4 ms·

Just tax it and regulate it, enough with the puritan witch hunts.

sandworm101 11y ago
But taxation can itself become addiction. When a government earns enough from gambling it becomes a necessity. Rather than dissuade, the government starts promoting the vice (ie state lottos). Some say this has happened with smoking, that countries like Canada and the UK now take in more through taxing cigs than they spend on treating smoke-related disease. That's the danger of vice.
- joosters 11y ago
  But many states that ban gambling already have lotteries, so the two aren't as clearly linked as you think. Plus, stating the governments 'promote the vice' is a big stretch, governments don't promote the lotteries, the companies that run them do. As for taxation on cigarettes, why should all the money go to treating smokers? It's fantastic that there is extra cash to go to other causes. You cite the UK government but you'd be hard-pressed to find evidence that they are promoting smoking, indeed the laws on smoking advertising keep getting tougher and tougher. I suspect that you've just got an axe to grind against governments in general.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    But many states that ban gambling already have lotteries, so the two aren't as clearly linked as you think. This is a non sequitur. Banning lottery competitors certainly would be "promoting" the lottery.
    - joosters 11y ago
      For lotteries in particular, it's a little unclear. The lottery-playing public seem to love gigantic jackpots (just see all the press when a jackpot grows obscenely large. Why would a small-time player buy more tickets to win $100 million, but not bother to buy a ticket to win $1 million? But still they do...) , and the more lottery companies out there, the more distributed the money becomes, leading to smaller jackpots and thus fewer players. So the difference between licensing one lottery and several might not be much. (I wonder if any has done studies on this? There must be some 'optimal' (for tax revenue) number of lotteries for a jurisdiction)
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    I think you missed my point. If the purpose of increased taxation on vices like cigarettes is to dissuade people from a particular activity, that goal is missed once the taxation become a profitable venture. The government becomes reliant on the vice and risks switching into a promotional mode. Raising money to treat smokers is all well and good, but I'd rather see fewer people smoking. If a government becomes reliant to the tax revenue it risks becoming as addicted to cigarette use as the people it was once trying to stop smoking. Such traps are what separates vice from other pleasurable activities.
    - joosters 11y ago
      But I haven't seen (and you haven't shown) any real evidence of governments promoting these vices. I do get your point, there's clearly a conflict of interest here, and I too would prefer people to stop smoking rather than countries making money from it. I reckon that actually the only real limiting factors involved are that if government taxes something like cigarettes too much, then the black market steps in and more people buy untaxed products, cutting the tax revenues. In fact I suspect that's already happening in some countries (black market cigarettes are big in the UK, for instance. There are occasional busts of lorries packed full of untold millions of them, and anecdotally, most people seem to know of someone who sells them). Perhaps (speculation time) this actually keeps governments from even considering promoting vices like smoking? The current balance of taxes and government controls on advertising vs the black market means that there's marginal benefits to increasing demand, and current taxations are 'optimal' ?
      - sandworm101 11y ago
        Really? I cannot turn on the TV or radio without hearing an ad for government-owned gambling. Just look at this: http://www.bclc.com/ http://www.bclc.com/ And here is their twitter feed: https://twitter.com/bclc https://twitter.com/bclc That's the British Columbia Lottery corporation, the crown-owned business with a monopoly on gambling in my province. They buy ads, sell tickets, license betting venues, and even run their own online casino (playnow.com). BC is not unique among states/provinces in this regard. How can one not describe this as governments promoting gambling?
  - smileysteve 11y ago
    > Plus, stating the governments 'promote the vice' is a big stretch, governments don't promote the lotteries, the companies that run them do. Where do the companies that run them get the revenue and authority to promote them? Just because the states outsource the management doesn't mean that they are absolved of all of the effects.
- jusben1369 11y ago
  are you saying the Canadian government is promoting smoking?
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    Not yet. Let's see how they handle e-cigs. But I would definitely say the Canadian government promotes drinking. They have a practical monopoly on many forms of alcohol. Whether they turn a net profit re medical costs is complicated, but they certainly do earn lots of money from sales. (fyi Canadian government control of alcohol sales is a holdover from prohibition days in the US. The provinces actually sell the alcohol to the public. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverages_in_Canada#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverages_in_Canada#...)
- holychiz 11y ago
  it's plausible that gov't can become addicted to vice taxes. However, on the cig. tax, there is no evidence of that this is the norm. In fact, in both US and Canada, smoking rate has gone down significantly so something is working and therefore, we shouldn't be too concern with this gov't addiction red herring.
- nekopa 11y ago
  As a very heavy smoker, I just laugh at all the furor surrounding smoking. High taxes, warning labels, interventions. I know exactly how bad smoking is, the empirical evidence is unassailable, but my question is, and has always been: If smoking is sooo bad, to me, to pregnant women, to children, to the planet: Why on earth is it still legal? I know taxes play a part of this, but I really wonder how much is due to tobacco lobbying? I read an article recently (which is making me think long and hard about quitting smoking) about the American Chamber of Commerce, and how they are throwing around their weight in various central Asian countries to keep anti-tobacco laws from being passed. I mean, I hate but understand lobbyists. But the ACC I (naively?) thought was above political intrigues to promote American business interests.

