A little thought on morality

[Stronk Serb]

Okay, so here is the situation.

You have two illegal dealers. One sells untaxed tobacco/cigarettes, while the other sells (in this situation illegal) heroin, or any other hard drug.

From a moral standpoint, who is the worse person? The tobacco dealer or the heroin dealer? Are they equally guilty? Is the tobacco dealer only guilty of not paying taxes?

This can take many routes, I mean effectivelly this is the same, except tobacco is not illegal from the start, only illegal when sold without paying the tax.

My answer is that the drug dealer is more guilty. He sells a substance more dangerous than tobacco, which is responsible for many crimes done under it's influence and for many more lives and potential destroyed while in usage.

As a matter of fact what I think the tobacco dealer did was good, as in preventing the government from profiteering of the addiction of people, because untaxed tobacco is usually a lot cheaper than taxed tobacco.

[mattsmith48]

Tobacco is heavily taxed because it's not good for you and when you get sick the government is the one paying for it. Taxing those products is one, a deterrent from starting and helps paying for when your future treatment. So selling cigarettes tax free is stealing not only the government but also other tax-payers. Both drug dealers are profiteering from someone's addiction, so the answer is the guy who sells cigarettes, because he's also stealing.

[Stronk Serb]

Tobacco is heavily taxed because it's not good for you and when you get sick the government is the one paying for it. Taxing those products is one, a deterrent from starting and helps paying for when your future treatment. So selling cigarettes tax free is stealing not only the government but also other tax-payers. Both drug dealers are profiteering from someone's addiction, so the answer is the guy who sells cigarettes, because he's also stealing.

Yes, but who gave the right to the government to profiteer from my addiction? I mean here since 2012 they doubled the prices of tobacco yet nothing really changed, except the money all smokers give to the government. By your logic, drivers, construction workers, soldiers and people with genetic disorders should be taxed extra just because their increased health hazards might pose a higher amount of money dedicated to their healthcare. The thing that did it in the west is the anti-smoking campaigns, not the increase in taxes. An alcoholic, smoker or drug addict would gladly spend his last money to further his addiction. The government just profiteers off of it. Also tobacco is less harmful (not implying it is harmless) than the hard drugs like cocaine, heroin, crack etc. I would still give the lesser sentence to the tobacco dealer than to the drug dealer.

[mattsmith48]

Yes, but who gave the right to the government to profiteer from my addiction? I mean here since 2012 they doubled the prices of tobacco yet nothing really changed, except the money all smokers give to the government. By your logic, drivers, construction workers, soldiers and people with genetic disorders should be taxed extra just because their increased health hazards might pose a higher amount of money dedicated to their healthcare. The thing that did it in the west is the anti-smoking campaigns, not the increase in taxes. An alcoholic, smoker or drug addict would gladly spend his last money to further his addiction. The government just profiteers off of it. Also tobacco is less harmful (not implying it is harmless) than the hard drugs like cocaine, heroin, crack etc. I would still give the lesser sentence to the tobacco dealer than to the drug dealer.

If you do a dangerous job you are probably already paying more taxes because those jobs tend to pay more because they are more dangerous. Addictions are costing the government money no matter if the thing you are addicted to is legal or not, they are certainly not making any profit of a tax on cigarettes, or alcohol, or pot.

[PlasmaHam]

Both have done wrong. However, the heroin dealer has done more wrong, as he is actively peddling an item far more dangerous than tobacco. In some ethical viewpoints (forgive me for not knowing the specific names atm) the morality is determined by the results of the action. If you adopt that world view, then the the moral stance is clear, as the results of illegally selling heroin are much worse than illegally selling tobacco in most cases. There is another viewpoint, that the morality of an action is determined by the motive behind the action. Even this, I will have to say the heroin seller is morally worse-off than the tobacco seller, as while they both have the motivation of getting money, the heroin dealer has to know that his product will cause much greater harm. So there is my view of this.

Guys, this is a discussion on morality, not whether or not you think taxing the sick for being a burden on society is a good idea. Let's try to stay focused. shall we?

[Stronk Serb]

If you do a dangerous job you are probably already paying more taxes because those jobs tend to pay more because they are more dangerous.

Not really. What I want to hear is how morally wrong are both things, not how much the government has it's tribute lowered. Also why you think of morality.

Both have done wrong. However, the heroin dealer has done more wrong, as he is actively peddling an item far more dangerous than tobacco. In some ethical viewpoints (forgive me for not knowing the specific names atm) the morality is determined by the results of the action. If you adopt that world view, then the the moral stance is clear, as the results of illegally selling heroin are much worse than illegally selling tobacco in most cases. There is another viewpoint, that the morality of an action is determined by the motive behind the action. Even this, I will have to say the heroin seller is morally worse-off than the tobacco seller, as while they both have the motivation of getting money, the heroin dealer has to know that his product will cause much greater harm. So there is my view of this.

This is the sort of answer I wanted to hear, weighing down what both have done and casting judgement on how moral their deeds were.

Guys, this is a discussion on morality, not whether or not you think taxing the sick for being a burden on society is a good idea. Let's try to stay focused. shall we?

Yup.

[mattsmith48]

Not really. What I want to hear is how morally wrong are both things, not how much the government has it's tribute lowered. Also why you think of morality.



This is the sort of answer I wanted to hear, weighing down what both have done and casting judgement on how moral their deeds were.



Yup.

All I did is explain why the guy selling the cigarettes is worst

[Stronk Serb]

All I did is explain why the guy selling the cigarettes is worst

Then I must have misunderstood you.

[Mrflufay]

Morally niether are wrong, in my opinion. Both are simply selling a product that has a demand. Wether it be one of the hardest drugs known to man or sommething that is widely accepted as ok, like tobacco. One could argue that both are wrong because they are selling an addictive substance. But its like guns, the person who sold it is not in charge of what the buyer does with the product. Of course thats setting asside laws made by the governments to controll what we put in our bodies. If we look at it in a governmental sort of view, we could say that both are guilty but in diffrent levels. One is selling a legal product that is addictive (but not as addictive as the other drug), and regarded as an ok thing, without giving the portion that is set to go to the government, which helps build school, fund hospitals, etc. While the drug dealer is selling something deemed illegal because it can hold someone for life to the point where all they prefer is the drug, over food and water.

[rioo]

this morning I saw motorcyle man stop near me with cigarette still on his hand, I dont get why he riding and smoking.
So I think tobaco is worse.