Fuck Sin Taxes

Normally I am more eloquent in my expression of my dislike for big government, but profanity is pretty much the only way I can concisely describe my dislike for what statists refer to as "sin taxes."  To all of you fundie yokels who want to tax alcohol out of existence: fuck you.  To all of you latte liberals who want to tax tobacco out of existence: fuck you.  To all of you middle American moderates who want to put "common sense" taxes on everything that offends your low moral standards: fuck you.

Sin taxes are an embodiment of everything wrong with American politics: the idea that if 51% of people personally dislike something, they have every right to use the state to force the other 49% to stop doing that something.

They are the scion of an unholy alliance between two enemies of freedom: the red state fascist Christian theocrats and the SWPL/Jewish liberal totalitarians.  In other words, they are the natural product of centrism and bipartisanship and the combination of both forms of statism that are fucking up America.

In particular, support for alcohol taxes always gets me.  In most non-Islamic cultures, alcohol plays an important role.  Alcohol was independently developed by by countless cultures.  Even the Indians of the Amazon rainforest make drinks from fermented manioc.  Yet, in both the "liberty-loving" red states and the "personal freedom-supporting" blue states of America no one bats an eye if a state doubles the tax on alcohol.

The fact that Christian fundamentalists/evangelicals/conservatives are so vocal in their support for sin taxes, especially on alcohol is surprising considering that Jesus was the ultimate bartender.  Do any of them remember the part in the Book of John where he transmuted water to wine?  If God is against alcohol consumption, as megachurch preachers blather whenever petty tyrants state legislators consider raising taxes on alcohol, why was his own Son was a miraculous vintner?

Liberals also put their hypocrisy on full display with regard to sin taxes.  Any libertarians who are stupid enough to believe liberals when they say they are in favor of "personal freedoms" and "pro-choice" should take a look at the liberal record when it comes to sin taxes.  For example, while they support marijuana legalization, they want to heavily tax it.

They have no problem with putting enough taxes on cigarettes to the point where the taxes cost more than the tobacco, ostensibly because of the public health hazard of tobacco.  The claimed public health hazards of smoking have always struck me as overblown.  I remember when my great-aunt died, her death certificate listed smoking as the cause of death even though she was in her 80s and in poor health all around.  I wonder how many other "smoking-related deaths" were like hers.  In 21st century America, doctors apparently don't think that people can die of old age anymore.

They even support putting special taxes on the use of indoor tanning.  As with tobacco, they claim this is due to the health hazards of their use.  (An alternate explanation is that feminists hate tanning salons because they make women more attractive and, as Rush says, "feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." Thus, anything that makes women more attractive to men, including tanning, breast implants, and make-up is verboten according to feminists and manginas.)

The mental disorder called liberalism, with its support for socialism, abortion, illegal immigrants, and coddling criminals, is certainly a public health hazard that has led to far more human deaths than smoking ever will.  A tax on liberals would probably do more to save lives than a tax on cigarettes.

What sin tax proponents, both left and right, fail to realize is that it is not merely the use of tobacco, alcohol, and/or tanning that causes health problems, it is the excessive use.  If you socially smoke you probably won't get lung cancer, but if you smoke three packs a day from age 18 to 60 you probably will.  If you drink alcohol at a bar every Friday night, you probably won't develop health problems (instead your health will probably benefit), but if you chug a 12-pack of beer every night you will probably develop them.  If you use a tanning bed prior to your vacation to Hawaii you probably won't develop skin cancer, but if you use them weekly for fifty years, you might.

Proponents of sin taxes do not understand the concept of moderation.  They don't understand that many people who partake in "sinful" things such as alcohol are not compulsive or habitual users.  True, some people abuse alchol, tobacco, etc., but why should the vast majority of people capable of self-control be punished for the high time preference of a few people?  Those people will be punished for their lack of personal responsibility in due time.  There's no need to tax everyone else for it.

Alcohol-Related Nanny State Stupidity in Michigan

Michigan's alcoholic beverage control commission recently banned the sale of alcoholic energy drinks, most prominently Four Loko, which is sold in 23.5 oz. cans that are 11% abv and contain as much caffeine as a cup of coffee.  This was necessary since combining stimulants and depressants is dangerous according to the commission.  Apparently there have been incidents in which retarded college students and future Darwin Award winners drank too much of it too quickly and were hospitalized (the caffeine masks the drunkenness so people inadvertently drink a lot more than they should and in some cases they drive, mistakenly believing they are sober).  Rather than hold people who make stupid choices responsible for their actions, they decided to ban these drinks for everyone.

If the state is going to ban Four Loko, then will they ban Jaegermeister and Red Bull?  Dropping a shot of Jaeger into a pint of Red Bull produces the wonderful drink known as a Jaegerbomb.  Plenty of other alcoholic and caffeinated drinks mix well together.  People have been drinking rum and coke since the early 1900s and Irish cream mixes well with coffee.

This won't stop anyone from mixing alcohol and caffeine - they can just do it themselves with a shot of vodka and a can of Mountain Dew.  And it won't prevent anyone from dying of alcohol poisioning caused by overdrinking - college students are capable of doing that with pretty much anything that has alcohol in it.  It's just another useless law that will have no effect other than to limit consumers' choices while gratifying a few fun-hating dinosaurs on a government commission.

Blood Alcohol Content Limits and Gender Discrimination

It takes women fewer alcoholic drinks to get drunk than it does men. This is because of a number of reasons, such as the fact that the average woman weighs less than the average man and the fact that women have more body fat than men.

I'm surprised that the ACLU or other feminist litigators have not sued to have DUI laws struck down under the 14th Amendment. Since DUI laws prohibit driving while having a blood alcohol content above a certain level and it takes women fewer drinks to reach that level, the government is discriminating against women by requiring them to drink fewer alcoholic drinks than men in order to be able to drive without (possibly) being arrested.

Sure, the idea that BAC limits constitute gender discrimination may sound ludicrous. But consider that the branches of the United States military have more lenient physical standards for women than men. In similar fields, such as police, firefighting, and corrections departments, height standards have been eliminated due to their discriminatory nature. In many cases, especially police departments, physical standards have been made "gender neutral" - meaning in order to allow for an acceptable number of women to pass their physical tests without resorting to different physical standards by gender, the tests have been made so easy that any man in better shape than a WoW player is capable of passing.

Now, I am not a true believer in the typical conservative mantras that the military "protects our freedom" and the police are always looking out for us, but physical performance is essential to jobs in such organizations, those organizations are a necessary part of any safe and functional society, and watering down standards for women in such organizations is dangerous. If it is okay for the military to hold women to lesser physical standards and for police to water down their tests in the name of Equality, then surely it would be okay for states to allow women to drive with a higher blood alcohol content then men so they can have the same number of beers as men, because it is clear that Equality trumps society's safety.