www.ditl.org

Okay, then. I misunderstood.

What you're now suggesting is still discriminatory, though.

Captain Seafort wrote:I would however, support a gradual extension of current smoking laws in order to eradicate it through simply making it too difficult/expensive.

Do the same with drinking, unhealthy food, excessive cell phone use, and dangerous sports, and you would at least not be discriminatory/hypocritical.

You'd just be a fascist.

Tsukiyumi wrote:What you're now suggesting is still discriminatory, though.

Correct - it's discriminating against a substance that, were it discovered today, would probably be Class B, same as weed.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:What you're now suggesting is still discriminatory, though.

Correct - it's discriminating against a substance that, were it discovered today, would probably be Class B, same as weed.

Where would alcohol fall on that scale, then? It's exponentially more harmful than marijuana.

Also, over here at least, marijuana is in the same category as heroin - Class A. Progress has been made to change that idiocy, but not much.

And lastly, a diet of fast food and sugary bullshit can and does create just as many health issues as smoking.

So, it would be grossly unfair and negligent to exclude alcohol and crappy diets from the same discrimination you're suggesting.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Where would alcohol fall on that scale, then? It's exponentially more harmful than marijuana.

No, it isn't - indeed, there's some evidence that it's good for you, in moderation. It's effects are far greater, but the same would be true if tens of thousands of people got stoned of their faces every Friday night

Also, over here at least, marijuana is in the same category as heroin - Class A. Progress has been made to change that idiocy, but not much.

Class B over here, and it was bumped down to class C a few years ago, but was bumped back up again.

And lastly, a diet of fast food and sugary bullshit can and does create just as many health issues as smoking.

Yeah, but controlling entire categories of food is somewhat more difficult than specific drugs.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:Where would alcohol fall on that scale, then? It's exponentially more harmful than marijuana.

No, it isn't - indeed, there's some evidence that it's good for you, in moderation. It's effects are far greater, but the same would be true if tens of thousands of people got stoned of their faces every Friday night

Plenty of evidence that marijuana is good for some people - that's why my uncle in California has a medical marijuana card.

Captain Seafort wrote:

And lastly, a diet of fast food and sugary bullshit can and does create just as many health issues as smoking.

Yeah, but controlling entire categories of food is somewhat more difficult than specific drugs.

Agreed, but, if the point is to eventually eliminate things that are unhealthy for people, targeting a single group is unjust. Plenty of stuff that's bad for people. Why pick on smokers? Because it's easier?

Also, a number of states have proposed higher taxes on "junk" foods in order to do the same thing as with smoking. Of course, the end result is to slowly starve poor people, but hey, at least they won't die from coronary artery disease, right?

Tsukiyumi wrote:Plenty of evidence that marijuana is good for some people - that's why my uncle in California has a medical marijuana card.

Key words being "some people", but conceded - it can certainly be a useful painkiller at the very least.

Agreed, but, if the point is to eventually eliminate things that are unhealthy for people

It's not merely about being unhealthy, but about being one of the world's worst killers.

Well, it sounds like we mostly agree on this one. I only disagree on the basis of personal freedom, but that's a matter of opinion, not facts.

Good debate.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Agreed, but, if the point is to eventually eliminate things that are unhealthy for people, targeting a single group is unjust. Plenty of stuff that's bad for people. Why pick on smokers? Because it's easier?

Because smoking doesn't just hurt the person who is smoking. It hurts other people as well, on top of causing issues with recovery. Its the same reason you can't have alcohol when you're getting blood transfusions or transplants.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Also, a number of states have proposed higher taxes on "junk" foods in order to do the same thing as with smoking. Of course, the end result is to slowly starve poor people, but hey, at least they won't die from coronary artery disease, right?

A poor person can eat healthy for the same cost as eating unhealthy. The higher taxes on junk foods also have no impact on someone going to the store and buying something healthy to eat which is tax free.

Deepcrush wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:Agreed, but, if the point is to eventually eliminate things that are unhealthy for people, targeting a single group is unjust. Plenty of stuff that's bad for people. Why pick on smokers? Because it's easier?

Because smoking doesn't just hurt the person who is smoking. It hurts other people as well...

Ever heard of Mothers Against Drunk Driving? Also, the other day, a morbidly obese lady here in Houston fell on a toddler and crushed the kid. All three hurt other people, or, more accurately, have the potential to hurt others.

I don't smoke around kids. I don't like people smoking in restaurants. You already can't smoke anywhere near the entrance to buildings. So, who else am I hurting, exactly?

Deepcrush wrote:A poor person can eat healthy for the same cost as eating unhealthy...

Tell that to the organic section at my grocery store.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Ever heard of Mothers Against Drunk Driving? Also, the other day,

Already addressed that drinking has been approached before. Which is why there is a higher tax on alcohol then there is soda. Its also why you get arrested if you're drinking alcohol while driving.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Also, the other day, a morbidly obese lady here in Houston fell on a toddler and crushed the kid.

I'm 6'2 and 220 lbs, if I fell on a child it would kill them the same as that lady did. This example is invalid since anyone bigger then someone else falling on them can kill a person.

Tsukiyumi wrote:All three hurt other people, or, more accurately, have the potential to hurt others.

And two of the three are controlled items, while the third was a problem with balance.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Tell that to the organic section at my grocery store.

Every time I see their prices, I'm glad I don't take them seriously.

Deepcrush wrote:Already addressed that drinking has been approached before. Which is why there is a higher tax on alcohol then there is soda. Its also why you get arrested if you're drinking alcohol while driving.

Right, but, shouldn't the tax on alcohol also be raised to an extreme to dissuade people from drinking? Or, as Seafort puts it, "a gradual extension of current laws in order to eradicate it through simply making it too difficult/expensive"?

