the government is doing the morally right thing.
they are arresting unscrupulous profiteers instead of becoming one themselves through tax collection.
that's what matters
Advertisement
by Infected Mushroom » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:25 pm
by Lunalia » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:28 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Chestaan wrote:
There's nothing immoral about enacting a practical policy to achieve a social good. What is actually immoral would be to ban tobacco when better results would be achieved by taxation.
the results are not better, they are allowing a class of unscrupulous profiteering tobacco salespeople to make millions in the open without fear of legal sanction.
Kids are going to grow up thinking its ok to become a tobacco salesperson, make millions of dollars in the open while driving fancy cars and exploiting the poor and other addicts. It facilitates moral decay and exploitation. And the government gets a piece of it.
No wonder people are losing their faith in elected officials.
by Vistulange » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:28 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Chestaan wrote:
Meanwhile they're still selling their destructive product to the masses. You see the problem?
the government is doing the morally right thing.
they are arresting unscrupulous profiteers instead of becoming one themselves through tax collection.
that's what matters
by Bezkoshtovnya » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:29 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Chestaan wrote:
Meanwhile they're still selling their destructive product to the masses. You see the problem?
the government is doing the morally right thing.
they are arresting unscrupulous profiteers instead of becoming one themselves through tax collection.
that's what matters
Dante Alighieri wrote:There is no greater sorrow than to recall happiness in times of misery
Charlie Chaplin wrote:Nothing is permanent in this wicked world, not even our troubles.
by Chestaan » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:29 pm
by Infected Mushroom » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:31 pm
Lunalia wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
the results are not better, they are allowing a class of unscrupulous profiteering tobacco salespeople to make millions in the open without fear of legal sanction.
Kids are going to grow up thinking its ok to become a tobacco salesperson, make millions of dollars in the open while driving fancy cars and exploiting the poor and other addicts. It facilitates moral decay and exploitation. And the government gets a piece of it.
No wonder people are losing their faith in elected officials.
When the United States tried to ban alcohol, the ban didn't result in fewer people drinking. Instead, alcohol consumption was so prevalent that it simply moved to the black market, and everyone, including the police, knew, but the police did nothing to stop the bootleggers.
Increasing the cost of a good, on the other hand, causes the law of supply and demand to kick in. People who are unwilling to quit when cigarettes are extremely cheap might consider cutting back or stopping when cigarettes cost more. And why shouldn't the government make money from the tax? It gives them money to spend helping people who are hurt by the second hand smoke caused by the smokers, and better the government gets money than the people who make money selling cigarettes.
by Scomagia » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:32 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Chestaan wrote:
Meanwhile they're still selling their destructive product to the masses. You see the problem?
the government is doing the morally right thing.
they are arresting unscrupulous profiteers instead of becoming one themselves through tax collection.
that's what matters
by Vistulange » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:32 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Lunalia wrote:When the United States tried to ban alcohol, the ban didn't result in fewer people drinking. Instead, alcohol consumption was so prevalent that it simply moved to the black market, and everyone, including the police, knew, but the police did nothing to stop the bootleggers.
Increasing the cost of a good, on the other hand, causes the law of supply and demand to kick in. People who are unwilling to quit when cigarettes are extremely cheap might consider cutting back or stopping when cigarettes cost more. And why shouldn't the government make money from the tax? It gives them money to spend helping people who are hurt by the second hand smoke caused by the smokers, and better the government gets money than the people who make money selling cigarettes.
if the activity is Wrong, then the government should not be profiting from it. I'm sure you'd have a problem too if the government started making tax money directly from fraud or environmental pollution for example.
Also, the Prohibition was in the 30s. We have better police tactics, (and especially) more technology, and better resources to implement a good ban now.
They didn't even have hidden security cameras back then.
by Infected Mushroom » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:32 pm
Chestaan wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
the government is doing the morally right thing.
they are arresting unscrupulous profiteers instead of becoming one themselves through tax collection.
No, the morally right thing to do is limit the damage caused by tobacco as effectively as possible. It just so happens that the best method is taxation.
by Lunalia » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:33 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Lunalia wrote:When the United States tried to ban alcohol, the ban didn't result in fewer people drinking. Instead, alcohol consumption was so prevalent that it simply moved to the black market, and everyone, including the police, knew, but the police did nothing to stop the bootleggers.
