quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranderas:
Because you didn't just ask what it meant 3 posts ago. Either make your sarcasm more apparent or go troll somewhere that's inhabited by kids who are closer to the age you tend to act.

Back on point: I have a problem with it for a number of reasons.
* First, smoking is a personal choice, and I have issue with anything that infringes on a person's choice. Saying "nicotine is now prohibitively expensive. You can't smoke unless you have a ton of money" is the government choosing for me not to smoke, and I disagree.
*Second, I disagree with higher taxes at all. We don't need higher taxes, we need reduced spending- which is the exact opposite of what our current and former president have done and is in no small way responsible for our slow recovery.
*Third, I support less government in general. I don't support the Medicare program. I think the government should only spend enough to guarantee the rights granted in the Constitution and provide us with a military large enough for self defense. Without medicare, your "paying more taxes now covers your higher health care costs later" argument becomes a falsehood.

---

I was wondering what Owebama meant. If you had read my post, you might have seen that. Who's the troll now?

1) Sure, it's a personal choice. But government, by definition, is all about limiting personal choices. I can't choose to murder and rape at will. You can't choose to destroy your neighbor's property. And there's also the fact that in the end, you're making the choice to not spend the money on smokes. The government didn't ban it; you chose that the utility does not outweigh the opportunity cost. What's your point?

Incidentally, would you support decriminalization of all banned drugs, then? Cocaine, crack, meth, heroin, LSD, etc? Since you're all about personal choice and such?

2) I agree. You're preaching to the choir on this one.

3) Also agree. But any politician who says "cut Medicare" is committing political suicide. No politician is willing to say that, so it's never going to be cut. What's your point?

Edit: heroine is not the same as heroin. lulz.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranderas:
Because you didn't just ask what it meant 3 posts ago. Either make your sarcasm more apparent or go troll somewhere that's inhabited by kids who are closer to the age you tend to act.

---

quote:

---

Back on point: I have a problem with it for a number of reasons.
* First, smoking is a personal choice, and I have issue with anything that infringes on a person's choice. Saying "nicotine is now prohibitively expensive. You can't smoke unless you have a ton of money" is the government choosing for me not to smoke, and I disagree.
*Second, I disagree with higher taxes at all. We don't need higher taxes, we need reduced spending- which is the exact opposite of what our current and former president have done and is in no small way responsible for our slow recovery.
*Third, I support less government in general. I don't support the Medicare program. I think the government should only spend enough to guarantee the rights granted in the Constitution and provide us with a military large enough for self defense. Without medicare, your "paying more taxes now covers your higher health care costs later" argument becomes a falsehood.

---

If you don't like it, grow your own tobacco. Your personal choice is selfish and a burden on others.

__________________
Stages of Death: Anger, Denial, Barganing, Depression, Acceptance, Burial, Decay, Haunting, Revenge, Evil Laugh

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranderas:

[quote]Back on point: I have a problem with it for a number of reasons.
* First, smoking is a personal choice, and I have issue with anything that infringes on a person's choice. Saying "nicotine is now prohibitively expensive. You can't smoke unless you have a ton of money" is the government choosing for me not to smoke, and I disagree.

---

The government is not choosing for you not to smoke, they are just applying a sin tax to it in order to pay for services you probably use. If you want it bad enough you'll pay for it.

quote:

---

*Second, I disagree with higher taxes at all. We don't need higher taxes, we need reduced spending- which is the exact opposite of what our current and former president have done and is in no small way responsible for our slow recovery.

---

What do you want to cut? medicare? that will up your medical cost because those that don't have insurance will still go somewhere, and that somewhere is the Emergency room, where they don't have a personalized physician or access to their medical records and it will cost us all ALOT more.

quote:

---

*Third, I support less government in general. I don't support the Medicare program. I think the government should only spend enough to guarantee the rights granted in the Constitution and provide us with a military large enough for self defense. Without medicare, your "paying more taxes now covers your higher health care costs later" argument becomes a falsehood.

