NationStates Jolt Archive

I would be grateful if the members of this forum, particularly regional delegates ;-) could consider my new proposal (expires tuesday):

-----------------------

I propose that a 200% tax be placed upon all tobacco sales internationally, and that funds raised be used exclusively for healthcare and anti-tobacco advertising, so that this menace to public health starts paying back a little of what it costs.

The higher cost of cigarettes may also help put people off smoking. And as smoking reduces, so do our public haunts become a little more amenable once again.

This is not an illiberal decision - people can still go out and smoke if they want to. But they are automatically fined for the damage they do to the victims of second-hand smoke as soon as they fork out the cash.

Why not LET people choose what chemicals they want to put in their body? If they're stupid enough to use tobacco... they can put up with the consequences, they don't need to be mommied around by the State.

Because the consequences aren't just for them, but for people that breath in their smoke too.

Why not LET people choose what chemicals they want to put in their body? If they're stupid enough to use tobacco... they can put up with the consequences, they don't need to be mommied around by the State.

People can be manipulated by tobacco companies who market their product as "cool" or whatever.

Put it this way, if I persuaded someone to kill himself to bits, would you say it was entirely their fault for being stupid enough to do what I told them to?

Why not LET people choose what chemicals they want to put in their body? If they're stupid enough to use tobacco... they can put up with the consequences, they don't need to be mommied around by the State.

People can be manipulated by tobacco companies who market their product as "cool" or whatever.

Put it this way, if I persuaded someone to kill himself to bits, would you say it was entirely their fault for being stupid enough to do what I told them to?

Yes. He still has free will. Just because your persuaded him doesn't change that. You never coerced him.

Besides, I thought you supported mandatory suicide?

Well, I'd say that Wolomy had at least been an accessory to the event. Besides the fact that persuading someone to kill themselves is just plain nasty and inhuman. If someone tried to persuade me, personally, to do so, I'd think about taking them to court on the best pretext I could find.

Why not LET people choose what chemicals they want to put in their body? If they're stupid enough to use tobacco... they can put up with the consequences, they don't need to be mommied around by the State.

People can be manipulated by tobacco companies who market their product as "cool" or whatever.

Put it this way, if I persuaded someone to kill himself to bits, would you say it was entirely their fault for being stupid enough to do what I told them to?

Yes. He still has free will. Just because your persuaded him doesn't change that. You never coerced him.

Besides, I thought you supported mandatory suicide?

What if I persuaded him to stab you in the face? How about Osama persuading people to fly planes into the WTC? Do you consider him totally innocent?

I think the human race should be wiped out, but only if this can be done without harming anything else. Also as I have said it is only one possibility, I still prefer Communism.

Wolomy,

Global Market's gone for now, so you'll have to wait on his answer.

This is one of the lamest schemes ever invented to bleed the poor. Smoking is overwhelmingly a habit of the working class - those who can least afford to pay a huge excise tax. It's a regressive tax, because middle class people who make twice as much money don't smoke any more (if they smoke at all), so it takes half the percentage of their income.
It has nothing at all to do with health care costs of either first or second hand smoke. Second hand smoke has very little if any effect on health, and even first hand smoke doesn't inflict nearly enough damage to justify such a huge tax. The money wouldn't be going to treat those smokers who get cancer, though, would it? It would be sponged off for unrelated healthcare costs and for "education" - all at the expense of the poor. The smokers would be out the cash and they would still be on their own when they get sick.
As for the higher cost reducing the amount of smoking, don't bet on it. Nicotine is an addictive drug, and most addicts will pay the higher price. Most new smokers are teenagers, who aren't going to worry about the cost of the habit when they start. They aren't going to be influenced by education, either - does anyone really believe that there is a single human being in the Western world over the age of one that doesn't know that tobacco is addictive and dangerous? More education is a fabulous waste of money.
And if you want to reduce smoking in public places, just ban smoking in public places. Taxes won't affect it a bit; the tax gets paid no matter where the cigarettes get smoked.
It gets worse, though. If you wanted a more foolproof scheme to guarantee that smoking will never be reduced, you couldn't find one. Make the government the beneficiary of a huge tax on something, and you think they will kill the goose that lays that golden egg? They'd be bending over backwards to make sure that tobacco sales don't slump.

Besides the fact that persuading someone to kill themselves is just plain nasty and inhuman. If someone tried to persuade me, personally, to do so, I'd think about taking them to court on the best pretext I could find.

I wouldn't. I'd just tell him to try it out himself before advising me to do so.

This is one of the lamest schemes ever invented to bleed the poor ... It has nothing at all to do with health care costs of either first or second hand smoke. Second hand smoke has very little if any effect on health, and even first hand smoke doesn't inflict nearly enough damage to justify such a huge tax. The money wouldn't be going to treat those smokers who get cancer, though, would it? It would be sponged off for unrelated healthcare costs and for "education" - all at the expense of the poor. The smokers would be out the cash and they would still be on their own when they get sick ... Make the government the beneficiary of a huge tax on something, and you think they will kill the goose that lays that golden egg? They'd be bending over backwards to make sure that tobacco sales don't slump.

