*(A none-too-subtle reference to Quitters, Inc., a short story concerning heavy-handed methods of smoking cessation by Stephen King.)

Why am I always in the minority when it comes to public opinion? You’d think the law of averages would occasionally work in my favor and I’d check the local news website’s latest poll or comment section and find this:

“CUTE KITTENS — fer ‘em or agin ‘em?”

Oh, easy. *clicks fer ‘em*

But oh, hell no.

The local newspaper and television has been abuzz with articles concerning the tobacco tax hike and the possible benefits to society as a whole. By far the vast majority of comments run along these lines:

“Ewww, smokers are totally gross so it’s totally kewl to tax the crap out of them so they quit and don’t bother me. OMG! I’m so texting all my BFFs on Twitter right now and they so agree with me. Totally.”

“Harrumph! Smokers cost me and the boys down at the country club bazillions of dollars in health care taxes. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to the 19th Hole to enjoy a bourbon and branchwater. Cheers. Harrumph!”

Do you see what I did there? I personally don’t own a cell phone or drink … so I have zero problem with demonizing people who do! It’s so easy a caveman can do it!

“But won’t someone think of the CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!”

Okay, let’s think of the children. The tax hike on tobacco is supposed to supplement funding for the SCHIP program that provides health care for low income children. So obviously, if someone is against this they must not like kids, right?

Well, I love kids … especially with fava beans and a good Chianti. (Oh, unclench.)

The problem with this is that using this sort of reasoning, it will become necessary due to budget shortfalls and rising health costs to somehow attract more and more smokers needed to fund the healthcare program. According to the Wall Street Journal (“22 Million New Smokers Needed: Funding SCHIP Expansion with a Tobacco Tax” by Michelle C. Bucci and William W. Beach):

Not only are some policymakers considering imposing a large, new burden on a small portion of the population, but they have chosen a revenue source that is in decline and will decrease even faster if the tax rate rises. Due to the sensitivity of consumers to increases in the price of tobacco products (known as “price elasticity”), the average consumer purchases fewer cigarettes when the price increases. Consequently, the additional revenue generated from increasing the tax will decline over time.

One of the outcomes trumpeted over and over in this debate is the assertion that raising prices on tobacco will encourage more people to quit and be less of a drain on the general healthcare system; on account of smokers being more sickly and placing unnecessary burdens on taxpayers. Which seems to fly in the face of logic since, if smokers are dropping like flies then it would seem that they have less opportunity to reach old age (when healthcare costs skyrocket, even among non-smokers) which should result in smokers being less of a drain on the healthcare system. Hmmmmmm. And I’m not the only one who thinks this is odd. According to this article from the Tax Foundation:

It is true that smokers impose costs on society; economists call these costs negative externalities. Non-smokers have to smell cigarettes on a public street, and cigarette butts contribute to litter. And there are costs to government, too, especially for government-run health care programs. But it is also true that because the government’s spending on the elderly is so huge, smoking — ironically and tragically — saves the public a great deal of money. By dying earlier, smokers collect much less in Social Security and Medicare benefits than non-smokers.

Additionally, since I’ve never heard of a federal program that once implemented, did not grow exponentially with more and more pigs wanting to feed at the trough which will result in needing ever more tax dollars. This is the case with the SCHIP program — it has been expanded to target not just low income children but their parents as well, with the prevailing wisdom deciding that more parents receiving health benefits will result in more children receiving health benefits. Any guesses as to what happens when federal programs are expanded, boys and girls?

That’s right Susie, budget shortfalls.

And where does the extra money needed to counteract budget shortfalls come from? Well, my home state of Texas dealt with such shortfalls by purging record numbers of low income children from the health insurance program. Freaking brilliant.

Or, perhaps in a rare display of fiscal responsibility, they could perhaps use part of the 18.6 billion in tobacco subsidies …. oh sorry, the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act money to offset the costs. But I guess that would cut into the money we pay other countries to import tobacco because we can’t actually subsidize it anymore. That makes sense, right?

Basically, it comes down to the fedgov doing what it always tries to do which is something it should never try to do … legislate morality. Smoking is bad (and most of the white-haired legislators/lawmakers either don’t smoke or smoke on the sly) and it’s politically correct to discriminate against smokers (as opposed to discriminating against say, drinkers of alcohol, which includes most of the white-haired legislators/lawmakers) and the majority of smokers are low-income folks (which includes zero white-haired legislators/lawmakers) and poor people should be used to being discriminated against by now. Therefore, these poor, dumb schmucks need the fedgov to protect them against themselves — because they simply can’t be trusted to make their own decisions.

I don’t need the all-knowing government to tell me to quit smoking. I have a nine year-old who would miss her mother terribly if I were to die, and this is all the impetus that I need. I also have a married son and another daughter that just graduated college who would love their mother to hang around as long as possible, too. Granted, my physical/psychological addiction has thus far been kicking the impetus’s ass, but that hasn’t stopped me from trying and cutting down dramatically. For my own personal reasons, not because some buttmunching number-cruncher in Washington decides that the best way to get me to quit is by pricing me out of the market.