(March 17, 2011 at 1:03 am)theVOID Wrote: If people want to smoke make the pay for their own injuries from it, problem solved.

No it ain't. Again, how exactly do you intend to "make them" pay?

Can you use the quotes properly next time? I've fixed 2 of your posts prior to now and given you notice, next time you respond to someone with bold inside quote tags I'm deleting your post.

(March 16, 2011 at 4:36 pm)HeyItsZeus Wrote: OK... they get their healthcare through the government and then they have to pay more; special add on price treatment for smokers

That's one possibility. It's just as unfair for taxpayers to cover damage people knowingly do to themselves than it is for people to privately pay higher rates to cover them. When you've got a socialized healthcare system like here in NZ making people who smoke pay extra is the way to go, it means you don't have to resort to douchebag authoritarianism.

Quote:I loled at this...as a libertarian you have no right to ask for price regulation/ irony.

You're actually that oblivious? It's Government taxes make up the bulk of the price of smokes and their regulations and price minimums stop people competing on price so the consumers pay more.

The prices have been driven up by the government, without taxes and tariffs or price minimums smokes would be a hell of a lot cheaper, rather than $14 a pack they'd be around $4.

Libertarianism is against the government manipulating consumer choice through targeted taxes and subsidies, this is the EXACT OPPOSITE.

Quote:then people will stop being shit-heads and perhaps not start smoking... it makes an impression when when someone sees your broke ass on the street begging for smokes )

And you think making smokes outrageously expensive helps keep people off the streets? Most people who smoke are low income, raising taxes on smokes just fucks over the poor. And these homeless people have next to nothing, smokes are one of the few luxuries they have, you want to take that away from them too?

And someone is a shithead now just for smoking? What an asshole, how about you get off your high horse and stop judging people for the decisions they freely make.

Quote:sooooo why do you have to smoke again???? oh wait.........................you don't.

Do you have to eat your favorite snack? No. Lets ban it.
Do you have to drive fast cars? No. Let's ban them.

Etc.

Quote:You should be allowed to smoke but if there is a way for life to get harder for you because you smoke I will support it. I know it sounds sinister but it actually isn't. I care too much about humanity to be basically handing out cigarettes to people. Libertarianism, once again, in my opinion fails.

It's not your fucking decision, it's theirs. How can you say you care about people when you don't even respect their rights over their own bodies? You want to punish people to coax them into sharing your views.

You're completely authoritarian, it's despicable.

(March 17, 2011 at 3:43 am)padraic Wrote: 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?

Unfortunately yes, and it only cost a committee 40 million dollars to come up with the idea! Bargin!

It's enough to make me vote for a fringe party this year.

Perhaps I discovered that I'm a bit authoritarian, then. Maybe I need to re-evaluate my thinking. I will post later on today.

(March 17, 2011 at 4:09 am)ib.me.ub Wrote: 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.

1. That's why I proposed making people pay the difference for their own smoking related illnesses. It's not fair to other people to cover the burden.

2. Hardly any smokers also smoke weed, especially the older ones who tend to make up the bulk of the smokers anyway. And how the fuck is this relevant anyway?

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

How many people have I seen driving with a bong? NONE. EVER.

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

Yeah, dilution and treatment centers, they take care of any pollution in the water supply. You think smoking contributes a significant amount compared to bodily waste and other water contaminants? It doesn't and we don't get sick from that, so the treatment facilities clearly work.

Quote: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.

Oh yeah there are so many intellectuals who smoke...

There are far better and more liberty focused ways to solve the problem than the typical authoritarian crackdown approach which is an epic failure. Look at the war on drugs in the US to see how it's done far more harm than good.

(March 17, 2011 at 6:31 am)Dotard Wrote:

(March 17, 2011 at 1:03 am)theVOID Wrote: If people want to smoke make the pay for their own injuries from it, problem solved.

No it ain't. Again, how exactly do you intend to "make them" pay?

They present in hospital with a smoking caused illness, they get invoiced the difference. From there they are obligated to pay it like any other bill. If they can't pay it they get support, if they simply refuse to pay it they are prosecuted like anyone else who refuses to pay their bills.

It's not going to eliminate the unfairness entirely, but it'll go a damn long way to solving it so people who care about their health are not constantly forking out for people who don't.

