The truth is that the government could care less about the health and social consequences. They want the revenue from the so-called sin tax. And it is a regressive tax affecting those at the lower end of the economic ladder.
We had a revolution when the Brits decided to tax our tea, among other things. "No taxation without representation" was the battle cry. I want the government to stay out of my life to the maximum extent possible. It infringes on my individual liberty.
“The alternative is to reduce the size of government and its insatiable appetite for revenue. If the majority of the American people want to eliminate alcohol, cigarettes, etc. because they are deemed harmful to one’s health. Then abolish it legally.”
Reducing the size of government is a good objective in and of itself, but it doesnt have relevance to this particular argument.
“The truth is that the government could care less about the health and social consequences. They want the revenue from the so-called sin tax. And it is a regressive tax affecting those at the lower end of the economic ladder.”
Remember that in Britain the government funds the health care system, so pro-actively improving the health of the nation is a very attractive option (one of the plus points of the NHS). Sure the government gets a lot in tax on alcohol and nicotine, but its dwarfed by the cost of treating the extra lung cancer, heart disease, liver failure etc cases. Besides, government can always think of some other way to tax people. The government taxes according to its need. The way to reduce taxes is to reduce that need, not target specific taxes.
“We had a revolution when the Brits decided to tax our tea, among other things.”
Actually it was British Tea and the revolution occured when they REDUCED the tax, a nicety that the US education system carefully ignores.