Why vote no on Initiated Measure #2, aka the tobacco tax? First, it is a regressive tax that falls heavily on the poor. Second, one of the defenses of the measure, that it will reduce smoking, is an argument in bad faith. If supporters of this initiative really wanted to stop smoking they would propose a $50 per pack tax. The truth is they want some people to smoke; how else do they plan on raising the millions of dollars they claim this law will generate? This is not about reducing smoking. If that was the case the ideal revenue from the tax would be zero. This is about taxing an unpopular (and relatively poor) minority. Finally, if we take the health argument seriously, this is the kind of moral imposition that many of our citizens on the left usually denigrate. Who is the state to tell us that we must maintain healthy habits? Smoking is a vice that we are all better off not developing, but it is a private vice. Contrary to anti-tobacco claims, smokers are a net benefit to the public coffers. Because of our punitive taxation on tobacco, smokers pay more in taxes and they also have the good graces to die earlier than others so they are not recipients of public dollars (e.g., Social Security) as long. This is nanny state politics.
In Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America he discusses the various punitive laws of the Puritains of early America. He thinks many of these laws are quite silly, and this is the capper: "Sometimes, indeed, the zeal for regulation induces him to descend to the most frivolous particulars: thus a law is to be found in the same code which prohibits the use of tobacco."
Update: Chad responds. I will just note that if saving lives is so important, why don't we ban smoking? It is nanny state when the government punishes us for doing things that are personally unhealthy but have minimal public costs. Also, I have no doubt that many people who so support #2 are well intentioned, but I still say they are misguided. I guess when it comes to smoking, Chad is anti-choice.
Recent Comments