|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Nicotine is a drug. Taxes on nicotine are being used to finance education, not simply offsetting the health costs of the drug.
Nicotine is a drug, yes or no?
Taxes from nicotine are being used to fund schools, yes or no?
Funding education with drug money is sound policy, yes or no?
Someone who supports such a policy, likely despises the drug so much that they are allowing their personal dislikes to override their better judgment, yes or no?
Is there any possibility that this cigarette tax policy might be unsound?
Is decreasing the number of smokers really worth the risk of tying education funding to taxes on a drug?
Isn't there a sounder approach then just placing punitive taxes?
Isn't there a better source of revenue and budget policy than drug taxes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Nicotine is a drug. Taxes on nicotine are being used to finance education, not simply offsetting the health costs of the drug.
Nicotine is a drug, yes or no?
Taxes from nicotine are being used to fund schools, yes or no?
Funding education with drug money is sound policy, yes or no?
Someone who supports such a policy, likely despises the drug so much that they are allowing their personal dislikes to override their better judgment, yes or no?
Is there any possibility that this cigarette tax policy might be unsound?
Is decreasing the number of smokers really worth the risk of tying education funding to taxes on a drug?
Isn't there a sounder approach then just placing punitive taxes?
Isn't there a better source of revenue and budget policy than drug taxes? |
More exaggeration, more bloviating.
It's not worth engaging with someone who shows no sense. For example, from your statements it would seem that government programs are supported only by taxes on cigarettes. That is FAR from the TRUTH.
We're circling back to the question you asked earlier:
Are you a liar? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
More exaggeration, more bloviating.
It's not worth engaging with someone who shows no sense. |
Asking yes or no questions is bloviating and exaggerating?
| Quote: |
| For example, from your statements it would seem that government programs are supported only by taxes on cigarettes. That is FAR from the TRUTH |
No, but those cigarette taxes are the difference between the budget being balanced and it running into the red for some of those programs. I do not think it is wise to put that margin in the hands of taxes on drugs.
Tobacco taxes are a significant source of funding in some states for government programs beyond the "social costs of smoking", yes or no?
Those taxes are the margin between a balanced budget and a program defecit, yes or no?
| Quote: |
We're circling back to the question you asked earlier:
Are you a liar? |
Are you?
I don't smoke at work. Stop suggesting that I'm lying because I said that. This is the last time I am going to say this. Stop that line of questioning and address the issue.
Again, you are not addressing the issues, you are attacking the messenger's character, which suggests that at some level you sense the flaws in your position and are attacking me to avoid addressing those flaws. The last series of posts, I've been asking questions and trying to engage in logical analysis. You've been engaged in character assassination. Why can't you argue this position on its merits? Why is the issue whether or not I'm a liar or a smoker?
These issues are not valid or invalid based on whether or not Steelrails is a smoker and a liar.
The issues and questions I raise are not dependent on my character. Someone else of sterling makeup could ask the same questions and they would be equally valid or invalid.
Are there negative effects that come from taxes on cigarettes, yes or no?
Is it appropriate to use cigarette taxes to fund schools and roads and for that to be the margin between sustainability and a deficit?
Are taxes on a drug, whose consumption you are trying to deter, sustainable and a sound source for that margin between sustainability and deficit?
If there are indeed negative effects associated with tobacco taxation, are they enough to offset the benefits of tobacco education?
Should the effort to reduce smoking be a concern that supercedes sutainable education funding? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You seem unable to follow my posts.
I brought up the lying a second time because your exaggerations, reductionist questions, use of loaded language and misconstrual of my positions seems to be bordering very closely to out and out lying.
You say you aren't bloviating and then again go on and on. Where's your credibility?
I have already addressed the issues. That you can't accept the common sense and practicality of those earler answers seems to be either due to an overweening obstinancy or a need to defend your smoking habit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
You say you aren't bloviating and then again go on and on. Where's your credibility?
I have already addressed the issues. That you can't accept the common sense and practicality of those earler answers seems to be either due to an overweening obstinancy or a need to defend your smoking habit. |
As far as I can tell, your addressing of the issues involved statements like this-
| Quote: |
| AGAIN, YOU'RE WRONG. IT IS ALL ABOUT REDUCING THE NUMBER OF SMOKERS AND THE AMOUNT OF SMOKING. |
| Quote: |
AGAIN. what a load of horsecrap.
