|
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: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:58 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Your continued refusal to accept the facts as they stand, that increased taxation and smoking bans work |
No, you don't get it. Just because it reduces smokers doesn't mean it works!
Prohibition reduced the number of people who drank, that doesn't mean it worked! Making drugs illegal has reduced the number of people that do drugs, that doesn't mean it works!
There is more to the issue than simply reducing the number of smokers.
| Quote: |
| 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. |
No, we are talking about the long-term consequences. These won't become apparent for 10 or 20 years at least, but they will become apparent.
| Quote: |
| 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. |
atwood, can you please address the issues and not my personal habits. The issues I raised and the concerns I've given have been raised by non-smokers as well. Cigarette smuggling, treatment vs. taxation, government reliance on tobacco taxes are all issues that are serious concerns AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ME BEING A SMOKER.
Again, your fixation on my personal character and not the issues and your personal attacks strongly suggest that you do not have a good response to my points and are resorting to going after me personally. Argue the issue, not the poster.
| Quote: |
| You asked to be corrected if you're wrong. You've been corrected over and over again yet you blather on. |
You say this a lot, but you don't illustrate it.
On the other hand, you claimed
| Quote: |
| here exactly are Koreans going to smuggle those cheap cigarettes from? North Korea? Myanmar? |
Cigarette taxes don't work when dealing with the problem of nicotine addiction anymore than throwing people in jail works in dealing with the problem of narcotic addiction.
Besides, if you want to promote healthier living and longer lifespans, doesn't it stand that encouraging exercise and proper diet is a far more effective method than taxation on cigarettes?
Also you make a big deal about societal costs. Well, most people over the age of 65 are a "cost" to society. Why are you trying to encourage people to live longer? I suspect that "societal costs" aren't truly of concern to you. I mean really, who sits at home stewing over the costs of smokers on their health insurance, an amount that likely amounts?
Are you eagerly awaiting the "windfall" you'll get from these reduced smoking rates? Are you looking forward to all the people you'll be meeting who will have otherwise have died? Are you sitting around with a slide-rule and pencil tracking how many dollars and cents smokers have cost you?
Or is it more likely that you just find the habit personally annoying and disgusting and are happy with any measure that reduces it? Long-term budgeting consequences be darned! Is it about treatment or punishment? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Your continued refusal to accept the facts as they stand, that increased taxation and smoking bans work |
No, you don't get it. Just because it reduces smokers doesn't mean it works!
Prohibition reduced the number of people who drank, that doesn't mean it worked! Making drugs illegal has reduced the number of people that do drugs, that doesn't mean it works!
There is more to the issue than simply reducing the number of smokers.
| Quote: |
| 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. |
No, we are talking about the long-term consequences. These won't become apparent for 10 or 20 years at least, but they will become apparent.
| Quote: |
| 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. |
atwood, can you please address the issues and not my personal habits. The issues I raised and the concerns I've given have been raised by non-smokers as well. Cigarette smuggling, treatment vs. taxation, government reliance on tobacco taxes are all issues that are serious concerns AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ME BEING A SMOKER.
Again, your fixation on my personal character and not the issues and your personal attacks strongly suggest that you do not have a good response to my points and are resorting to going after me personally. Argue the issue, not the poster.
| Quote: |
| You asked to be corrected if you're wrong. You've been corrected over and over again yet you blather on. |
You say this a lot, but you don't illustrate it.
On the other hand, you claimed
| Quote: |
| here exactly are Koreans going to smuggle those cheap cigarettes from? North Korea? Myanmar? |
Cigarette taxes don't work when dealing with the problem of nicotine addiction anymore than throwing people in jail works in dealing with the problem of narcotic addiction.
Besides, if you want to promote healthier living and longer lifespans, doesn't it stand that encouraging exercise and proper diet is a far more effective method than taxation on cigarettes?
Also you make a big deal about societal costs. Well, most people over the age of 65 are a "cost" to society. Why are you trying to encourage people to live longer? I suspect that "societal costs" aren't truly of concern to you. I mean really, who sits at home stewing over the costs of smokers on their health insurance, an amount that likely amounts?
