4 ms·

You are are able to consume both tobacco and alcohol (let's not tangent into a drug legalization discussion). Tobacco and alcohol cause measurable societal harm

You are are able to consume both tobacco and alcohol (let's not tangent into a drug legalization discussion). Tobacco and alcohol cause measurable societal harm and measurable costs to the state - are you implying it's unreasonable for states to tax these goods for those reasons? Generally speaking I'd rather reduce taxes but I fail to see what's wrong with e.g. an alcohol excise tax going towards rehabilitation and/or highway safety programs. "Sin tax" is just a colloquial name for an excise tax, which a state has every right to enact.

parineum 5y ago
> Tobacco and alcohol cause measurable societal harm And if I choose to smoke in the privacy of my own home (or yard)? What societal harm am I causing? As for alcohol, the societal harm caused is a laundry list of already illegal behaviors that are illegal regardless of alcohol's involvement with the exception of sin tax avoidance. Why not outlaw the societal harm instead? > e.g. an alcohol excise tax going towards rehabilitation and/or highway safety programs Both of those seem like good things regardless don't they? Why do we need a special tax on alcohol for things that are generally good? It's not like only people who consume alcohol are the only ones who need rehab or they're the only problem with highway safety. Does the tobacco tax go toward lung cancer patients? It actually goes towards funding campaigns that overstate (ie, lie) about the dangers of smoking to the point that people vastly overestimate the dangers of smoking [1]. > Sin tax" is just a colloquial name for an excise tax, which a state has every right to enact. Of course it's legal, it's just garbage policy. Sin taxes come from the pairing politicians wanting more money and pearl clutching interest groups pleading to think about the children. [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182063 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... > 99.5% of respondents overestimated absolute risk, only about 0.3% estimated it correctly (by giving an answer of 30), and 0.2% underestimated it (by giving an answer less than 30).
- oarabbus_ 5y ago
  >Why not outlaw the societal harm instead? Weren't you just saying how you don't want the state legislating what you put in your body and mind? That's why.
  - parineum 5y ago
    I want the state to not outlaw hurting myself when it doesn't hurt others. The state's role is to prevent individuals from hurting others.
    - oarabbus_ 5y ago
      Unfortunately it's not so simple. An individual's smoking and alcohol use can and does harm others, and the state levies excise taxes for that reason. Another example is driving a car, which results in thousands of fatalities and many more injuries daily. Not to mention environmental impacts which affect others. The state chooses to require drivers to have insurance and their cars to pass smog tests, rather than outlawing driving.
      - parineum 5y ago
        > An individual's smoking and alcohol use can and does harm others, and the state levies excise taxes for that reason. Smoking and alcohol use can also not harm others. Should those who smoke and drink responsibly be held responsible for those who don't? How does the tax ameliorate those harms?
  - Talanes 5y ago
    The substance is not the harm. Outlawing the harm is not outlawing the substance.

parineum 5y ago

> Tobacco and alcohol cause measurable societal harm And if I choose to smoke in the privacy of my own home (or yard)? What societal harm am I causing? As for alcohol, the societal harm caused is a laundry list of already illegal behaviors that are illegal regardless of alcohol's involvement with the exception of sin tax avoidance. Why not outlaw the societal harm instead? > e.g. an alcohol excise tax going towards rehabilitation and/or highway safety programs Both of those seem like good things regardless don't they? Why do we need a special tax on alcohol for things that are generally good? It's not like only people who consume alcohol are the only ones who need rehab or they're the only problem with highway safety. Does the tobacco tax go toward lung cancer patients? It actually goes towards funding campaigns that overstate (ie, lie) about the dangers of smoking to the point that people vastly overestimate the dangers of smoking [1]. > Sin tax" is just a colloquial name for an excise tax, which a state has every right to enact. Of course it's legal, it's just garbage policy. Sin taxes come from the pairing politicians wanting more money and pearl clutching interest groups pleading to think about the children. [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182063 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... > 99.5% of respondents overestimated absolute risk, only about 0.3% estimated it correctly (by giving an answer of 30), and 0.2% underestimated it (by giving an answer less than 30).

oarabbus_ 5y ago
>Why not outlaw the societal harm instead? Weren't you just saying how you don't want the state legislating what you put in your body and mind? That's why.
- parineum 5y ago
  I want the state to not outlaw hurting myself when it doesn't hurt others. The state's role is to prevent individuals from hurting others.
  - oarabbus_ 5y ago
    Unfortunately it's not so simple. An individual's smoking and alcohol use can and does harm others, and the state levies excise taxes for that reason. Another example is driving a car, which results in thousands of fatalities and many more injuries daily. Not to mention environmental impacts which affect others. The state chooses to require drivers to have insurance and their cars to pass smog tests, rather than outlawing driving.
    - parineum 5y ago
      > An individual's smoking and alcohol use can and does harm others, and the state levies excise taxes for that reason. Smoking and alcohol use can also not harm others. Should those who smoke and drink responsibly be held responsible for those who don't? How does the tax ameliorate those harms?
- Talanes 5y ago
  The substance is not the harm. Outlawing the harm is not outlawing the substance.