Simply a tax of 300%.
Let people smoke, but then they should also finance the costs for city cleaning, waste disposal, etc. to a large extent.
Let people smoke, but then they should also finance the costs for city cleaning, waste disposal, etc. to a large extent.
•
3333
•
@Consulting4Life I see it similarly
••
@Consulting4Life Since the tax share is already almost 50%, I don't think you know what smokers are already paying mitbezahlen👍🏻
•
55
•@Chris_legt_an seeing how many people smoke, they probably don't pay enough yet 😉
•
44
•Deleted User
2Yr
Comment was deleted
•
11
•
@Consulting4Life Info: a €7 package includes €4.68 tax, which is currently approx. 200% surcharge / 69% of the total price
•
66
•@Drachen Thanks for the comment Bingo I was still missing: "Let yourself be put in any political drawer" 😉
••
@Consulting4Life you can throw a cigarette or chewing gum on the street in London. If you want to take Germany as an example, there is a dog tax, for example, and yet the sidewalks are full of shit.
•
33
•
@Drachen No, it has something to do with responsibility. In my opinion, products with tobacco, alcohol, too much sugar/salt/etc. should generally be taxed extra and the money distributed directly to the health insurance funds.
You also immediately think of adults, responsible people. I spent my childhood/youth at a friend's house in a completely smoky living room and no, children simply can't defend themselves against something like that.
Freedom is not a one-way street. Which is more important: the right to smoke for smokers or the right to be smoke-free for non-smokers and the right to health for children?
If freedom meant being allowed to do anything, we would have anarchy and therefore a dictatorship of the strongest. Quasi ... the opposite of freedom.
You also immediately think of adults, responsible people. I spent my childhood/youth at a friend's house in a completely smoky living room and no, children simply can't defend themselves against something like that.
Freedom is not a one-way street. Which is more important: the right to smoke for smokers or the right to be smoke-free for non-smokers and the right to health for children?
If freedom meant being allowed to do anything, we would have anarchy and therefore a dictatorship of the strongest. Quasi ... the opposite of freedom.
••
@devnerd_daddy Of course, the freedom of an individual only goes as far as it does not restrict the freedom of others. Freedom does not mean that you are allowed to do everything, but that you have a choice. After all, we have free will. But it also means that we are responsible for our actions and must bear the just consequences. Freedom is not a one-way street, as freedom automatically ensures that everyone takes responsibility for their own actions. Without freedom, it's always "I had no other choice". The fact that children are in a smoky living room/car has absolutely nothing to do with the cigarette, but with the parents. Anyone who puts their children in such a situation must bear the legal consequences. But the person responsible here is the smoker himself. Absolutely everyone must bear the consequences for their actions and the resulting consequences. And this is not done as easily (as politicians like to do) with an "I take full responsibility", if an action has no real consequences, you have never taken responsibility for it. It is not the gun's fault that someone was shot, but the person who pulled the trigger.
••