Are you eagerly awaiting the "windfall" you'll get from these reduced smoking rates? Are you looking forward to all the people you'll be meeting who will have otherwise have died? Are you sitting around with a slide-rule and pencil tracking how many dollars and cents smokers have cost you?
Or is it more likely that you just find the habit personally annoying and disgusting and are happy with any measure that reduces it? Long-term budgeting consequences be darned! Is it about treatment or punishment? |
Statements such as the one highlighted are patently false. Most, if not all of your posts, include such statements.
The issues you bring up are serious concerns only in your mind (and media looking for that day's stories--If, for example, cigarette smuggling was as ubiquitous as you make it out to be, there wold be stories in the papers about it on a regular basis. Where are those hundreds of newspaper stories?) and along with your description of social policies designed to discourage smoking as punishment show that your arguments all stem from your smoking habit and your unwillingness to quit.
In effect, your posts are nothing but personal excuses for why you continue to smoke. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
[
Cigarette taxes don't work when dealing with the problem of nicotine addiction anymore than throwing people in jail works in dealing with the problem of narcotic addiction.
|
False. It worked in N.Y. I even provided a link which showed how N.Y after enacting such a law stacked up against the national average.
It also worked in Canada.
http://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Smoking_Rates_e.htm
| Quote: |
| Cigarette consumption is lower in provinces with higher cigarette taxes and prices. Smokers consumed an average of between 14.0 and 15.5 cigarettes a day in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland, which have comparatively high taxes and prices. In other provinces, consumption varies between 17.5 and 18.0 cigarettes a day. |
That's not a coincidence. Not with so many different provinces involved.
Yes it sometimes occurs that higher taxes do cause cigarette smuggling. But most smokers are either going to pay the higher costs or switch to cheaper brands or stop smoking. They are NOT going to start smuggling cigarettes on a daily basis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
False. It worked in N.Y. I even provided a link which showed how N.Y after enacting such a law stacked up against the national average.
It also worked in Canada. |
A reduction in numbers of diseased throgh taxation is not a substitute for proper medical treatment. It does nothing for those who continue to smoke. The next level of taxes, if they haven't already, will lead people into pursuing the black market and would in effect amount to prohibition.
Furthermore, it does nothing to address the concerns about what that tax revenue is being used for and if its sustainable. Surely you must concede that there is a danger in tying the difference between a balanced budget and significant debt to the taxes collected from cigarettes.
http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2013-06-21/state-chokes-revenue-shortfall.html
As we can see, the results of tobacco tax shortfalls wreak havoc upon the governments that implemented them. States projected tax revenue from tobacco failed to live up to expectations, but that did not prevent lawmakers from passing spending measures and funding programs based on those projections. Of course, this led to debt and exacerbated already severe budget problems.
Just as the cigarette taxes are a shortsighted measure to deal with budget problems (They don't pass the sniff test- Magical money from nowhere that will solve our budget woes- nothing is that easy in government), so too are cigarette taxes shortsighted measures to deal with the medical issue of nicotine addiction.
There has to be a better solution to the fiscal problem of budget shortfalls and the medical problem of nicotine addiction than cigarette taxes.
A reasonable tax to cover smoker's health costs to taxpayers as well as to promote treatment programs is reasonable. Punitive taxes to coerce behavior and to fund other government projects and agencies is a risky, shortsighted decision that can have disastrous consequences.
In fact, one could suggest that taxing cigarettes could lead to more death than it prevents. Consider the fact that some states (as per the news article 276 million dollars less) are funding their state health programs (beyond just smoker costs) with tobacco tax revenue. That revenue is failing to meet projections, causing those programs to fall into debt and necessitating massive restructuring and cutbacks. Now coverage that was once there will in turn be denied. The tobacco tax ends up hurting everyone and endangering EVERYONE'S health.
But that's irrelevent. The sole concern should be whether or not we are reducing the number of smokers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
False. It worked in N.Y. I even provided a link which showed how N.Y after enacting such a law stacked up against the national average.
It also worked in Canada. |
A reduction in numbers of diseased throgh taxation is not a substitute for proper medical treatment. It does nothing for those who continue to smoke. The next level of taxes, if they haven't already, will lead people into pursuing the black market and would in effect amount to prohibition.
