Lowering taxes on condoms, a slippery slope.
The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health has recommended — but not required — that municipal governments hand out condoms and birth control pills to anyone under 20 years of age, in order to curb rising numbers of teen pregnancies and STD’s.
Other recommendations include testing anyone under 25 for chlamydia if they come to a clinic for contraceptives. The Ministry also wants to lower the tax on condoms.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa…Let’s not go down *that* slippery slope!! Lowering tax on condoms? (which would obviously raise condom consumption like the alcohol tax decrease did) I mean, what would they lower taxes on next!? Food?? Housing?? If you drop taxes on condoms, the public may demand lower taxes on other essential, life-saving products and services – and the welfare state can’t afford that!!
I say we raise taxes on contraceptives and launch a “Just Say No” campaign on sex, which had worked so well in the United States.
Tax on condoms was cut from 17.5% to 5% in the UK last year: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4832814.stm
Comment by Hugo — Wed, Nov 7th, 2007 @ 11:45 am
I say we raise taxes on contraceptives and launch a “Just Say No†campaign on sex, which had worked so well in the United States.
The US is a gleaming light in a world of darkness. Everything there works well!
Comment by gopha — Wed, Nov 7th, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
I think even India is ahead of the US in that respect. I think they have even less crazies there thinking that not getting someone pregnant/infected is an affront to god.
Now hear this, hear this:
Comment by Herkku — Wed, Nov 7th, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
OK, embed didn’t work, so here it is again:
>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=BTLj_3R0-2g <<<
Comment by Herkku — Wed, Nov 7th, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
Oh, and since we have delved into matters of the uterus, what’s up with Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul’s pro-life position on abortion and? Seems like libertarian sacriledge…
He wants to overturn Roe v Wade and take away the right of women to do whatever the hell they want with their bodies… seems he doesn’t mind government putting itself between the legs of women. States’ rights is a nice excuse when you are out of arguments. Just ask Thompson.
His medical specialty is no excuse for his opinions, I am sure he has delivered plenty of babies that came out to a very uncertain, unwanted future.
So is he just pandering to the religious right just to have a chance at being Killer-in-Chief?
Comment by Herkku — Wed, Nov 7th, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
So in this cozy little welfare state of ours there are people who don’t use condoms because of the price and they rather just get an STD or impregnate someone instead? WelcomeToFinland
Who the hell seeds these imbeciles anyway? Sounds like something that a proper parenting might fix but no… god forbid anyone should practice self-reliance or teach their kids how to fuck without ruining their lives. Let the state worry about that.
Comment by Biff Loman — Wed, Nov 7th, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Extra Tv-uutiset now on TV1 about the school shooting.
Comment by JG — Wed, Nov 7th, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
Biff,
Exactly what I was thinking. You know with this line of reasoning, maybe the cost of health care for the patients should go up, including for abortions, which would have the effect of condoms appearing to be less expensive, at least as far as the alternative option of getting pregnant.
Forget getting pregnant, I think a condom is much cheaper than the thought of sleeping with a guy with AIDS without protection. Oh wait, Finland does not have that problem.
Comment by Fred Fry — Wed, Nov 7th, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
In my opinion, the most effective state intervention in this area is to reduce the incidence of erections using a campaign of fear and intimidation. Have you ever tried to put a condom on a penis that was not sufficiently erect?
Comment by Martin — Wed, Nov 7th, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
So is he just pandering to the religious right just to have a chance at being Killer-in-Chief?
Most likely. But remember, he’s pushes states’ rights on EVERY issue, abortion is no different. He personally is against abortion, although he wouldn’t make a federal mandate to outlaw it like most the Republican candidates . Remember, he’s delivered 4,000+ babies in his life, it doesn’t surprise me that he’s personally not happy with abortions.
Comment by Phil — Wed, Nov 7th, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
“Just say no” campaign; this would actually be exellent – Finns give way too few births to replace those who die. Few accidents might be a good thing.
AND REMEMBER: IT’S OK IF YOU PULL OUT IN TIME.
Comment by Juho Salo — Wed, Nov 7th, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
AND REMEMBER: IT’S OK IF YOU PULL OUT IN TIME.
Yeah, or “DOING IT ON HER CHEST WONT GET HER PREGNANT”
Comment by Phil — Wed, Nov 7th, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Gee, lets all bash the USA for having stated morals.