Every so often, I find myself in total agreement with RSI, and THIS IS ONE OF THOSE TIMES.

Tax tobacco? It should be illegal. It brings pleasure to the Suffering. If one atones for his sins, how can pleasure do anything but disrupt that atonement. My God will lay a plague upon those who grow this evil substance. It shall be extinct from our world. Repent now all ye who sow these seeds of evil, of lust. Repent and be saved. If not I will be forced to dispatch the Forgivers.

Because the consequences aren't just for them, but for people that breath in their smoke too.

*GASP* You can choose to avoid people who smoke!

*GASP* You can choose to avoid people who smoke!

So would you support smoking bans in public areas then? If someone's smoking on the street or in a school, you can't avoid them.

No, of course I wouldn't. You can choose to avoid those areas.

No, of course I wouldn't. You can choose to avoid those areas.

Which explaines the high amount of cases in Ithuania in which crazed citizens detonate chemical weapons on public property and/or run around thrashing wildly knives in thier hands.

coughhipocritecough, you know exactly why...

Cigarette smoke generally doesn't drift more than a few feet before it becomes diluted to the point where it is meaningless, meaning it almost certainly won't go onto the private property of someone else--and if it does, the person can always sue.

On the other hand, an exploding chemical weapon will almost certainly cause damage well beyond its immediate area.

You, sir, are a fvcktard, as you have so elegantly demonstrated.

Given that my body is my property, cigarette smoke should be considered equivalent to vandalism, which violates my fundemental right to property. Since property rights are protected my laws (i.e. vandalism is illegal) clearly smoking in a situation which may cause exposure to others should be illegal.

Heh, some very strongly divided opinions here.

Essentially, though, what I'm suggesting isn't all that much - it's just the case of making a real world British policy international (except that British tax, on cigarettes at least, is 400%, since 80% of the final cost of a packet of cigarettes is tax, and doesn't work as well as an international tax would because of bootlegging).

Here's the address of a place on the topic:

http://www.ash.org.uk/

And here's where they explain their stance on this matter:

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/whytax99.html

Come on, regional delegates, support this one! We need a nice divisive issue now; everybody likes human rights and the environment, and it's frankly getting boring to have all these foregone conclusions going through.

If you are strapped for cash, this looks like an excellent moneymaker. AAddicts are a constant reliable source of income. We should include other reliable markets, such as heroin and oxycodone.

It's depressingly to see such apalling soak-the-poor schemes seriously tendered by allegedly liberal nations who have not only failed to give them any thought whatever, but appear to be incapable of doing so. This plan has nothing to recommend it whatever, yet nations which claim to consider the poor their highest priority will support hanging this millstone around the neck of the poor merely because it is superficially directed at tobacco, and it's politically correct to froth at the mouth whenever tobacco is mentioned.

Why not LET people choose what chemicals they want to put in their body? If they're stupid enough to use tobacco... they can put up with the consequences, they don't need to be mommied around by the State.

People can be manipulated by tobacco companies who market their product as "cool" or whatever.

Put it this way, if I persuaded someone to kill himself to bits, would you say it was entirely their fault for being stupid enough to do what I told them to?

Yes. He still has free will. Just because your persuaded him doesn't change that. You never coerced him.

Besides, I thought you supported mandatory suicide?

What if I persuaded him to stab you in the face? How about Osama persuading people to fly planes into the WTC? Do you consider him totally innocent?

I think the human race should be wiped out, but only if this can be done without harming anything else. Also as I have said it is only one possibility, I still prefer Communism.

Since Bin Laden supplied them and aided their action he would be responsible. But if he just broadcasted on the media "let's attack America" and that's all thne he would NOT be responsible... free speech.

Given that my body is my property, cigarette smoke should be considered equivalent to vandalism, which violates my fundemental right to property. Since property rights are protected my laws (i.e. vandalism is illegal) clearly smoking in a situation which may cause exposure to others should be illegal.

The question of WHOSE property rights is important, too. This is a clear situation where one individual's rights apparently conflicts with the rights of another, and so we must use absolute morality to determine who has the right to do what.


On MY property: I can smoke, and if you don't like it you can leave.
On MY property: I can force you to leave if you want to smoke.
On YOUR property: You can force me to leave if I want to smoke.
On YOUR property: You can smoke, and if I don't like it I can leave.
On non-owned property: We each have equal use of the land (although "public property" as such shouldn't exist, the fact is that it does and until that changes this is an issue we must resolve), meaning I can't tell you to stop smoking if I don't like it, and you can't tell me to leave if I want to smoke. We both have to decide (separately and for ourselves) which action we would rather take and act accordingly.

