© 2009 by Michael Swickard, Ph.D.
From the “Let’s be stupid department” comes word that the New Mexico Legislature is considering adding another dollar-a-pack tax on cigarettes to raise money for their budget crisis and also get people to stop smoking. Hello — if they stop smoking, there is no tax.
One of three things will happen: People may say, “Shuckins, this costs too much so I quit,” which worsens the budget crunch. Second, they may change their “maladaptive coping mechanism habit” to something else, such as smokeless tobacco or even drugs. Finally, if the tax is sufficiently motivating but the allure of smoking continues, they may purchase from out of state or the black market, causing the Legislature to get no tax money.
If the stated legislative desire is for all people to stop smoking, there is the issue that people have free will so many will do as they please regardless. Prohibition was entirely about the effect of alcohol on society. Instead of making things better, the number of drinkers increased and it gave a foothold to crime syndicates.
Ultimately we have to ask, is using taxes to change our behavior the legitimate role of government? Are they to be our nanny, making us eat our veggies? Everything to do with government is about where to draw the lines.
I am not supporting smoking. I have never been addicted to tobacco and view smoking as unhealthy, unwise and offensive to non-smokers. Yet I am known to tell awful jokes at odd moments while in public, which is equally unhealthy, unwise and offensive.
A tax rate based on my BMI?
More to the point, I have behaviors which are unhealthy: Namely, I no longer go by my high school moniker of “Slim” Swickard. When someone calls me “Slim,” I know they are just trying to get a rise out of me. So what is the government to do about making me have a healthy weight? I am six feet almost two inches tall and 225 pounds. Look it up. Even though I am quite muscular, the calculation of my Body Mass Index (BMI) says that I am a plate of biscuits and gravy away from being obese.
What is my nanny government to do with me? Yes, I know it is not healthy and, in fact, I am not healthy. I am a type II diabetic, as were and are many of my relatives. Should I wish for the government to save me from myself?
Let us see if this is as stupid as the Legislature raising the tax on cigarettes to get smokers to stop and at the same time balance the budget: Maybe your personal tax rate should depend solely on your BMI. If you are healthy it is better for you and less costly for the society.
Picture this, if you will: Each year at the tax office the conga line of us “fluffy” citizens going in to be checked for our BMI. Wouldn’t that make you proud that our nanny government knows how to make life better for each of us?
Likewise we could have a card that identifies our tax rate — one color for normal, one color for fatty and one color for “Oh my goodness.” Stores and restaurants would be liable to keep the wrong people from that which would harm them. “Sorry sir, the state of New Mexico will not allow me to sell you a hot fudge sundae. Try the raw cauliflower plate.” Shuckins!
Yes, I am kidding — sort of — but it cannot be far away that someone steps between me and my next inadvisable meal. Or bureaucrats with cattle prods will try to get me walking more. And I see a weight scale with someone clucking at me about lowering my tax rate.
Could it happen? In this nanny bureaucratic society I would be more surprised if it did not. Everyone knows the government feels you cannot give it too much power or money.
Swickard is a weekly columnist for this site. You can reach him at michael@swickard.com.