<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 6:34 PM, "E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森" <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ewj@pigsqq.org" target="_blank">ewj@pigsqq.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Do you think that alcohol and tobacco should be regulated?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
If so, Why?<br>
<br>
If you answer yes, it implies that you believe that people<br>
are individually unable to make right decisions for themeselves,<br>
and the people need a nanny state to take care of them.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>1.:While I agree that the bar for "protecting people from themselves" should be very high, I don't think it should be infinitely high. If you saw someone preparing to jump off a bridge, wouldn't you try to talk them down? The odds that a person standing on a bridge has an airtight case for ending their life are extremely low, probably less than 1%. Why not try to assist such a person in subjecting such a momentous decision to additional scrutiny? What's the downside?</div>
<div><br></div><div>2. All these things have "negative externalities," and society has a right and an obligation to protect people who had no say from people making choices that negatively impact them. Drunk driving kills people who had no say. Here's the CDC page on "Secondhand Smoke":</div>
<div><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm">http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm</a></div><div>
</div><div>3. As a practical matter, regardless of what I think, the pure libertarian view on these issues has little social pull and little prospect of attaining more. I could hold my breath until I turn blue, when I wake up tomorrow, the legal drinking age in Illinois is going to be 21 and likely to remain so in the future that we can see. </div>
<div> </div><div>But laws, policies, and attitudes concerning marijuana control are clearly approaching an inflection point in the United States. It could well be the case that the next five years will see as dramatic a change in laws, policies, and attitudes concerning marijuana control as we've seen in the last five years on gay rights. When you're approaching a possible inflection point like that, a humane activist wants to speed up the change, because a lot of unnecessary human suffering could be prevented.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
It seems reasonable to run experimental societies but <br>
it is tyrannical and immoral to impose experimental ideas on unwilling<br>
masses of the society.<br>
<br>
I suppose that if you answer yes, you might also believe that<br>
the "sin tax" on alcohol and tobacco benefits the government<br>
who needs the money for its programs of social good such <br>
as militarism and the police state, but actually such taxes are<br>
regressive and you ought to think that is not good.<div><div class="h5"></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It's true that such taxes are regressive, as all taxes on consumption are regressive, in the sense that poorer people spend a greater share of their income on consumption and therefore will be taxed more highly by a consumption tax as a percentage of their income. But: 1) while I think it is quite reasonable to demand that the system of taxation be sharply progressive overall, that does not require that every single tax be progressive; and 2) given that most local governments are unable to levy progressive taxes, a demand that there be no taxes which are not progressive, in the absence of a deep systemic reform in the national system of taxation, would mean a demand for no local taxation at all, which would mean the collapse of all local government and services. Which, again, even if one thought that would be a good thing - which I most certainly do not - is not on the cards in any event.</div>
<div> </div><div>It's certainly true that governments use a lot of the money raised from taxation for evil things. But I don't think it's likely that a general attack on taxation will lead to less evil. In the absence of effective activism which distinguishes good things from bad things, governments don't seem to have any trouble spending tax money for evil things while claiming they don't have money for good things. I don't think an anti-tax magic wand is going to help matters. We're going to have to slog it out on the details of where the money is being spent. </div>
<div> </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><div class="h5">
On 1/22/2014 7:44 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
let's put referenda on the November ballots saying that marijuana
should be regulated like tobacco and alcohol.
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/obama-speaks-marijuana-why-now-174217311.html" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/obama-speaks-marijuana-why-now-174217311.html</a><br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">Robert Naiman<br>
Policy Director<br>
Just Foreign Policy<br>
<a href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org" target="_blank">www.justforeignpolicy.org</a><br>
<a href="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org" target="_blank">naiman@justforeignpolicy.org</a><br>
<div><span style="text-align:left"><a href="tel:%28202%29%20448-2898%2C%20extension%201" value="+12024482898" target="_blank">(202) 448-2898, extension 1</a>.</span><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div><pre><fieldset></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr">Robert Naiman<br>Policy Director<br>Just Foreign Policy<br><a href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org" target="_blank">www.justforeignpolicy.org</a><br>
<a href="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org" target="_blank">naiman@justforeignpolicy.org</a><br><div><span style="text-align:left">(202) 448-2898, extension 1.</span><br></div></div>
</div></div>