I thought the UN cannot levy taxes

The question of WHOSE property rights is important, too. This is a clear situation where one individual's rights apparently conflicts with the rights of another, and so we must use absolute morality to determine who has the right to do what.


On MY property: I can smoke, and if you don't like it you can leave.
On MY property: I can force you to leave if you want to smoke.
On YOUR property: You can force me to leave if I want to smoke.
On YOUR property: You can smoke, and if I don't like it I can leave.
On non-owned property: We each have equal use of the land (although "public property" as such shouldn't exist, the fact is that it does and until that changes this is an issue we must resolve), meaning I can't tell you to stop smoking if I don't like it, and you can't tell me to leave if I want to smoke. We both have to decide (separately and for ourselves) which action we would rather take and act accordingly.

I agree almost entirely; however on the issue of public property (which would, in all likelyhood, exist alien to the state, given communally owned property such as roads, schools and the like), the right of the individual to have their property remain secure clearly supercedes the right of another to behave as they would. For example, say I'm parked on a public street, and you wish to park where I am. While we both are equally entitled to the parking spot, you do not have the right to damage or interfere with my automobile in any way in order to exercise your right to said spot.

Why should other nations care what I tax in MY nation?

...I propose that a 200% tax be placed upon all tobacco sales internationally, and that funds raised be used exclusively for healthcare and anti-tobacco advertising...

There is another problem embedded in the proposal. The use of tax revenues for government-sponsored "anti-tobacco advertising" adds still more indoctrination to a world that is already surfeited with it. Of course, advertising is omnipresent in most countries, but we find also in the schools a plethora of "educational" programs (mostly government-sponsored) that are really designed to indoctrinate rather than educate human beings.

In our view, education is about giving people the ability to think rationally, critically, and independently. In that sense, education is almost the opposite of indoctrination. Indoctrination aims at teaching people WHAT to think, while real education aims at teaching them HOW to think.

There is a real danger that, if indoctrination crowds out education too much, the capacity for critical thought will atrophy, and individuals will be easy prey for whoever wishes to manipulate them. At that point, we will have lost a great deal of our humanity, and will be easy prey for anyone with the means, motive, and opportunity to manipulate us.

Those who want to add even more indoctrination to our societies--even with the best of intentions--should seriously consider the consequences of their proposals.

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect our liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

It should be pointed out that this policy does seem to have worked in reducing smoking a good deal in the UK, at the expense of creating an extensive black market in bootlegged tobacco.

Still, Ursoria, your point about education/indoctrination is a good one - although in postmodern terms, all education is indoctrination ;-)

And personally I find government anti-tobacco adds, like big letters on packaging saying that "Smoking causes slow and painful death" amusing.

It should be pointed out that this policy does seem to have worked in reducing smoking a good deal in the UK, at the expense of creating an extensive black market in bootlegged tobacco.

Still, Ursoria, your point about education/indoctrination is a good one - although in postmodern terms, all education is indoctrination ;-)

And personally I find government anti-tobacco adds, like big letters on packaging saying that "Smoking causes slow and painful death" amusing.

Life is death.
Freedom is slavery.
War is peace.
Ignorance is knowledge.

Still, Ursoria, your point about education/indoctrination is a good one - although in postmodern terms, all education is indoctrination ;-)

Many of my friends have been heavily influenced by postmodernism. I myself have promised that, if and when I come to grips with the modern world, I will give some thought to moving beyond it.

Still, I suppose there is some validity in the postmodernist point of view. We do not think in a vacuum, but rather bring to the process all sorts of cultural presuppositions. In order to fulfil its primary mission, education must reflect and therefore transmit some kind of worldview. Still, the purpose of education is distinct from the context in which it occurs. Education should give people the capacity to think critically, and therefore to modify the very premises on which it is based. There is a kind of dialectic. Whoever educated Jacques Derrida must have left him with some room to manoeuvre.

Still, Ursoria, your point about education/indoctrination is a good one - although in postmodern terms, all education is indoctrination ;-)

Many of my friends have been heavily influenced by postmodernism. I myself have promised that, if and when I come to grips with the modern world, I will give some thought to moving beyond it.

Still, I suppose there is some validity in the postmodernist point of view. We do not think in a vacuum, but rather bring to the process all sorts of cultural presuppositions. In order to fulfil its primary mission, education must reflect and therefore transmit some kind of worldview. Still, the purpose of education is distinct from the context in which it occurs. Education should give people the capacity to think critically, and therefore to modify the very premises on which it is based. There is a kind of dialectic. Whoever educated Jacques Derrida must have left him with some room to manoeuvre.

Education is the process of telling smaller lies.

Still, Ursoria, your point about education/indoctrination is a good one - although in postmodern terms, all education is indoctrination ;-)

Many of my friends have been heavily influenced by postmodernism. I myself have promised that, if and when I come to grips with the modern world, I will give some thought to moving beyond it.

