Reply #75: I've seen so little sanity on this issue on DU, it's hard to know.

[TahitiNut]

I'm a liberal.

That means I defend the liberties of others to choose to do that which I even might regard as immoral or a danger to themselves. That means I place a high bar on the "danger to others" claim ... and just I don't see that bar cleared when it comes to alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana use. I've read the 'reputable' materials on all these subjects and must wonder whether people can comprehend what they read. The notion that ETS (i.e. side-stream or second-hand tobacco smoke) poses a material risk to the health of others - a risk that is sufficient to impel some significant number of people to actually take steps to protect themselves from such alleged threats - is specious and enormously over-rated. As a former research scientist myself, I'm fairly well-versed in the 'science' (approach) and in the statistical methods employed. I'm also VERY aware of the political/economic forces brought to bear on the 'science for hire' community. Just as reelection is "Job #1" for any congresscritter, repeat funding is "Job #1" for any sciencecritter. You just don't publish 'results' in a way that pisses off the funders. That means that the empirical results are but a small part of any research ... and the carefully couched language is the largest. Reading such papers is much like reading audit reports ... one must be very aware of the weasel-wording.

But all of that is useless knowledge from a political perspective ... because too people make up their minds and then filter all feedback. No matter how much balance one might offer, folks are deaf to anything that doesn't agree with their adopted stance. (The word 'adopted' is significant - very few have a stance that's naturally born. They get it from other parents.)

I abhor prohibition. It not only doesn't work in eliminating consumption, it creates a criminalized 'industry' and unacceptably erodes both respect for the rule of law and respect for the liberties of minorities.

Like I say, I'm a liberal. It's both a pragmatic position and a principled position. No matter how much I might detest the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana ... I cannot and will not add my voice to the hysterical, irrational jihadists who would claim a degree of 'harm' that does not exist (except perhaps psychosomatically) in reality. I detest Disneyland perspectives.

Insofar as employing 'sin taxes' ... I'm VERY leery of such mechanisms. I believe there should be a principled limit to the degree of taxation ... a degree that I see exceeded enormously. When the price of such substances is composed of more than 50% taxes, that's too much. When it reaches 80-90%, which it has for alcohol and tobacco, that's insane. At that point, the state becomes "addicted" to the substance and has a vested interest in perpetuating its use. That's equally abominable. In principle, at least - and that's important to me.