It's about getting people to smoke less. Non-smokers are healthier, more productive and less of an eventual drag on the healthcare system.
|
Nothing you have written above is untrue, but what you didn't mention were the effects cigarette taxation on organized crime and the consequences of government departments becoming dependent on tobacco taxes for funding, suggesting that reducing smoking should be the utmost priority, irrespective of other consequences and effects.
I think that that is unsound. Non-narcotic users are less of a drain on the health system and lead healthier lives, but we've seen the effects of a "as long as it reduces numbers" policy and it's clearly unsound.
As far as credibility you made this claim-
| Quote: |
| here exactly are Koreans going to smuggle those cheap cigarettes from? North Korea? Myanmar? |
Which was disproven a few short posts later...
However, from the very beginning you focused on whether or not I was a smoker as if that somehow invalidated my arguments. My arguments are not valid or invalid based on me being smoker. My arguments are valid or invalid based on whether the policy is sound or not. For 14 pages you've attacked my character, rather than addressing the issues.
But turnabout is fair play. After 14 pages of not going after your personal lifestyle or attacking your character I will throw out this- Is it possible, just possible, that your personal disgust of the smoking habit is clouding your judgment into whether or not the tax increases are the most sound policy for dealing with the problem of smoking and nicotine addiction and to "punish" them for doing something you can't stand?
There is more to the issue than simply reducing the number of smokers. Just as with drugs there is more to the issue than making drugs illegal and reducing their consumption. Same with alcohol prohibition. Same with gambling. Same with guns. Same with sending humanitarian aid and 500 peacekeepers to Somalia. Every issue does not exist in a vacuum. If you pursue a course of action with a single goal in mind, irrespective of the unintended consequences and other costs, you are going to make poor decisions.
Do you want policy-makers to not take those unintended consequences into consideration when making policy?
Last edited by Steelrails on Mon Jul 01, 2013 2:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
You say you aren't bloviating and then again go on and on. Where's your credibility?
I have already addressed the issues. That you can't accept the common sense and practicality of those earler answers seems to be either due to an overweening obstinancy or a need to defend your smoking habit. |
As far as I can tell, you're addressing of the issues involved statements like this-
| Quote: |
| AGAIN, YOU'RE WRONG. IT IS ALL ABOUT REDUCING THE NUMBER OF SMOKERS AND THE AMOUNT OF SMOKING. |
| Quote: |
AGAIN. what a load of horsecrap.
It's about getting people to smoke less. Non-smokers are healthier, more productive and less of an eventual drag on the healthcare system.
|
Nothing you have written above is untrue, but what you didn't mention were the effects cigarette taxation on organized crime and the consequences of government departments becoming dependent on tobacco taxes for funding, suggesting that reducing smoking should be the utmost priority, irrespective of other consequences and effects.
I think that that is unsound. Non-narcotic users are less of a drain on the health system and lead healthier lives, but we've seen the effects of a "as long as it reduces numbers" policy and it's clearly unsound.
As far as credibility you made this claim-
| Quote: |
| here exactly are Koreans going to smuggle those cheap cigarettes from? North Korea? Myanmar? |
Which was disproven a few short posts later...
However, from the very beginning you focused on whether or not I was a smoker as if that somehow invalidated my arguments. My arguments are not valid or invalid based on me being smoker. My arguments are valid or invalid based on whether the policy is sound or not. For 14 pages you've attacked my character, rather than addressing the issues.
But turnabout is fair play. After 14 pages of not going after your personal lifestyle or attacking your character I will throw out this- Is it possible, just possible, that your personal disgust of the smoking habit is clouding your judgment into whether or not the tax increases are the most sound policy for dealing with the problem of smoking and nicotine addiction and to "punish" them for doing something you can't stand?
There is more to the issue than simply reducing the number of smokers. Just as with drugs there is more to the issue than making drugs illegal and reducing their consumption. Same with alcohol prohibition. Same with gambling. Same with guns. Same with sending humanitarian aid and 500 peacekeepers to Somalia. Every issue does not exist in a vacuum. If you pursue a course of action with a single goal in mind, irrespective of the unintended consequences and other costs, you are going to make poor decisions.