Still, I suppose there is some validity in the postmodernist point of view. We do not think in a vacuum, but rather bring to the process all sorts of cultural presuppositions. In order to fulfil its primary mission, education must reflect and therefore transmit some kind of worldview. Still, the purpose of education is distinct from the context in which it occurs. Education should give people the capacity to think critically, and therefore to modify the very premises on which it is based. There is a kind of dialectic. Whoever educated Jacques Derrida must have left him with some room to manoeuvre.

Education is the process of telling smaller lies.

Why not LET people choose what chemicals they want to put in their body? If they're stupid enough to use tobacco... they can put up with the consequences, they don't need to be mommied around by the State.

People can be manipulated by tobacco companies who market their product as "cool" or whatever.

Put it this way, if I persuaded someone to kill himself to bits, would you say it was entirely their fault for being stupid enough to do what I told them to?

Yes. He still has free will. Just because your persuaded him doesn't change that. You never coerced him.

Besides, I thought you supported mandatory suicide?

The manipulation of the advertising variety doesn't bother us nearly as much as the manipulation RE: contents of the product. When tobacco companies deliberately manipulate the formula of their product to increase the number of addicted customers, this is criminal behavior. However, we don't support the tax on tobacco idea, as we feel that anyone buying tobacco today is doing so with relatively full disclosure by the manufacturer. Caveat Emptor.

The manipulation of the advertising variety doesn't bother us nearly as much as the manipulation RE: contents of the product. When tobacco companies deliberately manipulate the formula of their product to increase the number of addicted customers, this is criminal behavior. However, we don't support the tax on tobacco idea, as we feel that anyone buying tobacco today is doing so with relatively full disclosure by the manufacturer. Caveat Emptor.

Okay that we could agree on. If the manufacturer explicity promises the customer ingredients different from the actual ingredients, that's fraud.

But if he doesn't say anything or he just says that its "cool" or some qualitative thing like that, he is perfectly within his rights.

Postmodernism says that good is bad, black is white, words mean nothing, and bears don't shit in the woods. The best way to deal with a postmodernist is to kick his teeth in and then explain to him that his experience of pain is subjective, his lust for revenge is a conditioned social construct, and his right to live is no more valid than your right to hurt him.
If he whines about it, kill him. After all, a person is just an arbitrary mental construct created by society.

Postmodernism says that good is bad, black is white, words mean nothing, and bears don't shit in the woods. The best way to deal with a postmodernist is to kick his teeth in and then explain to him that his experience of pain is subjective, his lust for revenge is a conditioned social construct, and his right to live is no more valid than your right to hurt him.
If he whines about it, kill him. After all, a person is just an arbitrary mental construct created by society.

Post-modernism has its places; it poses a very interesting and nessecary criticism of liberalism and society in general; it's not, in my opinion,m a coherent political ideology, but it is a very interesting tool of analysis.

I don't smoke, but I would like to know where the fuck you get off trying to tell nations other than your own what they have to tax. That is none of your damn business.

A US town banned smoking for a month and heart-related problems plummeted. Quite clearly, smoking is unhealthy and needs to be excessively taxed so people resist from buying it.

A US town banned smoking for a month and heart-related problems plummeted. Quite clearly, smoking is unhealthy and needs to be excessively taxed so people resist from buying it.

Driving is unhealthy too, so is fast food, so are computer games. Should we abolish all of those things? It's not the role of government to protect a citizen from himself. That's called "tyranny".

Why not tax water instead?

Cigarette smoke generally doesn't drift more than a few feet before it becomes diluted to the point where it is meaningless, meaning it almost certainly won't go onto the private property of someone else--and if it does, the person can always sue.

On the other hand, an exploding chemical weapon will almost certainly cause damage well beyond its immediate area.

You, sir, are a fvcktard, as you have so elegantly demonstrated.

Modalert, cut out the flaming Ithuania.

And you should be very aware that the distance cigarette smoke drifts before it dilutes signifigantly depends on the conditions. On a windy day it will go away fast, but on a day with fairly calm wind the smoke is still thick enough to make one cough from ten feet away. And in a public place it is much worse. Not only does your debate that it doesn't do enough damage to hurt you not even stand up to statistics (cities who have banned smoking health rates Vs. cities who haven't) but it is completely hipocritical of you (based on your definition of absolute morals).

A US town banned smoking for a month and heart-related problems plummeted. Quite clearly, smoking is unhealthy and needs to be excessively taxed so people resist from buying it.

That's baloney, because heart problems caused by smoking take longer than a month to arise or to improve. But if it was desirable to ban smoking, the way to do it would be (surprise!) to ban it. Taxing it merely guarantees that it will NOT be banned. It's just another G-D- excuse for hosing the working man.

I am not one of those representatives who regularly lodges protests in the name of national sovreignity. But this strikes me as a perfect example of something that is best handled at the national, rather than the international, level. Nations manage their own healthcare systems; it seems to me to be up to them to decide how best to fund those systems.

