Against smoking and liars
For a long while, I was torn on I-901, which would ban smoking in all places of employment. On one hand, I’m generally opposed to things which infringe on the rights of people to do what they want on their own property. On the other hand, smoking is a disgusting habit that the public is well within its rights to restrict right out of existence. As I noted in the comments to this post, “My libertarian impulses are conflicting with my lungs.” So, I was torn. I didn’t sign the initiative, and I planned to leave it blank when the ballot came.
In the past week, however, the Anti-901 campaign, such as it is, has managed to sway at least one vote–mine. Unfortunately for them, it’s been swayed to vote ‘Yes.’
Perhaps you have seen the “No on 901″ signs that insist “No more taxes, vote no on 901.” You may have wondered what exactly the smoking ban has to do with taxes, and you are right to do so. Near as I can tell, the main connection is that both smoking and lying about taxes are filthy habits. Attempting to grab hold of the coattails of 912, 901 opponents are, essentially, lying to us. 901 doesn’t touch taxes.
The argument in defense of this deceptive slogan (described here, near the bottom) is that, because the state takes in a lot of tax money from cigarettes, and 901 will depress the sale of the same, and those taxes will need to be made up somehow, and they might be made up by raising general taxes, the initiative is tatamount to raising taxes. Distilling that kind potential chain of events into a slogan asserting that the initiative will raise taxes in nothing short of dishonest, which is the sort of thing that easily pushes me out of my neutrality.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. To comment, please register. No profanity, please. Non-family-friendly words will be changed to amusing euphemisms as suits the author.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:36 am
The problem I have with your position is that you’re imputing guilt by association. Granted some opponents of I-901 have used misleading, if not outright dishonest statements in their advertising, but that does not necessarily mean the initiative is not worth opposing.
It seems a poor reason to vote for the initiative to me, but then when the pro’s and con’s are even I suppose even a poor reason can tip the balance. For me, the fact that I-901 is going to pass by an obscene margin allowed me to give in to my Libertarian tendencies.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:30 pm
As an aside, I’m frequently bemused by google ads. Yours are currently 1) “You Can Quit Smoking” and 2) “Vote On The Sexiest Coed.”
November 1st, 2005 at 8:32 pm
Timothy: I had the exact same thought this weekend when I saw the same sign (down in Lynnwood). And I have been similarly torn, for similar reasons. And I too am now going to vote for I-901.
Nathan: while yes, one should not find for I-901 just because SOME of the opponents are deceptive, people like me and Timothy are looking for any little bit of information to tip the balance, just as you say.
Although I probably would have voted for I-901 anyway. On the one hand, I don’t think the initiative is really needed too much, since I rarely see smoking establishments I would want to enter, let alone bring my family too. And it is unfair to establishments that compete with tribes. And it takes away property rights.
On the other hand, I am sick to death of people smoking outside of buildings, including many non-smoking restaurants. I had to hold my breath coming out of a non-smoking IHOP the other day, and my daughter started coughing. My daughter trumps those other things.
Yes, you can restrict smoking near entrances and exits separately. If this did that, I’d feel better about it. Unfortunately, no law is perfect, and we take what we can get.
November 7th, 2005 at 12:30 pm
Tim,
If you took 5 minutes to learn anything about I-901 you would learn the connections between it and taxes. Where have you been?
Smokers right now pay almost $400 million a year in taxes solely on the sale of cigarettes. If smokers buy there cigarettes at the only places it will be legal to smoke in this state (tribal businesses) then they keep this tax money. So instead of the state getting about $20 a carton in taxes it will get around $5 to $7. A whopping 65% decrease in revenue collected.
Multiply this out by say 20%( we’ll assume only 20% of smokers buy at tax exempt tribal facilities) and you come up with at least 40 million just in lost cigarette taxes a year to the state.This doesn’t count lost B&O taxes, unemployment costs, or sales tax lost to the state because of smokers going to the only businesses that can accommodate them.