Health seems to be the fallacy most commonly used by Anti-Smoking forces to rationalize smoking bans and smoking sin taxes.
In reality, politicians are not burdening smokers with such hardship causing sin taxes to save us from cancer. We are being taxed to balance the faultering, badly run state governments. Simply said, "They need the money."
Nobody really cares if a smoker gets cancer or not. The issue is money and the logic justifying the sin tax is false. Taxing a smoker to alter his/her behavioral decisions, is a total violation of that smoker's civil liberties. It is not the governments job to determine what is or is not a correct life style. The government is going beyond its role and it is lying to people.
Health is not the issue. It is about money!For Example...
Should gays be give a AIDS tax because anal sex has a higher risk of passing the HIV virus? Should extreme sport enthusiasts be taxed for the obvious health risk to the participants. Should women who have children at a later age be taxed to cover the increased rate of ovarian cancer?
Should there be bad eating taxes, loud music taxes, late night with no sleep taxes, more than one glass of wine at dinner taxes? All of these taxes would save the health care systems money. Our health would improve if we were good little communists, ate three meals a day with plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables, exercised regularly, went to bed at 8 PM and gave up all of our vices.
Health would prevail. But what a shitty place to live.
Take the Case of Women. Let's take the rationale for taxing smokers and apply it to women who don't get pregnant. Would anyone really agree with this?
-----------
It is generally believed that women who have children before the age of 30 are less likely to get cancer. Therefore, it could be argued, women who choose not to have children before 30 are purposely choosing a dangerous lifestyle and putting the common good at risk. America does not have a health care system. Many of these women will get cancer without private insurance. Tax payers will end up paying the bill for these careless acts.
In order to compensate for this wanton act of refusing to get pregnant at the appropriate age, women who do not have children before the age of 30 should be taxed heavily.
By creating this non-pregnancy tax, more women will get pregnant before the age of 30 and their risk of cancer will decrease. We have the moral authority to take these steps, because they may die of cancer if we don't. Cancer is a horrible death. We are therefore taxing them to save them from their own stupidity.
We can also use this tax money, to shore up state budget deficits. We can also use this money to clean polluted waterways and to initiate city improvement programs.
-----------
That's insane. That's a total violation of the rights of women. And it is the exact same thinking that is being used against smokers.
Non-Smokers Wake UpDon't be fooled. The smoking issue is just the beginning. After it is impossible to be free to smoke and it has been banned out of existance, the money generated by cigarettes will need to be found somewhere. Another issue will be found with the same, illogical, emotional rationale. Who will be next? Will it be an excessive weight tax? An alcohol tax? A no baby before 30 tax?
I am not sure. The only thing I am sure about is that it will be non-smokers who pay then. There won't be any smokers left to pay the bill for you.