5 ms·
As a smoker I highly support fair taxes on tobacco. I would welcome the additional incentive to finally stop smoking and I believe that every individual has the
by pmr_ 13y ago
As a smoker I highly support fair taxes on tobacco. I would welcome the additional incentive to finally stop smoking and I believe that every individual has the right to hurt itself as long as it paying for the damage and not dropping the bill on others (I also think this applies to driving cars, eating unhealthy food, and so on).
One problem in Europe is that tobacco taxes are not bound to be used to bolster the health care systems or smoking prevention programs (In Germany the 2002 and 2003 tax raises have been used for funding the War on Terror). Another problem is, as shown by the article, that our damage estimates are very likely to have a large error margin.
If think if we could improve our damage estimates, use the estimates to continuously adapt taxes, use the tax income to pay for the damage and to prevent spread of the problem the problem could be solved.
To me it seems there is a gap for technology to make those things possible.
- aw3c2 13y ago> In Germany the 2002 and 2003 tax raises have been used for funding the War on Terror Citation please!
- pmr_ 13y agoIn http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/aenderungen-2003-oekosteuer-tabaksteuer-zinssteuer-a-228905.html http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/aenderungen-2003-o... see the second heading. I have further news articles from FAZ and Süddeutsche claiming the same. Unfortunately I cannot find an English source, I hope Google Translate is enough.
- aw3c2 13y agohaha, thanks!
- netcan 13y agoI disagree with this type of thinking. I think we need to be careful of mandates begetting mandates. I agree with public health spending. I think it's a good thing. But I don't think it should (morally) cost us personal freedoms like that. Paying for health does not give the public mandate over the private's eating/exercise/smoking habits. That is the road to totalitarianism and I don't think there is any reason to travel down it. Said another way: A public responsibility towards the private person's health care is not a wide responsibility for their health and it does not translate into a right to make an individual's health decisions for them.
- pmr_ 13y agoI think you misunderstood me or I wasn't clear. I'm not saying an individual's habits should be regulated or certain products should be banned, but that users of damaging substances should carry the cost those habits cause. This is the opposite from restricting individual freedoms: it makes your more directly responsible for the actions you take and makes you free to take those actions without ever burdening your fellow citizen. Maybe all those things just apply if there is mandatory health care, but I'm not really used to reason in systems where this isn't the case.
- netcan 13y agoI don't think I misunderstood you. If users of damaging substances (including for the sake of argument, big macs) are required "carry the cost those habits cause" indirectly via taxes, we are taking a step towards totalitarianism and away (in my opinion) from the democratic value that brought about the public health care in the first place. Education is a publicly provided good. We don't require people who have children to pay more taxes (the opposite, in fact). In any case I've heard that life prolonging habits can actually be a bigger drain on public purses as 100 year olds have spent many years living on social welfare payments and using up expensive medical resources. Most medical expenses are at the end of one's life and everyone dies eventually. To the extent that socialist/social welfarist policies/ideals are incompatible or at odds with democratic values, I think we should lean towards democracy. In this case, that is fairly simple: stop saying cigarette tax pays for lung cancer drugs. It doesn't and it shouldn't. The right to make ones own judgments and maintain the responsibility oneself is an inseparable part of individualism and democracy. I also think its an important part of secularism, but thats going into a stretch.
- pmr_ 13y agoWe require people with children to pay less taxes or subsidize them and provide those children with education because the value educated people provide to society is far higher than the actual cost of educating them. I would wager the same goes for long-lived, but healthy individuals, but this seems very hard to measure and I cannot find any numbers. So I would understand if you don't see this as a convincing argument. Especially since "value" should mean more than just money here. How do you keep people "maintaining the responsibility oneself" if you just let them continue to hurt themselves and then provide therapy funded by the general public?