Do you want policy-makers to not take those unintended consequences into consideration when making policy? |
I have addressed the unintended consequences in my posts.
False analogies are not going to cut it.
If your personal smoking issue is not at isssue, can you then explain why you need to argue in the manner you have chose: distortions of my position, false analogies, loaded language, yes-no trap questions, gross exaggeration and unsupported claims? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How about something scientific on the issue instead of some blather?
| Quote: |
Anti-Smoking Policies Will Prevent 7 Million Deaths Worldwide by 2050: Study
With the right measures, even more lives can be saved, WHO says.
By Robert Preidt, HealthDay News
MONDAY, July 1, 2013 (HealthDay News) — Anti-tobacco policies really do stop people from smoking and save millions of lives, a new study finds.
Tobacco control measures enacted in 41 countries between 2007 and 2010 will prevent about 7.4 million premature deaths by 2050, according to the study published June 30 in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization.
"It's a spectacular finding that by implementing these simple tobacco control policies, governments can save so many lives," study lead author David Levy, a professor of oncology at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, D.C., said in a medical center news release. Levy's team used a modeling exercise to predict the number of lives that will be saved.
The measures the countries implemented include: protecting people from tobacco smoke, offering smokers help to quit, warning people about the dangers of tobacco, banning tobacco ads, promotion and sponsorship, and raising taxes on tobacco. |
More at the link. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tob55
Joined: 29 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I never smoked a cigarette in my life, but received plenty of second hand smoke from my parents and my friends who do smoke. It was never an appealing part of socializing for me, but to each their own. If someone really wants to smoke then they should be willing to pay the price for the privilege of smoking. I don't like the price of insurance for my vehicles, but I pay it so I can have the privilege to drive. I don't like the cost of food, but I pay it so that I can have the privilege of eating what I want to eat. I think you get the point, if people want something bad enough, then they should be willing to pay for the right and privilege to have it. IMHO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
How about something scientific on the issue instead of some blather?
| Quote: |
Anti-Smoking Policies Will Prevent 7 Million Deaths Worldwide by 2050: Study
With the right measures, even more lives can be saved, WHO says.
By Robert Preidt, HealthDay News
MONDAY, July 1, 2013 (HealthDay News) — Anti-tobacco policies really do stop people from smoking and save millions of lives, a new study finds.
Tobacco control measures enacted in 41 countries between 2007 and 2010 will prevent about 7.4 million premature deaths by 2050, according to the study published June 30 in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization.
"It's a spectacular finding that by implementing these simple tobacco control policies, governments can save so many lives," study lead author David Levy, a professor of oncology at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, D.C., said in a medical center news release. Levy's team used a modeling exercise to predict the number of lives that will be saved.
The measures the countries implemented include: protecting people from tobacco smoke, offering smokers help to quit, warning people about the dangers of tobacco, banning tobacco ads, promotion and sponsorship, and raising taxes on tobacco. |
More at the link. |
Are you seriously accepting that claim at face value?
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/blowing-smoke-about-tobaccorelated-deaths
The "science" of cigarette deaths as well as things like second-hand smoke studies is often spotty at best. To be sure they do account for a lot of deaths.
But how do we know the person who died of heart disease died of tobacco and not their obesity or genetic factors?
Again this goes back to Japan and their high smoking rate and long life span. It strongly suggests that proper diet and exercise has more of an effect on life-span and disease than smoking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
How about something scientific on the issue instead of some blather?
| Quote: |
Anti-Smoking Policies Will Prevent 7 Million Deaths Worldwide by 2050: Study
With the right measures, even more lives can be saved, WHO says.
By Robert Preidt, HealthDay News
MONDAY, July 1, 2013 (HealthDay News) — Anti-tobacco policies really do stop people from smoking and save millions of lives, a new study finds.
Tobacco control measures enacted in 41 countries between 2007 and 2010 will prevent about 7.4 million premature deaths by 2050, according to the study published June 30 in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization.
"It's a spectacular finding that by implementing these simple tobacco control policies, governments can save so many lives," study lead author David Levy, a professor of oncology at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, D.C., said in a medical center news release. Levy's team used a modeling exercise to predict the number of lives that will be saved.
