How long until people stop hating smokers and drinkers?

[hardcore_gamer]

Mr. Freeze said:

img

What is that image suppose to represent?

[Technician]

hardcore_gamer said:

What is that image suppose to represent?

Everything from MRAs to atheists to beta males - so anyone who finds one intellectually smug yet stupid.

[GreyGhost]

hardcore_gamer said:

A liberal hoax intended to mask their desire to increase government control of the economy and raise taxes.

The link between smoking and climate change might at best be tenuous, but if confirmed, I see no reason why smokers shouldn't be required to purchase carbon credits when buying their favourite tobacco-based products.

[fraggle]

hardcore_gamer said:

...along with the tax revenue.


And even then, you aren't saving money, because in order to make this money people need to pay the tax which means buying the product. More people buying alcohol means more social cost but also more tax for the government.

No, it's about telling others what to do while proving how ignorant liberals are about fiscal issues.

Wow, you still don't get it huh? Look, as you're having trouble following simple economics here I drew you a pretty picture to help you understand.



Not that I'm holding out a lot of hope though, as you seem to be incapable of following a simple argument. Hardly surprising since you don't appear to follow any kind of coherent political philosophy beyond self-centered whining about "lib'ruls" and "gub'mint" taking away "muh rights" - ie. 19th Century laissez-faire liberalism, made popular again by online echo chambers. Meanwhile, ideas like fiscal prudence and individual responsibility (ie. balancing the books and not allowing irresponsible people who don't take care of themselves properly to get a free ride off other peoples' money) are usually considered conservative principles. Just sayin'.

But by all means continue your hypocritical whining about the government from the comfort of your socialist Icelandic paradise. You can sleep soundly in the knowledge that in a couple of decades when you do get cancer from all those cigarettes, the same government will be there to take care of you and pay for all your treatment!

[VGames]

fraggle said:

Wow, you still don't get it huh? Look, as you're having trouble following simple economics here I drew you a pretty picture to help you understand.

https://i.imgur.com/GmnE8gj.jpg

Not that I'm holding out a lot of hope though, as you seem to be incapable of following a simple argument. Hardly surprising since you don't appear to follow any kind of coherent political philosophy beyond self-centered whining about "lib'ruls" and "gub'mint" taking away "muh rights" - ie. 19th Century laissez-faire liberalism, made popular again by online echo chambers. Meanwhile, ideas like fiscal prudence and individual responsibility (ie. balancing the books and not allowing irresponsible people who don't take care of themselves properly to get a free ride off other peoples' money) are usually considered conservative principles. Just sayin'.

But by all means continue your hypocritical whining about the government from the comfort of your socialist Icelandic paradise. You can sleep soundly in the knowledge that in a couple of decades when you do get cancer from all those cigarettes, the same government will be there to take care of you and pay for all your treatment!

Yeah just like they do in Greece. That country will be the next super power.

[fraggle]

VGames said:

Yeah just like they do in Greece.

What is?

[VGames]

fraggle said:

What is?

The government in Greece pays for everything too. It's complete socialism over there. That's why they're collapsing.

[Fulgrim]

I have no issues with smokers or drinkers who are responsible about with their habits and make a honest effort minimize the negative effects their habits have on others. But, if your negative habits do have a direct negative effect on me or others, I'm going to have an issue with it. So if you are the kind of person who drives around drunk or smokes around kids, I do have an issue with you.

[fraggle]

VGames said:

The government in Greece pays for everything too. It's complete socialism over there. That's why they're collapsing.

Maes will be able to speak to that better than I can, but from everything I've seen you have that completely backwards. The Greeks recently voted in a socialist government, but their hands are tied by strict right-wing monetarist policies imposed by the EU. See here for some details. Quote:

The bailout money mainly goes toward paying off Greece’s international loans, rather than making its way into the economy. And the government still has a staggering debt load that it cannot begin to pay down unless a recovery takes hold.

Many economists, and many Greeks, blame the austerity measures for much of the country’s continuing problems. The leftist Syriza party rode to power this year promising to renegotiate the bailout; Mr. Tsipras said that austerity had created a “humanitarian crisis” in Greece.

Regardless, my point wasn't to mount a defence of socialism but rather to highlight the hypocrisy of hardcore_gamer who likes to rant continually about the evils of government while simultaneously living comfortably in one of the most socialist countries in the world.

[Justince]

You'd have to be clinically retarded to start smoking these days.

