Examinator says, "I don’t see the issue as taking responsibility for some one else but simply an extension of user pays."

I see. Not a bad idea, although I have in front of me a glass of nice red :)
I probably can agree with you now that you've clarified your point. It somewhat overlaps what I said about prevention. Prevention programs cost money, and I can see how extra tax for these products could (partly) cover these prevention programs as well as contribute towards health care.

It may be off topic and I'm not meaning to start a drug debate (hold your horses, Col, hehe), but in fact, I'd like to see all drugs that are now illegal, legalised and taxed. It would cost tax payers less overall if the tax on drugs would cover the costs of drug use.

I'll need to give it some more thought.

Exammy,
Oops, error.

I said, "It would cost tax payers less overall if the tax on drugs would cover the costs of drug use."
That would be too good to be true :) I must've been hallucinating.

I meant to say,
It would cost tax payers less overall if the tax on drugs would cover the costs of drug PREVENTION programs, health care etc.

Bronwyn “You've deliberately taken one or two isolated words in an effort to make your point.”

Ahhhh – I think that happens quite frequently, especially when anyone quotes from anyone else’s post.

“When those words are seen in their full context, as all readers here have seen them, they are very obviously part of a respectful, considered and nuanced conversation.”

That would be based entirely upon the subjective interpretation and personal bias of individual the reader (aka ‘opinion’, as in "On Line Opinion").

“Most of them have given up long ago and accept your arrogance as par for the course.”

And I ponder, what sort of ‘arrogance’ it is for you to assume you speak on behalf of ‘them’?

“I was never wading into this on my own behalf though,’

Really ?

‘ I was objecting to the arrogant way you were referring to your fellow humans,”

So you are “wading into this” as the official spokesperson for the common good?

“I was not making 'gratuitous' comments on your character for the sake of it”

I hover, in anticipation of finding out why you are making gratuitous comments . . .

"It was merely my attempt to object to your arrogance with some degree of humour."

"Degree of humour"

that is "laughable"

“Next time, I'll probably dispense with all of that and revert back to direct and blunt criticism.”

That is your sovereign choice

Just as it is my choice, as one of those “fellow humans”, to determine the nature of any response I may care to give but

be assured, any 'opinion' I do offer will be a personal one.

I do not presume to speak for anyone else at all

But if I did, I would pre-qualify the social / political / professional / collectively identifiable sub-group in whose name I spoke.

Now we have got that out the way . . . . .

Celivia “It’s true that everybody should be responsible for their own stupid choices,”

We agree.

However regarding

“but on the other hand it’s also true that some people have not learned and are not able to ever learn how to make the right choices because for example, they grew up in hash, abusive, or dysfunctional environments or have a mental problem.”

Yes and some are not as ‘tall’ as others and there is nothing we can do about it either. We do not penalize the tall for their ‘height advantage’ over the short.

The other point is, some so called ‘mental problems’ are consequences of other bad choices, and represent a ‘freely acquired disadvantage’, rather than a natural one.

“Col, as you know, I’d like to think people are social beings and that there is help and a social network provided for these people to fall back on.
I believe that this would not only benefit the individuals but communities, too, and even society as a whole.”

Margaret Thatcher described that as “families” (including the friends), as in

“there is no such thing as society, only individuals and their families”

I know my network includes friends and family, people I know.

I have less 'connection' with some government appointed bureaucrat, supposedly there to means test me if I ever came to seek the services of any government network.

Making people accountable for their legal and personal choice in drinking or not coca cola and its consequence on their health (user pays), in terms of the provision of health services would be fine, if they had a personal choice in the selection of that health service.

However, I believe, whilst we have non-discretionary, taxpayer funded medical services, it is hypocritical for government to direct the legal choices of the voting, tax paying, electorate, who they are supposed to represent, without those voting taxpayers being given the power to opt-out of being taxed for those health services.

Of course, this view modifies slightly if the personal choice is not a legal one, viz the consequences of taking of illegal drugs.

Haha Busted Celivia. I like your thinking.

Col that whole post to Bronwyn had me laughing out loud:-) Sorry Bronwyn. I'm sure you can see the humour too though. Does anyone else picture Col looking like Kramer off Seinfeld?