Reportedly Massachusetts Representative Stephen Lynch recently referred to a proposed beer tax increase as a hate crime. And according to the AP this week, "A bill to tax and regulate marijuana in California like alcohol would generate nearly $1.4 billion in revenue for the cash-strapped state, according to an official analysis released Wednesday by tax officials." These types of taxes are typically called 'sin taxes'. Why do you think that is?
The former is an attempt to fund the Obama administration’s health care reform program. The latter, as mentioned, is to generate more revenue for a state. Would either work? Should they?
One blogger denounced the health care sin tax for three reasons. His first argument is that they don't work. He cited that people will then buy less, resulting is less revenue for the government. But is increased revenue the true purpose of a sin tax? Isn't its purpose being that since you're going to 'sin' anyway, you should pay for the ill effects you'll be causing by your 'sinning'? Increased alcohol consumption results in higher medical problems (and therefore costs) so why should others paying medical premiums pay more for others' bad decisions? If people really do consume less because the price is higher (due to taxes), then they'll increase their health resulting in decreased medical costs for everyone. I guess it depends upon what you mean by the tax 'working,' but it looks like it works to me. If they work then why not legalize marijuana in California? Remember our definition of something working in this regard: it decreases usage of something bad for us and/or society. Legalization increases use and according to the article, "Marijuana use would likely increase by about 30 percent once the law took effect...." So, no, it would be a bad idea to legalize marijuana in California.
The second argument was that these types of taxes result in job losses. Again, what is our goal? If tomorrow, all of a sudden, illegal drug usage stopped and all the drug lords and their ilk lost their 'jobs' would we cry foul? Wouldn't we be happy they lost that kind of 'job' and wouldn't we wish they would go out and get a legitimate job that would help rather than hurt society? One of the arguments for legalizing the use of marijuana is that it would create 'legitimate' jobs and businesses. It probably would--more EMTs, more police, etc.--but at what cost to society? California might be able to generate $1.4 billion in revenue, but how much of that would go toward counteracting the ill effects of marijuana use? My guess is that it would cost much more than $1.4 billion.
The final argument is that constituents don’t like them. I'm sure drug lords wouldn't like it if people stopped using their drugs either, but that's not the point. No one likes taxes to go up on the stuff they use. But should we be 'users' in the first place? Maybe the 'crime' here is not 'hating' the loss of controlling our own minds and giving that control up to a chemical.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
ADULT VS. CHILD
In this corner ... an adult, struggling through life, trying to find happiness. And in this corner ... a giggling child, enjoying life to it's fullest. We who call ourselves adults, are we experiencing our second childhood or are we just acting childish? Is there a difference?
We obviously have differences when it comes to rules for adults and children. We can't have three year olds driving around in cars; they don't have the mental capacity at that age to realize it's not all fun and games and they shouldn't play bumper cars with daddy's second-childhood sports car. But should all the rules be different?
When our children are in pre-school or starting out in elementary school we teach them to "play nice." "No hitting." "Share." "Take your turn." "Make new friends." "Say you're sorry." And when they get old enough to understand we say, "Don't cheat." But something happens by the time they're in middle school/high school or at least by the time they're in college. The rules change. In sports we may say, "Kick their tail!" (or we use a more base remark). In business some teach, "Hit 'em where it hurts" or "Take away their market 'share'." Still others grow cynical as they get older and preach it's all about numero uno. If a friend's marriage ends in divorce, the jilted may say, "I'll never forgive him/her!" As their friend do we pat them on the hand and tell them they're right; they shouldn't? Maybe our friend was the one who 'cheated' on their spouse and when we found out about it we gave them a little wink and a nudge? "It's OK as long as you get away with it"?
Why should children be taught to play nice if all we're going to do to them when they grow up is to unteach them? Three year olds shouldn't drive because they don't have the mental capacity to handle it. Can children not understand kicking some tail? Of course they can, it's human nature. So that's not the reason we don't start young to teach them to play dirty. We start them out young to teach them to rise above their human nature; to be better than just giving in to animalistic impulses. So why change the lessons when they get older?
Here's another example of a double standard: alcohol. Oh, but you say, children can't 'handle it'. Yeah, as though the laws of physics stop working for 'adults'. Sure, children's bodies are smaller and more susceptible to alcohol's influence, but how many 'adults' can't 'handle it'? How many drunken driving deaths are there? How many abused family members are there? How many shattered homes, lost jobs, lost chastity, lost souls are there from 'adults' who thought they could 'handle it'? Children always think they're invincible and it's not going to happen to them. Adults are supposed to be more mature. What about 'adult' entertainment? "I'll give you some money if you show me yours" sounds like something an immature child would say, not someone who's supposed to be grown up.
There's a difference between being childlike and childish. Unfortunately in today's society we label too many things 'adult' when all they really are are childish. Maybe it's time we all went through our second childhood and took on childlike qualities such as "Play nice." "No hitting." "Share." "Take your turn." "Make new friends." "Say you're sorry." "Don't cheat." Then maybe we can all enjoy childlike laughter again.
We obviously have differences when it comes to rules for adults and children. We can't have three year olds driving around in cars; they don't have the mental capacity at that age to realize it's not all fun and games and they shouldn't play bumper cars with daddy's second-childhood sports car. But should all the rules be different?
