Cross Talk: Should government impose ‘sin’ taxes?

The pious justification for taxing tobacco and alcohol is that the added cost of the products will reduce their use. However, that is a ridiculous stance given that we need even more smokers to keep the government health insurance programs for children solvent.

And booze sales in Oregon generate nearly $380 million each year in general fund revenue that the state relies upon to pay for essential services.

How would we make up these budget shortfalls if smokers and drinkers decided to repent and stop “sinning?”

It has been easier for government officials to go after vices for more tax dollars because sinners tend to absorb the additional cost without protest and the general public is more easily won over.

After all, it sounds good to reduce the number of people addicted to harmful products.

However, the majority of money generated by these taxes does not go into treatment or cessation programs.

Sin taxes might become less palatable to taxpayers since government leaders unable to rein in their growing budgets have now cast their eyes at candy, sugary soft drinks, and junk food.

The selling point is that Americans are fighting an obesity epidemic, so making them pay more money for that Almond Joy bar is really in their best interests.

In recent years, sin tax proponents have begun arguing that people with unhealthy habits should pay more taxes to compensate society for the drain they put on healthcare services or harm to the environment.

This stance has opened up almost endless possibilities for taxation.

Utah currently imposes a “sex” tax on adult entertainment, Arkansas taxes tattoos and Alabama levies a tax on decks of playing cards.

One of the problems with “sin” taxes is that history shows that people turn to the black market for products when they become unaffordable in traditional outlets.

Even greater is the threat to freedom when people start allowing government officials to regulate their lifestyle.

Perhaps as people start to lose more and more of their discretionary income to agencies that can’t live within their means, they will finally wise up. Meanwhile, Uncle Sam is looking for any way possible to empty your pocket.

By Mark B. Gibson

Health officials have declared war against Sugar Sweetened Beverages (SSB), a battle reminiscent of the anti-tobacco campaigns of the past.

Their reasoning is straightforward: Sugar plays a big role in obesity, especially among children, because unlike other high calorie foods the body has no “enough is enough” response to sugar, as it does to, for example, fat.

As with tobacco, officials are exploring a multi-level approach to reducing consumption that mixes education in regards to negative health impacts and increased product cost by limiting per ounce price discounts on larger-sized drinks. In some areas, SSB over a certain size cannot be sold in cups.

Why target beverages? One would think that hard candy, for example, would be a good target as well. Or pretty much anything that contains large amounts of sugar.

So far, the SSB battle cry talks about availability and ease of consumption.

Rarely if ever is what I see as the root of the problem identified in the SSB literature: A majority of sugar sweetened beverages also contain high levels of caffeine, which is at the very least mildly addictive: The sugar/caffeine combination even more so, especially, I believe, when you are very young.

The combination of sugar and caffeine is what makes SSB such a popular substance, just as nicotine makes tobacco such a popular substance. Like cigarettes in the past, SSB/Caffeine drinks are universally available, available at every corner store and in vending machines. Unlike tobacco there are no age restrictions.

Most importantly, the medical community seems perfectly willing to ignore the addictive quality of the SSB/Caffeine mix (there are almost certainly those who will say I’m wrong about it being addictive at all) and focus only on sugar. It was years before smoking changed from a “habit” to an “addiction,” and in common usage addiction is already making the transition back to habit.

For those selling SSBs, caffeine is a godsend: Give a child a can or two now and then when they are young, they won’t just return for more, they will return for an ever-increasing amount as their addiction grows.

Addiction is great for sales, of course, and so long as the addictive qualities of the combination can be thrown in doubt companies have a virtually risk free revenue stream. Whether revenue or health will prevail, only time will tell.