According to a new study from the CDC (Center for Disease Control), the United States is experiencing a surge in alcoholic-related deaths (both direct deaths such as cirrhosis of the liver and indirect deaths such as from accidents). The study shows a 29% increase in alcholic deaths from 2016-2021 that culminated in 178, 307 deaths in 20201 (approximately 500 a day). This number is about 70, 000 more than from drug overdoses that same year (according to NIDA, the National Institue on Drug Abuse).
Faced with these sobering statistices, Keith Humphreys, Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Studies at Stanford University (and a PBS contributor) argues the government needs to make alcohol more expensive. In particular he argues for increasing the tax on alcohol and indexing it to the cost of living so it doesn't become cheaper over time.
Is Prof. Humphreys correct? Is a sin tax on alcoholo even justified? What would Mill -- or Dworkin say about all this?
Mill will agree to put restrictions on alcohol but will disagree with the solution of increasing the sin tax. As he states in his essay, "there is no question here (it may be said) about restricting individuality, or impeding the trial of new and original experiments in living" (Mill 74). Mill agrees that making profits from things that could harm others is evil and should be restricted, yet not prohibited, because these products are not unavoidable harm. Arguing between ideas on whether these actions' benefits outweigh their harm will happen as long as they exist, and Mill likes it when people debate because they can discover they are wrong or why they are right. In both cases, it is beneficial to both sides. Mill would disagree with sin tax as he claims, "every increase of cost is a prohibition, to those whose means do not come up to the augmented price; and to those who do, it is a penalty laid on them for gratifying a particular taste" (Mill 92). The price increase is a limitation for many because they might no longer be able to afford them. Because prohibition takes away the ground for debate, it takes away potential benefits to people on both sides, as they will not discover whether they are incorrect or why they are correct. To those who can still afford it, the sin tax is a punishment one cannot justify. Mill argues that any person has more interests in themselves than anyone else. Hence, it is for them to decide whether harming themselves is proper. Moreover, buying alcohol is not the equivalent of causing damage to themselves because many might use alcohol for other purposes that will not cause damage, such as cooking. Therefore, one cannot justify sin tax.
ReplyDeleteDworkin could argue both ways depending on the situation. He states, "We have two distinct types of situation in which a man acts in a non-rational fashion. In one case he attaches incorrect weights to some of his values; in the other he neglects to act in accordance with his actual preferences and desires" (Dworkin 79). For a man who is not drunk, their decision to drink alcohol is likely to be made in a state where they are aware of the consequences and their decision aligns with their preferences and desires. Therefore, one cannot justify the restriction. However, a drunk man will fall into his premise as he cannot weigh the consequences of further drinking. In addition, abuse of alcohol often happens when one experiences an emotional breakdown. During these moments, people also could not weigh their decision. Hence, Dworkin could argue the restriction is justified. Dworkin also mentions, "paternalism is justified only to preserve a wider range of freedom for the individual in question" (Dworkin 76). One can argue it is ambiguous how much the life expectancy of a person is affected by alcohol because there are people who live a long time despite drinking. One can also argue being in a drunk state disables the person from making rational choices, and paternalism is proper. However, this claim would be assuming all people who drink get drunk. Overall, the question of a sin tax increase on alcohol from a paternalistic view is unclear.
Professor Humphreys has a valid argument - increasing taxes on alcoholic beverages is likely to lead to a small decrease in the amount of alcoholic-related deaths as a slightly smaller number of people would continue to purchase and consume alcohol. Even if the consumption of alcohol did not directly decline as a result of a “sin tax” on alcohol, one could argue that it benefits society by providing the government with greater resources to educate people about the dangers of alcohol and prevent alcohol-related deaths. Therefore, one can argue paternalistically that a sin tax on alcohol would be justified. According to Dworkin, the term paternalism refers to "the use of coercion to achieve a good which is not recognized as such by those persons for whom the good is intended.” Dworkin argues that paternalistic measures simply serve as a manner to assist people who are not “fully rational” in avoiding making harmful decisions, even if they are legally compelled to do so. With that in mind, Dworkin would most certainly argue that the “fully rational” person would not engage in alcohol consumption as the drastic health-related consequences far outweigh the limited social benefits of such consumption. Therefore, Dworkin would undoubtedly be in favor of Professor Humphreys’ “sin tax” as he would consider it – and likely even the prohibition of alcohol consumption – a justified paternalistic measure and “a lesser evil” than allowing the extent of the harm caused by alcohol consumption.
