The State published an edited version of my letter opposing an increase in the cigarette tax here in SC. I also read that the tax hike was defeated. It is a small victory but still sweet.
I wrote another letter to The State which I really doubt will be published since this issue is now dead. I hate to let such bloviating go to waste, so I will publish it here:
Dear editor,
I was disappointed to read the State's editorial
supporting an increase in the cigarette tax. I oppose
such an increase both on the basis of principle as
well as a practical matter.
Without a doubt, people engage in behaviors that are
self-destructive. I think smoking would definitely
qualify as one of those behaviors. But should society
or the government go around policing people's
lifestyle choices? Where does this logic lead? Should
we tax Big Macs or Cokes?
The price of freedom is that we let people suffer the
consequences of their choices. This may seem "cruel,"
but I don't go around forcing people to smoke, do
drugs, drink, or whatever else they choose to do. Why
is it anyone's business what people decided to put
into their bodies? And who are they hurting besides
themselves?
The State justifies increasing the cigarette tax
because it will supposedly decrease teen smoking.
Well, why stop there? Why not outlaw tobacco entirely?
If saving children's lives is so important, why not
send out SLED agents to torch tobacco fields,
confiscate tobacco products, and imprison those who
cultivate or sell tobacco? I suspect such measures
will be about as successful as the experiment with
Prohibition or the current war on drugs.
This issue is not about protecting lives but about
enriching the state government by increasing taxes
without raising the public's ire. Cigarettes are a
favorite target because it automatically brings the
support of those who despise smoking while alienating
and demonizing those who do smoke. It is cynicism of
the most nauseating sort.
By declaring support for a cigarette tax increase, the
State newspaper has declared itself to be anti-liberty
and pro-government. But since any tyranny can be
justified for the sake of the public health, why not
sponsor legislation requiring that all newspapers run
public service announcements against teen smoking on
the front page? Surely, we can't let the principle of
freedom of the press stand in the way of saving lives.
Since when is freedom more important than the health
and welfare of our children?
The State is anti-liberty and without principle in
this matter.
Sincerely,
Charles Broadway
I was disappointed to read the State's editorial
supporting an increase in the cigarette tax. I oppose
such an increase both on the basis of principle as
well as a practical matter.
Without a doubt, people engage in behaviors that are
self-destructive. I think smoking would definitely
qualify as one of those behaviors. But should society
or the government go around policing people's
lifestyle choices? Where does this logic lead? Should
we tax Big Macs or Cokes?
The price of freedom is that we let people suffer the
consequences of their choices. This may seem "cruel,"
but I don't go around forcing people to smoke, do
drugs, drink, or whatever else they choose to do. Why
is it anyone's business what people decided to put
into their bodies? And who are they hurting besides
themselves?
The State justifies increasing the cigarette tax
because it will supposedly decrease teen smoking.
Well, why stop there? Why not outlaw tobacco entirely?
If saving children's lives is so important, why not
send out SLED agents to torch tobacco fields,
confiscate tobacco products, and imprison those who
cultivate or sell tobacco? I suspect such measures
will be about as successful as the experiment with
Prohibition or the current war on drugs.
This issue is not about protecting lives but about
enriching the state government by increasing taxes
without raising the public's ire. Cigarettes are a
favorite target because it automatically brings the
support of those who despise smoking while alienating
and demonizing those who do smoke. It is cynicism of
the most nauseating sort.
By declaring support for a cigarette tax increase, the
State newspaper has declared itself to be anti-liberty
and pro-government. But since any tyranny can be
justified for the sake of the public health, why not
sponsor legislation requiring that all newspapers run
public service announcements against teen smoking on
the front page? Surely, we can't let the principle of
freedom of the press stand in the way of saving lives.
Since when is freedom more important than the health
and welfare of our children?
The State is anti-liberty and without principle in
this matter.
Sincerely,
Charles Broadway
0 comments:
Post a Comment