Furthermore, it does nothing to address the concerns about what that tax revenue is being used for and if its sustainable. Surely you must concede that there is a danger in tying the difference between a balanced budget and significant debt to the taxes collected from cigarettes.
http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2013-06-21/state-chokes-revenue-shortfall.html
As we can see, the results of tobacco tax shortfalls wreak havoc upon the governments that implemented them. States projected tax revenue from tobacco failed to live up to expectations, but that did not prevent lawmakers from passing spending measures and funding programs based on those projections. Of course, this led to debt and exacerbated already severe budget problems.
Just as the cigarette taxes are a shortsighted measure to deal with budget problems (They don't pass the sniff test- Magical money from nowhere that will solve our budget woes- nothing is that easy in government), so too are cigarette taxes shortsighted measures to deal with the medical issue of nicotine addiction.
There has to be a better solution to the fiscal problem of budget shortfalls and the medical problem of nicotine addiction than cigarette taxes.
A reasonable tax to cover smoker's health costs to taxpayers as well as to promote treatment programs is reasonable. Punitive taxes to coerce behavior and to fund other government projects and agencies is a risky, shortsighted decision that can have disastrous consequences.
In fact, one could suggest that taxing cigarettes could lead to more death than it prevents. Consider the fact that some states (as per the news article 276 million dollars less) are funding their state health programs (beyond just smoker costs) with tobacco tax revenue. That revenue is failing to meet projections, causing those programs to fall into debt and necessitating massive restructuring and cutbacks. Now coverage that was once there will in turn be denied. The tobacco tax ends up hurting everyone and endangering EVERYONE'S health.
But that's irrelevent. The sole concern should be whether or not we are reducing the number of smokers. |
Define massive. Define disastrous.
Smokers need medical treatment due to the effects of smoking. They don't need medical treatment to stop.
| Quote: |
| However, up to three-quarters of ex-smokers report having quit without assistance ("cold turkey" or cut down then quit), and cessation without professional support or medication may be the most common method used by ex-smokers. |
| Quote: |
| However, in analysing a 1986 U.S. survey, Fiore et al. (1990) found that 95% of former smokers who had been abstinent for 1–10 years had made an unassisted last quit attempt |
And if you really need help, insurance often covers that. In fact, nine states require health insurance companies to cover tobacco-cessation claims: Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont.
But to be perfectly clear, it's smoking, not quitting smoking, which creates a need for medical treatment.
| Quote: |
| Dr. Carmella Sebastian, senior medical director for Florida Blue, a Blue Cross and Blue Shield company, says that about a year after you quit smoking, you will cut your risk factor for lung cancer and heart disease in half. After 10 years, your body will have the same risk factor as if you had never smoked. Couple this with the lower life insurance rates you'll pay for being a nonsmoker and you'll see a big impact in more ways than one." |
Your claims are so far offbase that the pitcher could stroll over to first base and tag you out. [/url] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Smokers need medical treatment due to the effects of smoking. They don't need medical treatment to stop. |
That's gotta be the most asinine thing I've ever heard. That's why we have Nicorette, Nicoderm, Zyban, and other smoking systems, some of which are prescribed by doctors and dispensed by pharmacists.
Are you seriously claiming that chemical addiction is not a medical problem?
| Quote: |
| But to be perfectly clear, it's smoking, not quitting smoking, which creates a need for medical treatment. |
And it's heroin, not rehab which creates a need for medical treatment. That doesn't mean that the correct method to deal with heroin addicts is to either tax heroin or throw users in jail under stiff criminal penalties. The answer is rehab and treatment.
| Quote: |
Dr. Carmella Sebastian, senior medical director for Florida Blue, a Blue Cross and Blue Shield company, says that about a year after you quit smoking, you will cut your risk factor for lung cancer and heart disease in half. After 10 years, your body will have the same risk factor as if you had never smoked. Couple this with the lower life insurance rates you'll pay for being a nonsmoker and you'll see a big impact in more ways than one."
|
And this doctor would likely be the first person to agree with me that nicotine addiction is a medical problem and that the solution is treatment, not taxes.
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/conditions/mental_health_disorders/substance_abusechemical_dependency_85,P00761/
I notice that according to Johns Hopkins, the treatment for chemical abuse does not involve raising taxes.