[hardcore_gamer]

Technician said:

Everything from MRAs to atheists to beta males - so anyone who finds one intellectually smug yet stupid.

So it was a personal attack. The go to method of people who have little intelligent to say.

fraggle said:

Wow, you still don't get it huh? Look, as you're having trouble following simple economics here I drew you a pretty picture to help you understand.

Uhm, you do realize that the number of smokers/drinkers doesn't actually need to increase or decrease in order to affect the sales of smokes or alcohol right? According to this picture when you raise or lower taxes the "number of smokers" either goes up or down. This isn't actually true. If smoking or drinking gets crazy expensive, then people who drink or smoke will still drink and smoke, but they won't do it as often for cost reasons. In other words, raising taxes on smokes and alcohol doesn't actually lower the number of smokers/drinkers very much, it just makes those same smokers and drinkers smoke and drink less.

But even if that weren't the case, I am still not really sure how that image is suppose to prove me wrong. It actually proves exactly what I said: If smoking/drinking goes down then that means that while money is saved the government also makes less money to actually spend on healthcare and such things. That image you posted literally proved exactly the point I was making.

Now if somebody claimed that they only wanted a moderate tax on smokes or alcohol, then their argument might be less stupid. But there really isn't any logical economic argument in favor of super taxes.

Justince said:

You'd have to be clinically retarded to start smoking these days.

Or perhaps some people just don't want to live the same way as you do?

GreyGhost said:

The link between smoking and climate change

Jesus christ.

[fraggle]

hardcore_gamer said:

Uhm, you do realize that the number of smokers/drinkers doesn't actually need to increase or decrease in order to affect the sales of smokes or alcohol right? According to this picture when you raise or lower taxes the "number of smokers" either goes up or down.

No, completely backwards. If you have a tax on cigarettes, when the number of smokers goes up, the burden on public health expenses goes up, but income from tax revenues goes up to match. Provided the tax rate is set appropriately, the two can cancel out. When the number of smokers goes down, the opposite happens, and it remains balanced.

You seem to be coming at this from the assumption that I want a nanny state to coerce people into stopping smoking for their own good. The truth is that I really don't give a shit if people smoke, provided that:

(1). their smoking isn't allowed to affect me (the "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my face begins" principle) - this is realised in most western countries in the form of smoking bans in workplaces and in shared indoor places.

(2). I'm not obliged to pay for the results of smokers' irresponsible actions - this is realised in many countries in the form of heavy taxation on tobacco so that smokers can collectively pay for their own medical care.

hardcore_gamer said:

If smoking or drinking gets crazy expensive, then people who drink or smoke will still drink and smoke, but they won't do it as often for cost reasons. In other words, raising taxes on smokes and alcohol doesn't actually lower the number of smokers/drinkers very much, it just makes those same smokers and drinkers smoke and drink less.

Again, I don't particularly care if the number goes up or down provided they pay their own way. But the same principle applies because individual cigarettes do a small amount of damage that is cumulative over time. For example, if 100 people continue smoking but smoke half as many cigarettes, it should be reasonable to assume the cumulative health cost should halve as well. Quitting or reducing, the same principle remains.

[kb1]

hardcore_gamer said:

(a lot of sensible stuff that flew over many people's heads)

Hardcore_Gamer: You are absolutely right: Imperfect people with imperfect lives have no business telling you how to live your life. The problem is that those people will not hear your argument. They will and do place no value on your freedoms.

And they will continue to do so, until someone comes along and questions one of their freedoms. Then, they will hypocritically, simultaneously defend their freedoms, and forget that they attack people in the very same manner.

Sometimes, a very small percentage of them will finally "get it", but most will not. They'll argue: "But, my situation is different...". What they really mean to say is: "Wait a minute! This situation affects me, and I don't like it."

I just wanted you to know that there are still some people that do value your personal freedom, and your right to choose how to live your life. If your choices do not stomp on someone else's freedoms, and you are an adult, no imperfect being has any business telling you different.

I suggest to the hypocrites: Spend your energy perfecting your own life. When you get there, I welcome your suggestions wholeheartedly.

[Bucket]

This reminds me of helmet laws. When regulations required that motorcyclists wear helmets, there was a lot of outcry about personal liberty: if someone chooses to put their life at risk, that's their choice.

