Doesn't sound like a very responsible plan. Don't you criticize Bush for following the same method of dealing with situations?
Sorry, HickoryStick. I don't equate in severity having a black market in tobacco that needs to be controlled, with irrevocable destruction to the climate of the earth.
Alright, modify last response by replacing "irrevocable destruction to the climate of the earth." with "invading a foreign country and creating a power vaccuum which leads to chaos, and the deaths of multitudes of iraqi civilians and American soldiers".
Furthermore, the two issues don't even compare. If you invade Iraq, you know there is going to be a post-invasion situation that must be dealt with. If you raise taxes on cigarettes reasonably, you can't guarantee that you'll need to implement a major plan to stop a black market beyond the regular border checks etc.
However, since we live in Canada where the electorate supports publicly funded health care by a vast majority, we end up shouldering the burden of smokers. Since it is not really feasible to take away universal health care from smokers, the only other viable alternative short of a complete ban is to initiate programs which reduce smokers, and increase the tax burden on those smokers.
Well public heathcare is something for a different thread. However, as I said, the state wants to keep the product legal and take in the "sin" tax, that is a decision it has made, and under our current system it means the state picks up the assoicated medical bills.
Again, it is people that wish to smoke and they pay taxes just like the rest of them. It is not fair to single them out as a target group when there larger groups that also place a "burden" on the healthcare system. It is a legal product and smokers should not be targeted for particpating in a legal activitiy.
____________ --
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Winston Churchill
However, since we live in Canada where the electorate supports publicly funded health care by a vast majority, we end up shouldering the burden of smokers. Since it is not really feasible to take away universal health care from smokers, the only other viable alternative short of a complete ban is to initiate programs which reduce smokers, and increase the tax burden on those smokers.
Well public heathcare is something for a different thread. However, as I said, the state wants to keep the product legal and take in the "sin" tax, that is a decision it has made, and under our current system it means the state picks up the assoicated medical bills.
Again, it is people that wish to smoke and they pay taxes just like the rest of them. It is not fair to single them out as a target group when there larger groups that also place a "burden" on the healthcare system. It is a legal product and smokers should not be targeted for particpating in a legal activitiy.
What are the larger groups? I think that if you are thinking about people who do not eat right or not do any physical activity that you are right. However, this can't be tackled the same way as smoking. Healthy living is a lifestyle. A healthy lifestyle must start at home, and to be successful you have to be educated, have phys Ed in school, encourage sports, etc... You can not just go out and tax unhealthy food. this would be a major burden in lower income households since "junk food" is usually cheaper than "healthy food".
People have been educated about the affects of smoking for years. People knew it was unhealthy when my parents were kids, but people still decided to start, and since smoking is not a necessity, it should be taxed. Personally I would support a total ban on tobacco, even though I enjoy a good cigar once or twice a year....
I was thinking of people that drink. They can place a higher demand on the public system. They often plance a demand on the legal system.
You are right, persons that choose to eat "junk food" also place a burden on the healthcare system. People who have unprotected sex also place a demand.
You see there are a lot of legal activities that people can do that the state could try and regulate to death, but it does not. Smoker's are doing a legal substance and they taxpayers. They have the same rights as the users of other legal products.
____________ --
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Winston Churchill
All times are GMT - 3 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
