01 Mar 12
8 edits
Originally posted by dryhumpMy guess is that smokers already pay enough taxes in a price of a pack of cigarettes to compensate for costs associated with their lifestyle choice to smoke. I would have to see the data and think about it but would likely not be in favor of higher taxes on smokers.
Sure it's hypocritical. Now admit it, you're in favor of higher taxes on smokers.
Morever, as a smoker, I have grown tired of paying such high prices for cigarettes. When I first started smoking at age 11, cigarettes were only 25 cents per pack. Now, I could try quit but the addiction is strong. I have successfully quit every other drug I used as a kid and young adult. If one can make it to age 18 without smoking, you are likely home free. The tobacco companies like get you addicted young. I do accept personal responsibility and if wanted to quit bad enough I would focus in it and try everything possible. While I have quit smoking many times, I always started back. The longest I went without smoking was 9 days while living in Italy. Me and the wife were yelling at each other and didn't even know why.
Recently, I have bought bags of tobacco and rolled cigarettes, just to try it. Price per cigarrette is cheaper than buying the typical pack. Also, I have heard you can buy tobacco from smuggled from Canada here in the US black market cheap, now that a retail pack of cigarettes is above $5. Don't know if there is any truth to that.
Originally posted by dryhumpYes, because extending medical insurance coverage is remotely the same as telling doctors how to treat patients. And this is to the point that they're extorting women by forcing the doctor to shove a large probe in her vagina whether she wants it or not, and whether the doctor determines it's necessary or not.
I find it funny that a person in favor of a national health care system could argue with a straight face about big government getting involved in medical decisions. I don't agree with these laws, but you're argument is disingenuous to say the least.
Let's at least try to appear intellectually honest, shall we?
01 Mar 12
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperHave you read any other post in this thread? I already stated my opposition for this law several times. My only point is that government insurance leads to a situation where government is involved in deciding which treatments a person can or can't get access to. I provided articles to back up my claim. It seems disingenuous to argue that government interference in healthcare is the reason you or moon or sooth oppose this law. I once again ask you or any of your cohorts to explain when it is okay for government to be involved in medical decisions and when it is not. How do you draw the line? This is too far, but denying cancer patients treatment is okay?
Yes, because extending medical insurance coverage is remotely the same as telling doctors how to treat patients. And this is to the point that they're extorting women by forcing the doctor to shove a large probe in her vagina whether she wants it or not, and whether the doctor determines it's necessary or not.
Let's at least try to appear intellectually honest, shall we?
