by Marsha Welch

Created on: August 19, 2008

This question, to a non-smoker, seems as if it should be answered with a resounding yes, mostly because they don't feel any effects from it. It is mostly an annoyance at another's perceived weakness and a fear of suffering ill effects from a habit which doesn't belong to them, or their children. Then, there is the additional bonus of extra revenue which doesn't come out of their pockets.

But let's just break it down a bit and calmly, rationally examine the question carefully. First, let's examine the word fair. My dictionary says fair means reasonable and unbiased. So obviously, taxing a certain segment of the population for their behavior is biased and therefore not fair. Smokers are citizens of a country which prides itself on freedom of speech, religion, choice, assembly, press, etc. Never mind that this same governing body failed to protect them from the harmful, addictive effects of this product. They allowed it to be aggressively marketed, sold, and used by pretty much anyone who had forty-five cents in their pocket (yes, I'm that old!). Set aside the fact that the product was laced with additives to give the person using it a craving to use it more and more often. Even more ludicrous than all of these facts is the fact that it continues to be legal to sell, buy and use. We are punishing the victim as an excuse to make money.

If adding higher taxes actually helped many people quit smoking, it would still be wrong. Even if the tax money paid for a free education and health plan for every American citizen, it would still be wrong. Another thing that separates the tax on cigarettes from good intentions is how the problem of this addiction is ignored. I know alcoholics who received a check every month because they couldn't stay dry long enough to hold down a job. Alcoholism has been the cause of so many deaths of innocent people in the United States, yet it is considered a disease and much help is offered for this addiction. Those addicted to other substances have clinics which strive to help them. I have worked for companies which actually pay for rehabilitation of substance abusers and offer them re-employment when they complete their treatment. But none of those options are available to those addicted to tobacco. Very few health insurance policies will pay for smoking cessation products or treatments, but will fork over the dough for smoking-related illnesses without batting an eye. How much sense does this make?

I wonder how people would feel if the government decided to steadily raise taxes on unwed teens that get pregnant? It is, after all, a choice of behavior. For every child born out of wedlock, the tax goes up. What if there was a tax on all people whose body image doesn't fit the norm? How about we just tax stupid? That's a group that would never figure out they were having their breeches legs rolled up. Maybe we should tax people who are rude and nosy.

As you have probably guessed, I am weary of seeing hard-working Americans who aren't bothering anyone being robbed of their freedoms and their money. It seems as though the people who struggle the most are treated the worst. Smoking is a nasty, unhealthy habit that nobody should take up. Asbestos, on the other hand was killing people for years before its effects were brought to public awareness. Should we tax the people who were exposed to it in ignorance?

I don't have any problem with outlawing smoking in public, because of the potential to harm others, but taxing those addicted to cigarettes is unfair.

Learn more about this author, Marsha Welch.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.