Well, let's look at it another way. What if the government were to offer to collect no income tax for the year in exchange for doing some one-time dangerous activity - like cleaning up a toxic spill?
The motivation is structured so that it's people who are desperate that will take advantage of it. It's taking advantage of their situation to get something done that would otherwise cost much more.
I'd say that was a pretty predatory action.
I don't really see that it's any different to take advantage of the fact that someone's got a nicotine addiction and is willing to part with a fair amount of money to satisfy it.
The analogy you made with the speeding fine is a bad one. Speeding is illegal. Smoking is not.
Furthermore, I do consider it predatory for a rural police force to set up speed traps specifically to collect fines from tourists who are likely to find it more convenient to pay the fine than to contest it in a remote jurisdiction. It's a very similar situation to the one you mentioned, but it's a better analogy, because the victims (drivers) are not actually breaking a law (or at least, their actual circumstances are such that the justice system would likely have forgiven them).
Smokers are an easy target for this kind of predation. Many of them, today, wish they didn't smoke, but think they're unable to quit. Whether that's true or not is immaterial. Because the anti-smoking lobbies have been so successful in demonizing smokers and tobacco companies, it's easy to convince people that we should take advantage of these "bad" people in our midst. I think it's immoral.
Add a Comment
Email This
RSS
RE: Taxing smokers is unjust and ludacris
Well, let's look at it another way. What if the government were to offer to collect no income tax for the year in exchange for doing some one-time dangerous activity - like cleaning up a toxic spill?
The motivation is structured so that it's people who are desperate that will take advantage of it. It's taking advantage of their situation to get something done that would otherwise cost much more.
I'd say that was a pretty predatory action.
I don't really see that it's any different to take advantage of the fact that someone's got a nicotine addiction and is willing to part with a fair amount of money to satisfy it.
The analogy you made with the speeding fine is a bad one. Speeding is illegal. Smoking is not.
Furthermore, I do consider it predatory for a rural police force to set up speed traps specifically to collect fines from tourists who are likely to find it more convenient to pay the fine than to contest it in a remote jurisdiction. It's a very similar situation to the one you mentioned, but it's a better analogy, because the victims (drivers) are not actually breaking a law (or at least, their actual circumstances are such that the justice system would likely have forgiven them).
Smokers are an easy target for this kind of predation. Many of them, today, wish they didn't smoke, but think they're unable to quit. Whether that's true or not is immaterial. Because the anti-smoking lobbies have been so successful in demonizing smokers and tobacco companies, it's easy to convince people that we should take advantage of these "bad" people in our midst. I think it's immoral.
View Full Discussion