[Gothos]

Especially in the current 'legalise drugs!' fashion, it does sound like it's somewhat odd to single tobacco out of the movement.
Could just leave it as a niche product.

[Aptorian]

Shinrei, on 17 May 2011 - 07:42 AM, said:

Battle Plaptypus, on 17 May 2011 - 06:59 AM, said:

Wow that actually made me a bit angry.

The idea of lowering your prices because you're afraid you'll lose profits is amusing, but the whole idea of the cigarette company(ies) fighting the government in this way to negate the attempt to dissuade kids from starting smoking is... annoying to say the least.

Can't wait till Tobacco companies are dead and gone in the West in another decade or two.

Can't say I'd be sorry to see tobacco go, but won't it just become another illegal substance that people buy from shady dealers then? At least this way, the government gets a tax and doesn't have to declare a "War on Smoking" at which to throw tax dollars.

In case of a ban on tobacco ever actually going in to effect, I don't think you should compare it to the war on drugs.

It isn't nearly as detrimental to your health or, in the case of Marijuana, mental productivity. It's just addictive and smelly.

I could see a law prohibiting the production, sale and import of Tobacco coming into effect and that being that. The government wouldn't even bother looking for the stuff. If they come across it they confiscate it, but there isn't really a need to punish or fine for possession.

With out it being openly sold or paraded in public it will eventually fade to a niche demographic. I think the fact that it is smelly, tastes like shit and has a bad public image alone will be enough to dissuade most people from going near it.

...

Then comes the ban on alcohol

[Gothos]

You speak as if you ever smoked, Apt.

[Aptorian]

I was an occasional party smoker when I was a teenager. Then I moved up to Marijuana. Then I decided that pretty much anything regarding smoking sucks.

[Shinrei]

Battle Plaptypus, on 17 May 2011 - 08:15 AM, said:

Then comes the ban on alcohol

FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS.



Or should I say

[Tapper]

I agree with everyone who says this won't deter a lot of people. If the goal is to make smoking unattractive and make it impossible for teenagers to get to, ban selling cigarettes from the supermarkets, gas stations, newspaper stands and other places where the cashiers won't ask for IDs because a) there's a massive line behind the current customer, they don't give a shit c) don't speak the lingo well enough d) can do without having angry teenagers who start arguments in front of them.

Instead, bring back the tobacco shop, and take away licenses of those propietors who sell to youngsters/ people without an ID.

Re taxing:
There is nothing wrong with taxing the very well to do a bit more once they go past a certain income. Like in Denmark, it works the same way here. It is not like their standard of living is threatened by this, is it?

The thing is, Apt, I disagree with you that the rich should just accept they have to pay more because they are part of a democracy and thus have to look out for the wellbeing of their fellow man.

Nope. They will and are expected to vote for who/what is best for them. Since they are a minority, they don't control the vote but may have an influence on the outcome that is out of proportion thanks to campaign funding and semi-celebrity status. Money opens doors, after all.

Alcohol ban: no, that will be the day I hang myself.
But at the same time, we do have to recognize that alcohol is involved in many incidents/ accidents.

[Shinrei]

Here is a somewhat related thing that has just come out in the US:

http://www.acsh.org/...news_detail.asp

Quote

Junk food ads for kids may fall under same restrictions as X-rated content



Four governmental agencies — the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) — yesterday proposed voluntary guidelines for the food industry that would limit “junk food” advertisements aimed at children up to the age of 17. The agencies’ stated goal is to counter the nation’s childhood obesity epidemic. The proposed regulations would affect television and print ad marketing efforts, as well as campaigns on websites, online games and social media. Product placement in movies and the use of movie characters to promote fast-food children’s meals would also be limited.

In response to the newly issued proposal, Dan Jaffe, an executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers, tells The New York Times, “There’s clearly a demand hidden behind the velvet glove of the voluntary language.”

We here at ACSH acknowledge that the obesity problem is a serious one. ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross, however, also believes the new guidelines are too intrusive. “Even though they’re voluntary, companies will likely face heavy pressure to implement them, and I just don’t believe that it’s the government’s responsibility to tell private food manufacturers and advertisers how to do their jobs under the guise of public health.”

Furthermore, who’s going to decide which foods are healthy? “Dietary guidelines are ever-changing, and we often find that food recommendations that were seemingly obvious in 1980 are actually no longer accurate in 2010,” says Dr. Ross. “So who is going to make that judgment call?” He adds, “These voluntary guidelines will most likely work their way into regulations until actual legal restrictions are imposed, and I predict these anti-’junk food’ limitations will become mandates before too long.”

