“Indeed, so I’m not sure why the attack on people who smoke was warranted. He agrees the tax is wrong so what is the point of bashing those the tax is aimed at?”
Two reasons:
1. I believe the statement I made. Smoking is stupid. If that offends you, too bad.
2. Rhetorical technique. If I get bogged down trying to defend smoking, I lose the argument, and that’s not the point I really care about anyway. So I concede that point, taking that issue away from the other side, and get to the real issue which is the economic destructiveness of the tax.
Welcome to Free Republic, Danny boy. It’s good to have a newsy come here and exchange ideas ( and body blows, left hooks, etc.). Most of the others who’ve tried didn’t make out so well. Good luck!
“1. I believe the statement I made. Smoking is stupid. If that offends you, too bad.”
I’m not offended. I think this article is stupid so same to ya.
I’m not in agreement with you because you seem to think if were not “economically destructive” it would be OK to single out a small segment of the population, the less desirables, to levy taxes against to support government programs for a larger segment.
“2. Rhetorical technique. If I get bogged down trying to defend smoking, I lose the argument, and that’s not the point I really care about anyway. So I concede that point, taking that issue away from the other side, and get to the real issue which is the economic destructiveness of the tax.”
There’s no reason here to defend the act of smoking. Nobody is suggesting you should. If your opinion on the matter of tax is accurate, there would be no need to defend or admonish the act of smoking, yet you spend damn near half an article doing so.
“The problem with cigarette tax is not that it’s unfair.”
Again, I am calling BS on that. The unfairness IS a major problem.
How about this jewel?
“I have little sympathy for the argument that cigarette taxes unfairly target smokers. Smokers unfairly target themselves by smoking. I would say they should just stop doing it, thus avoiding the tax, but they can’t because they’re addicted to nicotine.”
You know, I just unfairly target myself for taxes by making and spending too much money. Were I not addicted to this extra cash, I would just quit my job and go on welfare to avoid the taxes. That seems to be the type behavior you are suggesting
I take you are perfectly OK with government regulating a free people’s behavior through taxation, if it’s not “economically destructive”.
Writers can’t afford thin skins; smoking is an individual choice, not a group sport or a political movement or an evaluation of the order of the universe.
When you tax smokers as a group, criticize them as a group and then label them all as stupid because you think that making harmful choices are creating harm to all, then you are not allowing for those individuals to be measured in turn.
During the Manhattan Project, it was noted that the majority of the scientists on board were smokers and they guzzled coffee, stayed up until weird hours of the night and partied like drunken sailors from time to time; now, that’s stupid.
Then you fell into a deep hole by devoting a large part of your column to insulting and denigrating this same group, to your discredit.
It was an unappealing and unnecessary piling on, and only fuels incivility.
My problems with his article aside, you are a good man for coming here and discussing it with us. Shows character, for what it’s worth.