S Korean government doubles cigarette prices

[Infected Mushroom]

no they are just selling things that taste good.

But you can got a month without them, you can't go for a month without smokes if you're a smoker.

Nope, those things that taste good.are.very harmful. Thus they are exploting addicts by your.logic.

Oh, and that must be why I have gone three months without them as a smoker. Drop the arrogance. You don't know.anything about addiction, clearly.

have you ever heard of a rehab center for ''McDonald addicts''?

yeah I don't think so. You're over-broadening the ambit of the word ''exploitation'' and ''addiction.''

[Scomagia]

Fast food is. It's horrible for you, and is addictive. So is caffeine, shall we punish coffee shops and soda companies? Best start arresting these dirty people exploring the masses.

no they are just selling things that taste good.

But you can go for a month without them, you can't go for a month without smokes if you're a smoker.

They're selling "dangerous and addictive substances".

[Lunalia]

Pretty sure there are in fact people who cannot go months and months without Starbucks or McDonalds. McDonalds manages to be cheaper than healthy food, cheap enough that some people have no affordable alternatives.

More to the point, it is now almost impossible to find healthy quick to prepare meals that do not contain MSG. Are you going to go after the companies who force people who cannot eat MSG who work so many hours in a day that they don't have time to cook their own dinners from scratch to choose between starving and making themselves violently ill?

On a related note, MSG is actually extremely addictive. That's why they put it in all teh food.

I don't see the connection...

I'm lost

you say that it's not on the same level of exploitation as tobacco, that it isn't as addictive.

But they use highly addictive flavorings to make it taste that good, so yes, it is that addictive.

[Solaray]

You haven't shown this "exploitation" to be wrong.

so you're ok with exploitation?

As someone who occasionally purchases tobacco products, I don't feel exploited in the slightest.

[Scomagia]

Nope, those things that taste good.are.very harmful. Thus they are exploting addicts by your.logic.

Oh, and that must be why I have gone three months without them as a smoker. Drop the arrogance. You don't know.anything about addiction, clearly.

have you ever heard of a rehab center for ''McDonald addicts''?

yeah I don't think so. You're over-broadening the ambit of the word ''exploitation'' and ''addiction.''

No, you're just moving the goal-posts to where it's convenient for you. Learn to debate Kefka.

[Infected Mushroom]

I don't see the connection...

I'm lost

you say that it's not on the same level of exploitation as tobacco, that it isn't as addictive.

But they use highly addictive flavorings to make it taste that good, so yes, it is that addictive.

and yet people can go for a few months without those specific things. They wouldn't start shaking, being irritable, and roll around on the floor...

Not so with tobacco. If you're a smoker, they've got you.

[Scomagia]

you say that it's not on the same level of exploitation as tobacco, that it isn't as addictive.

But they use highly addictive flavorings to make it taste that good, so yes, it is that addictive.

and yet people can go for a few months without those specific things. They wouldn't start shaking, being irritable, and roll around on the floor...

Not so with tobacco. If you're a smoker, they've got you.

Smokers don't roll around on the floor either. Smokers can and will go months without smoking.

[Atlanticatia]

I'm always iffy on cigarette taxes.

I like them because they raise the price of cigarettes and discourage smoking, and I dislike them because they burden the poor.

But, I think that in the long run, raising the price and tax on cigarettes will be beneficial as it greatly reduces the smoking rate (along with things like plain packaging, of course) and raises taxes for things like health, education etc. for example, I believe the Obama administration raised the federal tobacco tax by a large amount - to fund the Children's Health Insurance Program, for low-income kids to get health insurance. If the revenues are used productively, then I support it. Ensuring more kids can access health insurance is a fair way of spending the revenues.
So tobacco taxes are fine by me, but they need to be accompanied by things like plain packaging and warning labels, and the revenues should go to thing that help the less well off, like welfare/health/education.

Also, I think that regulating and taxing things is a far better alternative than banning harmful things. People should have the right to smoke if they want, but regulation and taxation can ensure people aren't encouraged to do it.
This is plain packaging, btw. It seems to work.

[Lunalia]

you say that it's not on the same level of exploitation as tobacco, that it isn't as addictive.

But they use highly addictive flavorings to make it taste that good, so yes, it is that addictive.

and yet people can go for a few months without those specific things. They wouldn't start shaking, being irritable, and roll around on the floor...