ReplyDeleteMill, on the other hand, would staunchly oppose the suggested “sin tax.” In the final chapter of On Liberty, Mill directly attacks the idea of a “sin tax”: “tax[ing] stimulants for the sole purpose of making them more difficult to be obtained, is a measure differing only in degree from their entire prohibition; and would be justifiable only if that were justifiable.” Although alcohol would still be available to consumers with such a tax as opposed to outright prohibition, Mill correctly points out that the “sin tax” functions as a (lesser degree) type of prohibition, as such taxes are intended to make purchasing the item – alcohol, in this case – more difficult in an attempt to reduce consumption, which is the same reasoning behind outright prohibition. The only situation in which Mill would agree to the prohibition of alcohol – a standard that he requires to be met if taxes were to be imposed – is if all uses of alcohol resulted in harm to other people. Since Mill rejects the “harm to self” principle of governance, he would fully reject Professor Humphreys’ argument; Humphreys argues that a “sin tax” should be imposed to curb alcohol-related deaths – almost exclusively the result of one’s overconsumption of alcohol – which would necessitate the support of legal paternalism. Since Mill completely rejects the argument for legal paternalism, he would in no way support paternalistic-based legislation, which is what the “sin tax” would be.
Alcohol, however normalized it has become, remains a drug. Overconsumption, or frankly consumption at all, is toxic and slowly widdles away at one's health. There has long been debate over alcohol, going so far as banning it in the United States in the 1920s-30s. On one hand, the choice to drink is personal and not publicly harmful for the most part, so attempting to ban it would be a restriction on personal liberty. On the other, alcohol has been normalized, and often people aren’t truly aware of its effects, so restricting it could save many lives. A middle ground between a full ban and complete freedom with alcohol is a sin tax or an extra fee on the purchase of goods generally seen to be harmful or immoral. This would mean that alcohol would still be in the market, but it would be more difficult to buy, meaning fewer people would buy it according to the economic laws of demand. Even John Stuart Mill, one of the most influential liberal thinkers in philosophy, would agree with some form of restriction on alcohol sales.
ReplyDeleteLiberalism is the idea that citizens should be free to exercise all liberties or personal decisions unless the government has a VERY good reason to restrict them. According to Mill, the only good reason to restrict liberty completely is if that action will cause harm to others - called the harm to others principle. Although one could argue that drinking alcohol does harm others - if the drinker were to be a father for example, - Mill would argue that we wouldn’t ban the alcohol, but the actions taken after its consumption. Generally, Mill does not support restrictions on trade, because free trade is required for a free and liberal society, but he does believe that certain restrictions or hindrances are appropriate in cases of goods and actions generally seen as harmful or immoral but not bannable. Specifically with the sale of these goods comes a seller whose job it to promote these barely tolerated behaviors. Although we cannot ban suggestions or advertising, it is clear that the seller has more interest in profit than in guaranteeing the safety and knowledge of their customers. This makes the selling of these goods more than just an individual action and could fall under the harm to others principle. Mill therefore is for some forms of restriction on the sale of harmful goods, as evidenced in his quote from “On Liberty” “The seller, for example, might be required to enter into a register the exact time of the transaction, the name and address of the buyer, the precise quality and quantity sold; to ask the purpose for which it was wanted, and record the answer he received. When there was no medical prescription, the presence of some third person might be required, to bring home the fact to the purchaser, in case there should afterward be reason to believe that the article had been applied to criminal purposes. Such regulations would in general be no material impediment to obtaining the article, but a very considerable one to making an improper use of it without detection.”
Continued...
ReplyDeleteThe difference between these restrictions and the sin tax, however, is that the sin tax is a hindrance to primarily the buyer, not the seller. Sin Taxes, however, are much more effective than the regulations on sellers have been thus far. A warning on the bottle is much less effective than an upcharge. When it comes to practicality, clearly sin taxes are better, but Mill would probably be a bit more reluctant to accept them. If Mill were to accept them, we’d have to show that they prevent harm to more than just the buyer. I believe he could be convinced by data on how overconsumption has directly contributed to external societal costs in a significant way, such as our healthcare and foster systems. We could also show that these taxes could inhibit the seller, making it admissible by the argument in the previous paragraph. If we tax the purchase of alcohol by sellers at restaurants, bars, and other middlemen (which we know are manipulative), it likely would reduce the amount of alcohol on the market, reducing overall negative effects following the harm to others principal.
Overall, I believe some form of a sin tax is justified to prevent all the negative effects from alcohol we’ve seen thus far. Although one could use a paternalistic argument to make this point, I point out that sin taxes also prevent harm to others through the manipulation by sellers. Taxes affect more than just the buyer, but every step in the way of production and would make it more difficult for a seller to lie and cheat. Merely from the data, it is clear we must do something to protect general society.
