4 ms·

Why do you think they're immoral?

by computerphage 5y ago

fithisux 5y ago
because cigarettes and alcohol are drugs.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Zababa 5y ago
  What is your definition of drugs and why are drugs immoral?
peoplefromibiza 5y ago
not OP but I guess because they hit the poorer segment of the population and it's an income that comes from exploiting an addiction. There is no sin tax for very wealthy people with very bad habits, like traveling with their private jets. On the other hand as a smoker I am 100% in favour of the ban on smokes in public places. Maybe more bans and less sin taxes could be a better option, I'm not sure myself, but I can see why someone could consider them borderline immoral.
another-dave 5y ago
Not the OP, but my argument would be that things should either be legal or illegal. Fine if stuff has a naturally high price, everyone can't have a Tesla or a Ferrari, but if something is deemed to be morally OK (and therefore legal), it's not the government's place to then penalising people for spending their money on it. If taxes from cigarettes and alcohol were ring-fenced purely for treating smokers, prevention campaigns & alcohol anonymous programmes etc then I might be in favour. But for example — supposedly treating smokers costs the NHS £2.5bn per year (https://twitter.com/UKHSA/status/887261639720001536 https://twitter.com/UKHSA/status/887261639720001536), but the duty on cigarettes brings in £9.9bn (https://www.statista.com/statistics/284329/tobacco-duty-united-kingdom-hmrc-tax-receipts/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/284329/tobacco-duty-unit...). For alcohol — the overall budget of the NHS is ~£130bn currently. This article (2016) estimated that alcohol related cases cost the NHS 3.6% of its budget (https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/jan/22/alcohol-and-the-nhs-five-key-questions https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/jan/22/alcoho...) which, assuming the same now would be £4.7bn today, but alcohol duty brings in £12bn (https://www.statista.com/statistics/284336/united-kingdom-hmrc-tax-receipts-alcohol-duties-by-type/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/284336/united-kingdom-hm...). Even accounting for other costs (e.g. accidents), the government is making a huge return on allowing these products to be sold, so it seems hypocritical to then punish people for using them, especially if people want to enjoy them in moderation.
Clubber 5y ago
Everyone should pay their fair share of taxes and to overburden a group of people because we don't like what they do (smoke, drink, etc) or who they are (poor) not only puts an undue burden on people already suffering for our moral objectives (quit smoking, quit drinking), but allows others (non-smokers, non-drinkers) to pay less taxes than their fellow citizens. Wealthy people certainly can afford to smoke and drink all they want, it's just the poor people who aren't allowed with sin taxes. Just doesn't sit right with me.

Why do you think they're immoral?

fithisux 5y ago

because cigarettes and alcohol are drugs.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Zababa 5y ago
What is your definition of drugs and why are drugs immoral?

peoplefromibiza 5y ago

not OP but I guess because they hit the poorer segment of the population and it's an income that comes from exploiting an addiction. There is no sin tax for very wealthy people with very bad habits, like traveling with their private jets. On the other hand as a smoker I am 100% in favour of the ban on smokes in public places. Maybe more bans and less sin taxes could be a better option, I'm not sure myself, but I can see why someone could consider them borderline immoral.

another-dave 5y ago

Not the OP, but my argument would be that things should either be legal or illegal. Fine if stuff has a naturally high price, everyone can't have a Tesla or a Ferrari, but if something is deemed to be morally OK (and therefore legal), it's not the government's place to then penalising people for spending their money on it. If taxes from cigarettes and alcohol were ring-fenced purely for treating smokers, prevention campaigns & alcohol anonymous programmes etc then I might be in favour. But for example — supposedly treating smokers costs the NHS £2.5bn per year (https://twitter.com/UKHSA/status/887261639720001536 https://twitter.com/UKHSA/status/887261639720001536), but the duty on cigarettes brings in £9.9bn (https://www.statista.com/statistics/284329/tobacco-duty-united-kingdom-hmrc-tax-receipts/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/284329/tobacco-duty-unit...). For alcohol — the overall budget of the NHS is ~£130bn currently. This article (2016) estimated that alcohol related cases cost the NHS 3.6% of its budget (https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/jan/22/alcohol-and-the-nhs-five-key-questions https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/jan/22/alcoho...) which, assuming the same now would be £4.7bn today, but alcohol duty brings in £12bn (https://www.statista.com/statistics/284336/united-kingdom-hmrc-tax-receipts-alcohol-duties-by-type/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/284336/united-kingdom-hm...). Even accounting for other costs (e.g. accidents), the government is making a huge return on allowing these products to be sold, so it seems hypocritical to then punish people for using them, especially if people want to enjoy them in moderation.

Clubber 5y ago

Everyone should pay their fair share of taxes and to overburden a group of people because we don't like what they do (smoke, drink, etc) or who they are (poor) not only puts an undue burden on people already suffering for our moral objectives (quit smoking, quit drinking), but allows others (non-smokers, non-drinkers) to pay less taxes than their fellow citizens. Wealthy people certainly can afford to smoke and drink all they want, it's just the poor people who aren't allowed with sin taxes. Just doesn't sit right with me.