Voice of joy and sunshine
26th May 2003
I object to paying for the consequences of any person's lifestyle, but that is more an argument to end socialised health schemes than to tax people who smoke or drink an extra amount.
Jeffro;4450128If only they taxed industry for polluting the air, taxed our car use for polluting the air, and taxed the power plants for polluting the air. What a pipe dream that is.
Makes cigarette smoke almost minuscule in comparison...
I agree with you 100%
But wait whats this? our good ol buddy GW repealed smog controls for many factories and powerplants so they could use the money savings to upgrade their pollution controls. Some emmisions were allowed to more than double.
Ironic then that over 17,000 plants are now polluting more and not less isnt it?
This is an old site. Bush has since passed the law IIRC Sept 2003. What's At Stake: Stop the "Sweetheart Deal" for polluters!
I find it disgusting.
Again, we have a problem, but no solution that will have an extreme side effect. The only way we can deal with this problem is to choose the best option and deal with the consequences. We may be able to do something about the consequences and make the idea feasible.
Now, what's the best option to deal with smoking and alcoholism in my opinion? I do not know.
EDIT: You may like this Anlushac.
President Bush is officially now the worst president in US history. His approval rating is only 11%. I didn't care about him until he started a very unnecessary war, but this is off topic.
It's just funny that he's done so poorly that even his own country hates him.
Sorry to get off-topic.
Its taxed already, almost half the cost of a pack of cigarettes these days is taxes. Alcohol is already marked up big time here in Ontario since the LCBO, the only place that sells wine/spirits and many types of beer, is a government owned/operated establishment. The only other place to get beer in Ontario is at the Beer Store (the brand/establishment's actual name), which is owned jointly by the 3 largest brewers/beer companies in Canada (I believe its 49% owned by InBev, 49% owned by Molson/Coors and the remaining 2% owned by Sleeman, which is now owned by a Japanese company). The Beer Store, which is supposed to be a place to purchase a wide variety of beers, is designed in such a way to showcase the most popular brands produced by the owning companies and attempting to snuff out competition from micro-breweries and other independents.
As a smoker and a drinker, I feel I pay enough in taxes to offset the health costs of my habits (though socialized health care helps a lot too). Taxing Tobacco and Alcohol anymore than they already are, is just plain greedy. Why not charge companies for selling unhealthy foods/drinks, that can be just as damaging to one's health as either drinking or smoking, better yet, lets just tax those awful polluters, oh wait, that would dry up a big chunk of the politician's fund-raising resources (who have yet again voted overwhelmingly in favour of increasing their salaries and annual vacation time).
Society has stigmatized smoking, and its really fucking annoying now. I've been verbally berated for smoking by an obese neighbour, whose family of 3 requires two large SUV's, daily drives to/from a school that's easily in walking distance for their kid (not to mention who's fat and gets picked up for lunch as well), puts out too many bags of garbage, and never recycles. Who's worse for society?
But here is the deal, why exactly did any gov make tobacco and booze legal ? allmost world wide
Because alcohol was a traditional part of many cultures, but to my knowledge, none of them suffer from the same sort of binge-drinking as individuals do now. And tobacco was nearly the same. Also there was that period in the 20th Century when people thought smoking was good for your health.
Drinking beer and wine WAS the way to stay healthy, partly because beer and ale had healthy properties back then but mostly because they didnt have access to modern water treatment plants to clean and sterilize water.
Who wants it now, if it causes such a burden, why can't it be banned, who is the blame for it being around.? Also in the bible it says somthing like about" wine and drunkard". So people have been getting plasterd for a long time.
17th June 2002
Quetron;4452389Who wants it now
Millions upon millions of people consume alcohol and cigarettes every day, and enjoy doing so. Who are you to tell them they can't, because you don't like it?
if it causes such a burden, why can't it be banned
Remember the American prohibition?
Besides, I thought you liked living in a free country?
who is the blame for it being around.?
Nobody is 'to blame'. The Americans tried and failed to get rid of alcohol almost a century ago, and frankly it'd be immoral and unfair to do so.
Also in the bible it says somthing like about" wine and drunkard". So people have been getting plasterd for a long time.
Of course they have. Alcohol has been around in various forms since before the Bible was written. We're talking ancient, maaan.
Mr. Matt;4453160 Of course they have. Alcohol has been around in various forms since before the Bible was written. We're talking ancient, maaan.
Don't forget about Native Americans doing rituals with Psilocybin mushrooms and Peyote. And opium? Hash? Those have been around for centuries! :p