Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (31611)	11/14/2006 8:59:27 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541945

The argument that a ban is justified by the existence of Medicare and other public health care assistance or health insurance isn't very convincing to me. If you reduce freedom, by taking money away to pay for government medical insurance, it doesn't justify a further reduction by banning smoking. If smokers shouldn't get medicare then you could end medicare, or you could try to throw smokers out of the program. Or you could just let them receive more, rather then institute prohibition, which not only would reduce freedom, but which also would likely not be very practical. Prohibition of things many people want doesn't tend to reduce use as much as you might expect, and in the meantime it increases crime. Not just in the sense that smoking (and presumably distributing tobacco products) would be a crime, but also black markets tend to be controlled by organized crime, and they settle disputes violently. They can't send a collections agency or file a lawsuit against people for non-payment for an illegal item, so they send "leg-breakers". They also fight over turf in a much more violent way then conventional businesses do. Also smokers die earlier, its far from clear that they receive more entitlement money. Dieing earlier would counteract at least part of the Medicare cost increase, maybe even all of it. Also they receive less Social Security money.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (31611)	11/14/2006 10:10:45 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541945

Lots of people do things that injure their health. Being fat is bad for you- but we don't kick fatties out of the system. Drinking excessively is bad, yet again, we don't kick drinkers out. Not having an exercise program is VERY bad, but we don't refuse to treat the lethargic. I'm afraid I'm not much in favor of persecuting people for their "sins"- whatever they might be. I say let the government get out of the sin business. Now keeping people from smoking in the public air space is different- that's keeping people from assaulting others with their noxious fumes, but punishing people for smoking when they don't bother anyone? I'm not for it. Let people take all the drugs they want, when they aren't injuring anyone else. Maybe, just maybe, people will be happier, and the government will be less intrusive.