And sorry, taxes are not a prevention for chemical abuse (aside from raising money to fund tobacco awareness education) anymore than stiff jail terms are a preventative measure for narcotic addiction.
What are you going to do with the 10-15% of the population that smokes and will ignore increasingly punitive taxes? Are you going to arrest them all for illegal consumption of smuggled cigarettes? Do you think that somehow they'll all comply with the law? What is the plan to deal with them? When do the taxes stop? And at what point do you start to make cigarettes "cool and exotic" like alcohol under Prohibition and narcotics? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Smokers need medical treatment due to the effects of smoking. They don't need medical treatment to stop. |
That's gotta be the most asinine thing I've ever heard. That's why we have Nicorette, Nicoderm, Zyban, and other smoking systems, some of which are prescribed by doctors and dispensed by pharmacists.
Are you seriously claiming that chemical addiction is not a medical problem?
| Quote: |
| But to be perfectly clear, it's smoking, not quitting smoking, which creates a need for medical treatment. |
And it's heroin, not rehab which creates a need for medical treatment. That doesn't mean that the correct method to deal with heroin addicts is to either tax heroin or throw users in jail under stiff criminal penalties. The answer is rehab and treatment.
| Quote: |
Dr. Carmella Sebastian, senior medical director for Florida Blue, a Blue Cross and Blue Shield company, says that about a year after you quit smoking, you will cut your risk factor for lung cancer and heart disease in half. After 10 years, your body will have the same risk factor as if you had never smoked. Couple this with the lower life insurance rates you'll pay for being a nonsmoker and you'll see a big impact in more ways than one."
|
And this doctor would likely be the first person to agree with me that nicotine addiction is a medical problem and that the solution is treatment, not taxes.
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/conditions/mental_health_disorders/substance_abusechemical_dependency_85,P00761/
I notice that according to Johns Hopkins, the treatment for chemical abuse does not involve raising taxes.
And sorry, taxes are not a prevention for chemical abuse (aside from raising money to fund tobacco awareness education) anymore than stiff jail terms are a preventative measure for narcotic addiction.
What are you going to do with the 10-15% of the population that smokes and will ignore increasingly punitive taxes? Are you going to arrest them all for illegal consumption of smuggled cigarettes? Do you think that somehow they'll all comply with the law? What is the plan to deal with them? When do the taxes stop? And at what point do you start to make cigarettes "cool and exotic" like alcohol under Prohibition and narcotics? |
Cigarettes and heroin are in no way analogous. You must think if you keep up with the falsehoods--the big lie strategy--that someone's going to finally accept them. Ain't gonna happen.
Taxes are preventing people from smoking, thus they are preventing what you want to call "chemical abuse." in your specious spiel from your haven of hyperbole.
Accept the facts and quit promoting obvious falsehoods. Dude, R.J. Reynolds seems to have less invested in promoting smoking that you do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The issues you bring up are serious concerns only in your mind (and media looking for that day's stories--If, for example, cigarette smuggling was as ubiquitous as you make it out to be, there wold be stories in the papers about it on a regular basis. Where are those hundreds of newspaper stories?) |
The criminals who engage in it seem to take it pretty seriously. Some even do things like construct tunnels to smuggle smokes or use it to fund terrorism.
Are you seriously suggesting that cigarette smuggling isn't a massive criminal enterprise?
| Quote: |
| long with your description of social policies designed to discourage smoking as punishment show that your arguments all stem from your smoking habit and your unwillingness to quit. |
And your failure to approach the medical problem of chemical addiction and instead focus on taxes as a way to deal with smoking show that I am right- It is about punishment and you really aren't THAT concerned with getting people to quit.
| Quote: |
| Cigarettes and heroin are in no way analogous. |
Johns Hopkins and the entire medical profession would seem to disagree with you.
http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/nicaddct.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/why-nicotine-is-as-addictive-as-heroin-1161136.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-to-kickthan-heroin.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
| Quote: |
| Taxes are preventing people from smoking, thus they are preventing what you want to call "chemical abuse." in your specious spiel from your haven of hyperbole. |
But they aren't a substitute for effective treatment and raising taxes is going to have diminishing returns and start to engender serious social costs at some point- Organized crime and bad government budgeting.