While we in Gurthark think that a 200% tax on tobacco products (with the proceeds channeled into healthcare) may be appropriate for some countries, we oppose this proposal.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

What's weird about this is that the majority of people who've posted on the topic are against it, but the majority of people who've voted are for it. Makes me wonder who's stalking these forums...

Incidentally, as I've already said, I did submit this proposal in some measure to provoke a response.

And as for postmodernism, I view it as good, albeit brief, fun, but little use as a tool - deductive logic for important stuff (tempered, where appropriate, by gut instinct) and gut instinct for quick stuff (tempered, if time allows, by brief logical consideration) tend to do better, on the whole. Even if they are just "artefacts", they're artefacts that more or less work at least as well as anything else we've found to date.

A US town banned smoking for a month and heart-related problems plummeted. Quite clearly, smoking is unhealthy and needs to be excessively taxed so people resist from buying it.

Driving is unhealthy too, so is fast food, so are computer games. Should we abolish all of those things? It's not the role of government to protect a citizen from himself. That's called "tyranny".

TGM, you of all people should be able to come up with better arguments than that. It's like the anti gun control thing "guns kill but so does setting people on fire so if you ban guns you should ban gasoline too". The obvious flaw being that gasoline has a useful purpose other than to burn people. People may be killed as a result of car accidents but that is what happens when things go wrong. Smoking kills. This is not accidental or a result of improper use and it doesn't just kill the smoker.

This is not protecting the citizens from themselves, it is protecting them from tobacco companies who knowingly sell a product which is addictive and will eventually kill its users. They will target the vunerable and easily manipulated so that by the time they realise their mistake they will be addicted and unable to stop. This is the nature of capitalism and while capitalism remains people must be protected from it.

Having said that the solution is not necessarily to penalise the user through taxation. Those who smoke already should be helped and tobacco companies should be shut down.

Postmodernism says that good is bad, black is white, words mean nothing, and bears don't shit in the woods. The best way to deal with a postmodernist is to kick his teeth in and then explain to him that his experience of pain is subjective, his lust for revenge is a conditioned social construct, and his right to live is no more valid than your right to hurt him.
If he whines about it, kill him. After all, a person is just an arbitrary mental construct created by society.

That might be a little too hard on my friends. I'd prefer to argue with them.

Why not tax water instead?

We do.
We own all the drinking water, because we prohibit people from drinking from any source other than our own.
We stuff it so full of chlorine and fluoride that it tastes like bleach.
We charge utility fees for every gallon consumed.

Nothing makes money better than a monopoly.
All in the name of public health!

Noncoercion opposes involuntary taxation of any kind.

deductive logic for important stuff (tempered, where appropriate, by gut instinct) and gut instinct for quick stuff (tempered, if time allows, by brief logical consideration) tend to do better, on the whole.

One quick question: What if stuff is both quick AND important? What's your gut instinct?

Last I checked, there was a warning label on smokes that basically told people that hey would die in the most painful, expensive and horrible way on earth. This should tell you how well a tax or prohibition will work.

Its like Dennis Leary said," You could make the box black with a skull and cross bones and call the things "Tumors" and people would still buy them."

I'll tax what I want in my country. The UN should stick to doing charoity events and garden parties.

it is the person's right to choose what they do to thier own body.

this does not change wether you are in your own house, or out on the street. However, if a company or person bans smoking in the office/house, then that is their right.

as to damaging other people, so do really loud boom-boxes. when was the last time you heard of them being banned?

A US town banned smoking for a month and heart-related problems plummeted. Quite clearly, smoking is unhealthy and needs to be excessively taxed so people resist from buying it.

That's baloney, because heart problems caused by smoking take longer than a month to arise or to improve. But if it was desirable to ban smoking, the way to do it would be (surprise!) to ban it. Taxing it merely guarantees that it will NOT be banned. It's just another G-D- excuse for hosing the working man.

No, it's true. It was all over the papers.

Banning it is ineffective because it opens up the black market. But if you make it legal and expensive, only a few will continue smoking and it becomes too hard for kids to get as well.

No, it's true. It was all over the papers.

Banning it is ineffective because it opens up the black market. But if you make it legal and expensive, only a few will continue smoking and it becomes too hard for kids to get as well.

Sin taxes are also ineffective, especially in the case of somking. Since smoking is addictive, we can assume a relatively inelastic demand curve; thus though prices will increase, the decrease in demand will not be proportional to this increase. THis places the burden opf the tax on the consumer rather than the producer. Still worse, those that can least afforde the increase of price will find their real income decreasing more rapidly than that of the more wealthy. While I would support a ban on somking in public areas, I will not support a tax increase of this kind.