When our children are in pre-school or starting out in elementary school we teach them to "play nice." "No hitting." "Share." "Take your turn." "Make new friends." "Say you're sorry." And when they get old enough to understand we say, "Don't cheat." But something happens by the time they're in middle school/high school or at least by the time they're in college. The rules change. In sports we may say, "Kick their tail!" (or we use a more base remark). In business some teach, "Hit 'em where it hurts" or "Take away their market 'share'." Still others grow cynical as they get older and preach it's all about numero uno. If a friend's marriage ends in divorce, the jilted may say, "I'll never forgive him/her!" As their friend do we pat them on the hand and tell them they're right; they shouldn't? Maybe our friend was the one who 'cheated' on their spouse and when we found out about it we gave them a little wink and a nudge? "It's OK as long as you get away with it"?
Why should children be taught to play nice if all we're going to do to them when they grow up is to unteach them? Three year olds shouldn't drive because they don't have the mental capacity to handle it. Can children not understand kicking some tail? Of course they can, it's human nature. So that's not the reason we don't start young to teach them to play dirty. We start them out young to teach them to rise above their human nature; to be better than just giving in to animalistic impulses. So why change the lessons when they get older?
Here's another example of a double standard: alcohol. Oh, but you say, children can't 'handle it'. Yeah, as though the laws of physics stop working for 'adults'. Sure, children's bodies are smaller and more susceptible to alcohol's influence, but how many 'adults' can't 'handle it'? How many drunken driving deaths are there? How many abused family members are there? How many shattered homes, lost jobs, lost chastity, lost souls are there from 'adults' who thought they could 'handle it'? Children always think they're invincible and it's not going to happen to them. Adults are supposed to be more mature. What about 'adult' entertainment? "I'll give you some money if you show me yours" sounds like something an immature child would say, not someone who's supposed to be grown up.
There's a difference between being childlike and childish. Unfortunately in today's society we label too many things 'adult' when all they really are are childish. Maybe it's time we all went through our second childhood and took on childlike qualities such as "Play nice." "No hitting." "Share." "Take your turn." "Make new friends." "Say you're sorry." "Don't cheat." Then maybe we can all enjoy childlike laughter again.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Happy Freedom Day
Yes, I know, it's supposed to be Happy Independence Day or Happy 4th of July, but aren't we really celebrating our freedom? As I've written before (here, here and here) there is much confusion about freedom. Does freedom mean being able to do whatever we want whenever, however, or wherever we want? Absolutely not. Freedom doesn't mean the right to harm others and some would argue not even the right to hurt ourselves (which subject I won't tackle right now). Freedom doesn't mean free from rules, laws or regulations either; that would be anarchy and anarchy seriously restricts freedoms.
What does freedom mean then? Depending upon which dictionary you consult, the typical definition is: the power to act, speak or think without externally imposed restraints. So if there's an "externally imposed restraint" or law to not steal, has the government taken away a freedom? That depends. Why? Because you still have the power to act out a theft or speak or think about stealing. No freedom to choose has been taken away; you can still rob someone if you so choose no matter what the law is. The freedom of choice to act, speak or think has not been taken from you, only the freedom to choose the consequence for your wrongful act. Do you see the difference?
What "freedoms" should governments grant? To rephrase what I stated in the previous paragraph: governments--or any entity for that matter--cannot take away our freedom to choose, they can only establish the consequences of those choices. (To be perfectly accurate there are exceptions such as execution or frontal lobotomies, which take away our ability to choose, but those options are obvious freedom limiters and are not included here.) Therefore governments grant freedom from undesirable consequences. Isn't that really the "freedom" we're talking about?
To recap:
Freedom of choice cannot be taken away
Freedom from consequences of choice can
The question then becomes should all undesirable consequences be taken away in order to establish "freedom"? No, of course not. There should be undesirable consequences for such things as theft, murder, etc. But what gets included in the "etc."? Like it or not, that's where society's moral compass comes into play; what we, collectively, think or feel is right or wrong. If we declare it "right," we pass laws to establish freedom from undesirable consequences. If we declare it "wrong," we pass laws establishing undesirable consequences. Too often I hear, "You can't legislate morality." If you look at the situation with a discerning eye, that is really all we ever legislate. We just better make sure we know what's really right and wrong.
What does freedom mean then? Depending upon which dictionary you consult, the typical definition is: the power to act, speak or think without externally imposed restraints. So if there's an "externally imposed restraint" or law to not steal, has the government taken away a freedom? That depends. Why? Because you still have the power to act out a theft or speak or think about stealing. No freedom to choose has been taken away; you can still rob someone if you so choose no matter what the law is. The freedom of choice to act, speak or think has not been taken from you, only the freedom to choose the consequence for your wrongful act. Do you see the difference?
What "freedoms" should governments grant? To rephrase what I stated in the previous paragraph: governments--or any entity for that matter--cannot take away our freedom to choose, they can only establish the consequences of those choices. (To be perfectly accurate there are exceptions such as execution or frontal lobotomies, which take away our ability to choose, but those options are obvious freedom limiters and are not included here.) Therefore governments grant freedom from undesirable consequences. Isn't that really the "freedom" we're talking about?
To recap:
Freedom of choice cannot be taken away
Freedom from consequences of choice can
The question then becomes should all undesirable consequences be taken away in order to establish "freedom"? No, of course not. There should be undesirable consequences for such things as theft, murder, etc. But what gets included in the "etc."? Like it or not, that's where society's moral compass comes into play; what we, collectively, think or feel is right or wrong. If we declare it "right," we pass laws to establish freedom from undesirable consequences. If we declare it "wrong," we pass laws establishing undesirable consequences. Too often I hear, "You can't legislate morality." If you look at the situation with a discerning eye, that is really all we ever legislate. We just better make sure we know what's really right and wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)