“Woe to he who chooses to smoke cigarettes every day. Woe to she who buys large amounts of alcohol for her house. Woe to anyone who eats fatty foods or sugary drinks. Do not these miserable wretches realize how grotesquely unhealthy they are?” Presently, America’s government and citizens view these and other unhealthy behaviors as punishable sins. Whether this is due to a holier-than-thou complex, an overbearing concern for the well fare of every last one of America’s citizens, or a genuinely good-natured intent, it is impossible to say. However, the argument can be made that the taxes either already imposed or being deliberated onto these products are an absurd violation of our American freedoms. A tax that is placed on certain ill-perceived substances due to their unpopular effects is called a sin tax, which is a type of excise tax. “Excise taxes are taxes paid when purchases are made.” (IRS) While sin taxes have been around ever since the days of George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion, today they have been taken to an entirely new level of overbearing government intervention. Sin taxes have been placed on many familiar consumer items such as cigarettes …show more content…
“We showed how an excise tax increase could trigger a reallocation of the household budget from non-drinking and non-smoking members to a patriarchal and selfish and/or addictive head.” (Black, Mohamed) These addictive behaviors can skew one’s priorities. No longer are they mainly concerned in providing for their family, now they need to spend money to fuel their addictive tendencies. They’ll spend as much money as it takes to obtain what they need and worry about their dependents later. How cold and unfeeling it seems to bleed these unfortunate victims for all they have and claim it is for their own good. True compassion would suggest ensuring people with addictions still have enough to provide food for their
In the article “What You Eat Is Your Business”, the author claims, Americans need to be more responsible for their own health and the government should not become involved (Balko). I argue this point; the American people have been tempted into buying foods that are unhealthy, cheap, and convenient, and we cannot be responsible when foods like this are so easy and available to purchase. We are also one of the fattest nations in the world. He conveys in the article that we should have some sort of responsibility for what we put into our own body (Balko), but I feel that with all of the tempting foods being right at our fingertips, we are getting fatter and fatter. When we turn on the television at night, and every fifteen minutes a food commercial comes on. When we go to school, there are vending machines in every building. Nobody offers water anymore with our meals; it costs extra just to get a cup for water with a meal.
Drenkard, S. (2010). Overreaching on Obesity: Governments Consider New Taxes on Soda and Candy. Retrieved from http://heartland.org
In his article “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Radley Balko emphasizes that we ought to be accountable with what we eat, and the government should not interfere with that. He declares that the state legislature and school boards are already banning snacks and soda at school campuses across the country to help out the “anti-obesity” measure. Radley claims that each individual’s health is becoming “public health” instead of it being their own problem. Balko also states, “We’re becoming less responsible for our own health, and more responsible for everyone else’s.” For instance, a couple of new laws have been passed for people to pay for others’ medicine. There is no incentive to eat right and healthy, if other people are paying for the doctor
Have you ever questioned the tax taken out of your hard-earned money? Questions similar to that are where the money is going and if it is being used properly. In the U.S. news recently those questions have been on a great deal of State’s minds; reaching back to 2003, this issue has been brought up time and time again. The main topic of tax money is the use of assistance money and are the recipients really using the money for the right reasons. There are many problems with the assistance program but the one that comes to mind the most is that many people abuse the money given to buy the essentials and provide, for their family for illegal drugs. The solution that many state representatives have come up with is drug testing as a requirement for assistance. This will eliminate the abuse of the assistance program; also it will cut down the cost of assistance which is very expensive as a whole.
Reiter, Jendi, “Citizens or Sinners? The Economic and Political Inequity of Sin Taxes on Tobacco and Alcohol Products.” Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems. 1996.
The Government needs to draw the line somewhere. In Sweden the Government was giving out free heroin, in order to keep the drugs free from being impure. However, Margaret McKay (2001) declares that if we follow in same steps, soon we will be giving out not only free heroin, but also other illegal substances as well. It will then lead to problems with other drugs as well.
A soda tax aims to stop consumers from buying soda to help those who are obese. This will not be effective. Therefore, a soda tax will not be good public policy. A soda tax is a tax that will add an extra cent per ounce to a bottle or can of a sugary drink, including juice, tea, coffee, energy drinks, and soda.
Drug legalization is an enduring question that presently faces our scholars. This issue embraces two positions: drugs should not be legalized and drugs should be legalized. These two positions contain an array of angles that supports each issue. This brief of the issues enables one to consider the strengths and weakness of each argument, become aware of the grounds of disagreement and agreement and ultimately form an opinion based upon the positions stated within the articles. In the article “Against the Legalization of Drugs”, by James Q. Wilson, the current status of drugs is supported. Wilson believes if a drug such as heroin were legalized there would be no financial or medical reason to avoid heroin usage; therefore, anybody could afford it (367). Wilson stated that during 1960’s, British physicians were allowed to prescribe heroin to addicts until the number of addicts increased fivefold. He argued that cocaine is not a “victimless crime.” Addicts victimize children by neglect and spouses by not providing (370). Wilson upholds that illegality of drugs increases crime because users need to pay for their habit (372). He believes the benefit of illegal drugs is it forces patients who enter under legal compulsion to complete their treatment due to the pressure and drug-education programs in the schools (374). Wilson is convinced the difference between nicotine and cocaine is that while tobacco shortens one’s life, cocaine debase it and destroys the addicts humanity (375). Wilson’s argument is strong because he demonstrates his knowledge of the subject and supports it with many clear, scientific facts and historical examples of drug usage. He interprets facts differently by seeing “logical fallacy and factual error” (371) in what other perceive as being a true. He also acknowledges his opposition by addressing how the advocates of legalization respond to his position. Wilson recognizes that that he may be wrong about his conclusions of drug legalization. Yet he states if he is wrong, money will be saved, while if he is right, and the legalizers prevail, then millions of people, thousands of infants and hundreds of neighborhoods will live a life of disease (377-8). In the article “Drug Policy and the Intellectuals,” by William J. Bennentt, drug legalization was not supported. Bennett wants to address the “root causes” of drugs by means of...
