Wisdom21

Is it morally correct for the Government to tax the living shit out of cigarettes and have non-smokers reap the benefits of these taxes? I mean either do the same to alcohol, or don't tax either at such a high rate. Haven't some of the states used their tobacco settlements for things othe than healtcare and treatement for smokers and buyouts for tobacco farmers? Why does the Government get to profit off of a dangerous product? The highers cost does not really deter smoking and many states are using increased tobacco taxes to cover their ever-growing deficits. Shoud I be outraged by this stuff???

meritocrat

Tax on tobacco is often designed to deter tobacco usage.

Really I don't believe it should be the BUSINESS of the state to say whether a person can smoke or not!

Mat Wilder

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. I think smoking is one of the stupidest habits, so I personally think it serves smokers right, whether or not the government is right to do so. I also think taxing cigarettes makes more sense than alcohol, since smoking is more directly a threat to other people.

I think a better solution, though, than taxing cigarettes would be for health insurance costs for smokers (as well as for people with other habits that damage one's health - i.e. heavy drinking) should be much higher than for people who don't practice those "risky" behaviors.

Wisdom21

I am not a smoker for the record. But on the baove point I bolded, I think people that have been hurt or have lost love one's to drunk driving acidents would be to differ on that one. Also, smoking should not be unailry taxed if alcohol isn't taxed at the same rate. I think profiting from an unhealthy prdouct is immoral.

doubtingt

Let's assume all the tax revenue really did go towards effective policy that improved public well being.
Would that be fair?
I think there are 3 questions you need to answer in order to reconcile your view on this with your values and assumptions.

1. Do you believe that people should be free to put harmful pollutants into public spaces?

If YES, then case closed. Your values make restrictions on smoking unjust.
If NO, then go to question 2.

2. Des smoking puts pollutants into public spaces?
This is an empirical issue, not just opinion.

If NO, then restrictions on smoking are probably unjust under your assumptions.

If YES, then people do not have a right to smoke and some restrictions can be just. Go to question 3.


3. How negative you think the public effects of smoking are?
Your answer will correspond to the level of restrictions that are justified.

Severe negative effects could warrant an all out ban.

More mild effects could warrant time/place restrictions or
some form of compensation by smokers to promote public health and offset the negative effects of their actions.

----

Adora

Yes, because we're not the ones poisoning everyone else with our huge amounts of excess smoke filled with the same shit we're breathing into our lungs because we're morons.

You hurt society, you pay the price.

(As someone who suffered bronchil asthma for 7 years of my life, and have very sensitive lungs thanks to it, I can calmly say I hate smokers, no matter what you light up. Morons...)

damon_achey

I think you're missing a bigger point, if we can agree that to some degree that smoking is adictive. Then it is an easy target for abnormal taxation, fair or not, because the increased price won't effect the revenue input very much as consumers still won't quit.

It's kind of like the way I pay an insane tax on gas. Look at the pumps, in most places over 40 cents of each gallon is tax.

doubtingt

First, let me say that I think special taxes on smoking and alcohol are pushed largely to penalize sinners and would be taxed even if they didn't affect others.
However, I do think there is a legitmate argument for taxing smoking on a "harm to others" basis.
The fact that smoking is addictive is besides the point. Also, I suspect the evidence will show that smoking restrictions (both taxes and indoor restritctions, etc) do reduce smoking. People can and do quit, and there is every reason to think that the high cost of smoking and the hassle of other restrictions motivate smokers to either reduce or quit.

Gas should have special taxes. There are clear public costs for gas consumption and for driving in general. Taxes are the only way to make sure that those who drive more are also the ones who pay more to offset those costs. And its not just pollution. Its also the costs of road maintainence, traffic police, etc.

Without taxes linked directly to the activity, then the guy who walks everywhere is paying through his income and property taxes to subsidize the asshole who drives his HUMMER 2 blocks for cigarrettes.

For better or worse, the modern world is structured so that many or most of our daily activities both rely upon and deplete public resources, and impact the well-being of others.
The type of world needed to make the hard core libertarian fantasy plausible has been lost to history.
It's legitimate to complain that taxes are generally too high or misused. But it seems to me that taxes linked directly to actions that harm others or use up public resources are the most legitimate of all the types of tax.

A word on alcohol. Unlike smoking, alcohol consumption itself does not directly cause public harm. While it has indirect causal connections to some behaviors that do, the vast majority of alcohol consumption does not lead to these effects. In addition, these forms of harm (DUI, fights, etc) are crimes in and of themselves. Thus, those who commit such crimes can be fined directly to offset this cost, without taxing the vast majority who drink alcohol without consequence to others. Like smoking, alcohol is severely taxed, although most of these taxes are hidden from the end consumer. By the prinicples and assumptions I've laid out, these special alcohol taxes are unjust, but some degree of tax on smoking is just.

To be honest, most of what I've said in this thread was not really solidified in my head. I have strong values for personal freedom, so I've never really resolved my conflicts on this issue.
I feel like this thread has helped me reconcile personal freedom issues with these behavior targeted taxes. I'm curious if any die hard libertarians out there see a fatal flaw in my position.

RRoman

Could somebody dig up some statistics on this? I tend to disgree with this statement, as many people quit smoking with the price in mind, and thus I would probably support the position that the increased tax will cause more people to stop. I am, however, going to bed now, so perhaps somebody else can do a google search and inform us.
Also, Adora makes a good point, in that somkers directly affect their sorroundings by blowing toxic fumes into the air. As a european, I am directly affected by this when I go to restaurants an thus I can relate.

Don Alhambra

Don't even THINK about complaining about taxes on fuel unless you've been to the UK.

From this site:

UK average LRP (unleaded): 81.5 pence/litre

Since 1 litre = 0.2641721 gallon [US, liquid] (from here, I wonder if they do deconversions too...? )

=> average price = �3.09/gallon

Assuming �1 = US$1.89, (from here)

=> average price = $5.84/gallon

Of which 70-80% is tax.

However, in the UK nobody really gives a shit about whether you're an atheist, we have free nationalised healthcare (which is pretty good if not perfect) and a royal family that everybody laughs at, and cool accents, and, and, er... tea. And stuff.