[modi123_1]

You know what I wish? I wish there was more clear and graphic depictions of the negative consequences of your choices. I know.. I know. Call me crazy here but I think if you grows people out they will totally avoid it.

You know.. a fatted heart on a whooper wrapper, gout filled foot seared into my deli sandwich, Walter Brimley on my package of fun dip, a bloody underpants on Chipotle foils, and something similar for those blasted cigarettes. Gosh.. if there was only a way to implement this nationally or globally.

Man then we can make fat people wear shirts that say "If you are weak minded and lacking all independent thought do not be my friend. My obese nature and choices may infect you like crabs jumping johns in Vegas. Conversely if you have iron resolve and a rugged beard you can make me be skinny because I have no will power to maintain my course of life and will follow you to the ends of galaxy Will Riker. Er.. Friend.". See it's funny because the fat people have enough room to advertise that whole slogan!

I think that might be new challenge in the graphic design forum. Take an every day convenience product and slap a PSA on half of it.

[no2pencil]

Where is there a man applauding on this box of condoms?

[CTphpnwb]

BenignDesign, on 22 June 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:

But if you made a bad choice when you were 16 years old and got sick 30 years later... fuck you. You brought it on yourself.

You're confusing individuals with behaviors. I'm not saying we should remove Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security. I'm saying that we should fund their extra expenses with money from people behaving badly. If you behave badly and pay the extra cost, then those systems will have the finances to cover you.

lordofduct, on 22 June 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:

And how is that not social engineering through a system of financial penalization for choices someone decides are 'bad'?

And how is it that you don't think we have social engineering now? My problem with what we have now is that it's working against taxpayers and in favor of people who make poor choices.

supersloth, on 22 June 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:

uh, cigarettes are highly taxed.

Uh, no, they're not nearly taxed enough. You can't say they're highly taxed just because they're taxed.

xclite, on 22 June 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:

It's been brought up several times that cigarettes are heavily taxed, and in some states there has been a movement to tax unhealthy foods. As LoD said - you were arguing points that didn't really relate to what you've started saying on the last page or two.

And I'm favor of those efforts, but doubt they go far enough.

[lordofduct]

CTphpnwb, on 22 June 2011 - 07:33 PM, said:

lordofduct, on 22 June 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:

And how is that not social engineering through a system of financial penalization for choices someone decides are 'bad'?

And how is it that you don't think we have social engineering now? My problem with what we have now is that it's working against taxpayers and in favor of people who make poor choices.

So because we already do social engineering, we should just step it up a notch anyways...

you sir are what makes this world so awesome!

[xclite]

CTphpnwb, on 22 June 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:

supersloth, on 22 June 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:

uh, cigarettes are highly taxed.

Uh, no, they're not nearly taxed enough. You can't say they're highly taxed just because they're taxed.

So do you decide when they're taxed enough? They're taxed at 56.6%. What else do you buy that is so heavily taxed? I'm not particularly opposed to the higher taxes on cigarettes, but sloth can DEFINITELY say they're highly taxed. Not just because they're taxed, but because he knows they're highly taxed.

This post has been edited by xclite: 22 June 2011 - 12:41 PM

[CTphpnwb]

No, since the social engineering that is going on now is working against us, we should fix it.

I would say that they're taxed enough when they pay their expenses instead of pushing them off to the taxpayer.

[modi123_1]

Whiiiiiiiiiiiiiich they are already doing and in fact the government is making money in the long run. Cross apply my factual evidence.

[lordofduct]

yes fix it by making the social engineering more prevelent.

[modi123_1]

I would also like to point out that "the social engineering that is going on now is working against us" is not true. You just don't like who it is allegedly working for.

[xclite]

In conclusion, cigarettes are both taxed highly and taxed enough. I'd still say raise them more, but what exactly else is left to discuss?

[lordofduct]

My peen

[xclite]

is glorious. Next?

[modi123_1]

I saw let's discuss witty images and pithy comments that can be put on every day convenience items ala how the cigarette packs are heading.

[CTphpnwb]

modi123_1, on 22 June 2011 - 03:43 PM, said:

Whiiiiiiiiiiiiiich they are already doing and in fact the government is making money in the long run. Cross apply my factual evidence.

Yeah, right. Health care costs are skyrocketing and SS and Medicare are in trouble because of smoking and obesity, buy you've got facts on your side!

You can claim the government is making a profit, but the debt and deficit show otherwise and they're largely due to military spending and health care. You can fix them by cutting spending or increasing revenue. I say increase revenue by increasing taxes on those who are increasing health care costs by choice.

lordofduct, on 22 June 2011 - 03:43 PM, said:

yes fix it by making the social engineering more prevelent.

Prevalence doesn't matter. Results matter, and today's results are abysmal.

modi123_1, on 22 June 2011 - 03:45 PM, said:

I would also like to point out that "the social engineering that is going on now is working against us" is not true. You just don't like who it is allegedly working for.

How is driving up our debt not working against us?

[xclite]

SS and Medicare are in trouble because they were poorly planned and poorly managed. You have a serious big picture issue if you blame any significant part of government debt on the health care costs of smokers.

And you might be more credible if you had some facts on your side. Probably not, though, because you clearly can't even interpret those correctly.