But taxation can itself become addiction. When a government earns enough from gambling it becomes a necessity. Rather than dissuade, the government starts promoting the vice (ie state lottos). Some say this has happened with smoking, that countries like Canada and the UK now take in more through taxing cigs than they spend on treating smoke-related disease. That's the danger of vice.

joosters 11y ago
But many states that ban gambling already have lotteries, so the two aren't as clearly linked as you think. Plus, stating the governments 'promote the vice' is a big stretch, governments don't promote the lotteries, the companies that run them do. As for taxation on cigarettes, why should all the money go to treating smokers? It's fantastic that there is extra cash to go to other causes. You cite the UK government but you'd be hard-pressed to find evidence that they are promoting smoking, indeed the laws on smoking advertising keep getting tougher and tougher. I suspect that you've just got an axe to grind against governments in general.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  But many states that ban gambling already have lotteries, so the two aren't as clearly linked as you think. This is a non sequitur. Banning lottery competitors certainly would be "promoting" the lottery.
  - joosters 11y ago
    For lotteries in particular, it's a little unclear. The lottery-playing public seem to love gigantic jackpots (just see all the press when a jackpot grows obscenely large. Why would a small-time player buy more tickets to win $100 million, but not bother to buy a ticket to win $1 million? But still they do...) , and the more lottery companies out there, the more distributed the money becomes, leading to smaller jackpots and thus fewer players. So the difference between licensing one lottery and several might not be much. (I wonder if any has done studies on this? There must be some 'optimal' (for tax revenue) number of lotteries for a jurisdiction)
- sandworm101 11y ago
  I think you missed my point. If the purpose of increased taxation on vices like cigarettes is to dissuade people from a particular activity, that goal is missed once the taxation become a profitable venture. The government becomes reliant on the vice and risks switching into a promotional mode. Raising money to treat smokers is all well and good, but I'd rather see fewer people smoking. If a government becomes reliant to the tax revenue it risks becoming as addicted to cigarette use as the people it was once trying to stop smoking. Such traps are what separates vice from other pleasurable activities.
  - joosters 11y ago
    But I haven't seen (and you haven't shown) any real evidence of governments promoting these vices. I do get your point, there's clearly a conflict of interest here, and I too would prefer people to stop smoking rather than countries making money from it. I reckon that actually the only real limiting factors involved are that if government taxes something like cigarettes too much, then the black market steps in and more people buy untaxed products, cutting the tax revenues. In fact I suspect that's already happening in some countries (black market cigarettes are big in the UK, for instance. There are occasional busts of lorries packed full of untold millions of them, and anecdotally, most people seem to know of someone who sells them). Perhaps (speculation time) this actually keeps governments from even considering promoting vices like smoking? The current balance of taxes and government controls on advertising vs the black market means that there's marginal benefits to increasing demand, and current taxations are 'optimal' ?
    - sandworm101 11y ago
      Really? I cannot turn on the TV or radio without hearing an ad for government-owned gambling. Just look at this: http://www.bclc.com/ http://www.bclc.com/ And here is their twitter feed: https://twitter.com/bclc https://twitter.com/bclc That's the British Columbia Lottery corporation, the crown-owned business with a monopoly on gambling in my province. They buy ads, sell tickets, license betting venues, and even run their own online casino (playnow.com). BC is not unique among states/provinces in this regard. How can one not describe this as governments promoting gambling?
- smileysteve 11y ago
  > Plus, stating the governments 'promote the vice' is a big stretch, governments don't promote the lotteries, the companies that run them do. Where do the companies that run them get the revenue and authority to promote them? Just because the states outsource the management doesn't mean that they are absolved of all of the effects.
jusben1369 11y ago
are you saying the Canadian government is promoting smoking?
- sandworm101 11y ago
  Not yet. Let's see how they handle e-cigs. But I would definitely say the Canadian government promotes drinking. They have a practical monopoly on many forms of alcohol. Whether they turn a net profit re medical costs is complicated, but they certainly do earn lots of money from sales. (fyi Canadian government control of alcohol sales is a holdover from prohibition days in the US. The provinces actually sell the alcohol to the public. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverages_in_Canada#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverages_in_Canada#...)
holychiz 11y ago
it's plausible that gov't can become addicted to vice taxes. However, on the cig. tax, there is no evidence of that this is the norm. In fact, in both US and Canada, smoking rate has gone down significantly so something is working and therefore, we shouldn't be too concern with this gov't addiction red herring.
nekopa 11y ago
As a very heavy smoker, I just laugh at all the furor surrounding smoking. High taxes, warning labels, interventions. I know exactly how bad smoking is, the empirical evidence is unassailable, but my question is, and has always been: If smoking is sooo bad, to me, to pregnant women, to children, to the planet: Why on earth is it still legal? I know taxes play a part of this, but I really wonder how much is due to tobacco lobbying? I read an article recently (which is making me think long and hard about quitting smoking) about the American Chamber of Commerce, and how they are throwing around their weight in various central Asian countries to keep anti-tobacco laws from being passed. I mean, I hate but understand lobbyists. But the ACC I (naively?) thought was above political intrigues to promote American business interests.