I think that taxing it at the same rate as all other consumer goods are taxed is fine but by putting additional taxes on it, above the regular sales tax, the government political class is actually admitting that it isn't freedom of choice that motivates their actions but greed and a desire for an increased revenue stream that can be used to feather their nests that is the basis for their action.
Taxing something doesn't mean that money is the main motivation, it could be a happy benefit. Maybe it should just have the regular sales tax though.
If an institution of government places a tax upon a product stating that its purpose for so doing is to advance education funding, would it not be reasonable to assume that that institution wants the product to sell as much as possible in order to increase education funding as much as possible? Would a citizen be wrong to think that by this action government is encouraging use of the product as part of one's civic duty?
I don't think that is a reasonable conclusion, though it is a possibility. I'd think that the extra money would be good, but that doesn't mean there is promotion. If there is less money coming in from that then so be it.
eg: There is tax on smoking, but the government does take steps to reduce smoking by other means (eg: warnings and banning advertising).
Do you actually see no middle ground between smoking cannabis once a week and working oneself into a stress caused death?
Of course I do, but you were complaining about people wasting time. Well people 'waste time' in many ways, not just on drugs. It sounded as if your against people relaxing and having time not working.
I would prefer if people had enough self confidence, imagination and natural ebullience that they never saw a need to alter their mood by artificial means.
Why do you think it is about a 'need'? It's not as if I'm a depressed person with no happiness in my life, and the only way I get happy is with alcohol. I drink because I want to, because it can be fun. There are other ways to have fun of course, and I do have fun in other ways. It isn't necessary to choose between sober happiness and tipsy or drunk happiness. You have both in your life.
I'd say I am a cheerful and imaginative person while sober. I'd agree that I lack confidence, and I hate that fact about myself. I was battling shyness long before I was old enough to drink, and I have become a more confident person. I continue to become more confident all the time, and alcohol doesn't reduce my personal growth. If anything it helps me grow as a person.
The main reason I take drugs (such as alcohol) is because it is one (or many) sources of fun.
Doing nothing is probably not good for people as the only people that truly do nothing are the dead ones. You can have free time without using that free time to chemically alter your mood btw. I think free time from employment by an outside source is probably the most potentially rewarding part of life too bad so many people dislike it so much they must use some sort of chemical to escape it.It alarms me that so many people prefer living only for their jobs and immediately seek to find a way to dull their senses so they cannot use their free time to enjoy things that are uplifting.
Why do you think drugs are an escape? I don't drink to escape any more than I play sport or eat nice food to escape. Sport and nice food are enjoyable in themselves, and part of a fulfilling life, just like drugs can be.
I suppose alcohol is fun to me partly because it opens me up, but also because it can make music and dancing more fun. 'Recently' I was out with friends and my now boyfriend, was only tipsy, dancing to cheesy music for hours. It was SO fun and I don't see how that can be a bad thing.
I'm not saying that other things aren't fun, or that other things aren't more fulfilling... I'm just saying that drugs can be just one part of a whole life.
I totally disagree with your either or scenario. It is perfectly possible to not be working at your career and not be under the influence of a mind altering substance or in a vegetative state in front of a machine.
I agree... you just quoted me talking about free time without drugs. I gave the more extreme examples because it sounded like you were against people having free time and not using it to work.
What happens to health care when people stop smoking? Where does the next source of money come from? And as usual the poor tend to make up a large portion of the smoking public so we again are taxing the poor addicted smoker in order to help pay for the rich man's health care. Since the poor addicted smoker will probably die sooner because of it he will perhaps consume much less in total government benefits while paying much toward them than the non smoker.
The tax should go towards smoking related healthcare. If smoking stops there is no need for smoking related healthcare. If the poor smoke more they will need more smoking related healthcare.