Gee then your option is now the Chinese approach? I say go for it.
Comment by winter, "Yea, Proton Power, now in remission" — Wed, Nov 7th, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
Herkku: “He wants to overturn Roe v Wade and take away the right of women to do whatever the hell they want with their bodies… seems he doesn’t mind government putting itself between the legs of women.”
You should really look at it from a different perspective. I’m probably even more pro-abortion than you are, considering that Europe already has far more people than it could feed in time of crisis. The US is also approaching full capacity.
RP’s idea of dumping Roe v. Wade is NOT the same as making abortion illegal. That’s because he opposes any federal government interference in the matter. Such as stance could be the only way abortion actually stays legal; by keeping it in the federal sphere, there’s a chance that it could actually become illegal or severely restricted at some point—for EVERYONE in EVERY STATE!
Comment by Kristian — Wed, Nov 7th, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
Either way, Roe v Wade has already happened and the courts (not the government) have already interfered, so it is in the federal “sphere” already. So the only other way to go is to overturn it and make it illegal.
Personally, I feel that banning abortion is a medieval practice and as laughable as the laws mentioned in that other post. Abortions will still happen, in back alleys with rusty knives. The solution here is education, not some papal-style edict to ban the right of women to do as they want with their bodies. And I state this in an admittedly libertarian blog. Is there a double standard? Are you sacrificing your beliefs to get a politician elected?
So Phil (and other libertarians), do you effectively excuse Ron Paul for supporting banning abortion to pander to the religious right?
Comment by Herkku — Wed, Nov 7th, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
“For couples that use withdrawal correctly at every act of intercourse, the failure rate is 4% per year. In comparison the pill has a perfect-use failure rate of 0.3%, while the diaphragm has a perfect use failure rate of 6%. The condom has a perfect-use failure rate of 2%”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulling_out
Comment by qwerty — Wed, Nov 7th, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
“The condom has a perfect-use failure rate of 2%”
I think the risk positively correlates with weenie size. Luckily, I have nothing to worry about
Comment by Kristian — Wed, Nov 7th, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
Herkku: What do you mean by “even India is ahead of USA”? What gives you the idea that Indians consider the USA as the benchmark for political or social behavior?
Comment by Nomad — Wed, Nov 7th, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
Nomad.
joke /dÊ’oÊŠk/Pronunciation[johk]
noun, verb, joked, jok·ing.
–noun
1. something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act: He tells very funny jokes. She played a joke on him.
2. something that is amusing or ridiculous, esp. because of being ludicrously inadequate or a sham; a thing, situation, or person laughed at rather than taken seriously; farce: Their pretense of generosity is a joke. An officer with no ability to command is a joke.
3. a matter that need not be taken very seriously; trifling matter: The loss was no joke.
4. something that does not present the expected challenge; something very easy: The test was a joke for the whole class.
5. practical joke.
–verb (used without object)
6. to speak or act in a playful or merry way: He was always joking with us.
7. to say something in fun or teasing rather than in earnest; be facetious: He didn’t really mean it, he was only joking.
–verb (used with object)
8. to subject to jokes; make fun of; tease.
9. to obtain by joking: The comedian joked coins from the audience.
[Origin: 1660–70; < L jocus jest]
Thanks for playing.
Comment by Herkku — Wed, Nov 7th, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
“So Phil (and other libertarians), do you effectively excuse Ron Paul for supporting banning abortion to pander to the religious right?”
No. Just because I disagree with him on a personal level (IMO, abortions should be legally allowed until the ‘fetus’ reaches the age of 8-years, approximately), it doesn’t mean I disagree with his proposed legislation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act
I would much rather see unrestricted access to abortions in _some_ states, than restricted access in _all_ states. Right now, the latter is true.
Comment by Kristian — Wed, Nov 7th, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
You are all crazy. Do not take anything from the US as an example of the way things should be, especially lies about not having sex. You will have a hard time finding anyone over 16 who has not had sex at least once. It is also increasingly difficult to find people who have not had unprotected sex. Anything the US does as a means to ‘fix’ some kind of problem, is only temporary at best. We, in America, do get free condoms from some places. So if you want to go by example, then go that route.
Comment by anonymous — Thu, Nov 8th, 2007 @ 10:57 pm