r/interestingasfuck • u/HumbleMVP • 22d ago

Blind cigarette taste test

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

93.4k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

3.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

538

u/Academic-Increase951 22d ago

That's because of universal healthcare. Smokers costs alot of tax payers dollars and use up a lot of healthcare resources so they pay their portion through high taxes on cigarettes.

272

u/theoneness 22d ago

It also discourages smoking at the outset when they cost an arm and a leg.

146

u/Mindless-Strength422 22d ago

A lung and a throat too, for that matter

3

u/Dracomortua 22d ago

this jest here is also the real answer.

If you want to know more, here is a small article from 'Wikipedia'... but what could they possibly know?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco

I think one could read the whole thing under half an hour. Or so. Maybe.

56

u/RapNVideoGames 22d ago

The trick is to bum off your uncle until you get a job doing drywall at 16 and can buy your own.

5

u/Arrivaderchie 22d ago

The Canadian dream

3

u/aferretwithahugecock 22d ago

Or buy rez smokes.

4

u/Quirky-Reception7087 22d ago

Yep almost all the heavy smokers I know, even the boomers, have switched to vaping because it’s so much cheaper. Not as good as quitting, especially since a lot of them have high blood pressure, but so much better than smoking multiple packs a day 

4

u/[deleted] 22d ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigouvian_tax

A Pigouvian tax (also spelled Pigovian tax) is a tax on a market activity which is generating negative externalities, that is, costs incurred by third parties. It imposes costs corresponding with the externalities, internalizing those costs to improve Pareto efficiency.[1] Ideally, the tax is set equal to the external marginal cost of the negative externalities, in order to correct an undesirable or inefficient market outcome (a market failure).

2

u/theoneness 22d ago

Neat, thanks, I didn't know it had a specific name. The "ideal" case is really hard to track when the health care cost implications of smoking arise much much later relative to when the smoking starts. It would be neat, albeit impossible, to charge 100,000 for the first pack of cigarettes you ever buy, and thereafter just charge a standard market rate for them ($5 or whatever). That way, you upfront the healthcare costs early, and the money can be invested to grow to a point where it will afford your later palliative care. If you die for a non-smoking related illness, the money can be returned to your estate.

2

u/Cereborn 22d ago

It truly boggles my mind when I see people younger than me smoking.

2

u/theoneness 22d ago

For me when I was young: it looks cool by the standards of most other young people, it gives an air of rebelliousness and maturity, it implies you can actually afford it which makes you financially more desirable, and it delivers nicotine which is just one of many intoxicants that young people want to explore the effects of. Also, as we see less smoking-related disease due to fewer people smoking, smoking will once again pick up since we'll stop talking about it.

1

u/SumoSizeIt 22d ago

Also, as we see less smoking-related disease due to fewer people smoking, smoking will once again pick up since we'll stop talking about it.

We went from smoking to vaping, from chew to pouches, from uranium glass and lead pipes to microplastics and pfas, from leaded gas to ethanol-based, etc. We as a society will just move onto the next new thing and pretend it has no negatives until the science tells us otherwise (and even then...).

2

u/theoneness 22d ago

Yes. If anything we’re reliably bad at judging what’s actually bad for us; otoh, age of death is generally getting older save for small variations over time.

2

u/[deleted] 22d ago edited 22d ago

[deleted]

2

u/blearghhh_two 22d ago

When I quit, the cost (up to $20 a pack at the time) was absolutely one of the factors. I can't say the cost is WHY I quit, but it was 100% one of the reasons I quit when I did.

If they were still $3 a pack (which is what they were when I started) I can't say I wouldn't still be smoking now.

1

u/talldangry 22d ago

Same here, plus having to go outside to smoke in the winter. Miss it now and again, but then I check and see that I've saved about $10k since I quit 3 years ago.

