NationStates

Chestaan wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
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.

of course they won't go away overnight.

But they'll NEVER go away if you concede right away.

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?

Because the government isn't profiting from it. They're taking the money from the tax, and using that money to further programs to discourage smoking. Profiting would imply that the money from the tax isn't being used to help spread awareness that smoking is unhealthy. Instead it's a tax designed to discourage smoking, which will provide money to further help discourage smoking.

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.

Governments do profit from pollution... Ever hear of carbon taxes? And guess what? I'm glad that the government regulates pollution in such a way, as it is effective at reducing the problem.

If they double it again a few times it will nearly be as expensive as Norway.

Scomagia wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
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.

well... since you don't think there's anything wrong with selling addictive substances to teenagers and other vulnerable people (by your own admission earlier), I don't think I'm going to be able to get my point across to you.

Chestaan 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.

Governments do profit from pollution... Ever hear of carbon taxes? And guess what? I'm glad that the government regulates pollution in such a way, as it is effective at reducing the problem.

But making.money is evil!

Good. hopefully this'll help smoking rates drop a bit.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Chestaan wrote:
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.

of course they won't go away overnight.

But they'll NEVER go away if you concede right away.

Overnight? Fucking hell heroin has been illegal since 1923, that's almost 100 years! And it's more prevalent than ever. How long do we have to go through prohibition to prove that it won't succeed in eliminating the problem?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Scomagia wrote:Show how it's wrong.

well... since you don't think there's anything wrong with selling addictive substances to teenagers and other vulnerable people (by your own admission earlier), I don't think I'm going to be able to get my point across to you.

I said consenting adults. Stop being dishonest.

Anyway, in other words you can't logically argue your point. I figured.

Lunalia wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
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?

Because the government isn't profiting from it. They're taking the money from the tax, and using that money to further programs to discourage smoking. Profiting would imply that the money from the tax isn't being used to help spread awareness that smoking is unhealthy. Instead it's a tax designed to discourage smoking, which will provide money to further help discourage smoking.

The tax money they get from tobacco is either 1) going into their own pockets behind closed doors... or 2) going to fund social programs which will earn them talking points for future elections and personal advancement.

Hence, individual government members do benefit from their alliance with Big Tobacco. Its also dangerous because individual politicians could be in their pocket...

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Lunalia wrote:Because the government isn't profiting from it. They're taking the money from the tax, and using that money to further programs to discourage smoking. Profiting would imply that the money from the tax isn't being used to help spread awareness that smoking is unhealthy. Instead it's a tax designed to discourage smoking, which will provide money to further help discourage smoking.

The tax money they get from tobacco is either 1) going into their own pockets behind closed doors... or 2) going to fund social programs which will earn them talking points for future elections and personal advancement.

Hence, individual government members do benefit from their alliance with Big Tobacco. Its also dangerous because individual politicians could be in their pocket...

Proof of this rampant amount of misused funds and corruption, and.it being.tied.to tobacco?

Scomagia wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
well... since you don't think there's anything wrong with selling addictive substances to teenagers and other vulnerable people (by your own admission earlier), I don't think I'm going to be able to get my point across to you.

I said consenting adults. Stop being dishonest.

Oh really?

Scomagia wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
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.

Scomagia wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
well... since you don't think there's anything wrong with selling addictive substances to teenagers and other vulnerable people (by your own admission earlier), I don't think I'm going to be able to get my point across to you.

I said consenting adults. Stop being dishonest.

Anyway, in other words you can't logically argue your point. I figured.

Has it ever not been the case?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Scomagia wrote:I said consenting adults. Stop being dishonest.

Oh really?

Scomagia wrote:I'd sleep like a fucking baby.

18 is a teenager and that is the age to.purchase tobacco. What's your point.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Scomagia wrote:Show how it's wrong.

well... since you don't think there's anything wrong with selling addictive substances to teenagers and other vulnerable people (by your own admission earlier), I don't think I'm going to be able to get my point across to you.

It's not that we don't think that there's anything wrong.

It's that when you look at substances which are banned, you see that abuse of banned substances is still highly prevalent. Obviously banning these substances didn't eliminate their use, and in fact, use of these substances is on the rise, it's not falling, even though more money's being poured into enforcing the ban.

So obviously pouring in money to enforce banning unhealthy substances isn't going to work.

