Behavior Police

Interventions Of Dubious Value And Motive

There are several ways for a government to control behavior considered undesirable for any number of reasons. Three of them are: 1. Prohibit the behavior by legislation. 2. Tax heavily those who engage in it. 3. Punish severely those who practice the behavior.

If a government goes with #1, then it can bypass #2 and go right to #3. (For an example of failure of this approach, see Amendments 18 and 21 of the US Constitution.) If it chooses #2, consider this experience in the US: Alcohol and gasoline are two commodities bearing a heavy tax burden in spite of which both of them are widely and excessively used.

Let’s say we decide, as elected officials in a democracy, to use our power to tax “bad” things in order to discourage their use or abuse by our citizens. Further, let’s admit that we’ve done this with cigarettes to the point that twenty cents worth of tobacco and paper now costs its addicted user nearly $3. Take away the profits for the manufacturer and distributors, and there is still a hefty chunk left over for the politicians to use.

These people are not in the habit of always using tax receipts properly, i.e., for the use intended when the decision to tax something was reached. Some cigarette tax money goes to prevention programs, but most “prevention” we see is the advertising done and paid for by tobacco companies as part of the gigantic “mea culpa” settlement reached with the government a few years ago. It is probable that a lot of the cigarette tax income goes to programs having little to do with smoking.

Even good people with good intentions have a tendency to pile on those who would, in spite of all good advice, continue to light up. There is an effort underway in Arizona to pass an initiative which would stack more taxes on cigarettes, with the money thereby obtained going to education of our youngest citizens. This education would not, as we understand it, include anything about the perils of cigarette smoking.

How about a return to honesty and common sense? All the money collected by taxing cigarettes rightfully should go to prevention of smoking, smoking cessation programs, and treatment of smoking related illnesses. Other sources of income are available for other programs.

I, for one, would not be offended if my taxes went up a few dollars to pay for better education of children as young as three. There is evidence that children this age are ready to start learning, so let’s give them a chance to prove they can.

Here’s a better idea from a well-intentioned person, in which a “tax” on something considered evil (the worst snack foods in vending machines in one hospital) generates money earmarked for improved physical activity opportunities for local children. Now, there’s a good plan and a lot of us wish we had thought of it first.

Our increasingly paternalistic governments could start taxing Cocapepsipepper Cola to reduce its use, since it’s well known that each can has the equivalent of TEN teaspoons of sugar. It’s also well known that regular consumption of Cocapepsipepper is one of the slipperiest downhill paths to obesity. But in the minds of legislators, the new money could be used to retire the national debt! Or pay for exploratory wars all over the world! But would it do anything to prevent obesity in our children?

Sin-Tax receipts ought to reduce the sin, but their unintended fate is too often diversion to unrelated programs favored by politicians who feel a strong sense of ownership of all the money their government collects.

Prohibition and its subsequent repeal should have totally discredited the concept of effective government intervention in personal behavior. It appears this is not the case.

Summation: Let’s take tax money, honestly derived from all of us, intended to be used to educate our youngest citizens, and start them out learning reading-‘riting-and-‘rithmetic and two other things. One is basic good health / nutrition, and the other is personal responsibility. If three year olds can learn the ABCs, they and their older counterparts can also learn ways to improve their chances for long term good health.