Once again we the people of California find ourselves at the
mercy of stupid politicians who don’t understand the laws of
economics. In an attempt to escape the financial rut they have
created for themselves, Democrats in the State Assembly have
proposed a cigarette tax of $2.13 per pack.
Thanks to the leadership of Governor Gray “Lowbeam”
Davis, a large surplus allegedly to be given to California
taxpayers has become one of the worst budget shortages in recent
history. And although common sense dictates that an overbearing
government which has destroyed the state should be curbed, the
tax-and-spend Democrats have proposed an inefficient, unfair and
potentially disastrous tax.
Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson, author of the new legislation,
claims that raising the cigarette tax to $3 per pack will either
make “people quit smoking … or their habits (will) help us
balance the budget.” Though small tax increases have
accomplished this goal before, such a large increase in price will
not have the same result.
Devastating effects on the budget will be one big problem. With
the Internet reaching levels of efficiency and speed unparalleled
by any other form of communication, alternative methods of purchase
are beginning to surface for cigarette smokers. Web sites
specializing in cigarette sales and ways to purchase directly from
Indian reservations have already sprung up.
Should the proposed tax pass, easy access to cheap alternatives
will send people to the Internet in swarms to purchase their
cigarettes. As a result, California will not see much revenue from
the draconian tax hike. The small businesses that gain substantial
profit from cigarette sales will also lose money. Combined with the
fact that profits from cigarette sales are taxable as income taxes,
Californians stand to lose big time from the cigarette tax.
And that’s not all. Because nicotine is a very addictive
substance and cheap cigarettes are now available, we will not see a
substantial amount of quitters; so while tax revenues fall, health
risks will not be reduced.
Regardless of the monetary consequences of the cigarette tax,
perhaps a greater problem is that the tax is anti-constitutional,
in that freedom of choice is limited. The government can’t
decide which substances are okay to put in our bodies and which
aren’t.
Everyone is aware of the health risks associated with smoking.
There are also dangers associated with eating meat, sugar, soda,
saccharine, milk, eggs and cheese. All of these products are simply
one of the many choices that consumers make to enhance their own
perceived well-being and comfort. But we don’t see a smear
campaign against meat companies or massive taxes on their
products.
Who the hell is Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson to tell us how to
be happy through taxation? Is his next piece of legislation
recommended dietary guidelines and sexual positions that he deems
healthy? If he’s really interested in keeping people healthy,
why not tax diaphragms or IUD’s because they aren’t as
effective at stopping AIDS as condoms?
We simply cannot allow politicians to dictate our personal
choices. The taxation of a single legal product for one’s own
reasons is no different than staunch right-wingers wanting to
diminish a woman’s choice to have an abortion. Both thoughts
are born from using government control to force a
politician’s will upon the public.
Whether or not one smokes or hates cigarettes, any support for
such a tax bill is not made after careful deliberation, but as a
knee-jerk reaction to anti-smoking propaganda. The tax unjustly
singles out the poor people of California who smoke more than
middle and upper class people. It also singles out a small
percentage of the population to pay a huge fee for doing something
that is perfectly legal. And although smokers aren’t a
demographic group per se, how is singling them out for a tax any
different than charging women a little extra for feminine products
or charging Jews a little more for their Passover matzah?
It is frightening that the man who suggested this tobacco tax, a
person who obviously has no sense of equality or simple economics,
may someday represent UCLA. But until we, the voters, are willing
to tell our politicians that we will not stand for such practices,
we will always be in danger of losing our liberty.