| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On April 08 2013 15:27 ticklishmusic wrote: black market fills in the artificially created gap between supply and demand A small fraction of the artificially created gap between supply and demand. | ||
|
ControlMonkey
Australia3109 Posts
On April 08 2013 05:08 KwarK wrote: The healthcare costs of tobacco are massively overstated unless you assume that people who didn't smoke won't ever die. Calculations that go "number of smokers * odds of getting cancer * cost of getting cancer" ignore the fact that everyone eventually dies of something and end of life care is always expensive. If the lung cancer didn't get them aged 60 then the bowel cancer they'd have gotten aged 80 would have, or any of hundreds of other options. The correct calculation for the healthcare cost of smoking has to deduct the costs that would have otherwise been incurred through the expected non smoking life. Smoking typically kills someone around the time their useful working life is ending and therefore does not significantly impact the productivity of the nation. In fact the reduced lifespan avoids crippling pension costs, hospice costs and forcing retirees to rejoin the workforce in order to fund their longer lives. People retiring and then quickly dying enables employment and assets to be smoothly passed from generation to generation rather than remaining tied up. The ideal situation, paradoxically enough, is to slowly poison everyone else with a poison that will not impact their productivity but will rapidly and cheaply kill them at retirement age while at the same time not personally consuming that poison and promoting public retirement benefits that could not possibly be afforded if a significant section of the population were ever eligible for them. Phillip Morris did a study which had this conclusion in an attempt to refute the arguments against extra taxation on cigarettes. Turns out arguing "people die from something eventually, why not tobacco!" Is not very popular.  | ||
|
ey215
United States546 Posts
On April 08 2013 09:37 Sermokala wrote: The war on drugs was a success. The cartels were driven out of south america and now are teetering on the brink in central america. You refuse to look at issues in any way other then what your told. You refuse to do anything but regurgitate propaganda that you've been told over and over again and consider it actual debate. You constantly say something is bad but you never say why because you have no idea why its bad. banning something will lower its use and will force the black markets to get the product from out of the country. It will massively help the problem I can argue for legalizing one thing and banning another because one is much worse for you then the other. Its literally one of the founding platforms of the legalization crowd and yet you want to completely ignore it now that the shoes on the other foot. Also kwark scares the shit out of me sometimes. Black Markets are bad because they end up providing a lower quality (and in the case of drugs/alcohol less safe) product while also allowing the other things that come with black markets (fundamentally an illegal behavior) including the criminal empires that are formed around them. You talk about how the War on Drugs has been a success because the cartels are on the run while fundamentally ignoring that we created the damn cartels in the first place by prohibiting their product. There is also a reasonable argument to be made (along with our actions during the Cold War) that the War on Drugs has added to the instability in Latin America as it gives much of the economic power to criminals which leads to a basic distrust or complete non existence of the rule of law. Without the prohibition of drugs in this country (while they are still in demand) the product that is controlled by the drug cartels would be legal and they'd be businessmen importing and exporting as is done with millions of other goods and services all over the world. With prohibition we get violent crime, turf wars, and an unregulated product. Not to mention a huge, and costly, prison population. The demand exists for their products and someone will rise to fill that demand either domestically or from imports. There is no reason to suspect that banning cigarettes will have a different outcome. Tobacco is a drug and and our history of drug prohibition tells us that banning tobacco probably won't be vastly different from our experience in banning other drugs. The demand for tobacco will not miraculously dry up because the government decides to ban it. The market will change, but enterprising individuals will find ways to fill the demand that will still exist. Along with that will come the bad parts of black markets as well. If you want to address smoking continue on our current course of education and addressing the matter as addiction not as a criminal behavior. Which, by the way is working. Maybe not as fast as some would like but smoking rates continue to decline. If you want to reduce smoking in this country attack the demand side not the supply side. As long as there is a demand I'd much rather we supply it from within the legal markets as opposed to black markets. It seems that your fundamental argument is that it's the chemicals put in cigarettes in the U.S. that makes smoking unsafe instead of the behavior of smoking in the first place. You've stated multiple times that product illegally shipped from outside the country would be much safer than what is domestically produced now therefore lowering our health costs. I'd love for you to back that assertion up with some evidence please. | ||
