So if you are trying to restrict folks from lighting up by hitting the pocketbook, they will not be happy. In fact, I believe the tax on tobacco products should have been much higher because the idea is to discourage nonsmokers from starting the habit and not necessarily stop those who are already hooked on it.
The argument that it is a personal choice does not hold water when their medical bills become a public charge. Another foolish argument put forth by former Democratic chairman Tony Charfauros on Newstalk K-57 (no wonder Underwood lost under his watch), was the claim that folks made when it came to gambling. That is, if you are going to go after those who smoke, go after those who drink, by taxing those products just as those who favored gaming officially, said the Church should take a stance on all the other types of gambling that goes on.
So if you hold an opinion on one topic, that means you have to render that same opinion on other topics? Or if you do not hold an opinion on one particular topic, that means you should be silent on everything else as well?
The only reason these issues come up and become contentious is because some corporate entities think they can profit over people’s ill-health and get away with it. Some of their defenders think they can wrap all this with a neat bow and call it “capitalism.” People used to consume tainted products back in the day. Sorry, some still do in the 21st century right here in the United States.
In economics, it is about maximizing the utilization of resources. The best possible decision would have been to raise the price of a cigarette to $10 a pack, as Dr. Vince Akimoto said, so that it will serve as a disincentive for the youth to purchase it in the first place.
MATT PHILIPS
Mangilao, Guam
