|
SplitSoul posted:Didn't the Dutch coffeeshops ban tobacco and provide herbal analogues for mixing? This is not strictly enforced. ... According to a friend.
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
Yeah no one gives a poo poo. The good coffee shops also have industrial grade filtered AC so it doesn’t actually matter so much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:So how is the smoking ban going to work when they finally get around to legalizing marijuana in order to stop the illegal drug trades (and get that sweet ganja taxation) and the gang shootings (who at the moment are financed by the middle class buying marijuana and other drugs)? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
Poil posted:Can't you eat weed to get the effect too? Like brownies or is that something else? Yeah and I'm sure weed would have it's own regulation if it ever becomes legal as you don't have to mix it with tobacco, you don't even have to mix it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Some greedy property owner exploiting vulnerable tenants that don't know their rights because they're refugees, some horrible people out there https://www.hemhyra.se/nyheter/nyanlanda-fick-betala-hogre-hyra/ At least he's now forced to pay back the money he owes them and if it's happening anywhere else we'll be sure to find out after this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
Poil posted:Can't you eat weed to get the effect too? Like brownies or is that something else? Just like most drugs, yup. Smoking is just one easily packaged way to consume it, non the end be-all of existence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 08:03
|
|
|
obviously the smoking ban is just a transparent plan to strengthen swedish interests in the S N U S industry
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
Better people smoke than snus. At least smoke they have to do away from people. But nothing besides good manners stands in the way of someone breaking open their snus box in the middle of lunch, followed by going knuckle deep into their own gob in hunt for the last one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 05:54
|
|
|
Katt posted:Better people smoke than snus. At least smoke they have to do away from people. But nothing besides good manners stands in the way of someone breaking open their snus box in the middle of lunch, followed by going knuckle deep into their own gob in hunt for the last one. Counterpoint: Both bad, smoking worse. What your describe is literary what smokers did up to 15 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 07:00
|
|
|
Potrzebie posted:Counterpoint: Both bad, smoking worse. Yeah surprise, laws change and behaviour changes. Maybe we can have a law that bans snus in eating areas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 07:13
|
|
|
Katt posted:Yeah surprise, laws change and behaviour changes. Maybe we can have a law that bans snus in eating areas. But that is basically just people right next to you that'd smell that poo poo unless you're a loving dog. If you're bothered by your buddies snusing next to you loving tell them. If you can smell someone picking up a snus on the next table over then you're probably a dog?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 08:05
|
|
|
Katt posted:Yeah surprise, laws change and behaviour changes. Maybe we can have a law that bans snus in eating areas. After 2025 when smoking is over they just might target snus, who knows?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 08:31
|
|
|
Loophole: identified
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 09:06
|
|
|
Beeswax posted:Loophole: identified Gotta wonder who stood up and interjected to get that one in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 09:19
|
|
|
Potrzebie posted:After 2025 when smoking is over they just might target snus, who knows? I guess that depends on how much they want to lose in tax income. Alcohol, tobacco and gambling are all things the government earn money on through tax and I would guess one reason for smoking getting singled out is due to health economy analysis saying a net loss.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 10:40
|
|
|
Eh government will get their moms one way or another 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 10:57
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:I guess that depends on how much they want to lose in tax income. Oh, no! How will we compensate for single punktskatter? Surely it is impossible!   I'm absolutely sure the costs to society caused by alcohol use are waaaay higher than 14bn per annum. E2: what do you know, missbruksutredningen found that 49-66bn is a good estimate for 2008. Potrzebie fucked around with this message at 11:47 on Jul 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 11:06
|
|
|
Katt posted:Yeah surprise, laws change and behaviour changes. Maybe we can have a law that bans snus in eating areas. Katt posted:Better people smoke than snus. At least smoke they have to do away from people. But nothing besides good manners stands in the way of someone breaking open their snus box in the middle of lunch, followed by going knuckle deep into their own gob in hunt for the last one. gently caress you, i WILL go knuckle deep in ettan (lös) and there is noone to stop me i am on the side of history
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 14:09
