea of selective Medicare distributions based on bad habits other than your own.
Everyone's ideal tax system is one where nothing you enjoy is taxed, but everything you enjoy is underwritten by public funding. Your particular sense of a just distribution seems to reflect that.
Sure, but it is a far greater benefit for the parents and children involved. No problem though, we will have a scaled property tax where the childless pay a lower rate.
Of course what would really be fair would be if someone invented the means to measure everyone's individual public resource consumption and tax them according to the percentage consumed.
Hardly. You have a difficult time separating what is voluntary, unsafe behavior and the normal workings of society. I see no reason why we should collectively foot the medical bill for people indulging in high risk behavior such as sucking carcinogens into one's lungs for 40 years.
I really liked smoking. Don't do anything else like drink or play golf. I liked the cigarettes so much I could have eaten them if they tasted good. I also disliked criticism from the rest of society as well as the negative advertising. I got to a point where I couldn't breathe too well. I also had cancer. I was still smoking because I liked it and figured we all had to go sometime and while I was alive I wanted to do what I wanted, period. I'm getting older and that's when it starts to get you. I just got tired of it and started thinking that maybe it would be nice to add a few more years to my life. It's usually a fact that it will get you eventually. So I stopped. It was very difficult as I had tried a few times before. I'm saving almost $9 a day now. Not a big deal but it's money in my pocket. You have to make that decision on your own. If you really like it and are hell bent on continuing then no one will say anything that matters. You have to give it some serious thought. It's like investing in anything. What will it eventually bring me? Guaranteed it won't bring you anything very nice long term. Good Luck to you. I wish you the best.
Great post. I just wanted to say that $9 a day definitely adds up to real money, especially if you invest it.
$9 a day in a 60% stock / 40% bond portfolio (such as the Vanguard Balanced Index fund...www.vanguard.com), earned 5.93% over the past 15 years. At that rate, if you saved $270 per month ($9 a day) you'd have:
$18,896 after 5 years
$44,297 after 10 years
$78,440 after 15 years
$124,330 after 20 years
$268,938 after 30 years
I know this may not motivate anyone to quit...but I always find it interesting how many people say they can't "afford" to invest yet they can afford to smoke, drink, use recreational drugs, have tatoos, etc.
Now that you've gotten that off your chest, let me get this off mine.
Do not tell us how you do not intend to quit smoking and then, by using Medicare or Medicaid for treatment, ask me to pay for it. Thanks.
Exactly. I don't like smoking, but if people are going to do it, then they should be willing to pay the FULL cost. That doesn't just mean the medical costs, either, but also the potential early disability as well (no collecting welfare or disability as a result of your addition/lifestyle choice). Most people say they are willing to pay the full price for their addictions, but very few truly are.
By the way, I feel the same way about other unhealthy lifestyle habits/addictions as well.
And I won't be voting for that tobacco tax in CA. I think $1 is too much and that any tax revenue should go to the general fund, not to cancer research (Just my opinion). I also think it's time we started addressing other lifestyle issues which are eclipsing smoking as major health problems (i.e. obesity and unhealthy foods that have proliferated everywhere).
I used to have a 5 pack a day smoking habit and quit cold turkey 27 years ago and have not had a single cigarette since then, so I have been there. It was not easy, but quitting was one of the best things I ever did. I thought I loved it as well at the time, but I love breathing easier, not having asthma anymore, and knowing I am not doing that to my body more. I do however believe that it is your life and if you want to do this that is you choice. If however you are smoking around other people then that is a different thing. As we know second-hand smoke kills, and it is not fair to inflict that on people that do not smoke. I know of people that smoke alone outside all the time. As far as the commercial, those will not end, if anything they will get worse. We know now the damage cigarettes cause and the commercials will continue.
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.
