cui bono?
Taxing cigarettes is a pretty repugnant policy. The government acknowledges that cigarettes are addictive and unhealthy and then turns around and makes a profit off that? And forces that policy to do double duty as a punitive measure in the interest of public health?
The government taxes the sale of an addictive and unhealthy substance because it is addictive and unhealthy.
Cui bono? Whether or not it’s intentional malfeasance, taking advantage of an addicted [read: captive] group and alleging that punitive measures are benevolent is atrocious.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
2 responses to 'cui bono?'
Leave a comment, or at least subscribe to the comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Studies from a couple MIT economists suggest the higher cigarette taxes actually make the smokers happy. Most want to quit, and higher taxes reduce demand thus helping them toward their goal — or so goes the logic. I didn’t read the details, but I think if its true than it changes things significantly.
I think your argument makes sense, but I’m skeptical about a few things. First, everyone is a captive most likely, there is really no good evidence of any free will in the universe, so everyone can be considered a captive, even people who brutally rape and murder children. So it makes you wonder about the significance of how addictive nicotine is to the debate. Second, who cares if the government raises more revenue? It can from some taxes, but it can lose from other taxes (if it cuts demand too much, depending on the elasticity of demand) and the basis of these decision is (supposed to be) public health and happiness generally, not government revenue.
This is a separate issue from the fact that governmental taxation to implement policy in this case is an obnoxious misuse and malfeasance. It’s clear that not all smokers want this, and it’s wrong for the government to be abusing its power to take money from people to this end. More importantly, it’s clear that the smokers’ happiness is not the intent of the tax. If the government wanted to help people to quit, they could outlaw them, or start up health programs… there are countless alternatives that aren’t obnoxious.
This is not true. But I don’t really want to broach the topic of the existence of free will. Suffice to say, it’s not a constructive axiom, when it comes to problem solving.
see above.
This isn’t the issue — the issue is that they acknowledge that cigarettes are addictive, and then take advantage of that addiction to make money. It’s about as obnoxious as acknowledging that gambling is addictive, and then running the lottery.
But this isn’t the case. Take a look at the budget. The feedback loop between budget decisions and our well-being is way too long for this argument to make sense. Politics is a broken system, but certainly it is abundantly clear that independent of intent or effect, the government is taking advantage of a compromised demographic.