The measures the countries implemented include: protecting people from tobacco smoke, offering smokers help to quit, warning people about the dangers of tobacco, banning tobacco ads, promotion and sponsorship, and raising taxes on tobacco. |
More at the link. |
Are you seriously accepting that claim at face value?
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/blowing-smoke-about-tobaccorelated-deaths
The "science" of cigarette deaths as well as things like second-hand smoke studies is often spotty at best. To be sure they do account for a lot of deaths.
But how do we know the person who died of heart disease died of tobacco and not their obesity or genetic factors?
Again this goes back to Japan and their high smoking rate and long life span. It strongly suggests that proper diet and exercise has more of an effect on life-span and disease than smoking. |
The Japan anomaly is where smokers make their last stand. But suggests is not proven.
The research into the effects of smoking has been ongoing for decades. Can you give some proof that it is spotty?
You accept the research on Japan yet pooh-pooh scientific evidence that you disagree with. Your argument is contradictory.
Many factors can be involved in poor health leading to disease and death. But that is no reason to ignore the risks of smoking and to try and decrease those risks.
Back to Japan:
| Quote: |
Furthermore, low carcinogenic ingredients in Japanese cigarettes and a congenitally-related resistance to smoking-related lung carcinogenesis emerged as the main factors which have brought the ‘Japanese smoking paradox’.
European Journal of Epidemiology European Journal of Epidemiology
|
Other evidence: http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/246014/asian_smoking_study_reveals_cardiovascular_health_risks/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1775959/pdf/amjph00796-0050.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gee, 'Rails; is it really that hard a choice? Do I accept what actual scientists have to say or do I go with what one of the biggest trolls on Dave's has to say? Oh, whatever should I do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fine, let's accept that every study about tobacco is right and that the numbers are all true (after all "scientific" studies showed how marijuana smoke was causing massive brain damage- And you have to wonder at how they arrive at these figures of people saved- seems there are too many variables to make an accurate assesment), are taxes the appropriate way to deal with this problem?
To some extent, taxes are fine- Enough to recoup the societal losses that tobacco inflicts is reasonable. But using it to fund schools and roads?
Government measures to "Save lives" are certainly understandable, up to a point. We could mandate that cars travel no faster than 35 mph and save millions of lives world wide. I think taxes to fund tobacco cessation efforts is fine. I think using taxes as a deterrent is questionable. For one, the level of tax necessary to have a deterrent effect is such that it would be used to fund other government departments. For the other, I think there are more effective deterrents than taxation, especially with drugs.
Anyways, I firmly believe that the social costs of increase in crime and government dependence on tobacco tax revenue outweigh the social gains of reduced smoking rates through taxes.
I'm not sure what the appropriate tax level should be, but driving it into the 12 dollar a pack range seems to be excessive and unsound.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/fund-early-education-with-tobacco-taxes-an-interesting-longshot/275099/
Let's talk alternatives to punitive taxation. How about increased availability of quitting aids? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't offering something like Nicorette, Zyban, E-cigs, or patches at low cost be more effective in combating a chemical addiction than raising taxes? Aren't we going down the same slow path we did with alcohol and narcotics and pursuing punitive measures rather than engaging in medical treatment?
I think the reason for this is that the advocates, just like with drugs and alcohol, are motivated by personal disgust and solving their problem (dealing with smokers/addicts), but they are not engaged in solving the problem, which is the smoker's problem- That means treatment for their chemical addiction. It's why their approaches are always punitive and isolationist- Ban smoking here, taxes there.
In essence its like treating homelessness by assigning criminal penalties for vagrancy and wanting to move homeless people into isolated shelters- this is a solution motivated by personal disgust (punish them for their bad behavior), however it does not address the root cause. One could make the same case for criminals, alcoholics, and drug addicts.
When it comes to public policy, one should guard against the influx of emotion which can lead to poor decisions and a misreading of the situation and how to deal with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Let's talk alternatives to punitive taxation. How about increased availability of quitting aids? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't offering something like Nicorette, Zyban, E-cigs, or patches at low cost be more effective in combating a chemical addiction than raising taxes? Aren't we going down the same slow path we did with alcohol and narcotics and pursuing punitive measures rather than engaging in medical treatment?
. |
The problem with this is that the smoker has to be willing to quit. If he or she is not...then where do you go from there?
