Cigarettes, Cognac & Chemotherapy: Taxed for Being Human
Sandra M. Johnson
South University-Richmond

Cigarettes, Cognac & Chemotherapy: Taxed for Being Human
“Sin taxes" should not be increased to help with medical costs because all medical care is not a direct result of these "sins" (consuming alcohol and tobacco), it's discriminatory, and all taxpayers should contribute to the overall reduction of health care costs. Throughout history, the government has taxed America’s guilty pleasures. The Tea Act of 1773 ignited the Boston Tea Party and subsequent American Revolution (History.com, 2009, para #1) and the ratification of the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) spawned illegal production and sale of liquors through bootlegging (History.com, 2009, para #1). It would appear that the American people had the spirit to fight for their freedom to consume what was deemed ‘immoral’ or at least find a way around the laws. In this day and age, however, there aren’t too many revolutions going on. Most ‘sinners’ will just deal with the extra costs rather than band together and storm Capitol Hill.
There is a vast array of medical conditions that require medical care. Outside of those that may be connected to alcohol and tobacco use, there are also acquired conditions (STDs, tuberculosis, etc.), hereditary conditions (certain cancers, genetic deformities, etc.), and general injuries that have nothing to do with it. For example, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the causes of type 1 diabetes appear to be much different than those for type 2 diabetes, though the exact mechanisms for developing both diseases are unknown. The appearance of type 1 diabetes is suspected to follow exposure to an "environmental trigger," such as an unidentified virus, stimulating an immune attack against the beta cells of the pancreas (that produce insulin) in some genetically predisposed people (CDC Staff, 2012, para #13). There is no mention of either type of diabetes being connected to alcohol or tobacco use. Granted, alcohol and tobacco use can further aggravate the diabetes, however it is not the cause.
Sin taxes are an effort by Congress to curb behaviors that it does not favor (Dubay, 2009, para. #2), however, it is blatant discrimination against smokers and drinkers, no matter what degree. Doctors Michael Joyner and David Warner of Mayo Clinic argue the taxes would bring behavior changes that would disproportionately benefit the poor, with improved health and more money to spend (Post-Bulletin Staff, 2013, para #6). Although that may be true, is it fair? Author Curtis Dubay, Research Fellow in Tax and Economic Policy at The Heritage Foundation, states: “if Congress enacts sin taxes to pay for increased government spending, deficits will actually rise in the long run because these taxes inevitably raise less revenue than anticipated. This is because they often fall on behaviors that are already declining in popularity (Dubay, 2009, para. #7)”. In layman’s terms, if people stop smoking and drinking completely, Congress won’t have anything sinful to tax and will end up in the same situation of being ‘in the hole’ regarding medical costs.
Medical care is a nationwide issue, whether you’re straight-edge or not. It should not rest just on the sinners’ shoulders to foot the bill. It’s not a secret that most of the smokers and drinkers are not in a great financial position. Congress cannot raise sufficient revenue through the income tax to pay for its desired spending increases because of President Obama's campaign pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. And to get the necessary revenue from those making above that threshold, Obama would have to raise the top marginal rates to levels that would devastate the economy. Constrained by this inability to get the money it wants from the income tax, Congress has set its sights on sin taxes. These targeted taxes would still break President Obama's campaign pledge, because they would hit many taxpayers earning far below $250,000. But they would provide more political cover because they fall on unpopular behaviors and activities (Dubay, 2009, para. #5 & 6). The tax money collected may not be going specifically to people suffering from alcohol- or tobacco-related issues or those that never indulged in said activities. How do we know if it is going towards medical costs at all? Congress should drop its efforts to levy sin and targeted taxes. Attempting to alter the legal behavior of law-abiding adults through the tax code leads only to higher deficits and higher taxes (Dubay, 2009, para #11). It appears that the US government has a vision of a smoke- and alcohol-free nation, but at what price? There may be a backlash from the nation of smokers and drinkers. Raising taxes to force people to stop ‘sinful’ behavior may cause some people to find other creative, perhaps illegal, ways to get their ‘fix’.

References
CDC Staff. (2012). Basics about diabetes. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/consumer/learn.htm
Dubay, C. (2009). Sin taxes on soda, alcohol, and cigarettes: Congress’s latest vice. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/09/sin-taxes-on-soda-alcohol-and-cigarettes-congresss-latest-vice
History.com Staff. (2009). Prohibition. Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/prohibition
History.com Staff. (2009). Tea act. Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/tea-act
Post-Bulletin Staff. (2013). Mayo Clinic doctors: 'Sin taxes' on tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks, fatty foods would improve health. Retrieved from http://www.postbulletin.com/news/local/mayo-clinic-doctors-sin-taxes-on-tobacco-alcohol-sugary-drinks/article_d56a030d-15f1-569c-925e-34bda9ca790b.html