---

You're thinking we still live in the 18th century and failing realize that we're living in the 21st century. Basically if you're saying we should only follow the rights granted by the constitution, you are completely forgetting the complexities of the modern world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranderas:
* First, smoking is a personal choice, and I have issue with anything that infringes on a person's choice.

---

You really want to claim that a tobacco tax inhibits personal choice? If anything, it's the tobacco companies that are all about taking away personal choice. You may choose to light up the first time. You might like it. But that's not what they need. They need you at the point where you have to have one, where you can't quit whenever you want to. And you have no choice but to smoke one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
1) Sure, it's a personal choice. But government, by definition, is all about limiting personal choices. I can't choose to murder and rape at will. You can't choose to destroy your neighbor's property. And there's also the fact that in the end, you're making the choice to not spend the money on smokes. The government didn't ban it; you chose that the utility does not outweigh the opportunity cost. What's your point?

---

Why does the issue have to be in black and white? As a self-declared "probably conservative libertarian leaning towards anarchy," you should know that you can try and increase freedom as much as reasonably possible without letting everyone do whatever they want. There is obviously a very clear delineation between destroying someone's property and buying a pack. The argument is quite simple - we need to protect property to have society. We don't need to ban smoking. And I think you know this, but just felt like being argumentative in the morning.

Also, you don't even have an internal reason as to why you want to place prohibitive taxes on tobacco products - you only support it because you want to fund a different program that should never exist in the first place - medicare. Why not just get rid of the smoking tax and medicare, have less government altogether, and be done with the issue?

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
Incidentally, would you support decriminalization of all banned drugs, then? Cocaine, crack, meth, heroin, LSD, etc? Since you're all about personal choice and such?

---

Conservatives/Libertarians seem to place a high commodity on personal responsibility provided they can ignore the wider impacts of their actions. Just because, for example, the price of a gallon of gas is lower than the equivalent cost of solar, the typical conservative wants the gas. But the price of the gallon of gas doesn't include the environmental costs inherent in burning that gas--a tax can correct that problem.

While the costs of destroying your lungs, or poisoning the atmosphere and changing the climate are likely intangible to you personally at the time you engage in the activity, doesn't mean those costs aren't going to be paid. Sticking it to the next guy is no doubt fine with the conservatives (and especially the liberatarians), but it's a recipe for disaster.

I applaud Obama, especially if he is a 1-and-done president for doing what NEEDS to be done whether or not it gets him reelected.

I'm just as much a capitalist as anybody here and I hope for exorbitant tobacco and fossil-fuel taxation, and single-payer health care.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
Why does the issue have to be in black and white? As a self-declared "probably conservative libertarian leaning towards anarchy," you should know that you can try and increase freedom as much as reasonably possible without letting everyone do whatever they want. There is obviously a very clear delineation between destroying someone's property and buying a pack. The argument is quite simple - we need to protect property to have society. We don't need to ban smoking. And I think you know this, but just felt like being argumentative in the morning.

Also, you don't even have an internal reason as to why you want to place prohibitive taxes on tobacco products - you only support it because you want to fund a different program that should never exist in the first place - medicare. Why not just get rid of the smoking tax and medicare, have less government altogether, and be done with the issue?

I tend to think of these substances in the same way I think of guns - potentially dangerous. I thus find it ironic that liberals tend to support substance legalization but gun restrictions whereas conservatives endorse gun ownership but want to ban drugs.

---

What's wrong with black and white? I'm speaking in abstract/theoretical ideals here. Ok, so destroying property is not a good example, but I believe everyone should have the right to destroy their own property, which includes their person.

Therefore, nicotine products should be legal and free. So should so-called harder drugs. But any crimes against others while under the influence of drugs must be treated either the same or more harshly as those committed while sober. I'm sorry if this isn't making much sense, but I'm feeling kind of feisty today and want to stir up a little debate, especially given the current California marijuana situation.