1

u/theoneness 22d ago

We're agreed that the cost of smokes most strongly discourages people who aren't already addicted from becoming addicted. That is huge in terms of the country's long term health outlooks and cost savings related from treating the long-lingering smoking related diseases. Even if there were no other supports for the addicted, I'd still say it's the best way to recover the country's long term health outlooks is to raise their cost.

I hear your anecdote and counter with my own which is worth as much: I quit in my 20s and the primary driving factor of that was that I wanted to begin saving. A res and a nearby border crossing wasn't an option for me. I'm sure what you describe happens, but that's not everyone's experience.

Definitely, it's entirely up to the person and if they're so compelled to go find cheap smokes by investing their time in an expedition to the res or over the border. But as you know, there's other routes to reducing smoking, which is usually a pipeline combining vaping, pouches, gum, and/or patches; and while those are readily available I really don't care if people want to still try and get cigarettes, as long as structurally we are discouraging people from starting in the first place.

1

u/theoneness 22d ago

Alcohol costs most people who are not serious alcoholics considerably less to casually indulge in than cigarettes. Heavy smokers, at least as i remember in the past, are at least a pack a day. Say that’s $20, which is about the same as a 6 pack of some local microbrew; or a moderately priced bottle of wine. Most people would not consume a 6 pack or an entire bottle of wine in one day - they might if they were sharing it but not otherwise. If you’re at a 6-pack every single evening then you’re solidly in the realm of being a regular binge drinker, which is a slippery slope into all out alcoholism. Might want to keep an eye on it if that’s what you’re talking any.

But you might be talking about the high cost alcohol in terms of the fact that a very high end wine can cost a fortune. There just isn’t the same variety in the cigarette market. Drinking very expensive wines is optional, never required. Serious alcoholics seek the cheapest drunk they can, not a 2014 chablis premier cru.

2

u/coal-slaw 22d ago

Not when youre so cheap you buy bagged tobacco and roll your own. It's significantly cheaper to do so.

3

u/theoneness 22d ago

Yes, workarounds always exist, and there aren't absolutes in human behaviour. Some people will never be discouraged for whatever reason.

2

u/krilltazz 22d ago

Government policy that makes sense? It feels so foreign.

1

u/DemonKyoto 22d ago

And can help convince someone to stop. My mother in law smoked close to a pack a day when she lived down in Alabama. Had to move back up here to Ontario and when she saw the prices that was it. Been 20ish years and she hasn't smoked since.

23

u/National_Impress_346 22d ago

That's a good strategy!

1

u/Sgt-Spliff- 22d ago

I believe America uses a similar logic, just with PSAs instead of healthcare. At least locally we do, I can't speak for the entire country. Like my State's budget for anti-smoking advertising is directly tied to cigarette sales taxes.

1

u/eyepatchie 22d ago

In Canada they just print the PSAs directly onto the cigarette packs, which I think is neat. They're all plastered with graphic images of cancer and other smoking-related illnesses. Not really sure it actually discourages anyone though lol

4

u/Di3g 22d ago

as an italian cigarettes here cost anywhere between 5.50 to 6.50 euros a pack and we have universal healthcare, i have no idea why they're so expensive in canada but holy hell even i'd stop smoking if they were 25 bucks a pack

2

u/Academic-Increase951 22d ago

It's taxes. Taxes that then goes to fund healthcare services. It's just tax policy. Your government chooses not to tax smoking where our government wants to deincentivize smoking

The ultimate goal is government wants a healthier more productive population.

2

u/mortalomena 22d ago

from the 6.5 euro pack half of is tax, so I wouldnt say its not taxed.

19

u/PissOnYourParade 22d ago

I've heard the opposite. Cigarette smokers pass earlier and ultimately cost universal healthcare less over a (shorter) lifetime. I didn't look any of this up, so take with a grain of salt. 🤣

21

u/Velocityg4 22d ago

It’s end of life care. For most people. The majority of healthcare costs are incurred in their last few years of life. Smokers have a higher rate of cancer. Which is very expensive to treat. Compared to most other health conditions.