In 1989, a Republican county executive of Mercer County, N.J., estimated that it would cost approximately one billion dollars to build the jail space required to house all the drug users in Trenton alone (Roffman 1982). All of this money could be spent on things of greater importance. Not only has the drug problem increased, but the drug related problems are on the rise. Drug abuse is a killer worldwide. Some are born addicts (crack babies), while others develop addictions later in life.
The author identifies two reasons to be the probable cause for pharmacies or grocery stores to stop selling tobacco products. The reasons that he highlights are the health related argument and the restriction imposed on selling it. CVS is a pharmacy that is selling medications and products that helps people health. Since tobacco is not making people health any good, the question of it being ethically right to sell it in pharmacies has brought people’s attention. The author packs his thoughts with an example of the New York retailers that have stopped selling tobacco product because of the high tax rates from 1.25$ to 4.35$ per pack in 2010. Also, the restrictions implemented like having a license to sell it and fees increase from 100$ to 1000$
The question of what is the government’s role in regulating healthy and unhealthy behavior is one that would probably spark a debate every time. Originally, the role was to assist in regulating and ensure those that were unable to afford or obtain healthcare insurance for various reasons would be eligible for medical care. However, now it seems that politicians are not really concerned about what’s best for the citizens but woul...
Each year 440,000 people die, in the United States alone, from the effects of cigarette smoking (American Cancer Society, 2004). As discussed by Scheraga & Calfee (1996) as early as the 1950’s the U.S. government has utilized several methods to curb the incidence of smoking, from fear advertising to published health warnings. Kao & Tremblay (1988) and Tremblay & Tremblay (1995) agreed that these early interventions by the U.S. government were instrumental in the diminution of the national demand for cigarettes in the United States. In more recent years, state governments have joined in the battle against smoking by introducing antismoking regulations.
The federal tax on tobacco products and in particular, cigarettes, has received considerable debate in both the United States House and Senate. At this time, the proposed new tax rate is $1.00 per pack or an increase of 61 cents. The current federal tax on a single pack of cigarettes is 39 cents (Tobacco Free Kids, 2007). Congress last voted to raise the tax on cigarettes in 1997 when it passed a 15-cent increase. This tax went into effect in January 2000 by 10 cents and the additional 5 cents followed in January 2002. This is a selective excise tax.
In the period of Obamacare, there is a sound argument that there is a need for greater restrictions on who has access to healthcare on the normal premium’s minimum premium model or through Medicare/Medicaid. The question that has to be asked is if those individuals, which assume a risk through an unhealthy lifestyle, should pay the same premiums as those individuals who live a healthy lifestyle. There is obviously a discussion of degrees in such a debate (i.e. the individual who eats unhealthily in a manner that has limited health impacts is different from the smoker or the obese person). Eating and obesity are a contentious subject when it comes to health care restrictions, because food is a necessity. However, tobacco is not a necessity and is known to be a significant detriment to the individual’s health. Inferentially, the case supporting a health tax for cigarettes, smoking and tobacco is different the debate over the tax for unhealthy eating and obesity. Thus, there should be a health tax in the case of tobacco consumption is necessary, because the individual who smokes is assuming risks that are detrimental to his or her health.
Cigarette business has now sprung from a small shop to a very large corperation. Cigarette businesses are not just a business now, it is considered to be a money machine. It is a huge industrial business around the world providing many jobs and creating massive revenue. So many people are put at risk to these businesses directly and indirectly. The owners and workers of the tobacco companies both take this as their source of primary income. They can easily support their family through this business if the businesses aren 't hoarding all revenue for themselves. Producing cigarettes has become one of the most profitable business, not to mention one of the biggest industries in the whole world. The government receives huge amounts of money from cigarette companies from the taxes they pay alone. Cigarette use is in the workplace of many people around the world. Though many people can be benefited through this business it is not worth what comes from cigarette use. The government is getting huge sums of money from the sale and distribution of cigarettes. So, making the same and manufacturing of cigarettes illegal will definitely hurt the government and add pressures to many people who are in need of a job or looking for one. As a result, through this business, it creates a source of income for the workers and owners of companies big and small. But some people may argue that the physical health risks from smoking, financial as well as social risks occur along with this. A person, who smokes on a regular basis also may spend a majority of his money on buying cigarette or other tobacco products. The average pack of cigarettes costs the consumer four dollars per pack. Annually , that would cost a person an average of 1500 dollars at least for cigarettes . When the person is hospitalized due to use of cigarettes, his medical expenses