tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post111473201008227927..comments2023-12-05T07:50:19.855-05:00Comments on No Oil for Pacifists: Present Day Puritanism@nooil4pacifistshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16688417615117569825noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-1115242511795464842005-05-04T17:35:00.000-04:002005-05-04T17:35:00.000-04:00of course, I will also point out my own hypocrisy ...of course, I will also point out my own hypocrisy since blogging has cost me god knows how many productive work hours.Dingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04386587646469853172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-1115242429587279852005-05-04T17:33:00.000-04:002005-05-04T17:33:00.000-04:00Ok, last comment of the day than I will stop peste...Ok, last comment of the day than I will stop pestering you...<BR/><BR/>"Moreover, both parties were so wowed by cigarette settlement revenues their tax increase was "the most regressive in history. Its greatest impact would be on people with low incomes, racial minorities and those with little education, because higher percentages of these groups are smokers." <BR/><BR/>Yes, but if it discourages poorer people from starting to smoke, or it causes people to stop smoking, then it saves us money since the tax payer would be picking up the costs of their smoking related medical expenses.<BR/><BR/>And to pre-empt any argument that the tax money brought in over the lifetime of a smoker pays for these costs, completely untrue. the average tax brought in for a pack a day habit for 30 years is $16,500. The average cost of one myocardial infarction (heart attack) $52,000. The cost of smoking raises the insurance premiums of the average non-smoker by 22% (at least in 1997 when I was working for CIGNA). The average smoker takes 5 more sick days per year (thus costing business). Yes, it is an individual choice, but an individual choice that has a significant societal drag with no discernable benefit.Dingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04386587646469853172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-1114819987185644772005-04-29T20:13:00.000-04:002005-04-29T20:13:00.000-04:00Yes the new lines are odd. Still, I thought they ...Yes the new lines are odd. Still, I thought they favored toppling nearly every line. Why are the tolerant so intolerant?@nooil4pacifistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16688417615117569825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-1114783734830370302005-04-29T10:08:00.000-04:002005-04-29T10:08:00.000-04:00I look at it as the new Puritan Left. It's just th...I look at it as the new Puritan Left. It's just that I have trouble figuring out where and how they draw the lines:<BR/><BR/>Sex with pretty randomly chosen multiple partners? Satisfying a basic need of human nature and a fundamental civil right!<BR/><BR/>Sex with multiple partners while ingesting illegal drugs? Requires a health education campaign to remind people not to share needles, overdue or indulge in unsafe sexual practices. <BR/><BR/>Putting on 20 extra pounds, smoking, or eating greasy food? A terrible failure of self-control that costs us all and requires the government to intervene for the public welfare with taxation!MaxedOutMamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08011469804162511617noreply@blogger.com