|
Can't help but respond to this.
Our editorial board editorialized against cigarette tax hikes two weeks ago, and it just absolutely pissed me off. Their argument was that the state was relying on addiction to fund programs.
I have to disagree. Speaking as a former smoker and a regular boozer, I think the state has all the right in the world to extend taxes on unnecessary luxuries. There's no need to smoke - if you're addicted, get help and quit or pay the price. Cigarette taxes a) deter people from smoking (I buy the occasional pack of cigarettes less often these days because it's getting expensive), b) recover some money for the increased cost of health care (this is a tricky argument, with the "fat" tax and all .. won't get into it), and c) generates revenue for other state programs. And with booze ... well, I can deal with not drinking (all the time).
Now as long as the money is used appropriately (and yeah, it isn't always, but hey, it's government), I think a tax makes perfect sense. It's just one of those things that people like to do, and if they're going to pay the price to smoke or drink, shit, let them do so.
|