Not only that but increasing taxes DOES work. Look at NY and then compare it with the national averages mentioned in the quote below.
https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/press_releases/post/2012_09_20_ny
| Quote: |
From 2003 to 2010 (the period examined in the study), New York reduced adult smoking by 28 percent, from 21.6 percent to 15.5 percent who currently smoke. In contrast, the national smoking rate fell by only 11 percent, from 21.6 percent to 19.3 percent.
From 2003 to 2011, New York reduced high school smoking by 38 percent, from 20.2 percent to 12.5 percent who currently smoke. In contrast, the national high school smoking rate declined by 17 percent, from 21.9 percent to 18.1 percent. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The problem with this is that the smoker has to be willing to quit. If he or she is not...then where do you go from there? |
Accepting the fact that the person is going to be an addict, poison themselves and engage in behavior you find disgusting.
The alternative is to engage in punitive taxation, engendering government dependency on that revenue and promoting smuggling and organized crime.
Yes, it does reduce smoking rates for some people.
But it is not an effective substitute for medical treatment. And if the taxes are of an excessive amount and fund things beyond smoker's health care costs, then you incur costs that I don't think outweigh the benefits of that rate reduction.
Can you imagine any other disease or health condition being treated with taxation? It comes across as ridiculous. What's next? Treating skin cancer with taxes on bikinis and tank tops? Myopia with taxes on books and computer monitors? Obesity with taxes on fast food? Let's tax McDonald's at 5 bucks per value meal! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Fine, let's accept that every study about tobacco is right and that the numbers are all true (after all "scientific" studies showed how marijuana smoke was causing massive brain damage- And you have to wonder at how they arrive at these figures of people saved- seems there are too many variables to make an accurate assesment), are taxes the appropriate way to deal with this problem?
To some extent, taxes are fine- Enough to recoup the societal losses that tobacco inflicts is reasonable. But using it to fund schools and roads?
Government measures to "Save lives" are certainly understandable, up to a point. We could mandate that cars travel no faster than 35 mph and save millions of lives world wide. I think taxes to fund tobacco cessation efforts is fine. I think using taxes as a deterrent is questionable. For one, the level of tax necessary to have a deterrent effect is such that it would be used to fund other government departments. For the other, I think there are more effective deterrents than taxation, especially with drugs.
Anyways, I firmly believe that the social costs of increase in crime and government dependence on tobacco tax revenue outweigh the social gains of reduced smoking rates through taxes.
I'm not sure what the appropriate tax level should be, but driving it into the 12 dollar a pack range seems to be excessive and unsound.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/fund-early-education-with-tobacco-taxes-an-interesting-longshot/275099/
Let's talk alternatives to punitive taxation. How about increased availability of quitting aids? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't offering something like Nicorette, Zyban, E-cigs, or patches at low cost be more effective in combating a chemical addiction than raising taxes? Aren't we going down the same slow path we did with alcohol and narcotics and pursuing punitive measures rather than engaging in medical treatment?
I think the reason for this is that the advocates, just like with drugs and alcohol, are motivated by personal disgust and solving their problem (dealing with smokers/addicts), but they are not engaged in solving the problem, which is the smoker's problem- That means treatment for their chemical addiction. It's why their approaches are always punitive and isolationist- Ban smoking here, taxes there.
In essence its like treating homelessness by assigning criminal penalties for vagrancy and wanting to move homeless people into isolated shelters- this is a solution motivated by personal disgust (punish them for their bad behavior), however it does not address the root cause. One could make the same case for criminals, alcoholics, and drug addicts.
When it comes to public policy, one should guard against the influx of emotion which can lead to poor decisions and a misreading of the situation and how to deal with it. |
Great advice that you should be taking rather than giving. Your continued refusal to accept the facts as they stand, that increased taxation and smoking bans work, and your groundless claims that taxation on cigarettes is causing grave, intractable societal damage show you are emotionally attached to opposing increased taxation on cigarettes.
You asked to be corrected if you're wrong. You've been corrected over and over again yet you blather on.
Maybe that's because you're a smoker, maybe it's because you're just obstinate, maybe you dig negative attention. Maybe you're venting your frustrations on Dave's because you don't smoke at work, your way of coping with an oral fixation.
BTW, if the patch is the answer, why not just get some and quit? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