Furthermore, on the Medicare issue, I'm speaking now in practical terms, which is probably confusing. Medicare is never going to be cut. No politician has the balls or political capital to spend. Therefore, given that Medicare WILL be around, increasing sin taxes on smoking is an appropriate and fitting measure. Not saying this is a good situation, as I agree that Medicare deserves to be killed, but there you go.

As for guns, they should be legal. Why liberals push gun control is beyond me. What we need is stiffer penalties for inappropriate gun usage. That way, either people will think twice about actually using a gun, or the injection table will take care of the problem from the other end. I repeat, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
A tax on tobacco is a way to recoup real cost. When you smoke a pack of addictive carcinogen laden cigarettes you cause harm to the people around you, and cause harm to society in general when your lungs become cancerous and your medical condition must be addressed.

Conservatives/Libertarians seem to place a high commodity on personal responsibility provided they can ignore the wider impacts of their actions. Just because, for example, the price of a gallon of gas is lower than the equivalent cost of solar, the typical conservative wants the gas. But the price of the gallon of gas doesn't include the environmental costs inherent in burning that gas--a tax can correct that problem.

While the costs of destroying your lungs, or poisoning the atmosphere and changing the climate are likely intangible to you personally at the time you engage in the activity, doesn't mean those costs aren't going to be paid. Sticking it to the next guy is no doubt fine with the conservatives (and especially the liberatarians), but it's a recipe for disaster.

I applaud Obama, especially if he is a 1-and-done president for doing what NEEDS to be done whether or not it gets him reelected.

I'm just as much a capitalist as anybody here and I hope for exorbitant tobacco and fossil-fuel taxation, and single-payer health care.

Oh and for the record, I support a person's right to bear arms (with some commonsense provisions) and the partial decriminalization of drugs (with some commonsense provisions.)

---

You lost me at Obama doing what NEEDS to be done and then caught me again at the decriminalization of drugs thing. And there are some things I do agree with him doing despite claiming alliance with the overall goals of the Libertarian party. I agree with taxing gas. Why? Because it's a non-renewable resource. Once it's gone, you're not getting any more, so I say we tax it so people wean themselves off it. At worst this will make people think when they buy a car; at best it will bring us to a new age of clean, renewable energy sources

Alas, on the smoking issue: You choose to smoke the first cig. Adding more warnings to the packs hasn't caused a significant drop in the rate of smoking, nor has information campaigns done that. Why? Because in general, people know what they're getting themselves into when they buy a pack. Also, in the context of a government that doesn't provide health insurance to its citizens, there isn't any real cost to support a smoker. Maybe it makes me less compassionate than society would like, but i think that if you smoked knowing the possible consequences and don't have the means to take care of yourself, you deserve the consequences and society should not be asked to bail you out.

There's no real "poisoning of the air" that I can see unless you smoke in enclosed spaces. Many cities across the country have enacted laws prohibiting smoking in workplaces, schools (including private institutions such as universities), bars and restaurants. I can't remember if it was MI or KY, but one of the states I've lived in recently even enacted a law that you cannot smoke in a car if you're carrying a minor in that car. I don't think you need to take cigs away from people entirely. If they're home, or outside, it's their choice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranderas:

I also support decriminalization of certain drugs. I think we can control marijuana in a way similar to the way we treat alcohol- set a minimum age, set penalties for being under the influence while driving, etc. The fact that we have so many people in our criminal justice system for this horrifies me.

---

BUT BUT I WANNA DO HEROIN, LSD, METH AND COCAINE! Its my person choice dammit! You also realize that Alcohol and Cigarettes are subject to special tax right?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranderas:
* First, smoking is a personal choice, and have issue with anything that infringes on a person's choice.

---

You only have an issue if it directly effects you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
I repeat, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

---

Lets not kid ourselves, Guns are created by people to kill people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
Lets not kid ourselves, Guns are created by people to kill people.

