
Originally Posted by
Hitcher
This hoary old fallacious argument assumes that there is no cost associated with tobacco, other than what smokers spend on their habits with the proceeds of those being shared by retailers, tobacco companies and the Government.
One in five smokers will die from smoking-related causes. That would be just fine if those were clean and tidy deaths at no cost to the taxpayers who fund the medical expenses associated with what are often long and costly illnesses. Then there are the people who aren't smokers but whose health is munted by passive smoking.
Without any of these consequences, then tobacco products probably would most certainly be a cash cow for graspingly desperate politicians.
Is it politically incorrect to send my ex a large carton of ciggies?
Seriously, what he said, plus - I wonder if you took the real social and economic costs of smoking, and drinking (policing, road deaths, health issues, violence); what would that number actually look like. I'm the last person to advocate governmental control, but I also think that balanced against the freedom to be as much of an asshole as you'd like (for example, laws like riding with helmets actually make sense no matter how much the old timers bleat about it) - adding duty to something like smoking makes logical sense. I just wish they'd add a rap music duty so you didn't run the risk of accidentally tuning in when station surfing...
It’s diametrically opposed to the sanitised existence of the Lemmings around me in the Dilbert Cartoon hell I live in; it’s life at full volume, perfect colour with high resolution and 10,000 watts of amplification.
Bookmarks