Problem is, bike accidents aren't as fatal as people think. They were becoming vegetables, becoming a burden on their families, and ultimately a burden on the state. That's what a lot of these arguments REALLY boil down to, despite some ideologues forcing a false dilemma of liberty or slavery.

hardcore_gamer said:

So it was a personal attack. The go to method of people who have little intelligent to say.

Some might say that. I say it's the only response that people who prattle on about "liberal hoaxes" and "nanny leftists" deserve.

[Maes]

Doomkid said:

I hope this is tongue-in-cheek, Maes - Always hard to tell with you :) If I break a bone on the job, it's nice knowing the government will help me pay for it. It's nice knowing the government at least sorta-kinda has your back in some cases. I never knew what that felt like til I left the US and came to AU.

Careful. Too much "sorta-kinda" government involvement is a breeding ground for corruption and inefficiency, which is ultimately what brought Greece down. The result? We still have a "public healthcare" on paper, but if your life -or job productivity- is at stake, you simply cannot afford to take your chances with the long waiting times, the corruption (you will almost certainly be asked for a fakellaki), the horrible conditions at hospitals, lack of bunks and personnel etc., and all that.

Hope that you have enough savings to go straight to a private clinic (regardless of how much might be refundable), despite the years of handsome payments that were FORCIBLY taken out of your paycheck (or practically extorted with the threat of incarceration and foreclosures, if you are/were a free professional).

Excuse me, but I'd consider a USA-style healthcare system to be a much more honest approach. The only reason they don't abolish it altogether is so that the state can keep sapping like-juice out of the various healthcare/pension funds, which are, effectively, a sort of semi-direct taxation.

[kb1]

Bucket said:

This reminds me of helmet laws. When regulations required that motorcyclists wear helmets, there was a lot of outcry about personal liberty: if someone chooses to put their life at risk, that's their choice.

Problem is, bike accidents aren't as fatal as people think. They were becoming vegetables, becoming a burden on their families, and ultimately a burden on the state. That's what a lot of these arguments REALLY boil down to, despite some ideologues forcing a false dilemma of liberty or slavery.
Some might say that. I say it's the only response that people who prattle on about "liberal hoaxes" and "nanny leftists" deserve.

Yes, it is your personal choice if you wear a helmet (or it should be), and, yes, that could make you become a burden. When the choice is personal, most sensible people would in fact choose to wear the helmet. But, if not, so what? It's the family's choice to take care of the vegetable or not (or it should be). Else, yes, you lose a freedom.

The question is: Why do you view it as a false dilemma of liberty? Is not a liberty actually being taken away? You may wish to pick and choose, but YOU are choosing for someone else. If you like to wear a helmet, your liberties are not being trampled upon by a helmet law, so it's easy to take that stance.

But, how would you feel if motorcycles were made illegal? Because that would solve your issue as well. (My analogy will fall apart if you simply don't like motorcycles, so if that's the case, substitute and imagine, please).

Be honest: Wouldn't you be pissed off if some group of "concerned people" got motorcycles banned? Cause that's exactly what's being done, to a lesser scale, with the helmet laws. You don't get to add in the ramifications of becoming a vegetable, or whatever. I can ride a motorcycle without a helmet my whole life, and never receive a scratch. Yet, I am being forced to put that thing on my head, which reduces visibility, makes the trip less enjoyable, gives me a headache, etc.

You could argue that my issues are not as important but it's you deciding that on my behalf, when it should be my choice! That's what's wrong with it.

[Maes]

kb1 said:

Yes, it is your personal choice if you wear a helmet (or it should be), and, yes, that could make you become a burden.

Again, everything changes if riding without a helmet couldn't bring harm to anyone else but yourself, not even to the state or your family, in financial terms. Your family should be given the option for humane euthanasia, in those cases.

[Technician]

Maes said:

Again, everything changes if riding without a helmet couldn't bring harm to anyone else but yourself, not even to the state or your family, in financial terms. Your family should be given the option for humane euthanasia, in those cases.

I was about to bring up that point.

[Da Werecat]

Today they're forcing their helmets upon me, tomorrow they'll ban motorcycles.

Today you want to ride without a helmet, tomorrow you'll want to live in anarchy.

It really boils down to people's views about the role of the state in their lives, which can be almost religious.

[Ishtar's Gate]

When you stop ingesting proven poisons with all those warnings repeated over and over towards you. It's not hard.

[hardcore_gamer]

Ishtar's Gate said:

When you stop ingesting proven poisons with all those warnings repeated over and over towards you. It's not hard.

