S Korean government doubles cigarette prices

[Infected Mushroom]

Most of them will get caught at some point.

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

[Lunalia]

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.

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.

[Vistulange]

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

It's not what matters, because it is fucking uneffective.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

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

No It isn't. You would be wasting.billions of our tax Dollars on a nonsensical doomed to fail project. It would never pass.

[Chestaan]

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.

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.

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

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.

[Scomagia]

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

Morally right according to whom?

[Vistulange]

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.

You have no evidence to prove that prohibition prevents the usage of said material.

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

No that's the one way to make sure Tobacco will NEVER be eliminated. You're recognizing defeat before even fighting the necessary battles.

[Lunalia]

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.

It's still ridiculously hard to outright ban something when a large percentage of the population sees it as okay.

Better the government gets money to spend to help the people that cigarettes hurt, than the people who sell the cigarettes.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

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.

People are up in arms over the NSA and you want.to put hidden cameras every where and in every home to prevent smoking? You do have delusions.

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

I will never have that evidence if all world governments continue to choose to cooperate with Tobacco corporations instead of rightfully declaring them criminals.

[Scomagia]

You have no evidence to prove that prohibition prevents the usage of said material.

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."

[Infected Mushroom]

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

Morally right according to whom?

according to the conscience of the reasonable person.

Tell me, would you sleep peacefully through the night if you sold some addictive tobacco to a bunch of unwitting teenagers or desperate addicts?

I sure hope not.

[Scomagia]

Morally right according to whom?

according to the conscience of the reasonable person.

Tell me, would you sleep peacefully through the night if you sold some addictive tobacco to a bunch of unwitting teenagers or desperate addicts?

I sure hope not.

I'd sleep like a fucking baby.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

according to the conscience of the reasonable person.

Tell me, would you sleep peacefully through the night if you sold some addictive tobacco to a bunch of unwitting teenagers or desperate addicts?

I sure hope not.

I'd sleep like a fucking baby.

Yep.

[Infected Mushroom]

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."

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.

[Scomagia]

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.

You keep saying that it's morally right without arguing how it's morally right. Typical.

[Solaray]

That's dirt cheap. Darts are like 15 bucks a pack around here.

[Lunalia]

You have no evidence to prove that prohibition prevents the usage of said material.

I will never have that evidence if all world governments continue to choose to cooperate with Tobacco corporations instead of rightfully declaring them criminals.

They aren't cooperating with them. They're just approaching the problem in a way that will actually encourage people to stop using tobacco products, rather than making people want to grow tobacco in their apartments like marijuana.

Every time the price of cigarettes goes up because of a new tax, cigarette consumption goes down. As long as this continues, eventually cigarette consumption will decrease to zero. Additionally, encouraging a gradual reduction would also possibly help with withdrawal symptoms... if someone who could afford a pack of cigarettes a day suddenly can only afford a pack every two days, then a pack every three, that will gradually cut down their consumption, similar to what nicotine patches do now anyway.

[Chestaan]

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.

Defeat? No, I just live in the real world.

Drugs don't just go away because they're illegal. If that was the case heroin, cocaine, LSD, marijuana etc would no longer exist.

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

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?

[Transoxthraxia]

Good.

[Threlizdun]

Raising the prices of addictive substances has a profound effect on poor addicts, often causing them to spend even more money on the product when they truly cannot afford to do so and, if the case is severe enough, allowing black market trading of the substances to arise. Smoking is a terrible practice that certainly ought to be combated, but this tactic only makes the problem worse.

[Scomagia]

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?

Show how it's wrong.