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.

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.

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.

So it makes you wonder about the significance of how addictive nicotine is to the debate.

see above.

Second, who cares if the government raises more revenue?

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.

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.

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.

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.