|
Blank packaging on cigarette packets (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| prolikewhoa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
You're an idiot. |
why? because you don't agree with me?
since when was conformity to popular opinion a mark of intelligence? |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by prolikewhoa
since when was conformity to popular opinion a mark of intelligence? |
When the opinion is based around stupid ideas. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by prolikewhoa
since when was conformity to popular opinion a mark of intelligence? |
If you're implying to the contrary, then you've just incriminated yourself because Nou's opinion is about as unpopular as it gets. :p |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| I'm going out for a smoke, brb. |
|
|
| Chimney |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Nou's opinion is about as unpopular as it gets. :p |
What about me? |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
Taxing non-essential goods is not legislating morality. If people want to smoke they should pay out the ass for it because in the end it usually costs society more in the long run to deal with their health issues. That is especially true in the US where the tax money collected doesn't even go towards their medical care or reimbursing the policy holders of private insurance that end up with higher rates because of the huge cost of treating the diseases associated with smoking.
The same goes for all drugs. Legalize them all, make them easily available, but tax the hell out of them. Crack down on dealers and buyers of non-taxed goods and you make the convenience of paying the tax a lot better than trying to get an illicit product.
There you have it, you aren't legislating morality, but you are reimbursing the population that doesn't use the products but usually ends up having to pay for their social ills.
I agree that most victim-less crimes are stupid, but you have a lot of things that fall under that concept that I am sure you wouldn't agree with. Things are not black and white as much as Americans wish them to be, there is a whole shade of gray between the extremes and most people just do not want to deal with the complexity of issues that are inherently complex. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
the complexity of issues that are inherently complex. |
lolololol |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Miss Pie
lolololol |
What?
Most people in this country have a disturbing way of taking inherently complex issues and rationalizing and stripping them down to some black or white outcome or choice. People not only have trouble understanding or detecting the nuances to an argument or situation but they actively try and ignore them. They make polarized decisions that lend themselves to being heavy handed and over-reaching.
They take issues that require complex thought and planning and decision making and pretend they are simple. |
|
|
| prolikewhoa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
|
okay, i think you're misunderstanding one tiny thing i said...
i never said that taxing cigarettes was legislating morality. i said that regulations on the kind of artwork/packaging on cigarettes are legislating morality. tax the out of them, that's awesome. we could have a ton more money in tax revenues if we taxed all currently illegal drugs. i don't think that marketing should be regulated by the government.
for example, the ban on flavored cigarettes because they "market to children" is ridiculous, because it is not the responsibility of the manufacturer that children not buy cigarettes, it is the responsibility of the distributor of those cigarettes to not sell to children. |
|
|
| prolikewhoa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
I agree that most victim-less crimes are stupid, but you have a lot of things that fall under that concept that I am sure you wouldn't agree with. |
i don't have to agree with it if it doesn't affect me. that is my point. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by prolikewhoa
for example, the ban on flavored cigarettes because they "market to children" is ridiculous, because it is not the responsibility of the manufacturer that children not buy cigarettes, it is the responsibility of the distributor of those cigarettes to not sell to children. |
But their marketing for flavored cigs targeted children. How else do you convince an industry like the tobacco industry to not sell to children, especially when it was corporate policy in almost all of them to do just that, with out legislating it?
Think of banning flavored cigs as a punitive measure against the tobacco industry, they had a product that was pretty much intended to be a turn on for young children (even if adults enjoyed them) and they marketed it in such a way that children would know about them. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by prolikewhoa
i don't have to agree with it if it doesn't affect me. that is my point. |
Huh?
Here is a fun one that people seem to get all worked up over:
Possessing child pornography. It is a technically a victim-less crime. There is no victim when you have a picture of another crime. Just the same as if you had a picture of a murder victim, or an adult rape victim. There is no victim in having a picture of another event. The crime that had a victim was the molestation, rape, murder, etc.
Do you agree that it should be ok to possess those materials?
Now wait, if you say no, what is your reasoning? Is it because possession might drive the production of more of it? That is possible, and yes there would be victims, but think about illicit drug use now. There is strong evidence that a lot of the drug trade involves victims and other related crimes in the system that brings the drugs to the users, hell even the use of drugs itself might inspire people to commit other crimes (just like the argument that people that view child porn might then go rape children) to feed their habit.
I think this is a fair comparison.
Both are illegal, but technically victim-less crimes, yet both are legislated to pretty much the same degree. Possession of both is illegal, both have victims in the distribution and production chain, and both underlying crimes could become victim-less if they were made legal.
Can you defend all victim-less crimes then? |
|
|
|
|