(March 17, 2011 at 6:51 am)theVOID Wrote: ...if they simply refuse to pay it they are prosecuted like anyone else who refuses to pay their bills.

That amounts to receiving an endless lifetime supply of birdcage liners and hamster bedding. There is no such thing as debtors prison here, I don't know about your country. What 'procecution' is there for a deadbeat debtor? Get on the bad credit list? Oh boy!

Quote:...but it'll go a damn long way to solving it so people who care about their health are not constantly forking out for people who don't.

Actually I don't see that. I'd be more of a case of the insurance companies not forking more. I'd bet a dime to a dollar your individual rates would not decrease but the insurance companies would be turning a more tiddy profit.


For me, I'll just keep getting carted into hospitals when I fuk myself up mountain biking or whatever, they'll fix me up and I'll file their bills in File 13.
And, once again, I will thank my Uncle Sam and the American Taxpayer.

Healthcare based on capitalism, as you suggest with private healthcare, would see me die.
Socialised healthcare, as I would advocate for, is based on..... health. Making people whole again.

I just wouldn't be very comfortable with the Ferengi in charge of my healthcare.

How do we know who is telling the truth about smoking? How do we know peoples lung damage wasn't caused by anything else? How do we know who is doing the exercise they are saying they are doing? How would this system be anywhere near possible?

Like I said Im very against it, for the simple fact in the U.K. at least people like smokers and drinkers already pay more into the pot via taxes on whatever substance they want to abuse than they take out in the costs of treatments for the causes. This wasn't addressed by anyone who seems pro the "charge anyone who does anything risky more money for basic health care" route.

I don't see why it's a problem for me to be authoritarian. I only crack down on things that by my infallible way of thinking is wrong, or at least inconvenient to me

Here in the U.S. the government has an ongoing campaign to make as many people as it can quit smoking. One of the things they are doing is constantly adding ridiculous tax hikes on tobacco products. They have set up a phone hot line you can call to get help quitting. They provide nicotine patches through prescription that you can get free through medicaid or your health plan. But you'd think that they would have learned something from the prohibition. You can't force someone to quit smoking or doing drugs etc. Here in New York people sell cigarettes on the street for lower prices illegally. And drug dealers are everywhere so if someone wants something bad enough there will always be someone there to provide it illegally. The mafia was the provider of booze during the prohibition and eventually the government got the picture and abandoned the law making drinking legal again yaaaaay !

agreed CP, btw it's good to see you around again.

(March 17, 2011 at 7:52 am)Dotard Wrote:

(March 17, 2011 at 6:51 am)theVOID Wrote: ...if they simply refuse to pay it they are prosecuted like anyone else who refuses to pay their bills.

That amounts to receiving an endless lifetime supply of birdcage liners and hamster bedding. There is no such thing as debtors prison here, I don't know about your country. What 'procecution' is there for a deadbeat debtor? Get on the bad credit list? Oh boy!

The court can order that the bill comes out of your wages incrementally.

Quote:

Quote:...but it'll go a damn long way to solving it so people who care about their health are not constantly forking out for people who don't.

Actually I don't see that. I'd be more of a case of the insurance companies not forking more. I'd bet a dime to a dollar your individual rates would not decrease but the insurance companies would be turning a more tiddy profit.

We were discussing a social medicine solution, you'd already agreed that judging health at physicals made sense in a private system, smoking is no different there.

Quote:For me, I'll just keep getting carted into hospitals when I fuk myself up mountain biking or whatever, they'll fix me up and I'll file their bills in File 13.

And, once again, I will thank my Uncle Sam and the American Taxpayer.

So you're prod of being a free loader?

No wonder we're all so heavily in debt.

Quote:Healthcare based on capitalism, as you suggest with private healthcare, would see me die.
Socialised healthcare, as I would advocate for, is based on..... health. Making people whole again.

No it wouldn't, it would only require that people who can afford to pay it do so themselves, if you're broke you would still get aid from state and charity. If you can afford it but chose to be a cheap skate then the state takes it directly out of your wages or seizes your assets. But you just seem to want everyone else to pick up the burden.

Quote:I just wouldn't be very comfortable with the Ferengi in charge of my healthcare.

YOU would be responsible for your healthcare. But you don't like being responsible for yourself right? Just make everyone else pick up the slack.