Would you be in favor of taxes making cigarettes costing 15 dollars a pack? 20? What do you think would be the outcome of such a measure?
Like I said way back when on this thread, raising cigarette prices from 4 dollars to 4.25 or 4.50 or even 5 dollars by taxes is fine. It generates more revenue to deal with health costs and might have a small deterrent effect. It is highly unlikely it result in radical shifts in behavior.
On the other hand, nearly tripling the price of an addictive chemical substance is bound to have significant effects on the market for such a substance, not all of them good. Not to mention that levying that large an amount of taxes likely means you are funding other programs beyond the scope of tobacco's costs and that strikes me as a poor source of revenue and a bad thing to plan your budget around.
| Quote: |
| Dude, R.J. Reynolds seems to have less invested in promoting smoking that you do. |
I am not speaking as a smoker. I am speaking both as a college-educated adult and a U.S. and Korean taxpayer. Treating chemical addiction with taxes is bad science and bad policy. Tying significant government funding and budget projections to an addictive substance whose use you are trying to discourage is a myopic, dangerous decision.
| Quote: |
| your arguments all stem from your smoking habit and your unwillingness to quit. |
If that is the case, then your arguments all stem from your personal dislike of smoking and allowing that personal disgust to override your judgment and ignore basic precepts such as "chemical addiction is a medical problem" and "the proper treatment for medical problems is with medicine and therapy, not taxes" and "funding education with taxes on drugs is probably not a sound idea".
Do you think that the level of taxes being proposed exceeds that of smoker's costs to society? Do you think that further tax increases are necessary to further discourage smoking? Is there such a thing as "too much revenue being derived from smoking taxes"? Do you think that there will come a point where the price of smoking through taxes, rather than discouraging consumption, will encourage purchases through the black market?
You do realize that governments spend and budget the money first, and then receive the tax revenue, right? Do you think its wise to tie budget estimates to increasing cigarette taxes?
And again, you keep coming back to attacking me personally. If your arguments are so sound, why do you have to attack me personally? Are the points I raised above that ludicrous? Would not non-smokers have some of those same concerns as well?
Saying I'm making these points just because I'm a smoker is like saying someone who is against Prohibition or the Drug War must be against those because the drink and smoke pot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That nicotine is as addictive as heroin doesn't make it analogous. The differences between smoking and doing heroin are many, substantive and large.
Again, your comments are based in quarter-truths that you spin--falsehoods.
Your comments regarding taxes are in a similar vein. I posted earlier why that is so.
That you continue to rely on statements that are obviously inapplicable, that you claim to believe smoking is the same as being addicted to heroin yet continue to smoke, is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you are either as obstinate as a mule or intent on defending yourself as a smoker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
False. It worked in N.Y. I even provided a link which showed how N.Y after enacting such a law stacked up against the national average.
It also worked in Canada. |
A reduction in numbers of diseased throgh taxation is not a substitute for proper medical treatment...
But that's irrelevent. The sole concern should be whether or not we are reducing the number of smokers. |
Exactly my point. I've never mentioned medical treatment for smokers. That was you sir, who introduced the topic. And only much later in this thread. If you go back to the first pages you will see people mentioning that taxes will reduce consumption...which was the ORIGINAL argument.
Nothing was said about medical treatment until later. As far as I'm concerned it's a red herring.
And anyway since taxes and laws serve to reduce consumption then in the long run they WILL lead to reduced need for medical services for smoking related illnesses as well thus making it a win win scenario for all.
As for those who already HAVE smoke related illnesses...they CHOOSE to make a choice that had bad/fatal consequences...I can't feel all that sorry for them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
That nicotine is as addictive as heroin doesn't make it analogous. The differences between smoking and doing heroin are many, substantive and large.
|
It's still chemical addiction, which requires similar medical practices.
You don't treat addiction with taxes.
| Quote: |
| That you continue to rely on statements that are obviously inapplicable, that you claim to believe smoking is the same as being addicted to heroin yet continue to smoke, is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you are either as obstinate as a mule or intent on defending yourself as a smoker. |
Again, stop addressing me and address the issue.
The validity of my statements regarding the medical treatment of chemical addicts is not dependent on me being a smoker or not.
