The argument is about harm to the general populace, not about harm to a specific group they dislike.
Are indoor smoking bans good? The justification is that second-hand smoke has significant negative impacts on the general populace.
Are tabacco taxes good? They encourage the same thing that smoking bans do, a reduction in smoking leading to better health for the population.
The parent commenter is just saying the same applies to cars. Cars cause a huge number of deaths, especially of pedestrians and cyclists, but also of other car users. They harm the general populace. Just like existing in the same room as someone smoking has health consequences for you, living in the same city as cars increases your chance of death.
You can, of course, legitimately argue that capitalist competition isn't the right way to discourage it, but rather having the government levy additional taxes and fees would be better.
People should be free to drink, smoke, drive, and whatever else is "harmful" if they want. Part of freedom is tolerance for others doing things you don't like. Otherwise we're headed for authoritarian dystopia.
> Are tabacco taxes good? They encourage the same thing that smoking bans do, a reduction in smoking leading to better health for the population.
As a smoker, that is absolute bullshit. Exhorbitant tobacco taxes only piss off people who are going to buy the product anyway. They disproportionately punish poor people for being poor, and they don't put as much of a dent into the amount of smoking that happens as you think they do.
The argument is about harm to the general populace, not about harm to a specific group they dislike.
Are indoor smoking bans good? The justification is that second-hand smoke has significant negative impacts on the general populace.
Are tabacco taxes good? They encourage the same thing that smoking bans do, a reduction in smoking leading to better health for the population.
The parent commenter is just saying the same applies to cars. Cars cause a huge number of deaths, especially of pedestrians and cyclists, but also of other car users. They harm the general populace. Just like existing in the same room as someone smoking has health consequences for you, living in the same city as cars increases your chance of death.
You can, of course, legitimately argue that capitalist competition isn't the right way to discourage it, but rather having the government levy additional taxes and fees would be better.
Life causes all death.
People should be free to drink, smoke, drive, and whatever else is "harmful" if they want. Part of freedom is tolerance for others doing things you don't like. Otherwise we're headed for authoritarian dystopia.
...which is ironic given the context here.
Freedom does not allow you to harm others with impunity.
> Are tabacco taxes good? They encourage the same thing that smoking bans do, a reduction in smoking leading to better health for the population.
As a smoker, that is absolute bullshit. Exhorbitant tobacco taxes only piss off people who are going to buy the product anyway. They disproportionately punish poor people for being poor, and they don't put as much of a dent into the amount of smoking that happens as you think they do.