By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Single Item Taxes

We have banned marijuana. If we were at all consistent in our laws we would ban alcohol and tobacco too. Both of those are more dangerous than marijuana.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network

No... because I favour a 100% ban. And anything other than drugs shouldn't have a single-item tax on principle.



Ideally it would be banned and no one would smoke.

Slowly taxing it into oblivion is the next best thing.



Words Of Wisdom said:

Ideally it would be banned and no one would smoke.

Slowly taxing it into oblivion is the next best thing.

 

Here's the thing.  I'm uncomfortable with basing laws (including "purposeful taxation" like this) on what we think an "ideal" society would be like.

Certain laws, I understand--against murder, against theft, against arson, etc.

But when we start getting into "ideally"... I mean, I could see someone arguing, not without justification, that "ideally" nobody would waste their time playing videogames--they would do more productive things instead.

But taxing videogames into oblivion is the next best thing to banning them outright.



donathos said:
Words Of Wisdom said:

...

 

Here's the thing.  I'm uncomfortable with basing laws (including "purposeful taxation" like this) on what we think an "ideal" society would be like.

Certain laws, I understand--against murder, against theft, against arson, etc.

But when we start getting into "ideally"... I mean, I could see someone arguing, not without justification, that "ideally" nobody would waste their time playing videogames--they would do more productive things instead.

But taxing videogames into oblivion is the next best thing to banning them outright.

The difference between smoking and video games is that smoking has no possible benefit. It is demonstrably bad for you physically, it is addictive so people don't get the choice to stop using it, it is expensive, it makes you feel bad physiochemically (and you don't feel any better than a non-smoker when you do have one) and it is a threat to society in general via passive smoking. Games, when used in moderation (lol) don't cause harm to you, genuinely make you feel better, aren't physically addictive and don't hurt anyone else.

If there was even one benefit then it would be a debate.

 



Around the Network
Soleron said:
donathos said:
Words Of Wisdom said:

...

 

Here's the thing.  I'm uncomfortable with basing laws (including "purposeful taxation" like this) on what we think an "ideal" society would be like.

Certain laws, I understand--against murder, against theft, against arson, etc.

But when we start getting into "ideally"... I mean, I could see someone arguing, not without justification, that "ideally" nobody would waste their time playing videogames--they would do more productive things instead.

But taxing videogames into oblivion is the next best thing to banning them outright.

The difference between smoking and video games is that smoking has no possible benefit. It is demonstrably bad for you physically, it is addictive so people don't get the choice to stop using it, it is expensive, it makes you feel bad physiochemically (and you don't feel any better than a non-smoker when you do have one) and it is a threat to society in general via passive smoking. Games, when used in moderation (lol) don't cause harm to you, genuinely make you feel better, aren't physically addictive and don't hurt anyone else.

If there was even one benefit then it would be a debate.

 

Smoking is fine in moderation too.... everything is fine in moderation.

Well except like rape and arson and murder and such.



Kasz216 said:
Soleron said:
donathos said:
Words Of Wisdom said:

...

 

Here's the thing.  I'm uncomfortable with basing laws (including "purposeful taxation" like this) on what we think an "ideal" society would be like.

Certain laws, I understand--against murder, against theft, against arson, etc.

But when we start getting into "ideally"... I mean, I could see someone arguing, not without justification, that "ideally" nobody would waste their time playing videogames--they would do more productive things instead.

But taxing videogames into oblivion is the next best thing to banning them outright.

The difference between smoking and video games is that smoking has no possible benefit. It is demonstrably bad for you physically, it is addictive so people don't get the choice to stop using it, it is expensive, it makes you feel bad physiochemically (and you don't feel any better than a non-smoker when you do have one) and it is a threat to society in general via passive smoking. Games, when used in moderation (lol) don't cause harm to you, genuinely make you feel better, aren't physically addictive and don't hurt anyone else.

If there was even one benefit then it would be a debate.

 

Smoking is fine in moderation too.... everything is fine in moderation.

Well except like rape and arson and murder and such.

No smoking is still toxic in moderation. Your body can't deal with some of the poisons in tobacco smoke at all, so unlike cannabis or alcohol it can't process it. Thats why even light smokers suffer from lung damage.

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/14/5/315

 



WessleWoggle said:
Cigarettes cost the government money, they need to tax those fuckers...

 

The problem is it should not cost the government money, not that you need to tax it more.



Soleron said:
donathos said:
Words Of Wisdom said:

...

 

Here's the thing.  I'm uncomfortable with basing laws (including "purposeful taxation" like this) on what we think an "ideal" society would be like.

Certain laws, I understand--against murder, against theft, against arson, etc.

But when we start getting into "ideally"... I mean, I could see someone arguing, not without justification, that "ideally" nobody would waste their time playing videogames--they would do more productive things instead.

But taxing videogames into oblivion is the next best thing to banning them outright.

The difference between smoking and video games is that smoking has no possible benefit. It is demonstrably bad for you physically, it is addictive so people don't get the choice to stop using it, it is expensive, it makes you feel bad physiochemically (and you don't feel any better than a non-smoker when you do have one) and it is a threat to society in general via passive smoking. Games, when used in moderation (lol) don't cause harm to you, genuinely make you feel better, aren't physically addictive and don't hurt anyone else.

If there was even one benefit then it would be a debate.

 

 

Why should you have the right to tell me what I can’t do that only effects me?

How about I let you live your life the way you want, and you let me live my life the way I want, provided my choices don’t negatively impact others?

Why is that so hard for some people to do?

P.S. by the way, I don’t smoke.



Mafoo - It's because people want to control others. We've been doing it for centuries.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.