Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
I disagree. A 'sin tax'....is just another government manipulation to get more money. Social cost perspective or not, people should be making choices themselves. The government shouldn't be forcing anyone to quit smoking.
.
|
People who are a future, disproportionate, burden on the health care system are making a choice as to whether or not they will continue in that direction or if they are going to pay a greater proportion share of what their true, future cost to society will be.
User pay. I have no problem with higher cigarette taxes.
Still, it's always been a mystery to me why governments wouldn't be using a regulatory system to reduce or eliminate entirely the addictive qualities of cigarettes, so people could make an easier choice.
I'll let others confirm this but I think lung cancer levels we see today are actually a fairly recent development in the last 50 to 60 years, even though smoking has been around a lot longer. I think the additives to cigarettes that make them taste better but also contribute to their addictive nature are the issue, not necessarily tobacco itself. Feel free to prove me wrong on that perception.
If so, that might be the better way to go that higher taxes. There are some addictive personalities - a certain percentage of the population - who will never be able to quit, even though that might be their choice.
Cowperson