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:gently caress you, i WILL go knuckle deep in ettan (lös) and there is noone to stop me In a tide of avocado toast you and your icky snus will be swept away as we build a brighter future without liberal snus prilla distribution on hand rails and elevator buttons 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
If you thought bensinuppropet was crazy wait until you see snusupproret
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 14:51
|
|
|
Jag kommer personligen dumpa ett ton gamla prillor utanför riksdagen om ni rör snuset
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 15:05
|
|
|
Potrzebie posted:Oh, no! How will we compensate for single punktskatter? Surely it is impossible! I wouldn’t call 27 mdkr for basically feeding on people’s addictions too shabby. Got the number for how much gambling taxation is? Where at least S have a vested interest to keep it going.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 05:37
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:I wouldn’t call 27 mdkr for basically feeding on people’s addictions too shabby. You do realise that the negative costs to society vastly exceed the income from taxation, right? quote:Got the number for how much gambling taxation is? 12% of the profits iirc. We'll find out if the negative effects of gambling will be less costly than the income from taxation. I very much doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 06:28
|
|
|
The economic argument is not a great one to make for these things. Among other thing because depending on how you do the numbers, smoking also can end up being a net economic positive (though not because of taxes). Smoking kills an incredible amount off people and next to stress and driving is one of the most dangerous things today. That should be enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 07:16
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:The economic argument is not a great one to make for these things. Among other thing because depending on how you do the numbers, smoking also can end up being a net economic positive (though not because of taxes). Smoking kills an incredible amount off people and next to stress and driving is one of the most dangerous things today. That should be enough. Please source this. Sweden is not hell world, so destroying your body with smoking causes insane costs to the health care sector. Heart surgery and lung transplantation and the associated post-op care is very, very expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 07:30
|
|
|
Don’t have the source on me, I guess I can try and dig it up, but there was originally some dutch research, and a similar study in Denmark, where the showed that smokers were actually quite cheap comparatively. The reason is mainly that they die a lot younger than non smokers, and often they die quite quickly because that’s how cancer and strokes and heart attacks work. That means that the exponentially increasing health cost of getting old, like old old, are reduced quite a bit. If I recall correctly the by far most expensive people were slim non-smokers, where overweight smokers were the cheapest. I mean, the economically optimal thing is to kill people just as they retire, so anything that helps that along is good for the economy. I think it was he head medical researcher at rigshospitalets health economics section who said that in a lot of cases we shouldn’t use the economic argument because it leads us to bad conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 07:50
|
|
|
here's a report from 2014 TL;DR: Hospital costs < taxes; Total costs, including loss of productivity >> taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 08:40
|
|
|
Well, both can be true. That current expenses are dominated by smoking etc. but in lifetime expenses smokers are cheaper. Here is the Dutch one I remembered, mainly on obesity, but which also looks at smoking: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029 Here is one which is even more clear: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678 There are more to be found. The gist is that in general, ‘healthy’ people (as in no bad habits) cost more if you look at lifetime costs. Among other thing because smokers don’t live long enough to get the really expensive diseases like Alzheimer, or end up needing full time care for 10 years, or need to be paid retirement pensions, and so on. The 10 years shorter lifespan (at the expensive end) makes up for the increased short term costs of lost productivity and so on. Anyway, the point of the original research was that we should make things like smoking prohibitively expensive for the right reasons, and those are not necessarily the economic ones. Turns out the economic perspective is in reality perverse and disgusting, much like the people who practice in that discipline. Here is a more newspapery version https://medicalxpress.com/news/2009-04-smokers-society-money.html. I guess it could be different in Sweden, but I’d expect it to be even more pronounced in countries with high pensions and welfare systems and universal health care. Smoking should be stopped because it kills people, and not just smokers but those around them too. I feel that should be convincing enough for everyone. e: This is just a quick google search based on something I remembered from a research seminar 8 years ago. Things may have changed, my original point was just that depending on how you run the numbers it might generate different results and we should absolutely fight smoking but the 'right' reason is because it's loving dangerous for everyone. Taking the economical approach (as raison d'etre) leads to super problematic things in a lot of cases. Whether it's about refusing refugees or killing the disabled or whatever. Not that we shouldn't look at how much a thing cost, but it should be secondary. Revelation 2-13 fucked around with this message at 09:49 on Jul 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 09:24
