(March 16, 2011 at 7:45 pm)theVOID Wrote: Yay government!

Yay democratic representative government!
Nay Semi-Anarchy!

(March 16, 2011 at 8:18 pm)HeyItsZeus Wrote:

(March 16, 2011 at 7:45 pm)theVOID Wrote: Yay government!

Yay democratic representative government!
Nay Semi-Anarchy!

That's what you've already got...

(March 16, 2011 at 8:53 pm)theVOID Wrote:

(March 16, 2011 at 8:18 pm)HeyItsZeus Wrote:

(March 16, 2011 at 7:45 pm)theVOID Wrote: Yay government!

Yay democratic representative government!
Nay Semi-Anarchy!

That's what you've already got...

No I don't. My government is a fraud. It's not a conspiracy theory it's reality.

(March 16, 2011 at 5:47 pm)theVOID Wrote: Dotard, I had started going through the truncated posts but it became rather obvious early on that you've got it ass backwards as far as the method is concerned, It will be easier to clearly lay out how it would work and then you can raise criticisms.

---

Start with a base rate based on the average health liabilities of the population, give it the value 1.

Each person prior to getting health insurance gets a physical, .....(snip).

That does make sense. I'm sure there would be no problem with it in private insurance. I'll stick with the socialist one.

Cosidering the healh implications involved with the individual and soceity as a whole, this isn't such a bad idea.

The cost assciated with heath care for smaokers far outweighs the taxable benefits.

The consideration of others, in regards to passive smoke, must be taken into cosideration.

The pollution aspect is also considerable, in terms of smoke butts in the streets, hence waterways.

Smoking dosen't have any postive aspects associated with it, apart from self indulgence.

(March 17, 2011 at 12:02 am)ib.me.ub Wrote: Cosidering the healh implications involved with the individual and soceity as a whole, this isn't such a bad idea.

The cost assciated with heath care for smaokers far outweighs the taxable benefits.

It's a shit idea, you've got no business telling people what to do with their own bodies. If people want to smoke make the pay for their own injuries from it, problem solved.

Quote:The consideration of others, in regards to passive smoke, must be taken into cosideration.

Second hand smoke isn't a problem if you aren't being negligent (like smoking in a confined space with children), and negligence is already illegal so passing more laws isn't going to help

Plus banning tobacco is going to create a black market that ensures zero revenue goes to the state and into the hands of criminals instead, people who don't pay taxes on their incomes.

Quote:The pollution aspect is also considerable, in terms of smoke butts in the streets, hence waterways.

Last time I checked it was already illegal.

Nobody drinks water from the sewers so that's not relevant.

Quote:Smoking dosen't have any postive aspects associated with it, apart from self indulgence.

Neither do cheese burgers or dildos, not a good reason to ban something.

It would seem that our respective gummnits are hell bent on becoming the next "NEW RELIGION" V0ID

I am of the opinion that smokers are less of a strain on health services than the so called "non-smoking healthy"

I wonder what the gummmnits call smoke stack smoke ...passive, active, not there?? I do believe that the stats are manipulated and that no investigation is taken into deaths but (like speeding) because a person smoked THAT is what killed them.

Recently this was posted on a Motorcycle Forum ... "if a person was travelling along a road @ the posted limit and suddenly came across and unexpected piece of road work that would at best be negotiated at say 20kph below that limit the police will state that in the accident and death of the driver that speeding was a factor" ....?? But of course the fact that Multinovas reap in revenue is immaterial to the number of "Lives Saved" by having them there...so much so that in Aus it is now a viable industry???

There is a big push from the pharmaceutical companies that put out these so called "cures" for smoking. Heavily subsidised they are.
And of course Quit would dearly love to be out of work???

Sorry guys but I am Highly sceptical of so called "Government Health and Safety Initiatives" and General Medicine in particular
...my 2 bits

Void

Have I actually understood? Some elected official with an IQ of a kiwi (bird) has decided to ban an addiction more powerful than heroin?


Gee,I'll bet diverse crims are absolutely delighted,prohibition 21st century style. The government will save no money,none: Banning will cause few,if any people to quit,and will save the health system nothing. Instead, the government lose millions in tax revenue AND pay a scary amount to try (unsuccessfully) to enforce such a ban.

Fess up Void, you're taking the piss ain'tcha? Surely you don't REALLY have any politicians that suicidally stupid?

Yeah, but the problem is, smokers don't pay for their own hospital. See, they spend their whole life broke, buying smokes and dope, become extremely unhealthy, then end up in state paid hospitals.

It would stop things like passive smoking of children in cars. How many people do you see driving around having a bong.

Nobody drinks water from the sewers? Do you have any idea of how the water cycle works?

Don't play dumb VOID.

Certain things they don't ban, but that certainly dosen't help society. Bunch of hopeful intellects trying to curb their uncontrolled desires.

Quote:Yeah, but the problem is, smokers don't pay for their own hospital.

Untrue. The US does not have universal health care,it's very much user pays. Australia does have universal health care,it's funded by a 2.5% tax levy on gross earnings.(above all other taxes)

Quote:See, they spend their whole life broke, buying smokes and dope, become extremely unhealthy, then end up in state paid hospitals.

WHAT? We're talking about TOBACCO smoking.That does not lead to other drugs. I smoked for over 30 years. I did not and do not smoke dope or take any drugs unless prescribed by my doctor. I have not been broke since I was 18 ,(1966) making shit money,and self supporting in a strange city. So far I've never spent a day in hospital due to a smoking caused illness. I also have private health insurance.

I'm a self funded retiree.As a senior, I get $100 a year off my land tax of $1200,and my dog registration is half price.That's it.

The issue is about the idiocy of trying to ban an addiction. I suspect your apparent inability to grasp the problem may be due to not having a clue about the nature of addiction.

Perhaps try to avoid making ignorant and rather stupid generalisations in future. You might then come across as less of a complete horse's arse. Or not.

DISCLAIMER. Note I say "come across as" (seem). I've never met you. For all I know you may be a thoroughly nice chap,much loved by family, friends,children and small domestic animals.