User Controls
Cigarettes are a stupid tax, so stupid people pay money to kill themselves
-
2018-07-12 at 7:53 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra why? everyone should have the right to partake in self-destructive behaviour as long as they're informed about the consequences
They still have the right to do so.
It's just taxed to offset the externalities of that choice, and to disincentivize it. Cigarettes aren't just harmful to the end user, there is an entire supply chain to address.
Of course that only makes sense to a certain point, otherwise you just create untaxed black markets. -
2018-07-12 at 8:03 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra why? everyone should have the right to partake in self-destructive behaviour as long as they're informed about the consequences
Should they though? A working dad in a traditional family where he is the sole breadwinner engages in self-destructive vices/behaviors and dies. He was informed this was possible. His entire family is ruined as a result, of course, but it's fine because he should have the right to be self-destructive. Right? A person dying effects more than that person. -
2018-07-12 at 8:53 AM UTCPeople who are so fucking stupid that they smoke sticks made out of cancer particles should die in the first place; everytime I see one I slap their smokes out of their hand and burn em on the floor beneath them.
-
2018-07-12 at 8:54 AM UTCThat was a quote by Falco
-
2018-07-12 at 9:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by HTS Should they though? A working dad in a traditional family where he is the sole breadwinner engages in self-destructive vices/behaviors and dies. He was informed this was possible. His entire family is ruined as a result, of course, but it's fine because he should have the right to be self-destructive. Right? A person dying effects more than that person.
then it's his family's job to change his behaviour, not the state's. -
2018-07-12 at 10:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra then it's his family's job to change his behaviour, not the state's.
Why is it his family's "job" and not the state's? Whybare you drawing the line there?
Surely if your priority is personal liberty, you should have the right do whatever you want, irrespective of other people's wants, no?
Them trying to change his behaviour is basically emotional abuse, too: he wants to do something, they want him to not do it for selfish reasons. -
2018-07-12 at 10:32 AM UTCits a double edged sword for the government. on the one hand they probably have a lot of shareholders in various tobacco corporations and on the other hand they need to save face in front of the public. its a good thing nicotine is as addictive as it is, right
-
2018-07-12 at 6:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS Should they though? A working dad in a traditional family where he is the sole breadwinner engages in self-destructive vices/behaviors and dies. He was informed this was possible. His entire family is ruined as a result, of course, but it's fine because he should have the right to be self-destructive. Right? A person dying effects more than that person.
but taxing cigarettes more or to the extremes wont solve this problem.
fixing the problems you mentioned is really simple :
MANDATORY SMOKERS INSURANCE.
for every packs / dose of smokeables sold there will be an X% that goes into this smokers insurance. tobacco companies should be made to contribute some percentage of their profit into this insurance as well.
and if and when shits happen, this insurance will be used to prevent a smokers family from ruinages.
yeass, smoking, like driving, riding or even flying can be a dangerous activity, but we shouldnt let these dangers prevent us from pursuing our happiness.
mandatory smokers insurance takes care of that. -
2018-07-12 at 6:29 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS Should they though? A working dad in a traditional family where he is the sole breadwinner engages in self-destructive vices/behaviors and dies. He was informed this was possible. His entire family is ruined as a result, of course, but it's fine because he should have the right to be self-destructive. Right? A person dying effects more than that person.
besides ...
you have to ask yourself what kind of family member are you if you cant even respect dads decision to have some happiness while hes still alive and able.
what kind of family menber are you ??? -
2018-07-12 at 6:31 PM UTCOld people smoke. when I see young people doing it.. I just shake my head like "What part of lung disease didn't you get"
of course I mean cigs and not weed.
pipe puffers may not suffer from the same lung problems unless it's aids related. -
2018-07-12 at 6:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Why is it his family's "job" and not the state's? Whybare you drawing the line there?
Surely if your priority is personal liberty, you should have the right do whatever you want, irrespective of other people's wants, no?
