Well - we’re talking about vices. There is some “libertarian” logic in this. You cost society for this behavior, so you should pay in advance by taxes on this behavior.
I’m personally not so sure this isn’t that bad a strategy either. This is what we do with alcohol and cigarettes. We tried making alcohol illegal and found that didn’t work. So make it legal, but make people responsible for their behavior while under the influence to protect the rest of us makes sense.
The only problem that stops me from adopting this strategy whole heartedly is that the few countries that have gone down this path haven’t faired very well either. You trade one set of problems (theft, etc with drug abuse for instance) with a whole set of other problems.
“Well - we’re talking about vices. There is some ‘libertarian’ logic in this. You cost society for this behavior, so you should pay in advance by taxes on this behavior”
I’m not saying that such a thing as a sin tax shouldn’t exist—though it can get out of hand, as with cigarettes lately it’s been bordering on abuse. Although I think it’s less a strategy to deter use than it is easier to suck money out of unpopular groups. Joe Lunchbox asks, “Who cares about druggies, anyway? Let ‘em suffer!” Meanwhile, Uncle Sam laughs his self-satisfied laugh, counting his money. This is how government grows, on the backs of the unpopular.
Back to the main point, I don’t theoretically oppose taxing legal drugs. I just wish that wasn’t one of the first justifications to be offered. Maybe if higher revenues ever helped balance the budget, reduce deficits, or curtail spending (in the long run), but, alas, they don’t.