3 ms·
High taxes on tabacco are not supposed to fund treatment, they're supposed to deter people from smoking. While self inflicted illnesses are (and should be) cov
by dx034 9y ago
High taxes on tabacco are not supposed to fund treatment, they're supposed to deter people from smoking.
While self inflicted illnesses are (and should be) covered by health care, there is a point in trying to avoid those rather than making them easy to treat. Deterring people from smoking while researching treatment for other forms of cancer can save more lives in the long run.
- gm-conspiracy 9y agoIf we didn't want people to smoke, it would be illegal. Yet, as US taxpayers, we have subsidized a synthetic opioid epidemic for almost 20 years, and state governments use legal settlements against drug distributors to subsidize treatment (which are not standardized) and fund the purchase of more pharmaceutical products (suboxone and narcan).
- dx034 9y agoTo be fair, most people weren't aware of the problems prescription opioids cause until very recently. People also smoked for decades until it was established that smoking is unhealthy. Banning a drug will only lead it to go underground. If you ban cigarettes, everything moves to the black market. The US has experienced in past decades that banning drugs and fighting their distribution is not necessarily effective. If you legalise a drug but tax it heavily (and provide other restrictions), you control the supply chain (ensuring quality) and can recover some of the costs via taxes.