>That's not the right behavior to be encouraging at the macro public health level, though. The goal of the taxes is to discourage use, by making the cost outrageous
And why's that the government's business exactly?
In a country that they actually offer free public healthcare, I'd understand it (sick people incur costs), but in the US and other such places, it's mostly the state playing nanny (even more so than the tax money).
Smoking culture has a lot of knock on effects for third parties who aren't in a position to fix things themselves, children especially. I know; I grew up in a house with two smokers. Now I can scarcely handle visiting my parents' appartments.
First, it's usually a wholesale vote: you only like this 1-2 things about the party's/candidate's platform?
Sorry, you're getting those 200 other things too. And there's just 2 parties, so pick wisely, lest you get the one you really don't want.
Not to mention that even for the things people explicitly vote for, they don't get. Empty promises is the name of the game...
>Smoking culture has a lot of knock on effects for third parties who aren't in a position to fix things themselves, children especially. I know; I grew up in a house with two smokers.
So, like almost everybody pre-90s? They seem to have come out alright...
> The cancer death rate for men and women combined fell 25% from its peak in 1991 to 2014
Attributed mainly to reduction in smoking.
Also, the biparty system is peculiar to the US. Other countries have more fine-grained political platforms, and mostly end up with similar policies. Public health is, well, a public matter.
It’s easier to have a sin tax than make an actual policy that requires years of research. Nobody explicitly voted for taxing cigarettes, but I do know that there was quite a bit of pressure to ban smoking in public areas.
Again, even that policy/ban doesn’t address the root cause, it only prevents people from suffering the effects of secondhand smoke.
> In a country that they actually offer free public healthcare, I'd understand it (sick people incur costs)
About ~50% of Americans are receiving health coverage or healthcare through the government. Whether Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, SS disability, VA services, or heavily subsidized ACA plans, etc.
Government in general is by far the single largest interested party in healthcare costs in the US at this point.
And why's that the government's business exactly?
In a country that they actually offer free public healthcare, I'd understand it (sick people incur costs), but in the US and other such places, it's mostly the state playing nanny (even more so than the tax money).