If we're going Gestapo, lets do it fairly.

Deepcrush wrote:I'm 6'2 and 220 lbs, if I fell on a child it would kill them the same as that lady did. This example is invalid since anyone bigger then someone else falling on them can kill a person.

Fair enough. In retrospect, at 6' and 180, I could have still killed that kid if I landed wrong. Doesn't mean the heavy folks are exempt from the "let's gradually force everyone to be healthy" initiative that seems to be seriously taking hold everywhere.

Deepcrush wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:Tell that to the organic section at my grocery store.

Every time I see their prices, I'm glad I don't take them seriously.

Okay, here's a serious one for you: A single mother has two kids, and an income of about $500 a month (minimum wage crap). Even if she has roommates, her food budget is going to be in the $30-40 a week range at most. Her rent, bills and gas eat the rest.

So, if she can get "fruit drink" powdered mix that makes 8 gallons for half the price of 1 gallon of OJ, which will she buy? Raise the cost of the "fruit drink", and now her kids just have tapwater. This solution only penalizes the poor people who don't qualify for govt. aid. You know the ones I'm referring to.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Right, but, shouldn't the tax on alcohol also be raised to an extreme to dissuade people from drinking? Or, as Seafort puts it, "a gradual extension of current laws in order to eradicate it through simply making it too difficult/expensive"?

If we're going Gestapo, lets do it fairly.

Last I checked, alcohol already has a pretty high tax rate.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Fair enough. In retrospect, at 6' and 180, I could have still killed that kid if I landed wrong. Doesn't mean the heavy folks are exempt from the "let's gradually force everyone to be healthy" initiative that seems to be seriously taking hold everywhere.

Its not about forcing people to live healthy. Its about forcing them to live healthy while they are seeing the doctor.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Okay, here's a serious one for you: A single mother has two kids, and an income of about $500 a month (minimum wage crap). Even if she has roommates, her food budget is going to be in the $30-40 a week range at most. Her rent, bills and gas eat the rest.

She's making under 300$ per month per person within the household she gets food stamps. They also qualify for free school meals (lunches and breakfests) On top of that, the amount of money could you stated could (according to Safeway.com/Arnold) buy 15lbs of ground beef plus 15lbs of pasta noodles and one 5lbs tub of tang which can make 25 gallons of tang drink.

So that provides a fair bit of food all together.

Tsukiyumi wrote:So, if she can get "fruit drink" powdered mix that makes 8 gallons for half the price of 1 gallon of OJ, which will she buy? Raise the cost of the "fruit drink", and now her kids just have tapwater. This solution only penalizes the poor people who don't qualify for govt. aid. You know the ones I'm referring to.

Wrong, this is just propaganda. The cost of a full single meal at even McDonalds is between 8 and 10$. That provides limited nutritional value to those eating it for only a part of the day. The same amount of money can buy two meals at a hot deli or provide several pounds of pasta to eat. Both of which would feed two persons for an entire day. The only people hurt are those who feel they have to live on fast food rather then eating a tax free meal from a grocery store. You can jack up taxes on fast food to 20,000% and it would have zero impact on the lower class's ability to survive. In fact it may even help them if such a thing came around since it would force them to eat healthier foods in which your body needs less of to survive. Less food means less cost, less money spent on taxes and more value for their expense.

Deepcrush wrote:Last I checked, alcohol already has a pretty high tax rate.

Not as high as cigarettes. It's about 300%.

Deepcrush wrote:Its not about forcing people to live healthy. Its about forcing them to live healthy while they are seeing the doctor.

We aren't discussing the Swedish situation anymore. I'm talking about health initiatives in the US now.

Deepcrush wrote:She's making under 300$ per month per person within the household she gets food stamps. They also qualify for free school meals (lunches and breakfests) On top of that, the amount of money could you stated could (according to Safeway.com/Arnold) buy 15lbs of ground beef plus 15lbs of pasta noodles and one 5lbs tub of tang which can make 25 gallons of tang drink.

Yeah, but that Tang drink would fall under the tax increased items in the plans I've seen proposed. Now, that 5 pound tub would cost half of the week's budget.

Also, single mother, two kids, $500 a month... no food stamps. Not a number from a website; that's an actual scenario that happened. You have to qualify for assistance, and the qualifications are specific, and getting tougher.

For certain people, at least.

Deepcrush wrote:Wrong, this is just propaganda. The cost of a full single meal at even McDonalds is between 8 and 10$. That provides limited nutritional value to those eating it for only a part of the day. The same amount of money can buy two meals at a hot deli or provide several pounds of pasta to eat. Both of which would feed two persons for an entire day. The only people hurt are those who feel they have to live on fast food rather then eating a tax free meal from a grocery store. You can jack up taxes on fast food to 20,000% and it would have zero impact on the lower class's ability to survive. In fact it may even help them if such a thing came around since it would force them to eat healthier foods in which your body needs less of to survive. Less food means less cost, less money spent on taxes and more value for their expense.

I'm not talking about a fast food tax; I'd be in favor of that. It would stop all these lazy fucking people from using fast food to stuff their kids' gullets. Probably the same folks who expect the schools to raise their kids, and the TV to be the afterschool care.

The laws I've seen considered would raise the tax on TV dinners, powdered drinks, lunchmeats like bologna, hot dogs, and most everything else that's still reasonably priced. I guess they could go with beans and rice, right? 15 pounds of ground beef? Where do you put the leftovers? Not everyone has a spacious freezer. Besides which, who wants to eat the same thing 7 days a week, week in week out? It's just another way of penalizing the working poor.

I'm not discussing the welfare leeches. Here in Texas at least, if you have two jobs, and make more than minimum wage (and don't belong to certain groups), they won't even give you child care vouchers. They penalize people for trying to work hard and better their situation.