Dworkin and Mill would both agree that a sin tax on alcohol would be an overstep of governmental power and undermine individual decision-making and autonomy. Both Dworkin and Mill believed that the government should limit itself and that individuality should be pursued. A sin tax is an example of paternalism (a term coined by Dworkin and the idea that those with authority should restrict freedom if it is in the interest of their subordinate). While Mill does not explicitly define paternalism, his explanation aligns very closely with Dworkin’s; his arguments outline how individuals should be allowed to make their own choices even if they are harmful. Mill specifically believes that actions only harmful to one’s self should not be restricted as only through the negatives brought about by the action, can one learn to not make the same choice. He believes that if something is bad (in this case alcohol) just because it is the social norm, then society would immediately follow a diverging opinion as only the alternative viewpoint would be able to back-up their belief. Mill believes that “goodness” only exists in antithesis to “badness”, thus “badness” must exist to support the good of the “goodness”. Dworkin not only agrees that pluralistic or non-restrictive views of life are good, but furthers the argument by stating that allowing bad decisions to be made would increase individual and mutual respect. Dworkin believes that autocratic structures breed close-minded societies while societies that reduce restrictions allow for more pluralistic environments. In the specific context of a sin tax, Dwokrin would believe that imposing one would be bad as it would consecrate that alcohol is wholly-bad, despite the existence of benefits of alcohol. Allowing for both the negatives and positive effects of alcohol to exist would breed understanding as there wouldn’t be a black-or-white take on alcohol. Dworkin believes that binaries like “good or bad” are hurtful to society as many of life’s issues are complex and cannot be evaluated under the same lens. We can tie both philosophies together and come to the conclusion that imposing a sin tax would be net-worse for society.
ReplyDeleteAlcohol is a beverage that millions of Americans drink on a daily basis for a variety of occasions. It can be consumed after a long day of work, to celebrate an achievement, or simply to drink with some friends.
ReplyDeleteIf alcohol only had downsides that harmed the individual, like health problems and increased violence, then Mill would agree that the production and sale of alcohol should be banned. He states that “If poisons were never bought or used for any purpose except the commission of murder, it would be right to prohibit their manufacture and sale” (182 Gutenberg). If something only has the purpose of killing or bringing harm, there is no possible benefit to their production, as killing is wrong. Alcohol, however, does have a number of clear benefits. The reason it is such a popular drink at gatherings is because it can make people more sociable, feel more relaxed, and even have a number of psychological benefits. Therefore, it is unjust to ban alcohol entirely. Mill would say that there should be no restriction on alcohol whatsoever, as “one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it,” for “he is the person most interested in his own well-being: the interest which any other person, except in cases of strong personal attachment, can have in it, is trifling, compared with that which he himself has” (Gutenberg 143). This is Mill’s harm to self principle, and because alcohol only directly harms the consumer, it would fall under this category and not need any government restrictions.
This, however, ignores the culmination of over 178,000 deaths in the United States alone each passing year. Dworkin would believe that a sin tax is justified, as he uses examples stating that that “preventing a man from selling himself into slavery, or from taking heroin, or from driving a car without seat-belts may constitute a lesser evil than allowing him to do any of these things” (Dworkin 74). Under Mill’s harm to self principle, “independence is, of right, absolute,” so importance lies in the choice of the individual, not the result that a second party may witness (Gutenberg 18). Since the importance of a decision lies in the fact that it is a choice and not the outcome, these future choices are just as important as the present ones. So, even under Mill's anti-paternalist argument, where the right to drink alcohol matters more than the results because it is a choice, the decision still results in a smaller quantity of choices. Therefore, the result matters more than the original choice not because of the health benefits, but because it maximizes the number of future choices people can make.
A sin tax is an extra tax placed on products or services that are deemed “sinful” (harmful or dangerous) to a consumer. In the US we have outright bans on many drugs that cause harm. Alcohol, despite being a drug, is commonly consumed and widely accepted both culturally and legally. Yet it causes more deaths than all drug overdoses combined (excluding alcohol itself). Many would argue that a sin tax would be a good way of reducing alcohol consumption. One such person would be Gerald Dworkin. Dworkin advocates for a paternalistic world view. This means that if someone is taking an action that may hurt themselves the government or higher authority should step in and prevent that from happening. This is the justification for making many drugs illegal. If alcohol is so deadly then based on our current laws, and Dworkins argument it should be illegal. While the US did make it illegal in the past and that did not work out well other restrictions like a sin tax can work better. If a sin tax reduces consumption and therefore reduces deaths, then a sin tax would be justified. Someone who may disagree with a sin tax but would probably agree with other restrictions is John Stuart Mill. Mill is states that “Every increase of cost is a prohibition.” Mill is against prohibition unless the only use of something is to harm others. Under this logic Mill would say that sin taxes are wrong. Yet I believe Mill would support other restrictions. The reason is that Mill is utilitarian, which means he believe actions that benefit the majority should be taken. Many of the alcohol-related deaths are car crashes, many of which involve those who are not drunk getting hit by those who are. Furthermore, Mill believes that the harm to others principle extends to those who are reliant on others. Basically, if someone is dependent on you harms you whether you commit it, or if someone does it harm to the other person. It is far to say that a vast amount of those killed by alcohol fall under one of these two categories. Based on a utilitarian perspective such as Mill, a restriction like making people test their blood alcohol level before entering a vehicle could be justified since it does not infringe on the rights of those who pose no harm to others while preventing car crashes which harm other people. Dworkins would say that the government should intervein even if it affects law abiding citizens while Mill would only want restrictions that prevent harm to other people from happening.
ReplyDelete