|
DeltaX
United States287 Posts
On April 08 2013 16:05 ControlMonkey wrote: Phillip Morris did a study which had this conclusion in an attempt to refute the arguments against extra taxation on cigarettes. Turns out arguing "people die from something eventually, why not tobacco!" Is not very popular. TBH I always considered the costs to be an excuse to tax cigarettes, not the main reason. States need money to operate and almost everyone would agree that people should not smoke. Cigarette taxes (and other sin taxes) give the state a way to raise money while discouraging what they see as bad/not smart behavior. This makes it easier for people to accept since it is optional (don't like the tax? don't buy cigarettes.) unlike income taxes. This works fine until you raise the taxes to much, then you get an illegal market in tax free cigarettes from another state with lower taxes. I also don't think the cost would come out even for the states. You would have to include savings from social security and medicare from the early death. The problem here is that if you die at 64 on Medicaid, your state will be paying for half of your medical bills, where if you died at 66, then your state pays nothing. By shortening your life you are more likely to die before the federal government starts picking up the bill, costing states more money. This creates a system where there could be a net saving from early death from cigarette smoking, but the federal government is the one saving the most money while the states have to pay more. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6312 Posts
On April 09 2013 04:22 DeltaX wrote: TBH I always considered the costs to be an excuse to tax cigarettes, not the main reason. States need money to operate and almost everyone would agree that people should not smoke. Cigarette taxes (and other sin taxes) give the state a way to raise money while discouraging what they see as bad/not smart behavior. This makes it easier for people to accept since it is optional (don't like the tax? don't buy cigarettes.) unlike income taxes. This works fine until you raise the taxes to much, then you get an illegal market in tax free cigarettes from another state with lower taxes. I also don't think the cost would come out even for the states. You would have to include savings from social security and medicare from the early death. The problem here is that if you die at 64 on Medicaid, your state will be paying for half of your medical bills, where if you died at 66, then your state pays nothing. By shortening your life you are more likely to die before the federal government starts picking up the bill, costing states more money. This creates a system where there could be a net saving from early death from cigarette smoking, but the federal government is the one saving the most money while the states have to pay more. Something like that happened over here in NL. They raised the taxes on tobacco so high that people now go over the brder to Germany and Belgium to get their cigs. The tax increase was supposed to raise money but it resulted in a net loss for the state. The tax on cigs and alcohol in NL are very high here though, with 70% of the price being tax :D. http://www.kerftabak.nl/item.html&objID=763 | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD), one of the last remaining Democratic holdouts to oppose same-sex marriage, announced Monday that he now supports gay nuptials. "After lengthy consideration, my views have evolved sufficiently to support marriage equality legislation," Johnson said in a statement. "This position doesn't require any religious denomination to alter any of its tenets; it simply forbids government from discrimination regarding who can marry whom." As one Democrat after another came out in support of marriage equality over the last month, Johnson's reticence on the subject confused some, as he will not seek re-election next year and therefore faced no political damage for changing positions. Some speculated that he remained silent in order to avoid undermining the political prospects of his son, U.S. attorney Brendan Johnson, who is said to be considering a run in next year's open U.S. Senate race. Johnson's reversal leaves only three Democratic senators who still oppose same-sex marriage: Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA). Manchin reiterated his opposition last week, while Pryor said he's "undecided" on the matter. Source | ||
|
ey215
United States546 Posts
After this is all over can we please put the kibosh on politicians "evolving" on issues? You changed your mind (or announced publicly that you had changed your mind) when it became politically acceptable or expedient to do so. Or I could just be a cynic. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On April 09 2013 12:06 ey215 wrote: After this is all over can we please put the kibosh on politicians "evolving" on issues? You changed your mind (or announced publicly that you had changed your mind) when it became politically acceptable or expedient to do so. Or I could just be a cynic. But don't worry... Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) continued to bolster his social conservative platform on Monday, telling the Des Moines Register that the GOP must maintain its opposition to marriage equality to avert political suicide. He also predicted that the Supreme Court would reject gay-marriage rights in upcoming rulings. “I’m sure you could go back and read stories, oh, you know, ‘The Republican party’s going to change. This is the future.’ Obviously that didn’t happen,” Santorum said. “I think you’re going to see the same stories written now and it’s not going to happen. The Republican Party’s not going to change on this issue. In my opinion it would be suicidal if it did.” While Santorum's advice echoes an argument made by other social conservatives, it comes as some Republican commentators have urged the party to take a more libertarian stance on social issues in the wake of large electoral defeats in 2012. While many GOP lawmakers have so far been resistant to the idea of embracing gay marriage, Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) recently came out in favor of marriage equality. Portman announced that his decision was affected by his son, Will, who is gay. Santorum also offered a prediction for Supreme Court rulings on the cases of California's Proposition 8 gay-marriage ban and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, both heard last month. Source | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
(on the right at least. glorious revolutionary leader DR. JILL is a genuine american hero) | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On April 09 2013 12:36 oneofthem wrote: ok santorum maybe genuinely believes in this stuff Most politicians believe what they say. They may hide some things or back positions they have little actual opinion on, but if they're insincere, you can see it. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
http://www.ronpaulcurriculum.com/ Here, you and your children can get an education in liberty like no other. Students also learn how to start a home-based business. Here is the story . . . in under five minutes. This is Dr. Gary North, the Director of Curriculum Development. Here, students learn the basics of Western Civilization and Western liberty -- how it was won, how it is being lost, and how it will be restored. (Not can . . . will.) Students also learn the basics of American history, the United States Constitution, and American geography. They get two courses on free market economics. They get two courses on government, including a how-to course on reclaiming America, one county at a time. Students get mathematics, either through calculus or statistics or both. They get the basics of science: earth science, biology, chemistry, and physics. I invite parents to take courses and participate on forums -- to get the education they never had. Parents do not pay for the individual courses that they purchase for their children. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 09 2013 12:56 aksfjh wrote: Most politicians believe what they say. They may hide some things or back positions they have little actual opinion on, but if they're insincere, you can see it. what about those republican politicians preaching the importance of family values etc, and then get caught with mistresses. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
I wonder if they teach a course on website design, I simply must know who put that site together! | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On April 09 2013 13:14 oneofthem wrote: what about those republican politicians preaching the importance of family values etc, and then get caught with mistresses. It's okay, they're Protestant, forgiveness is a big thing as well, e.g.. David Vitter. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Has to be a joke. EDIT: Gary North is teaching the History curriculum. Wonder who is teaching the "Earth Science" courses... http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/04/08/gary-north-the-libertarian-taliban/ | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On April 09 2013 13:14 oneofthem wrote: what about those republican politicians preaching the importance of family values etc, and then get caught with mistresses. Just because they're bad at practicing them doesn't mean they disagree with them. I mean, I think college students should go to class every day, but I'm not very good at following my own advice/standards. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On April 09 2013 14:29 aksfjh wrote: Just because they're bad at practicing them doesn't mean they disagree with them. I mean, I think college students should go to class every day, but I'm not very good at following my own advice/standards. Preposterous. We live in an age of Podcasts. No need to go to class.  | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 09 2013 14:29 aksfjh wrote: Just because they're bad at practicing them doesn't mean they disagree with them. I mean, I think college students should go to class every day, but I'm not very good at following my own advice/standards. when it comes to the cultural war issues (except abortion) though, it's pretty much a strategic wedge issue that's just there for political impact, rather than some genuine moralist movement. the politicians probably do believe in the doctrines, but not enough to become politicians in order to push for those doctrines. for the republican leadership the evangelical christian crowd is a very useful crowd, but they are not the ones driving the bus. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
OSC
Replay Cast
Escore
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
