We know that people that get hooked on either of these things are hurting themselves. Furthermore, since they tend to be lower income, its likely that whatever health complications they get will end up being paid for in large part by us since over half of bankruptcies in the US are related to medical costs, and the loss to providers from those services are passed onto the rest of us.
Therefore, we should help them help themselves by de-incentivizing undesirable expenditures like cigarettes and alcohol and help American society in the process by having fewer sick people. Everybody wins.
No. That's not what we're about. It isn't that the people choose to smoke or drink. I don't give a shit about what people choose. But sin taxes discriminate in the same way that drug laws discriminate. Yes, the poor, those who are least able to afford the taxes, are the most likely to pay them. Poor people don't buy cigarettes and alcohol because they're easy to buy, they buy them because their lives suck and smoking or drinking makes them feel better. They know that cigarettes are unhealthy, and that alcohol can be destructive. They've probably witnessed the effects. But they don't particularly care, because the hurt is now and the relief is the buzz of a Marlboro or the numbness of a beer. If you've tried cigarettes or alcohol (or even both at once...mmm...) you'd understand.
"But then the poor people get sick and we have to pay for them! That's no fun!"
True. But that is precisely why we have such a system. To help those in need.
There are lots of things that cause illness. Sex causes the spread of diseases like AIDS and syphilis. Sugar causes diabetes. Red meat raises cholesterol. Fish contain mercury. Even exercise can cause broken bones, muscle strains, shin splints. I'm not saying that it's as bad to run a mile as it is to suck down a Camel, but if the primary argument is the burden on the taxpayer, then you're sounding more like a libertarian than I think you'd like to admit.
I'm all for anti-smoking campaigns. I'm all for AA. You can talk at me until you're blue in the face about the dangers of dependency but if I'm working 14 hours a day in some shithole and you charge me a half-hour's wages for my pack of smokes so that you don't have to pay 20 bucks a year to your local hospital I'm gonna be pissed. My life won't get better if it's harder for me to buy cigarettes. It'll get worse. If you don't want any kids to start smoking, then ban cigarettes. Go ahead. It's not the lack of choice I'm worried about, it's the discrimination. If you think these... sins are worth eliminating, do it. But shaking your finger and taking my money just makes me feel bad, and that's no fun.
I may have presented a couple of half-written arguments here, and if so I apologize, but it's late and I'm kinda angry.
5 comments:
The problem is this is exactly what complete capitalism does: creates false consciousness through religion, drugs, etc.
How about actually getting those people out of poverty so their lives don't suck? It turns out having cheap liquor and cigs doesn't help that fight - even if it makes it seem more bearable in the short term for those involved.
Precisely. But working to stop poverty is completely irrelevant to the sin tax debate. Taking away the things that give temporary relief doesn't actually provide long-term relief. Only long-term relief provides long-term relief.
I honestly don't know how to fix poverty. But I have a couple of ideas about how not to fix poverty.
The post is well-done (and I think I side with you, if only because any argument that boils down to accusations of false consciousness is an argument I can't get behind in the least) but I'm sad you didn't import the phrase "a paternalist and a semi-smoker" for use in your own blog. It's a fantastic phrase. I suggest using it for your tombstone.
Hmm... it seems like there are legitimate reasons we disallow crack, heroin, and meth, even though these things make people's lives "easier to live" in the short-term. Namely, they make them harder to live in the long-term.
You can't get around the fact that alcohol and cigarettes do the same thing. Be it because of their addiction, the cancer they cause, or anything else, it's not something we generally want people doing even if we still will let them have the option. People used to smoke a lot more in American society than they do now, and I don't think we're collectively a lot less happy simply because we all don't smoke much.
So it's a tradeoff, and it seems if we can save tens of thousands of lives and a lot of heartache for people's families, we should do it - even if in some abstract way we metaphysically harm them.
Oh, sure, disallowing them is a possibility. I'd be more willing to vote for a ban on cigarettes than some kind of big tax on them. The problem is a conflict of interest and a confusion of intentions. If you think that alcohol is a dangerous drug and should not be allowed because it destroys lives, then legislate as such. But if you think that it's somebody's guilty pleasure and you can make a few bucks off of it while pretending to shake your finger at them, that's a different story.
Post a Comment