Banning it is ineffective because it opens up the black market.
If that's so, then you have to admit that banning smoking for a month in that (fictional) town didn't reduce smoking, either. (Even if true, such studies, lacking controls, are worthless - consider, for example, the placebo effect).
There's no reason to believe that taxing tobacco will substantially reduce smoking - addicts will just pay the higher cost, as they do every time the tax on tobacco goes up. For the majority that don't quit, they not only have the same health problems, they're being robbed by the state for the privilege of having them.
It doesn't matter how you try to dress it up, it's nothing but a regressive tax scheme to loot the poor, making the government an active partner in profitting from addiction.

A US town banned smoking for a month and heart-related problems plummeted. Quite clearly, smoking is unhealthy and needs to be excessively taxed so people resist from buying it.

Driving is unhealthy too, so is fast food, so are computer games. Should we abolish all of those things? It's not the role of government to protect a citizen from himself. That's called "tyranny".

TGM, you of all people should be able to come up with better arguments than that. It's like the anti gun control thing "guns kill but so does setting people on fire so if you ban guns you should ban gasoline too". The obvious flaw being that gasoline has a useful purpose other than to burn people. People may be killed as a result of car accidents but that is what happens when things go wrong. Smoking kills. This is not accidental or a result of improper use and it doesn't just kill the smoker.

This is not protecting the citizens from themselves, it is protecting them from tobacco companies who knowingly sell a product which is addictive and will eventually kill its users. They will target the vunerable and easily manipulated so that by the time they realise their mistake they will be addicted and unable to stop. This is the nature of capitalism and while capitalism remains people must be protected from it.

Having said that the solution is not necessarily to penalise the user through taxation. Those who smoke already should be helped and tobacco companies should be shut down.

Cigarettes have a useful purpose too... for some people they relieve stress, otherwise people just enjoy smoking. Enjoying your life is about as useful of a purpose as you get.

No, it's true. It was all over the papers.

Banning it is ineffective because it opens up the black market. But if you make it legal and expensive, only a few will continue smoking and it becomes too hard for kids to get as well.

Sin taxes are also ineffective, especially in the case of somking. Since smoking is addictive, we can assume a relatively inelastic demand curve; thus though prices will increase, the decrease in demand will not be proportional to this increase. THis places the burden opf the tax on the consumer rather than the producer. Still worse, those that can least afforde the increase of price will find their real income decreasing more rapidly than that of the more wealthy. While I would support a ban on somking in public areas, I will not support a tax increase of this kind.

Rational Self Interest, if you wish to be oblivious to reality and the facts, that's fine. But I've said it before and I will reiterate - a US town, population 40,000, DID ban smoking for a month.

It's the poor's stupidity if they continue to waste their money, and TAXPAYER WELFARE, on dirty smokes. The tax increase would go to subsidising Nicobate and those patches which get people off the drug.

You know, I'm starting to think I really should have introduced this idea as a suggested dilemma rather than as a proposal, but never mind.

What's weird is that something is reducing smoking in the UK - and it could be the tax, and/or it could be the advertising, and/or it could just be one of those gradual social trends that might have happened anyway as fashions change. Where smoking is very much on the rise is outside of the rich countries, in the developing world. That's where all of the big tobacco companies are pushing their product now, largely without government interference - and I don't know how we should best stop them.

If the tobacco companies are committing fraud by misrepresenting their product as safe, then punish them. But if people are smoking of their own free will, then government interference is a tyranny.

Rational Self Interest, if you wish to be oblivious to reality and the facts, that's fine. But I've said it before and I will reiterate - a US town, population 40,000, DID ban smoking for a month.

I think RSI wasn't contesting the fact that the town banned smoking for a month, but was instead taking issue with the proposition that smoking-related illnesses declined significantly in such a short period of time.

Let people do what they want to in their homes. There it does not influence other people but their guests.
A tax could be agreed upon but it is far too high!!!

Rational Self Interest, if you wish to be oblivious to reality and the facts, that's fine. But I've said it before and I will reiterate - a US town, population 40,000, DID ban smoking for a month.

I think RSI wasn't contesting the fact that the town banned smoking for a month, but was instead taking issue with the proposition that smoking-related illnesses declined significantly in such a short period of time.

RSI is also questioning that anyone actually stopped smoking. Isochronous himself admitted that banning something merely drives it onto the black market; does anyone really believe that nicotine addicts didn't just drive to the next town to buy their cigarettes?

Where smoking is very much on the rise is outside of the rich countries, in the developing world. That's where all of the big tobacco companies are pushing their product now, largely without government interference - and I don't know how we should best stop them.

Trying to stop people from doing something that they don't want to stop, and that doesn't hurt anyone but themselves, is a waste of effort. Beyond basic education to inform of the danger, there's nothing to do.

It's the poor's stupidity if they continue to waste their money, and TAXPAYER WELFARE, on dirty smokes.
It's their own welfare, not the taxpayers'. Anyone with more intelligence than a rodent can figure that out. All you want to do is harm the victims of tobacco further.

