High quality produce should be cheaper than a bag of potato chips. Unfortunately, in many parts of the country, people don't even have access to fresh produce. It's a real problem. The solution is simple, though certainly not easy.
So yes, what you said should be done.
But someone I know is on Gov food assistance, if they go to a local Farm Stand, produce they buy with their card gets reimbursed, so it is free. A nice first step where I live.
It's almost like poor people live miserable lives and flock to anything that can provide even a minor amount of pleasure
That or I’m projecting :-)
"The federal excise tax on cigarettes is just over $1.00 per pack."
I think we might be better off with a national tax that goes towards funding the healthcare necessary to support people moving off. Want to stop smoking? Here's a clinic that will work with you to develop a plan, supply you with materials, provide the counseling and community support, all for free.
And sure, if you've got that in place, dial up the costs to onboard into smoking. Prevent new addicts through price and regulation, address existing addicts with huge outpouring of support. It's expensive up front, but gets us in a healthy state long term.
the world lacks accountability and this perspective perpetuates it
there are consequences for your actions and the majority should not suffer for the minority's idiotic habit.
It’s a rhetorical question by the way -- your position is not very defensible.
But tax?
No.
When I was in college, a carton of cigarettes cost $10. Now they cost $80 last time I checked. I quit smoking 5 years ago, but smokers have been taxed enough. Every few years the government wants to squeeze more blood from that rock.
We can charge people for health insurance based on how healthily they eat, whether they consistently wear sunscreen, how much exercize they get, how dangerous their hobbies or habits are (motorcycle? skydiving? oh boy), etc etc.
In fact, health insurance in USA DID do things like that before the 2010 ACA -- but limited by incomplete information. With smartphone surveillance (hey, why not require smartphone surveillance to get a certain product), the amount of factors you could monitor and charge based on go up a lot.
Except the ACA prohibited this... EXCEPT for smoking, in fact. "I wish people who smoke could be charged more" for health insurance -- in fact, they CAN. It's about the only thing the ACA allows differential pricing on.
Why is smoking different to you, or to the policy-makers who decided on that in the ACA? I don't really get it.
If we were just talking about raw tobacco then this would be a very different discussion, but we are not.
All of the other things you are talking about while are health risks a don't carry an addictive and largely proven connection to cancer (maybe the sunscreen one but there is also a difference between making a conscious choice to do something instead of just not doing something).
There is clearly a massive societal cost associated with Smoking that I really don't think can be applied to many other things. The closest thing I can think of would be Alcohol but even that for most people is not on the same level as Smoking. At least I would not think so.
Overeating IMO has become a bigger problem than smoking, at least in the US.
It is a highly effective antidepressant for many people.
So you acknowledge something is addictive (indeed, nicotine is one of the most addictive things there is, by some measures more addictive than most any other drug) -- but think that is a reason to penalize addicts?
If something is really bad for your health but you choose to do it anyway, that's one thing -- but if we know how very very addictive it is, how very hard it is to stop doing it -- that's a special reason we should penalize addicts by charging them higher premiums?
I still don't get it.
(Presumably we should charge other kinds of addicts higher premiums too? Alcoholic? Problem with opioids? Those things will surely correlate with higher health care costs -- higher premium!)
[I haven't smoked in 47 months. It was very very hard to quit].
Smoking became the boogeyman in the early 90s. Everyone was brainwashed that smokers are weak/evil/a drain on society/less than/low class people and should be taxed until they stop being addicted somehow.
He doesn't smoke.
I wish the opposite. As it is we have private employee insurance for "healthy" people who work, and government stuff for older people who don't. I'd rather see a less judgemental system and more effort to get people to be healthier.
Maybe we could slap a large national tax on heroin addicts while we're at it.
Show up in the ER and test positive for heroin or fentanyl? Hey, you owe $10-20-50,000 more to the IRS at the end of the year.
Where I work, people are asked if they smoke, if you do, you pay higher rates. You and I know everyone, except for a small minority, will say No to that question. So that points to a national Tax.
Where I live, people travel up to 100 miles to buy tobacco products in a neighboring that has tax much less than where I am. So yes, time for a national tax I guess.