---

Sure. That distinguishes them from, say, knives, which are created by people to kill people, which distinguishes them from chainsaws, which are created by people to kill people, which distinguishes them from cars, which are created by people to kill people, which distinguishes them from heavy objects, which are created by people to kill people.

...Right? Argument fail.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
You only have an issue if it directly effects you.

---

You do realize I'm a non-smoker, right? I don't smoke but i'm pro-right to smoke, i am male but am pro-choice, i don't own a gun but i damn well believe i should be able to. I'm not gay, but I support the movement against discrimination.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
Sure. That distinguishes them from, say, knives, which are created by people to kill people, which distinguishes them from chainsaws, which are created by people to kill people, which distinguishes them from cars, which are created by people to kill people, which distinguishes them from heavy objects, which are created by people to kill people.

...Right? Argument fail.

---

Nope. You fail at logic. All those things that you mentioned were not created to kill people.

What is the purpose of a gun? IE how were guns first used and made to use.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranderas:
You do realize I'm a non-smoker, right? I don't smoke but i'm pro-right to smoke, i am male but am pro-choice, i don't own a gun but i damn well believe i should be able to. I'm not gay, but I support the movement against discrimination.

Or were you saying that because it doesn't directly affect me, i have no right to be concerned or speak out about it? If that's the case, no politician on the planet has the right to talk about any topic because it just doesn't affect them.

---

What I'm saying is you're a hypocrite if at first you say

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranderas:
* First, smoking is a personal choice, and have issue with anything that infringes on a person's choice.

---

Then you say

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranderas:

I also support decriminalization of certain drugs. I think we can control marijuana in a way similar to the way we treat alcohol- set a minimum age, set penalties for being under the influence while driving, etc. The fact that we have so many people in our criminal justice system for this horrifies me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
Nope. You fail at logic. All those things that you mentioned were not created to kill people.

What is the purpose of a gun? IE how were guns first used and made to use.

---

What they were used for first is irrelevant. They can be used for hunting as well as self defense. What they were used for originally is unimportant in the here and now.

Argument fail.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
What they were used for first is irrelevant. They can be used for hunting as well as self defense. What they were used for originally is unimportant in the here and now.

Argument fail.

---

NO. It is relevant. They were and still are designed and used to kill human beings. And if you say they aren't designed with that purpose in mind you are ignorant.

You Fail.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
What they were used for first is irrelevant. They can be used for hunting as well as self defense. What they were used for originally is unimportant in the here and now.

Argument fail.

---

Gun control laws are a way of controlling local gang populations. The idea is that gang members then can be jailed for possession, risk being shot by their rivals, or risk being shot by police. These people are dangerous criminals, and localized gun control has potential as a tool of law enforcement. It's hard to understand for people who have never lived in gang areas.

People who live in rural areas which do not have gang problems of that magnitude and who are more likely to enjoy hunting don't understand that and see gun control as a threat to their civil liberties and a rejection of their way of life.

Also, hand guns are designed for the purpose of killing people, not animals. They are small so they can be easily concealed.

So, on the issue of smoking. I smoked for ten years. I started when I was 15, and quit five months ago (at 25). I support the heavy taxation of tobacco products, and would do so even if I were still a smoker. Why? It was part of my motivation to quit.

You can say smokers are accountable for the decisions they make all day long, but you're at least partially wrong if you do. Why? When I started smoking, I was young, and stupid, and felt invincible. I "knew" about the risks, but I didn't care, because I thought (in my youthful ignorance) that these things could never happen to me. Fast forward to a decade later, when I can barely run 200 feet without weezing, have a constant ache in my lungs, and can hardly even perform my boyfriendly duties for lack of stamina, and I begin to realize that I made a poor choice.