Them trying to change his behaviour is basically emotional abuse, too: he wants to do something, they want him to not do it for selfish reasons.
It's not the state's place to enforce behavioural change outside of deterring criminal activity; giving the state the power to control what choices people make within the confines of the law encourages corruption and collusion.
If you have a family member or a friend who is making completely legal choices that you don't approve of, you can attempt to convince them to change their ways but appealing to a higher power to force or manipulate them to is both immoral and short-sighted -
2018-07-12 at 6:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra It's not the state's place to enforce behavioural change outside of deterring criminal activity; giving the state the power to control what choices people make within the confines of the law encourages corruption and collusion.
If you have a family member or a friend who is making completely legal choices that you don't approve of, you can attempt to convince them to change their ways but appealing to a higher power to force or manipulate them to is both immoral and short-sighted
this is how second hand smoke was invented to make smoking in public a crime.
the real crime is being inside a small apartment with your mom smoking and you're still in developmental age and can't leave her site.
why is that legal but having an option of "Do I want to go into a smoking restaurant or not"
I support smokers rights.. I just think it's a shitty drug. and also, don't allow smoking on public streets unless there is a 20 foot clearance from other people. a smoke zone or smokers park to sit in away from children.
including weed. -
2018-07-12 at 6:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra It's not the state's place to enforce behavioural change outside of deterring criminal activity; giving the state the power to control what choices people make within the confines of the law encourages corruption and collusion.
If you have a family member or a friend who is making completely legal choices that you don't approve of, you can attempt to convince them to change their ways but appealing to a higher power to force or manipulate them to is both immoral and short-sighted
You're avoiding the question. Why is it his family's job? -
2018-07-12 at 6:47 PM UTCIf his family believes that his behaviour is detrimental to them, it's up to them to try to change it
do you think I meant it was their responsibility to do so or something -
2018-07-12 at 6:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by S6x this is how second hand smoke was invented to make smoking in public a crime.
the real crime is being inside a small apartment with your mom smoking and you're still in developmental age and can't leave her site.
why is that legal but having an option of "Do I want to go into a smoking restaurant or not"
I support smokers rights.. I just think it's a shitty drug. and also, don't allow smoking on public streets unless there is a 20 foot clearance from other people. a smoke zone or smokers park to sit in away from children.
including weed.
childrens should also be allowed to smoke.
theres no reason to not let them smoke. -
2018-07-12 at 6:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra If his family believes that his behaviour is detrimental to them, it's up to them to try to change it
Ok, so why is it wrong for them to enlist the help of the state in this endeavour? Seems almost like a crime of consequence being committed against the family, no?do you think I meant it was their responsibility to do so or something
No. -
2018-07-12 at 6:58 PM UTCLet's reframe:
Someone takes out as many loans as they can, blow it all in Atlantic City and kills himself. His estate has nothing left for his lenders to take.
Should he have the right to do this? -
2018-07-12 at 6:59 PM UTC
-
2018-07-12 at 7:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Let's reframe:
Someone takes out as many loans as they can, blow it all in Atlantic City and kills himself. His estate has nothing left for his lenders to take.
Should he have the right to do this?
if he intended to do so, it would probably be a crime. personal loans however are exempt from this rule.. which is why it's really effen hard to get one. your assets have to be higher than the demand. like a 70-30 ratio or some shit. ask Lanny the lender.
thanks to people who do this kind of shit, I can't get consolidated with my fucked up FICA
which goes back to the old addage "if I had money as colladeral, why the fuck would I borrow it from you evil assholes" -
2018-07-12 at 7:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Let's reframe:
Someone takes out as many loans as they can, blow it all in Atlantic City and kills himself. His estate has nothing left for his lenders to take.
Should he have the right to do this?
yeas.
becos obviously he was a bad debt and all those who gave him debt ought to be punished.
had you learnt nothing from the subprime crisis ???
