[OT]: smokers - was: [oclug]new kind of keyboard

[Jon Earle]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Dan Langille wrote:

> On 23 Jan 2003 at 16:41, Brad Barnett wrote:
>
> > If this is the case, should people who take part in certain sports not
> > be taxed additionally?  Mountain climbing, parachuting, and such,
> > obviously carry a higher risk than walking down the street.  There are
> > people that go hiking for miles into the North, get injured and have
> > to be lifted out.
> >  Why are the purchase of paraphenilia for these activities not taxed
> >  at a
> > higher rate?  Why are people who take part in these activities not
> > taxes somehow, since they are at higher risk?
>
> The consensus is that any benefit derived from that physical activity
> outweighs the risk.

And if you go camping in the frozen North, and need to be airlifted out,
what benefit is there to me?  To society?

Society is no more bettered or injured by my smoking, than by you camping
in the north.

Supplies related to extreme sports/activities should be taxed higher.  If
you want to ride your skateboard on the edge on a guard rail and injure
yourself in the process, taxpayers should not have to bear the burden.
So, we either tax ourselves to death, covering every possible activity
voluntarily undertaken by others, or we apply tax law fairly and equally.
As it stands now, it's not fairly applied.

Cheers!
Jon

---
Jon Earle

SAVE FARSCAPE http://www.savefarscape.com/

Q: Could your economic future be negatively affected by Canada's
ratification of Kyoto?