The tax increase would go to subsidising Nicobate and those patches which get people off the drug.
That's a new one on us - what happened to "education" and paying for all the non-existent health problems supposedly caused by secondhand smoke?
If one wanted to subsidize the cost of nicotine replacement treatments of dubious efficacity to the minority of smokers who actually want to quit, there's an easy way to do it: take them off prescription.

It occurred to us that one way to see what effect smoking (and second-hand smoke) has on people's health is to look at the two U.S. states of Utah and Nevada.

In Utah, about 80% of the population is made up of Mormons, most of whom don't smoke or drink (or use caffeine). In Nevada next door, the casinos are open 24 hrs a day, serve free booze round the clock, and everybody smokes like a chimney.

We ought to be able to compare the two states, and see how much healthier (if any) the people of Utah are.

It occurred to us that one way to see what effect smoking (and second-hand smoke) has on people's health is to look at the two U.S. states of Utah and Nevada.

In Utah, about 80% of the population is made up of Mormons, most of whom don't smoke or drink (or use caffeine). In Nevada next door, the casinos are open 24 hrs a day, serve free booze round the clock, and everybody smokes like a chimney.

We ought to be able to compare the two states, and see how much healthier (if any) the people of Utah are.

[OOC: Of course, it would be pretty hard to isolate the effect of smoking from the effect of booze and late nights just based on these two states.]

It occurred to us that one way to see what effect smoking (and second-hand smoke) has on people's health is to look at the two U.S. states of Utah and Nevada.

In Utah, about 80% of the population is made up of Mormons, most of whom don't smoke or drink (or use caffeine). In Nevada next door, the casinos are open 24 hrs a day, serve free booze round the clock, and everybody smokes like a chimney.

We ought to be able to compare the two states, and see how much healthier (if any) the people of Utah are.

[OOC: Of course, it would be pretty hard to isolate the effect of smoking from the effect of booze and late nights just based on these two states.]

But then, most comparative studies suffer from the same drawback. Smokers DO tend to have different overall lifestyles than nonsmokers.

Well let's just create a special tax for every little thing. Who is to say what is a vice, and how much of a tax should be levied? Who can quantify whether anything is good or evil, who is in a position to judge a cigarette's soul? Let it be priced as God intended, and let us smoke it, uninhibited, as the people desire.

The manipulation of the advertising variety doesn't bother us nearly as much as the manipulation RE: contents of the product. When tobacco companies deliberately manipulate the formula of their product to increase the number of addicted customers, this is criminal behavior. However, we don't support the tax on tobacco idea, as we feel that anyone buying tobacco today is doing so with relatively full disclosure by the manufacturer. Caveat Emptor.

Okay that we could agree on. If the manufacturer explicity promises the customer ingredients different from the actual ingredients, that's fraud.

But if he doesn't say anything or he just says that its "cool" or some qualitative thing like that, he is perfectly within his rights.

Well said - we completely agree

A public smoking ban is good. You still have the right to smoke just in certain places. Sex is not allowed in public and that is far less dangerous to the other people not doing it.
My nation believes if a tax is placed on tobacco, people have to agree that it's not to stop smoking from happening. People will always smoke no matter how expensive is.
A tax on tobacco would be a good source of money for governments, but it will be a drain for poorer people who cigarette advertising is mostly aimed at. The people of the Incorruptibles believe cigarette advertising is the main concern and should be stopped.
We do not always agree that this all boils down to people's choice as advertising and marketing is designed to work on the unconscious as well as the conscious. People do not really have the choice because they are unknowingly brainwashed.

The manipulation of the advertising variety doesn't bother us nearly as much as the manipulation RE: contents of the product. When tobacco companies deliberately manipulate the formula of their product to increase the number of addicted customers, this is criminal behavior. However, we don't support the tax on tobacco idea, as we feel that anyone buying tobacco today is doing so with relatively full disclosure by the manufacturer. Caveat Emptor.

Okay that we could agree on. If the manufacturer explicity promises the customer ingredients different from the actual ingredients, that's fraud.

But if he doesn't say anything or he just says that its "cool" or some qualitative thing like that, he is perfectly within his rights.

Well said - we completely agree

Why should this even be debated? If I want to tax things in my country, then I will. I don't want the UN to force me to put a tax on something.

The way I look at it must be that YOU want to collect all the tax money for your own purposes.

*GASP* You can choose to avoid people who smoke!

So would you support smoking bans in public areas then? If someone's smoking on the street or in a school, you can't avoid them.

Tobacco smoke in a open area? No hysteria here. :roll:

I thought the UN cannot levy taxes

Should check out the World Smoking Ban being levered through the Real U.N. by the American "Nanny-State."

Your tax dollars give special interests a reason to live.