|
|
|
Looking at costs in healthcare is dumb. Diabetics cost more. So do women. So do guys that drink a lot. Or guys that run marathons. It’s just luck and bad luck. Healthcare should be for everyone even the smokers
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 09:36
|
|
|
Huh, look at that. And I completely agree that the be or not of smoking should not be based on economic considerations for the reasons you both state and others. Costs in healthcare is not always dumb, as there are quite a few treatments that while available are prohibitively expensive to be generally available with socialised medicine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 09:41
|
|
|
such studies are generally to be taken with a pinch salt, they're very dependent on precise definitions and models - hardly anyone living in a welfare state is actually 'paying for themselves' according to recent work in norway, for example, but that is a model of tax paid-value of services received, which sees whatever surplus value generated through work as value generates by the owner. i'm not sure i understand what the argument against sin taxes is, though - the argument that the state becomes dependent on the income has never been terribly persuasive to me, and it does seem to lower the amount of people addicted to various stuff/coerce businesses to put less sugar in their products. to me it's always smelled of liberal anxiety about infringement on consumer liberty, which i really couldn't give less of a poo poo about
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 10:35
|
|
|
basically, sin taxes to shift consumption are absolutely fine, but they ought to be specifically to shift consumption. to use a contemporary norwegian example, tolls on the roads are a perfectly valid way to keep people from driving unnecessarily, but they're a bad way to raise funds for their own sake. in norway, municipalities are empowered to set up tolls on their roads (more or less; it's a little more complicated than that), and it's one of only a couple of ways to raise funds locally, so it gets used a lot. that is, imo, Bad
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 10:41
|
|
|
Where did tolls change driver habits? Sure wasn't Gothenburg because a few months after they went up. Traffic was back to normal but with fees on top. It was never anything but a shameless cash grab.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 11:04
|
|
|
the moms is loving theft
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 11:14
|
|
|
Katt posted:Where did tolls change driver habits? Sure wasn't Gothenburg because a few months after they went up. Traffic was back to normal but with fees on top. https://vegnett.no/2018/08/effekten-av-to-ar-med-rushtidstrafikk-i-bergen/ https://www.nrk.no/hordaland/to-tusen-faerre-biler-i-bykjernen-etter-ny-bomring-1.14548502 from my town; when people have alternative modes of transportation, making personal vehicles more expensive is one way of getting them to stop using those and start using busses instead, with an especially pronounced effect at peak hours they really do have to be applied intelligently, though, and should be coupled with a functional public transport system for best effect. some people are going to suffer because they've moved somewhere entirely dependent on a personal car, but all policy has losers personal vehicles shouldn't be seen as a definite answer to the climate crisis or w/e also; in general, macronist taxing the poor to combat the climate crisis is a Bad Solution
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 11:21
|
|
|
just remembered that M in Stockholms landsting proposed selling the station names in the metro a couple of years ago and lol'd I would be super hyped to take the train from Ettan Lös-torget to Ninja Casino-plan
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 13:02
|
|
so that means I can be a cheapskate and post about posting instead of having some wit or spending any more on comedy avs for people. Which I'm also incapable of. Comedy.
|
EU Court of Justice just nuked Danish reunification law, upwards of 18,000 potential retrials in sight. Eat poo poo, nazis!
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 13:11
|
|
|
SplitSoul posted:EU Court of Justice just nuked Danish reunification law, upwards of 18,000 potential retrials in sight. Eat poo poo, nazis! Norway is safe, for now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 13:55
|
|
|
SplitSoul posted:EU Court of Justice just nuked Danish reunification law, upwards of 18,000 potential retrials in sight. Eat poo poo, nazis! And here I thought it was about getting Slesvig back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
THE BAR posted:And here I thought it was about getting Slesvig back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 18:27
|
|
