the interest of smoking and drinking

it is interesting to see how different governments look at this particular problem:

as i remembered well from early history, the rulers of the communistic regimes and underdeveloped countries, recognized the problem very well and they use the old adagium: give them bread and circuses, divida et impera. to keep the vox populi silent, the tax on tobacco and booth had to be kept low for their own safety.

the "so-called" civilized countries try to hide their intentions by brainwashing people by telling them that smoking or alcohol is very bad for their condition and that they (the smokers or the alcoholics) "obvious" use more healthcare (read money) from society than normal citizens. of course this is true, but they "forgot" intentionally to mention the amount of tax on cigarettes and booth.

so, let's try to think properly about this problem to evaluate the differences between the smokers vs non-smokers group, and the drinkers vs non-drinkers group. but also the differences between the not-at-all-users group and the alternative-users group.

if you smoke very modest - let's say for simple analytic and multiplication purposes - 1 packet of cigarettes per week and i presume you smoke about 40 years (20-60 years of age). it will cost you: 52 (weeks) x 40 years x 5 € (the price at this very moment) = 10.400 €.

if you are the "average" smoker, you consume a packet a day, so you will pay 7 x 10.400 = 72.000 €. the tax on that kind of luxury articles consist of 20% vat + 50% excise-duty = 70%. the amount the government "earned" is 72.000 x 70% = 50.400 €. this money will double every 10-year period, so over 40 years time this amount of money will grow to like this 50.800 - 100.800 - 201.600 - 403.200 € pp.

the same reasoning for booth. if you are a modest drinker - lets say 1 unit a day - you pay 7 (days) x 52 (weeks) x 40 (years) x 2.50 € (the price for 1 unit) = 36.000€. so "average" people use at least 2 units a day (outcome of statistics), thus the average proceeds is 2 (units) x 36.000 € = 72.000 € pp. the tax the government "earned" is 72.000 € x 70% = 50.400 €. the average profit is 50.400 - 100.800 - 201.600 - 403.200 € pp. (maybe this is the so-called gratuities for the politicians?)

it is so nice to see that the total amount of money is the same for alcohol and tobacco! it demonstrates the way of thinking of the "authorities" exactly. it is the same reason why there is in a glass of beer, wine or drink is different amount of centiliters but the same alcohol percentage.

together, when you smoke and drink the government "earns" 806.400 € (smoking and drinking). who is the bad guy? the government, that takes all your money (you have paid already 50% tax for the money you earned and an additional 70% luxury tax on alcohol and tobacco + some money for gasoline and car) or the consumer?

if we all know from this kind of statistics the distribution is like a gauss-curve. that's the reason why the spokesman of the governments invented the slogan: smoke and drink moderately (but enough) otherwise you will die and that would be a real disaster (for them and probably lesser to the consumers).

as you might know this kind of tax's is already added to the budget of the government for coming year and btw (dutch for vat) did you know that some governments consider to exclude that kind of consumers (regulars) from healthcare and other services in the near future? despite the hypocritical attitude concerning morality, the consumers are scapegoat by the government to hide their real incentives: their addiction to money.

nevertheless this kind of consumers contribute far more to the economic circus than "normal" civilians by delivering more work to the transport, retail-trade, good earning health-care and even to the black-market.

maybe the governments of societies are more sick than the consumers and is it better to speak from "syphilized" rather than "civilized" countries. yes, morality depends on economics!

no, smoking and drinking isn't healthy at all. now i have to open my window to let the smoke out and the "belle" air in from the streets and traffic. yes, how did you guessed it, even this air isn't free from tax ;-)

the politics of marriage

did you know that you can love someone even being married? strange but true. it was the theme of a lot of great writers in the past, this "forbidden" love. i call this forbidden because society and church doesn't approve: society not for socio-economic reasons (except for the higher class) and the church not for the so-called moral standards whilst treathening with purgatory or hell, both to suppress the civilians or believers. that the upper class and the rich man, the priests and the bishops have a double moral, seems of no importance.

the real moral standard is the attitude of both parents to each other and their children and the obligation to bring up their children to balanced and nice human beings with empathy and compassion for others as well to educated citizens to fulfil their human tasks in the society. of course it is true that almost any divorce of the parents probably will harm the personality and the integrity of children especially when they are in a more vulnarable period. the keyword is love from both parents married or not, and the ability to give their children basic trust.

anyway, what is the moral behind divorcing to love some other body ? there is no written law that forbids you to love anybody, married or not. besides i feel it is not the task of the society or church to manipulate personal feelings for their own advantage (the only reason why they act like this). maybe u think different about this topic. society believes in the buck, their own idol. the rich keeps the others poor. believe in any god isn't bad i think, but i feel that no other person has the right to tell you what to believe or not. church today (and in the past) looks more like a commerce as it was in the time of the pharazees in the temple. now i will burn a candle.

this are my words.

the telltale-mentality

when somebody felt hurt by others, it isn't that simple to react in an adequate and grown-up manner. to communicate about the subject in question is a good methode to canalize feelings of displeasure.

more likely we like to tell others about his/her misconduct and it is obvious that that person, that causes the pain must be a bad person. curious that often the tell-tale uses the appearance of the offender as an excuse to explain his bad characteristics.

the fact that the person in question doesn't look like "normal" people implicates that normality has an normative value.. it seem logical, that the telltale more than avarage has to be normal and it seems interesting to make a gauss-curve. yes, right, you understand that telltale is almost become a normal pattern in our society.

well known societies takes willingly advantage of the telltale-mentality to dominate the poor and "common" hard working people by means of intimidation and sanctions. from the past we know for sure that dictators were masters in this kind of manipulation and often recommend the telltale-mentality.

now it is time to abolish this telltale-mentality as soon as possible. by the way, wherefrom take the representatives of the institutions the right? not because our good society prescribes this mis-conduct : ) ? and as you well know privacy is always violated because the so-called: "in interest of the cause-excuse".

the telltale-sneak-mentality is not a new defense-mechanism but an old attacking-tactic of blown-up people, who believe that they are more important than others. blow them up people.