Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
Why should the government ban it when they can publicly state it's bad for you then tax you for using it? They already do that with alcohol, tobacco, gambling, etc and there has been discussion about doing the same for marijuana, soda, pizza, prostitution, etc.
|
Well, this would be less "nanny state" and more "tax and spend," the main difference being the claim that it's going to use the money it generates to pay for the costs that arise out of the consumption of what's being taxed.
For the record, I don't view sin taxes as indicative of a nanny state; I view them more as taxes to offset costs that arise out of the use of the taxed products. Call it "socialized" if you will, but I wouldn't call it "nanny state." The public is still free to consume these things, often in excess.