So instead, the government is trying a different tactic. Instead of outright banning (which also seems to discourage people from seeking help with their addictions, because in order to seek help for an addiction to an illegal substance first requires admitting that you were involved in said illegal substance), the government's increasing the price. Laws of economics say that when price goes up, even if supply does not change, demand falls. What, would you rather the government not set a tax but instead fix the price of cigarettes so that the cigarette manufacturers themselves benefit from the increased prices? This way the government gets money for its campaign to raise awareness of how unhealthy cigarettes are, and people who just plain don't have the money for cigarettes won't be able to buy cigarettes.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Lunalia wrote:Because the government isn't profiting from it. They're taking the money from the tax, and using that money to further programs to discourage smoking. Profiting would imply that the money from the tax isn't being used to help spread awareness that smoking is unhealthy. Instead it's a tax designed to discourage smoking, which will provide money to further help discourage smoking.

The tax money they get from tobacco is either 1) going into their own pockets behind closed doors... or 2) going to fund social programs which will earn them talking points for future elections and personal advancement.

Hence, individual government members do benefit from their alliance with Big Tobacco. Its also dangerous because individual politicians could be in their pocket...

We all benefit from taxes on tobacco. They're used to fund health services as tobacco users tend to be more likely than non-tobacco users all other things being equal, to use these health services.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Scomagia wrote:I said consenting adults. Stop being dishonest.

Oh really?

Scomagia wrote:I'd sleep like a fucking baby.

18 is a teenager. Nice try though, Kefka.

Bezkoshtovnya wrote:

Scomagia wrote:I said consenting adults. Stop being dishonest.

Anyway, in other words you can't logically argue your point. I figured.

Has it ever not been the case?

I guess not.

Chestaan wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
The tax money they get from tobacco is either 1) going into their own pockets behind closed doors... or 2) going to fund social programs which will earn them talking points for future elections and personal advancement.

Hence, individual government members do benefit from their alliance with Big Tobacco. Its also dangerous because individual politicians could be in their pocket...

We all benefit from taxes on tobacco. They're used to fund health services as tobacco users tend to be more likely than non-tobacco users all other things being equal, to use these health services.

and we shouldn't.

We should find alternative ways of getting that money, because its not earned in a moral way. Its being collected from profits that come from selling addictive and destructive tobacco to the vulnerable masses...

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Chestaan wrote:
We all benefit from taxes on tobacco. They're used to fund health services as tobacco users tend to be more likely than non-tobacco users all other things being equal, to use these health services.

and we shouldn't.

We should find alternative ways of getting that money, because its not earned in a moral way. Its being collected from profits that come from selling addictive and destructive tobacco to the vulnerable masses...

And you've still yet to demonstrate why we shouldn't profit and how it isn't moral.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Chestaan wrote:
We all benefit from taxes on tobacco. They're used to fund health services as tobacco users tend to be more likely than non-tobacco users all other things being equal, to use these health services.

and we shouldn't.

We should find alternative ways of getting that money, because its not earned in a moral way. Its being collected from profits that come from selling addictive and destructive tobacco to the vulnerable masses...

Yeah, but the negatives are being paid for by the tax, so what's the issue?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Chestaan wrote:
We all benefit from taxes on tobacco. They're used to fund health services as tobacco users tend to be more likely than non-tobacco users all other things being equal, to use these health services.

and we shouldn't.

We should find alternative ways of getting that money, because its not earned in a moral way. Its being collected from profits that come from selling addictive and destructive tobacco to the vulnerable masses...

Until you can prove why regulated.tobacco sale is immoral I advise you stop repeating that it is.

Scomagia wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
and we shouldn't.

We should find alternative ways of getting that money, because its not earned in a moral way. Its being collected from profits that come from selling addictive and destructive tobacco to the vulnerable masses...

And you've still yet to demonstrate why we shouldn't profit and how it isn't moral.

because it makes you a party to the immoral act, it makes you involved in the immorality of it

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Chestaan wrote:
We all benefit from taxes on tobacco. They're used to fund health services as tobacco users tend to be more likely than non-tobacco users all other things being equal, to use these health services.

and we shouldn't.

We should find alternative ways of getting that money, because its not earned in a moral way. Its being collected from profits that come from selling addictive and destructive tobacco to the vulnerable masses...

Which are intended to discourage the vulnerable masses from buying said addictive and destructive tobacco.

Seriously, banning cocaine, marijuana, and LSD has done nothing to decrease the number of people who use them. In fact some sources say substance abuse is on the rise.

Since banning them didn't work why do you think banning tobacco would also work? Better to keep it legal, and use taxes on it to raise money for support programs designed to help people quit.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Scomagia wrote:And you've still yet to demonstrate why we shouldn't profit and how it isn't moral.

because it makes you a party to the immoral act, it makes you involved in the immorality of it

Again. Why is this an immoral act. You have failed miserably to demonstrate why regulated tobacco is immoral.