Not so with tobacco. If you're a smoker, they've got you.

Pretty sure if you drink Starbucks every day for a few months then try to quit you will go through severe caffeine withdrawal. Substituting tea or caffeinated soda doesn't count.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

you say that it's not on the same level of exploitation as tobacco, that it isn't as addictive.

But they use highly addictive flavorings to make it taste that good, so yes, it is that addictive.

and yet people can go for a few months without those specific things. They wouldn't start shaking, being irritable, and roll around on the floor...

Not so with tobacco. If you're a smoker, they've got you.

Wow...you really have no clue what in the hell you are talking about do you? It is actually quite amusing.

[Infected Mushroom]

and yet people can go for a few months without those specific things. They wouldn't start shaking, being irritable, and roll around on the floor...

Not so with tobacco. If you're a smoker, they've got you.

Smokers don't roll around on the floor either. Smokers can and will go months without smoking.

I have definitely never seen that. Every remotely addicted smoker I've ever met has needed to smoke once every day without exception.

I once did some studying with another student who was a smoker. LITERALLY he had to smoke every hour.

Now there could be exceptions to the rules, but the majority of them... I'm fairly sure they can't regularly just decide not to smoke for months. And I'm being over-generous with the month as a unit...

[Scomagia]

Smokers don't roll around on the floor either. Smokers can and will go months without smoking.

I have definitely never seen that. Every remotely addicted smoker I've ever met has needed to smoke once every day without exception.

I once did some studying with another student who was a smoker. LITERALLY he had to smoke every hour.

Now there could be exceptions to the rules, but the majority of them... I'm fairly sure they can't regularly just decide not to smoke for months. And I'm being over-generous with the month as a unit...

Anecdotes are worthless Kefka. Learn to debate.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Smokers don't roll around on the floor either. Smokers can and will go months without smoking.

I have definitely never seen that. Every remotely addicted smoker I've ever met has needed to smoke once every day without exception.

I once did some studying with another student who was a smoker. LITERALLY he had to smoke every hour.

Now there could be exceptions to the rules, but the majority of them... I'm fairly sure they can't regularly just decide not to smoke for months. And I'm being over-generous with the month as a unit...

Oh, so your narrow experience and minute sample now means you are now an expert on nicotine addiction.

[Scomagia]

and yet people can go for a few months without those specific things. They wouldn't start shaking, being irritable, and roll around on the floor...

Not so with tobacco. If you're a smoker, they've got you.

Wow...you really have no clue what in the hell you are talking about do you? It is actually quite amusing.

Like watching a Dachshund try to do a back-flip.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

I have definitely never seen that. Every remotely addicted smoker I've ever met has needed to smoke once every day without exception.

I once did some studying with another student who was a smoker. LITERALLY he had to smoke every hour.

Now there could be exceptions to the rules, but the majority of them... I'm fairly sure they can't regularly just decide not to smoke for months. And I'm being over-generous with the month as a unit...

Anecdotes are worthless Kefka. Learn to debate.

*Sigh* Maybe some day.

[Infected Mushroom]

I have definitely never seen that. Every remotely addicted smoker I've ever met has needed to smoke once every day without exception.

I once did some studying with another student who was a smoker. LITERALLY he had to smoke every hour.

Now there could be exceptions to the rules, but the majority of them... I'm fairly sure they can't regularly just decide not to smoke for months. And I'm being over-generous with the month as a unit...

Oh, so your narrow experience and minute sample now means you are now an expert on nicotine addiction.

if you've seen enough of something, you do acquire at least some expertise.

[Scomagia]

Oh, so your narrow experience and minute sample now means you are now an expert on nicotine addiction.

if you've seen enough of something, you do acquire at least some expertise.

Not how it works, son.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Oh, so your narrow experience and minute sample now means you are now an expert on nicotine addiction.

if you've seen enough of something, you do acquire at least some expertise.

No. Not in the slightest. Especially in your case.

[Solaray]

Smokers don't roll around on the floor either. Smokers can and will go months without smoking.

I have definitely never seen that. Every remotely addicted smoker I've ever met has needed to smoke once every day without exception.

I once did some studying with another student who was a smoker. LITERALLY he had to smoke every hour.