Tobacco companies suck in youthful enthusiasts in all sorts of ways, and rightly assume that tobacco laws won't prevent people from getting their paws on smokes before they're too young to make an informed decision. Hoorah for the new taxes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMidnightBomber:

People who live in rural areas which do not have gang problems of that magnitude and who are more likely to enjoy hunting don't understand that and see gun control as a threat to their civil liberties and a rejection of their way of life.

---

Correct and incorrect at the same time. Every hunting season here in my little rural pocket of America, I and my fellow Athenians read at least one, and usually more, incredibly tragic stories about kids killing each other with hunting rifles because they don't fully understand the consequences (and therefore the need for) of poor gun control. The sheer volume of human tragedies in rural areas is of course not at all comparable to the likes of gang violence in cities, but perhaps hits home a bit more for rarity of occurrence.

Should they be legal? Yeah. Should they be regulated? Harder question. If you put guns in people's hands, they'll do things with them when nobody is looking that probably just shouldn't be done. Maybe it's Darwinism in action, but it still sucks. Take away a person's right to a firearm though, and you have Prohibition all over again, only probably a lot nastier.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
NO. It is relevant. They were and still are designed and used to kill human beings. And if you say they aren't designed with that purpose in mind you are ignorant.

You Fail.

---

There are legal uses for guns. Certain guns might be designed to kill humans, but then again, there are certain occaisions when this is perfectly legal. A stranger wakes me up in the middle of the night in my locked apartment? If I were a gunowner, I'd want an AK, not a pea shooter. Either way, guns have legal uses. They should not be denied because perhaps the #1 use of guns is to kill other humans. Misuse, of course, should be dealt with harshly.

Opium was originally primarily smoked to get high. Now, morphine is readily available. In hospitals, where appropriate use is regulated by proper authorities. Similarly, guns should be freely available, with reasonable regulations against people who are obviously going to abuse them. Misuse, of course, shoudl be dealt with harshly.

Surely you don't disagree with the use of weapons in self-defense. In which case, you cannot possibly disagree with personal gun ownership.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
There are legal uses for guns. Certain guns might be designed to kill humans, but then again, there are certain occaisions when this is perfectly legal. A stranger wakes me up in the middle of the night in my locked apartment? If I were a gunowner, I'd want an AK, not a pea shooter. Either way, guns have legal uses. They should not be denied because perhaps the #1 use of guns is to kill other humans. Misuse, of course, should be dealt with harshly.

Opium was originally primarily smoked to get high. Now, morphine is readily available. In hospitals, where appropriate use is regulated by proper authorities. Similarly, guns should be freely available, with reasonable regulations against people who are obviously going to abuse them. Misuse, of course, shoudl be dealt with harshly.

Surely you don't disagree with the use of weapons in self-defense. In which case, you cannot possibly disagree with personal gun ownership.

---

I'm not arguing the ownership of guns yet, I'm arguing the intent of their design. Basically the NRA tag line of "guns dont kill people, people kill people" is a overused ****ty statement.

quote:

---

They should not be denied because perhaps the #1 use of guns is to kill other humans.

---

quote:

---

They should not be denied because perhaps the #1 use of guns is to kill other humans.

---

quote:

---

They should not be denied because perhaps the #1 use of guns is to kill other humans.

---

quote:

---

They should not be denied because perhaps the #1 use of guns is to kill other humans.

---

How you can type that with a clear conciseness is beyond me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
I'm not arguing the ownership of guns yet, I'm arguing the intent of their design. Basically the NRA tag line of "guns dont kill people, people kill people" is a overused ****ty statement.

How you can type that with a clear conciseness is beyond me.

---

I don't see the problem. There is such a thing as a responsible gun owner. How others use guns does not determine how I would use a gun, if I owned one. Just because other people choose to use them to kill others, doesn't mean I would. So yeah, I stand by my statement with a clear conciseness and a clear conscience.