Why can you not make an argument without attacking me personally? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Nothing was said about medical treatment until later. As far as I'm concerned it's a red herring.
|
I don't think bringing up medical treatment, when discussing how to reduce rates of consumption of addictive substances, is a red herring.
| Quote: |
And anyway since taxes and laws serve to reduce consumption then in the long run they WILL lead to reduced need for medical services for smoking related illnesses as well thus making it a win win scenario for all.
|
I agree to a point. But I think you're a reasonable enough person to see that taxes are not a complete solution, and that there will reach a point of diminishing returns with taxes and reducing tobacco consumption.
I think you're a reasonable enough person to see the risk of organized crime being involved, and the danger of using large amounts of tobacco tax revenue to fund unrelated government programs.
atwood seems to think that the end result of reducing the number of smokers justifies any means and that there will not be any negative or unintended consequences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
That nicotine is as addictive as heroin doesn't make it analogous. The differences between smoking and doing heroin are many, substantive and large.
|
It's still chemical addiction, which requires similar medical practices.
You don't treat addiction with taxes.
| Quote: |
| That you continue to rely on statements that are obviously inapplicable, that you claim to believe smoking is the same as being addicted to heroin yet continue to smoke, is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you are either as obstinate as a mule or intent on defending yourself as a smoker. |
Again, stop addressing me and address the issue.
The validity of my statements regarding the medical treatment of chemical addicts is not dependent on me being a smoker or not.
Why can you not make an argument without attacking me personally? |
There is no validity to your arguments. As such, your refusal to accept facts, research and just plain common sense make YOU the issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
That nicotine is as addictive as heroin doesn't make it analogous. The differences between smoking and doing heroin are many, substantive and large.
|
It's still chemical addiction, which requires similar medical practices.
You don't treat addiction with taxes.
| Quote: |
| That you continue to rely on statements that are obviously inapplicable, that you claim to believe smoking is the same as being addicted to heroin yet continue to smoke, is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you are either as obstinate as a mule or intent on defending yourself as a smoker. |
Again, stop addressing me and address the issue.
The validity of my statements regarding the medical treatment of chemical addicts is not dependent on me being a smoker or not.
Why can you not make an argument without attacking me personally? |
There is no validity to your arguments. As such, your refusal to accept facts, research and just plain common sense make YOU the issue. |
That nicotine addiction is a medical problem is an invalid argument?
That taxes are not a wholly effective solution to the medical problem of nicotine addiction?
That rapid spikes in tobacco prices through taxes will lead to smuggling and organized crime?
That dependency on tobacco taxes for government programs is unsound policy?
That focusing on proper diet and exercise might have more of an impact and be more effective than nicotine taxation?
That providing low cost quitting aids rather than coercive taxes might be more effective?
How are those invalid arguments?
| Quote: |
| As such, your refusal to accept facts, research and just plain common sense make YOU the issue. |
Actually, multiple posters brought up and supported the issue of cigarette smuggling and it being a major issue.
You are the one that tried denying it and then failed to acknowledge your error when presented with overwhelming evidence.
And as for invalid arguments-
You are the one who denied that nicotine and narcotic addiction are similar, despite the entire medical community disagreeing with you.
You are the one who claimed that because "Steelrails", a single user, exhibits one pattern of smoking behavior that all other smokers should follow that pattern.
You are the one that said "smokers don't need medical treatment to stop", disagreeing with the entire medical community.
You are the one that claimed that cigarette smuggling was not a serious activity.
You are the one who since PAGE 2 has engaged in personal attacks and the red herring of whether or not I am a smoker. I kept arguing the issue, you simply went after me personally.
You are the one who has carried on with the mantra "It reduces smoking rates, that all that matters to show its effective" in spite of evidence that shows its led to increases in organized crime (including funding Hezbollah), that it has resulted in serious budget shortfalls and miscalculations, and claim that it alone is a fine substitute for proper medical treatment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
That nicotine is as addictive as heroin doesn't make it analogous. The differences between smoking and doing heroin are many, substantive and large.
|
It's still chemical addiction, which requires similar medical practices.