Now there could be exceptions to the rules, but the majority of them... I'm fairly sure they can't regularly just decide not to smoke for months. And I'm being over-generous with the month as a unit...

I know plenty of people who only use a pack every few days. And don't even get me started on the people that only smoke socially.

Anectodes go both ways.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

I have definitely never seen that. Every remotely addicted smoker I've ever met has needed to smoke once every day without exception.

I once did some studying with another student who was a smoker. LITERALLY he had to smoke every hour.

Now there could be exceptions to the rules, but the majority of them... I'm fairly sure they can't regularly just decide not to smoke for months. And I'm being over-generous with the month as a unit...

I know plenty of people who only use a pack every few days. And don't even get me started on the people that only smoke socially.

Anectodes go both ways.

But you see, he has studied one smoker, so that clearly means there is no such thing as light or social smokers. He is the one with the expertise here.

[Scomagia]

I know plenty of people who only use a pack every few days. And don't even get me started on the people that only smoke socially.

Anectodes go both ways.

But you see, he has studied one smoker, so that clearly means there is no such thing as light or social smokers. He is the one with the expertise here.

Clearly we should all bow before Kefka's completely unfounded, logically unsupported, historically foolish ideas.

[Solaray]

I'm always iffy on cigarette taxes.

I like them because they raise the price of cigarettes and discourage smoking, and I dislike them because they burden the poor.

But, I think that in the long run, raising the price and tax on cigarettes will be beneficial as it greatly reduces the smoking rate (along with things like plain packaging, of course) and raises taxes for things like health, education etc. for example, I believe the Obama administration raised the federal tobacco tax by a large amount - to fund the Children's Health Insurance Program, for low-income kids to get health insurance. If the revenues are used productively, then I support it. Ensuring more kids can access health insurance is a fair way of spending the revenues.
So tobacco taxes are fine by me, but they need to be accompanied by things like plain packaging and warning labels, and the revenues should go to thing that help the less well off, like welfare/health/education.

Also, I think that regulating and taxing things is a far better alternative than banning harmful things. People should have the right to smoke if they want, but regulation and taxation can ensure people aren't encouraged to do it.
This is plain packaging, btw. It seems to work.

If people are actually discouraged from smoking by plain packaging they must not have wanted to smoke much in the first place.

[Atlanticatia]

I'm always iffy on cigarette taxes.

I like them because they raise the price of cigarettes and discourage smoking, and I dislike them because they burden the poor.

But, I think that in the long run, raising the price and tax on cigarettes will be beneficial as it greatly reduces the smoking rate (along with things like plain packaging, of course) and raises taxes for things like health, education etc. for example, I believe the Obama administration raised the federal tobacco tax by a large amount - to fund the Children's Health Insurance Program, for low-income kids to get health insurance. If the revenues are used productively, then I support it. Ensuring more kids can access health insurance is a fair way of spending the revenues.
So tobacco taxes are fine by me, but they need to be accompanied by things like plain packaging and warning labels, and the revenues should go to thing that help the less well off, like welfare/health/education.

Also, I think that regulating and taxing things is a far better alternative than banning harmful things. People should have the right to smoke if they want, but regulation and taxation can ensure people aren't encouraged to do it.
This is plain packaging, btw. It seems to work.

If people are actually discouraged from smoking by plain packaging they must not have wanted to smoke much in the first place.

Plain packaging more discourages people from starting to smoke, since people who already smoke won't really care. But then, the increased price will encourage smokers to quit smoking, since they won't be able to afford it as easily.

[Solaray]

If people are actually discouraged from smoking by plain packaging they must not have wanted to smoke much in the first place.

Plain packaging more discourages people from starting to smoke, since people who already smoke won't really care. But then, the increased price will encourage smokers to quit smoking, since they won't be able to afford it as easily.

To a degree, raised prices are alright, but raising them a lot just seems like a dick move. Smoking is enjoyable, to an extent, and raising the prices too much just pisses people off. They're already pretty expensive here, average price is around 15 bucks Canadian.

[Kampfenland]

Jesus Christ. If I could get a pack for that price, I'd be one happy ashtray.

Honestly, the measure isn't going to accomplish a whole lot. The rate of smokers will decrease temporarily, but given the addictive nature of tobacco, it will increase to it's original rate within a year or two, as prices become normal and people's budgets adjust to the hike in prices.