Another article I read talked more in detail about the regulation specifically targeting the cartoon characters for cereals etc., but I can't find that article at the moment.

Now, what's my problem with this? The fact that these characters like Tony the Tiger etc, and advertisements for other junkfood like Mountain Dew and Doritos have been around since before I was born. The childhood obesity problem has really been getting out of control in recent years. This suggests to me that something else is going on in society to cause this, and this regulating of company advertising is just a way the government can say "Look, we're dooing something wheee!" rather than identifying and attacking something that might actually be causing the problem.

[McLovin]

Shinrei, on 17 May 2011 - 12:56 PM, said:

The fact that these characters like Tony the Tiger etc, and advertisements for other junkfood like Mountain Dew and Doritos have been around since before I was born. The childhood obesity problem has really been getting out of control in recent years. This suggests to me that something else is going on in society to cause this

Indeed, it took a village. For example:
1. Double-income/working-mom/single-parent/divorced families on the rise, giving kids less supervision
2. Rise of computers and video games. And social media.
3. Availability of child-oriented programming 24/7, so kids can glue themselves to the TV anytime.
4. Reduction of recess time and phys ed in schools to comply with standardized testing requirements.
5. The invention of high-fructose corn syrup, which made sodas and junk foods super cheap to make. Hence, super cheap to consume.
6. Media coverage of crimes has boosted parents' fear of letting their kids outside.

For all the above reasons, it's just too easy nowadays to plop a kid in front of the TV/Xbox/computer and pump them full of calories.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

When I have kids, I am not buying them any of that crap, until they can buy it themselves.

[Silencer]

McLovin, on 17 May 2011 - 03:06 PM, said:

Shinrei, on 17 May 2011 - 12:56 PM, said:

The fact that these characters like Tony the Tiger etc, and advertisements for other junkfood like Mountain Dew and Doritos have been around since before I was born. The childhood obesity problem has really been getting out of control in recent years. This suggests to me that something else is going on in society to cause this

Indeed, it took a village. For example:
1. Double-income/working-mom/single-parent/divorced families on the rise, giving kids less supervision
2. Rise of computers and video games. And social media.
3. Availability of child-oriented programming 24/7, so kids can glue themselves to the TV anytime.
4. Reduction of recess time and phys ed in schools to comply with standardized testing requirements.
5. The invention of high-fructose corn syrup, which made sodas and junk foods super cheap to make. Hence, super cheap to consume.
6. Media coverage of crimes has boosted parents' fear of letting their kids outside.

For all the above reasons, it's just too easy nowadays to plop a kid in front of the TV/Xbox/computer and pump them full of calories.

In other words, parents with less ability to say 'no' to their children. That pretty much sums up every point there, doesn't it? Well, except the phys-ed thing in schools - I wasn't aware that had happened (then again, different countires, different practices).
And it's not just saying 'no', it's saying 'go do this'. Or 'let's go and do...', even better, if possible.

@Tapper re taxing: I think you'll find the 'standard of living' issue isn't exactly the concern of high-income earners. It's more like, "what's mine is mine, we're not a socialist/communist state, get the fuck out". It's not a great justification, by any stretch of the imagination, but it is nonetheless an understandable one in a capitalist society (democracy, after all, is just a means of making decisions, not an economic outlook) where self comes first. And throw in the 'people are bastards' angle, and you can see why rich people don't want to be taxed just because they 'do well in life'.

And yes, a large problem with the whole thing is the cashiers/shops. After all, you have to enforce a law for it to have effect and, much like speed limits, or simple road rules like indication, it isn't really worth the time and hassle to properly enforce all infringements. Therefore, people will not pay attention to the law (like file sharing/piracy).

[Tapper]

Silencer, on 18 May 2011 - 06:50 AM, said:

@Tapper re taxing: I think you'll find the 'standard of living' issue isn't exactly the concern of high-income earners. It's more like, "what's mine is mine, we're not a socialist/communist state, get the fuck out". It's not a great justification, by any stretch of the imagination, but it is nonetheless an understandable one in a capitalist society (democracy, after all, is just a means of making decisions, not an economic outlook) where self comes first. And throw in the 'people are bastards' angle, and you can see why rich people don't want to be taxed just because they 'do well in life'.

I agree, it is more or less what I tried to say - Apt was the one who made the statement that the rich should look out for others I'm of the idea that that is not to be expected, but the cause for the greater good (which is what democracy is all about) more or less allows the people's representatives to bypass the rich minority.