I take it that you are going to stop eating junk food and soda? Surely a healthy person like yourself would never eat those horrible things?

[Maes]

hardcore_gamer said:

I take it that you are going to stop eating junk food and soda? Surely a healthy person like yourself would never eat those horrible things?

Of course not. Ishtar's Gate, with such an awesome nickname that reminds me of ideal, new-age sanctuaries, almost like a Shangri-La temple of bodily purity, eats nothing but all-organic food, grown in remote Tibetan monasteries by ascetic buddhist monks while contemplating the very concept of being. He spends no less than 12 hours a day meditating, and performs a 4-hour Tibetan tea-drinking ceremony every day.

[Technician]

I assume he's the Mesopotamian God's pussy.

[Mr. Freeze]

Why don't all the libertarians move to Somalia?

- No government!
- Loads of free individuals you can relate too!
- Plenty of guns!
- No roads? Build them! Become a wealthy businessman providing services to those who need them!

[hardcore_gamer]

Mr. Freeze said:

Why don't all the libertarians move to Somalia?

- No government!
- Loads of free individuals you can relate too!
- Plenty of guns!
- No roads? Build them! Become a wealthy businessman providing services to those who need them!

I love it when lefties try to use Somalia as an anti-small government example. You guys do realize that the reason Somalia is the way it is is because it used to be ran by a socialist dictatorship which fucked everything, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Democratic_Republic#Dissolution

If anything, Somalia is an argument AGAINST government, and not an argument in favor of it.

[Ishtar's Gate]

hardcore_gamer said:

I love it when lefties try to use Somalia as an anti-small government example. You guys do realize that the reason Somalia is the way it is is because it used to be ran by a socialist dictatorship which fucked everything, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Democratic_Republic#Dissolution

If anything, Somalia is an argument AGAINST government, and not an argument in favor of it.

[Mr. Freeze]

hardcore_gamer said:

I love it when lefties try to use Somalia as an anti-small government example. You guys do realize that the reason Somalia is the way it is is because it used to be ran by a socialist dictatorship which fucked everything, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Democratic_Republic#Dissolution

If anything, Somalia is an argument AGAINST government, and not an argument in favor of it.

That's a very nice non-sequitur you are babbling, but I'm talking about *present-day* Somalia. Again, why don't you move there? It has what you want, free from those bootlicking "leftists"!

[GreyGhost]

Maes said:

Your family should be given the option for humane euthanasia, in those cases.

My tool of choice would be a variant of the "painless destroyer" which is used to put down lame racehorses, it's basically a 22 calibre gun attached to a helmet. Every hospital ER should have one. There should also be a Three Strikes policy to prevent it being used indiscriminately -

• Will the patient's insurance cover their ongoing care?
• Is there someone who can be sued for damages?
• Will their next of kin look after them?

If the answer to all three is "NO", grab the cranium cannon and use it.

[hardcore_gamer]

Mr. Freeze said:

I'm talking about *present-day* Somalia.

And the present day Somalia is the byproduct of socialism. If the country had actually had a working system in the past it would not have collapsed.

Mr. Freeze said:

Again, why don't you move there? It has what you want, free from those bootlicking "leftists"!

This is nothing more than a bullshit strawman. Libertarians/conservatives don't want to literally abolish the state, with the exception of a tiny fringe that is no more representative of most right-wingers than the American Communist party is representative of the Democratic party. We just don't want it to be too big. Asking right-wingers why they don't move to Somalia is no different from asking lefties why they don't just move to North-Korea. These are childish arguments made mostly by childish people.

EDIT: I would also like to add an extra point to my argument regarding alcohol (this probably doesn't apply that much to smokes), which is the fact that bought alcohol isn't actually the same as consumed alcohol. I have like 6-8 bottles of whiskey most of whom are almost full. And that isn't even counting my other types of alcohol. This is because I don't wait until something is finished and instead like to have a nice collection of booze to choose from. And yet the anti-alcohol crowd acts as if more sales equals more drinking. This doesn't have to be true. Obviously the alcohol I have right now will be drank at SOME point, but in the meantime I will probably end up buying even more alcohol. If alcohol were cheaper nothing would change except that I would have an even larger alcohol collection. My actual drinking would not be greater than before.

EDIT 2: Actually, one thing would be different: The state would make more money off me without suffering extra cost.

[Technician]

Mr. Freeze said:

- No government!

Implying Sharia law isn't the ultimate in theocratic governance.