You don't treat addiction with taxes.
| Quote: |
| That you continue to rely on statements that are obviously inapplicable, that you claim to believe smoking is the same as being addicted to heroin yet continue to smoke, is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you are either as obstinate as a mule or intent on defending yourself as a smoker. |
Again, stop addressing me and address the issue.
The validity of my statements regarding the medical treatment of chemical addicts is not dependent on me being a smoker or not.
Why can you not make an argument without attacking me personally? |
There is no validity to your arguments. As such, your refusal to accept facts, research and just plain common sense make YOU the issue. |
That nicotine addiction is a medical problem is an invalid argument?
That taxes are not a wholly effective solution to the medical problem of nicotine addiction?
That rapid spikes in tobacco prices through taxes will lead to smuggling and organized crime?
That dependency on tobacco taxes for government programs is unsound policy?
That focusing on proper diet and exercise might have more of an impact and be more effective than nicotine taxation?
That providing low cost quitting aids rather than coercive taxes might be more effective?
How are those invalid arguments?
| Quote: |
| As such, your refusal to accept facts, research and just plain common sense make YOU the issue. |
Actually, multiple posters brought up and supported the issue of cigarette smuggling and it being a major issue.
You are the one that tried denying it and then failed to acknowledge your error when presented with overwhelming evidence.
And as for invalid arguments-
You are the one who denied that nicotine and narcotic addiction are similar, despite the entire medical community disagreeing with you.
You are the one who claimed that because "Steelrails", a single user, exhibits one pattern of smoking behavior that all other smokers should follow that pattern.
You are the one that said "smokers don't need medical treatment to stop", disagreeing with the entire medical community.
You are the one that claimed that cigarette smuggling was not a serious activity.
You are the one who since PAGE 2 has engaged in personal attacks and the red herring of whether or not I am a smoker. I kept arguing the issue, you simply went after me personally.
You are the one who has carried on with the mantra "It reduces smoking rates, that all that matters to show its effective" in spite of evidence that shows its led to increases in organized crime (including funding Hezbollah), that it has resulted in serious budget shortfalls and miscalculations, and claim that it alone is a fine substitute for proper medical treatment. |
But your statements are not valid, and thus there must be some reason that you continue to promote obvious falsehoods.
I, and others, have given evidence again and again, as have others, that contradicts your EVERY statement. Yet you persist, for example, in comparing smoking to having a heroin addiction. The differences are as obvious as the nose on your face yet you soldier on in your defense of smokers, arguing against what research has shown best works to decrease smoking--higher taxes and smoking bans.
You then go on to say higher taxes will create a crime wave of major proportions, not true, and that it will lead to organized crime. I'll let you in on a little secret--organized crime already exists. Smuggling of all types of goods already exists. But the thieves on Wall St. steal more in an hour that what's being made on smuggling cigarettes. Besides, without high taxes why would anyone cross the border to visit Detroit?
You then posit, again and again, that states and municipalities are completely dependent on tax revenues from cigarettes, helpless without them, obviously false, and that if those revenues decrease they will suffer "MAJOR" problems, again obviously false.
You keep ballyhooing the big picture, so take a look. Here's just one snapshot for you--improving economy, greater sales tax revenues, higher home prices, higher property taxes, etc. And of course it's just as easy as raising the sales tax a quarter penny or so. Such an intractable problem--NOT.
But if it's as hard to quit smoking as you make it out to be, basically saying it's impossible without some type of super expensive medical treatment that we should all be paying for, although the facts belie your statements (surprise, surprise), then those taxes will continue to flow like a river to the sea. Either way, no problemo.
So we come back to why you keep making false and nonsensical statements. You smoke, you don't want to quit even though it's the same as having a heroin addiction, and you don't want your habit to become more expensive.
Just like a heroin addict you might have to start borrowing from friends and family to support your habit, graduating to petty theft and then burglary, maybe selling your body on the street or, if you're lucky, becoming a dealer of smuggled Lucky Strikes to pay for just a few cartons of your own.
But if you don't get murdered by a rival smuggler or end up doing hard time, you might get a good screenplay out of it, move to Hollywood, hangout with starlets until, due to your cigarette addiction, you blow all the cash and end up on TMZ right after the latest on Lindsay Lohan. |
|
| 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