[HiddenOne]

Well, here you go

Smoking is evil, I need one right now. If govt. would force tobacco companies to sell a pure product with all the heroin & stuff in it, I might just quit. But then if it didn't smell so foul and make me cough, I might have to take up excercising, which would really cut into my smoking time. Everybody loses that way.

Alcohol, I gave it up, but I used to really enjoy the hangovers, particularly the vomiting and exploding head part. My liver hasn't spoken to me in a long time, and my ancestors are ashamed, but at least I can remember how to find my way home in the evenings, and no longer have to smell the stale beer fumes in my car.

Rich people are the best. They make our entire society look cool, with multiple huge homes where the dogs eat caviar and gold plated toilet seats caress the cheeks. Why would anyone want to deprive them of a moment's luxury just to bring medical care to a child or feed a homeless veteran? They worked/stole/inherited it, they can spend it on keeping the govt off their backs by purchasing votes for candidates most likely to support their various special interest groups any way they choose. Democracy means "Fool the many into thinking their choices really matter, then make them like it"

[Cyphon]

Apparently, they're going to be packed in olive green too.

http://www.guardian....alia-cigarettes

Quote

The grass is always greener, as they say, and so are cigarette packets. In Australia, at least. The country's MPs are set to back plans to render cigarette packets olive-green, supposedly because it's a dull, unappealing colour that will put off potential smokers. But will it work? Perhaps. Green-branded firms – BP, Starbucks and Carlsberg, to name three – may be successful, but are hardly adored. Everyone hates BP, everyone loves to hate Starbucks, and Carlsberg is forced to beef up its brand with the hopeful slogan: "Probably the best beer in the world." Coincidence? Possibly not. Some magazine editors even swear green covers don't sell well at the newsstand.

In the cigarette industry, green has long been considered drab. Raymond Loewy's re-branding of the Lucky Strike packet from bland green to the white-black-red version we know today was "one of the great transformations", says design critic Stephen Bayley. "Sales picked up enormously." But, he warns, green may be ugly, but not always off-putting. "Thing is," expands Bayley, "ugliness is an unreliable deterrent. It's actually very difficult to design something ugly. Usually it only happens by accident."

And what does the Green party think? It may have won its first seat last year, but could it have done better with, say, a vermilion logo? Ochre, maybe? Au contraire, says a spokesman. "Green is associated with regeneration, good luck, generosity, harmony and well-paced energy. Have you ever noticed that time moves faster in a green room? In contrast, TS Eliot used yellow to represent the decay of the modern world, blue is linked to sadness, and red with anger." Green with envy? Not the Greens.

[Gothos]

I like olive green very much.


Which, mind you, could explain a lot about my inability to score chicks. I'm not sure.
Khaki's better anyway.

[Gust Hubb]

Two thoughts:

Interesting side-step for people looking for a cigarette tax break in the USA: http://www.npr.org/t...oryId=113496933

Here's the first two paragraphs:
Smokers in a New Hampshire tobacco shop have been lining up to use a commercial roll-your-own machine. The contraption spits out hundreds of cigarettes — for less than half the price of brand names.

But state officials want to pull the plug. They say the shop is now a cigarette manufacturer and can no longer sidestep what it owes the government.

Kind of funny if you ask me. Reminds me of Prohibition in the USA as well. People always will find a way around the law, regardless.

But to the second thought: I think it's interesting the similar lines health care is trying. For instance, obesity. I think it's actually already in practice, but some insurance companies are considering hiking rates on people who take poor care of themselves. A fat tax if you will. I think incentivizing behavior is a good direction, the more manipulative and under-the-table, the better. People are like water, they always look for the shortest path downslope and avoid the upslopes ( I know I stole that metaphor from someone, but couldn't tell you who).

As for the cigarette debate, I think the tax thing is a really stupid way to change people's behavior. Tobacco is an addiction, and thus people will seek it at very high costs (kind of reminds me of the people begging for money to buy liquor). I think we fail in so many ways to recognize the psychological aspect of people's behavior and assume that everything is a straight forward carrot-and-stick fix.

To imitate Apt, it pisses me off.

[Gust Hubb]

Sorry, just had to add:


Global war on drugs 'has failed' say former leaders

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-13624303

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Smoking is something that drives you to madness. Sure, you won't find yourself sucking cock for smokes, but you'd double park and risk the citation, probably go out in the rain without a raincoat, or pay ten bucks a pack.

Addiction makes every route towards satisfaction a 'down slope'