Increasing the cost of a good, on the other hand, causes the law of supply and demand to kick in. People who are unwilling to quit when cigarettes are extremely cheap might consider cutting back or stopping when cigarettes cost more. And why shouldn't the government make money from the tax? It gives them money to spend helping people who are hurt by the second hand smoke caused by the smokers, and better the government gets money than the people who make money selling cigarettes.
if the activity is Wrong, then the government should not be profiting from it. I'm sure you'd have a problem too if the government started making tax money directly from fraud or environmental pollution for example.
Also, the Prohibition was in the 30s. We have better police tactics, (and especially) more technology, and better resources to implement a good ban now.
They didn't even have hidden security cameras back then.
by Bezkoshtovnya » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:33 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Lunalia wrote:When the United States tried to ban alcohol, the ban didn't result in fewer people drinking. Instead, alcohol consumption was so prevalent that it simply moved to the black market, and everyone, including the police, knew, but the police did nothing to stop the bootleggers.
Increasing the cost of a good, on the other hand, causes the law of supply and demand to kick in. People who are unwilling to quit when cigarettes are extremely cheap might consider cutting back or stopping when cigarettes cost more. And why shouldn't the government make money from the tax? It gives them money to spend helping people who are hurt by the second hand smoke caused by the smokers, and better the government gets money than the people who make money selling cigarettes.
if the activity is Wrong, then the government should not be profiting from it. I'm sure you'd have a problem too if the government started making tax money directly from fraud or environmental pollution for example.
Also, the Prohibition was in the 30s. We have better police tactics, (and especially) more technology, and better resources to implement a good ban now.
They didn't even have hidden security cameras back then.
Dante Alighieri wrote:There is no greater sorrow than to recall happiness in times of misery
Charlie Chaplin wrote:Nothing is permanent in this wicked world, not even our troubles.
by Infected Mushroom » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:33 pm
Vistulange wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
if the activity is Wrong, then the government should not be profiting from it. I'm sure you'd have a problem too if the government started making tax money directly from fraud or environmental pollution for example.
Also, the Prohibition was in the 30s. We have better police tactics, (and especially) more technology, and better resources to implement a good ban now.
They didn't even have hidden security cameras back then.
You have no evidence to prove that prohibition prevents the usage of said material.
by Infected Mushroom » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:35 pm
by Bezkoshtovnya » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:36 pm
Dante Alighieri wrote:There is no greater sorrow than to recall happiness in times of misery
Charlie Chaplin wrote:Nothing is permanent in this wicked world, not even our troubles.
by Infected Mushroom » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:37 pm
Scomagia wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
I will never have that evidence if all world governments continue to choose to cooperate with Tobacco corporations instead of rightfully declaring them criminals.
So your argument is "The only way to prove it will work is to do it, never-mind the evidence that this plan is totally batshit."
by Scomagia » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:37 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Scomagia wrote:So your argument is "The only way to prove it will work is to do it, never-mind the evidence that this plan is totally batshit."
its about doing and trying to do the morally right thing.
Mankind has always achieved great things despite seemingly insurmountable limitations. We've launched people into space, we've erected entire cities from nothing and some day we will cure cancer. We can get rid of tobacco if we really put our mind to it.
by Lunalia » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:38 pm
by Chestaan » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:39 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Chestaan wrote:
No, the morally right thing to do is limit the damage caused by tobacco as effectively as possible. It just so happens that the best method is taxation.
No that's the one way to make sure Tobacco will NEVER be eliminated. You're recognizing defeat before even fighting the necessary battles.
by Infected Mushroom » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:39 pm
Scomagia wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
its about doing and trying to do the morally right thing.
Mankind has always achieved great things despite seemingly insurmountable limitations. We've launched people into space, we've erected entire cities from nothing and some day we will cure cancer. We can get rid of tobacco if we really put our mind to it.
You keep saying that it's morally right without arguing how it's morally right. Typical.
by Transoxthraxia » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:39 pm
The Nuclear Fist wrote:Transoxthraxia confirmed for shit taste
by Threlizdun » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:39 pm
by Scomagia » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:40 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Scomagia wrote:You keep saying that it's morally right without arguing how it's morally right. Typical.
cause exploiting addicts and making a profit off that stuff is wrong.
And if the government is in some way condoning it or profiting from it, it shares in the wrong. This in turn undermines their credibility and makes them seem hypocritical when they ''condemn'' tobacco. How can you ''condemn'' something you yourself are taking part in and making big bucks off of?
see what I mean?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cavirfi, East Leaf Republic, Ineva, Shrillland, Singaporen Empire, Uiiop
Advertisement