If you can't agree with me on this, that's your problem, not mine.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
What's wrong with black and white? I'm speaking in abstract/theoretical ideals here. Ok, so destroying property is not a good example, but I believe everyone should have the right to destroy their own property, which includes their person.
Therefore, nicotine products should be legal and free. So should so-called harder drugs. But any crimes against others while under the influence of drugs must be treated either the same or more harshly as those committed while sober. I'm sorry if this isn't making much sense, but I'm feeling kind of feisty today and want to stir up a little debate, especially given the current California marijuana situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
I agree with you that people should have the right to bear arms. However, your arguments suggest that guns are OK because it's always a humans fault and never the weapon. That being said, do you think citizens should be allowed to possesses more advanced weaponry, such as hand-held missile launchers? If someone was wealthy enough, could they purchase ICBMs or nuclear warheads? Does the argument "missiles don't kill people, people kill people" hold just as much weight as the statement about guns that you stand by?

---

__________________
Stages of Death: Anger, Denial, Barganing, Depression, Acceptance, Burial, Decay, Haunting, Revenge, Evil Laugh

quote:

---

Originally posted by Battle_of_Twits:
There's no legal reason for a single person to own such a powerful piece of weaponry, even for self defense. At that scale, those weapons should be handled by the military, as they have the training to handle them, and the means to keep them secure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Battle_of_Twits:
This argument makes no sense. There's no legal reason for a single person to own such a powerful piece of weaponry, even for self defense. At that scale, those weapons should be handled by the military, as they have the training to handle them, and the means to keep them secure. Guns are weapons that individuals can easily be trained to handle and use. The person pulling the trigger is responsible for the consequences involved in doing so. Accidents do happen, and that is unfortunate, but overall the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, if efforts are made to keep guns out of the hands of people who misuse them.

---

Actually, it makes perfect sense in the situation we are discussing. I agree that citizens should not own missiles, but I also think there are certain types of guns that they shouldn't have either. Pyro's argument, though, is that guns don't kill people, people kill people. He stands by this statement despite the fact that some guns are designed solely for the purpose of excessive amounts of killing and have little other function. If this is indeed true, then missiles should also be OK. A person can be held just as responsible for firing a missile as they can for a gun, and they can be just as well trained if they try.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
I don't see the problem. There is such a thing as a responsible gun owner. How others use guns does not determine how I would use a gun, if I owned one. Just because other people choose to use them to kill others, doesn't mean I would. So yeah, I stand by my statement with a clear conciseness and a clear conscience.

If you can't agree with me on this, that's your problem, not mine.

---

Yeah **** society...I got mine. If its a societal problem that doesn't apply to me I don't care.

You have a typical libertarian attitude. Good job sir, on showing how shallow and selfish you really are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
Actually, it makes perfect sense in the situation we are discussing. I agree that citizens should not own missiles, but I also think there are certain types of guns that they shouldn't have either. Pyro's argument, though, is that guns don't kill people, people kill people. He stands by this statement despite the fact that some guns are designed solely for the purpose of excessive amounts of killing and have little other function. If this is indeed true, then missiles should also be OK. A person can be held just as responsible for firing a missile as they can for a gun, and they can be just as well trained if they try.

That statement aside, though, there are plenty of reasons why people would want to own missiles. Defense against tyranny of government is one - the original reason for the right to bear arms was to empower citizen insurrection if necessary. In this day and age, however, muskets are obviously insufficient - only advanced weaponry would actually allow anyone to overthrow the government. Local defense could be another - a remote town could feel that the government is unable to come quickly to their aide and that they need something more. I also think many corporations would greatly enjoy having their own defenses and not having to rely on the government.

---

I'm more or less in agreement with most of this. At least, in theory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
Yeah **** society...I got mine. If its a societal problem that doesn't apply to me I don't care.

You have a typical libertarian attitude. Good job sir, on showing how shallow and selfish you really are.

---

Obvious troll is obvious. What exactly is shallow and selfish about every man having their own rights and freedoms to make their own choices?

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.