Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorB
Apples and oranges buddy. Smoking does in fact have health effects. Treatment for those effects are definately at least in part paid by ALL taxpayers.
The experts can't even agree is porn is "unhealthy" or not and most evidence points to it not having any effects. In fact there is eveidence that it reduces rape. It certianly doesn't cause cancer.
|
how is it different? the government thinks it knows whats best for us and then uses the tax system to eliminate what it considers to be bad for society. you think this is good but when the "experts" come out saying how teen pregnancy and runaway rates increase BECAUSE of porn and a 25% tax is imposed, you wont think its such a great idea for the government to use its muscle to influence your life choices.
btw, almost every person in my family smokes cigs, including my 94 year old grandmother. 2 packs a day for 50+ years and no sign of cancer. no cancer in any of them. so i guess the cancer "link" isnt definitive either. why should my family subsidize the med bills of people who are predisposed to getting cancer?
heres another instance
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/pro...9&id=8561 461
should you pay more in taxes because some fat fucks each fast food daily and are getting fat? how about chocolate? should we tax hershey for their chocolate bars because if you eat enough it'll be bad for your health. my real question is, where do we draw the line? when it affects something you enjoy?