There is evidently something in the Hoosier character that relishes a really oppressive tax.\nThis is our reaction upon hearing Gov. Mitch Daniels' popular proposal to increase duties on every pack of cigarettes by a quarter -- and the 62 percent of Hoosier voters who would support a $1 increase, according to a recent poll.\nThe apparant reason for this tax increase over the current tax of 55.5 cents is to help fund health insurance for lower-income families.\nThe whole affair reeks of redistribution of income and the tedious era of prohibition to such an extent that we have to ask: Is the governor, a conservative, emphasizing small government and individual liberty -- or is he not?\nLet us be clear about our starting-point. Government, especially at the local or state level, need not be especially large. Taxes should be levied only after policies are deemed necessary, not the other way round. And although it would be nice to curb smoking in society -- for the health benefits that might arise -- that impulse should take the form of an encouragement program away from smoking, which in fairness, is being advanced by Gov. Daniels.\nIf smoking is such a health hazard that it cannot be left up to individuals to decide, then by this logic, the state is at fault by not banning it outright. Or, in the case before us of a further tax, why not push the amount up by say, $100 per pack?\nBut that might just "discourage" smoking. Banning cigarettes -- which will be the eventual result if current trends against affordable smoking in public places continue -- is the issue, and this is denied only because the advocates of an increased tax know very well that the cure would be worse than the disease.\nThis proposal has brought fresh evidence of a citizenry that relies on bureaucrats and lawmakers to decide the rules of their society. And out of sheer curiosity, when will this descend into methods of petty surveillance to enforce the law?\nThat might be a little farfetched. But for those who have been fondly waiting for era of big government to return, be careful what you wish for.
Dissent: Multiple smoking costs unacceptable
In economics, an externality is a cost borne or a benefit received from someone other than the decision-maker -- that is, as the decision-maker weighs the costs and benefits of his or her actions, others are affected (positively or negatively) by the eventual choice.\nSmoking is a classic example of a choice carrying externalities. The smoker might decide that smoking's cost (the health risk) is worth the benefit (immediate gratification), but anyone exposed to secondhand smoke also pays a cost. And this translates into dollars as well, as taxpayers shell out $400 million annually to treat smoking-related ailments in Indiana.\nSo, why not use a $1 cigarette tax increase to push more of the cost paid by others back onto the original decision-maker? Sure, the government is trying to influence individual behavior. But isn't discouraging individual behaviors that harm others largely the purpose of having a government?\n--Brian J. McFillen
