> Prohibition of alcohol never worked, but taxing it certainly does. Yes because clearly we've beaten alcoholism /s > Sin taxes don't disproportionately affec

> Prohibition of alcohol never worked, but taxing it certainly does. Yes because clearly we've beaten alcoholism /s > Sin taxes don't disproportionately affect poor people Do you know what a regressive tax is? I suggest you do a quick search. Sin taxes ARE in fact regressive. Poor people spend a larger percentage of their income on these taxes, even if they consume the same quantity. Its basic math. "There should be no debate about whether taxes on food, alcohol, tobacco and soft drinks (‘sin taxes’) are regressive. It can be easily demonstrated empirically, and countless studies have done so. As with most indirect taxes, they take a greater share of income from the poor than from the rich in all plausible scenarios."[1] [1]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3853609 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3853609 > You also don't just up and die, generally speaking. It is instead lung cancer, heart disease, disability, and overall failure of health over time. The effects by that point are not readily reversible. Why are you ignoring the cost of living longer? Smokers still live long enough to work into retirement, on average. "Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on. The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000... "This throws a bucket of cold water onto the idea that obesity is going to cost trillions of dollars," said Patrick Basham, a professor of health politics at Johns Hopkins University who was unconnected to the study. He said that government projections about obesity costs are frequently based on guesswork, political agendas and changing science." [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748...