Postmodernism says that good is bad, black is white, words mean nothing, and bears don't shit in the woods. The best way to deal with a postmodernist is to kick his teeth in and then explain to him that his experience of pain is subjective, his lust for revenge is a conditioned social construct, and his right to live is no more valid than your right to hurt him.
If he whines about it, kill him. After all, a person is just an arbitrary mental construct created by society.

Typical liberal viewpoint, "all things are relative.

Why not tax water instead?

:lol: My home State of New Mexico, DOES JUST THAT!

A US town banned smoking for a month and heart-related problems plummeted. Quite clearly, smoking is unhealthy and needs to be excessively taxed so people resist from buying it.

Driving is unhealthy too, so is fast food, so are computer games. Should we abolish all of those things? It's not the role of government to protect a citizen from himself. That's called "tyranny".

TGM, you of all people should be able to come up with better arguments than that. It's like the anti gun control thing "guns kill but so does setting people on fire so if you ban guns you should ban gasoline too". The obvious flaw being that gasoline has a useful purpose other than to burn people. People may be killed as a result of car accidents but that is what happens when things go wrong. Smoking kills. This is not accidental or a result of improper use and it doesn't just kill the smoker.

Gasoline emissions are benign? Lets talk about Car accidents.

This is not protecting the citizens from themselves, it is protecting them from tobacco companies who knowingly sell a product which is addictive and will eventually kill its users. They will target the vunerable and easily manipulated so that by the time they realise their mistake they will be addicted and unable to stop. This is the nature of capitalism and while capitalism remains people must be protected from it.

...and letting the government make a buck on the side. So far all settlements and taxes taken for smoking have gone into every general fund to be slushed. There have been no benefits for the taxed smoker.

Having said that the solution is not necessarily to penalise the user through taxation. Those who smoke already should be helped and tobacco companies should be shut down.

... in which reality?

A US town banned smoking for a month and heart-related problems plummeted. Quite clearly, smoking is unhealthy and needs to be excessively taxed so people resist from buying it.

That's baloney, because heart problems caused by smoking take longer than a month to arise or to improve. But if it was desirable to ban smoking, the way to do it would be (surprise!) to ban it. Taxing it merely guarantees that it will NOT be banned. It's just another G-D- excuse for hosing the working man.

No, it's true. It was all over the papers.

Banning it is ineffective because it opens up the black market. But if you make it legal and expensive, only a few will continue smoking and it becomes too hard for kids to get as well.

must be a town without any KFC's, or fast food places. What did John Ritter die of by the way?

You know, I'm starting to think I really should have introduced this idea as a suggested dilemma rather than as a proposal, but never mind.

What's weird is that something is reducing smoking in the UK - and it could be the tax, and/or it could be the advertising, and/or it could just be one of those gradual social trends that might have happened anyway as fashions change. Where smoking is very much on the rise is outside of the rich countries, in the developing world. That's where all of the big tobacco companies are pushing their product now, largely without government interference - and I don't know how we should best stop them.

Why would you want to stop them?

Why not LET people choose what chemicals they want to put in their body? If they're stupid enough to use tobacco... they can put up with the consequences, they don't need to be mommied around by the State.

Trouble is, it is often often the people around them who have to put up with the consequences as well.

Tobacco should probably be banned outright. It's definitely a health hazard.

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/smoke/ets.html

http://reason.com/ogres.shtml

Tobacco should be taxed heavily - Because smokers infringe upon the rights of others. Passive smoking is a killer.

Tobacco should be taxed heavily - Because smokers infringe upon the rights of others. Passive smoking is a killer.

Secondhand smoke is of little or no danger. Studies have shown no increased health problems even for non-smokers that cohabit with heavy smokers. Smoking in the open is at most an annoyance.

The issue, howver, is not secondhand smoke, in public or otherwise. Taxing tobacco doesn't stop people from smoking and it doesn't have anything to do with where they smoke. The way to prevent involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke is to ban smoking in public areas, especially indoors. Taxing tobacco is just a way of robbing the poor.

hell no, I will attack any nation that attempts this upon me also.

Who needs cigarettes?

"A big fan of the Simpsons has successfully grown tomacco, a cross between tobacco and tomatoes, after watching an episode where Homer Simpson creates the addictive crop. A laboratory has confirmed the leaves indeed contain nicotine and they expect the fruit to have much more."

http://science.slashdot.org/science/03/11/03/2258257.shtml?tid=129&tid=134&tid=188

http://thesimpsons.com/bios/bios_family_homer.html

No taxing tobacco for Sassafroon. If the people of my nation are hurt by another individual's smoking, then they may bring suit against the offender. The government has no right to toy with the economic freedom of the people it governs, but only to mediate between economic differences. A concerned government will address individual complaints without needing to penalize those who are innocent of wrong-doing.

Afgncaap, Adjunct to the Head Clerk of Sassafroon.

No taxing tobacco for Sassafroon. If the people of my nation are hurt by another individual's smoking, then they may bring suit against the offender.

Correct.