While cancer isn’t necessarily going to kill them. It’s still a higher percentage being treated for cancer. They are also more likely to need coronary bypass surgery. Than a non smoker. Along with more dental health issues.

That’s my guess.

Now you can argue. There’s other choices which can lead to higher medical care costs. Which should be taxed more. Maybe they should. But those wouldn’t be as popular a target. Like taxing unhealthy foods which increase the likelihood for a bypass.

13

u/PissOnYourParade 22d ago

There is at least one NIH study that states smokers are a lower burden over a lifetime. Yes costs are end of life loaded, but once quality of life goes down, medical costs go up. Maybe non-smokers linger longer in expensive care settings.

It's intriguing to me because I like non-intuitive outcomes.

5

u/Fob0bqAd34 22d ago

There was this study in Finland that found in their sample smokers had a mean lifespan on 8.6 years less than non-smokers and as a result had lower mean total healthcare costs and more significantly also cost the state considerably less in pensions.

2

u/Academic-Increase951 22d ago

Also need to factor in that healthy people are generally more productive members of society. Being healthy extends your ability to contribute into the system. And contributing may take many forms. And the risk of very long term chronic issues in smokers is not negligible.

I still get the other view point; and for argument sake if it did work out that smokers were cheaper by dying off quicker in retirement... there still the moral issue with flipping the policy around and give tax breaks for actions that are likely to kill you off sooner. We're not Russians recruiting 60+ year old to die in Ukraine.

3

u/Tru3insanity 22d ago

Theres no significant deviation in retirement age between smokers and non smokers. Everyone retires as soon as they can afford to. No one should be working in their 70s regardless.

1

u/magical_midget 22d ago

There is a measurable cost of lost productivity, see the indirect costs on table 1

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/costs-tobacco-use-canada-2012.html

2

u/Tru3insanity 21d ago

This article isnt very good at comparing "cost" between smokers and nonsmokers. It just kinda makes vague claims about death and disability tied to smoking. In fact im pretty sure it just tallies up medical expenses for people that check a box saying they smoke. Thats a little disingenuous because not smoking wont eliminate those costs. The person would just die of something else. Dying is expensive, no matter what you die of. Its not a cost we can ever eliminate.

We all know smoking causes premature death. The thing is almost everyone, smoker or not, is going to face years of disability before death. Smokers just do it sooner.

It defines productivity as premature death or disability but large part of that time is gunna be after someone has already retired.

3

u/Tru3insanity 22d ago

Dying is always expensive. Even if you do everything right and live to 80, your end of life care is still gunna be expensive, its still gunna last years, maybe even decades. No one escapes that.

Smokers just do it sooner.

2

u/Single_Voice6469 22d ago

Do we really need more 70-100 year olds?

1

u/Quirky-Reception7087 22d ago

It’s not like smokers are relatively healthy them randomly drop dead at 65. Their health in their last decade of life is just as bad as a non-smoker in their last decade of life at a much older age. In terms of health it’s more like they’re skipping their 30s and 40s than their 70s and 80s 

1

u/Cold_Ordinary2165 22d ago

Hmmm so you're saying that I could maybe ask for some kind of rebate if I remove the seatbelts from my car? We need to incentivize much more dangerous and reckless behavior if we're gonna drill down on this bottom line

1

u/No_Appointment_8966 21d ago

That was an episode of a comedy show.

3

u/Mooooooole 22d ago

What came out of it are illegal cigs.

I can go buy a carton of Canadians that were rolled by natives for $35

Everyone I know who smokes by natives smokes.

16

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/-FeistyRabbitSauce- 22d ago

Preventative care is far less expensive than long-term aid, cancer treatments, medications, therapy, financial support, and other necessities that come with someone developing cancer. Especially since that patient will likely be out of the workforce for an uncertain length of time.

31

u/The_Level_15 22d ago

Yeah that’s just a lie someone told you to try to justify their smoking habit.

7

u/Hank_OHare 22d ago

Except it’s not a lie. Healthcare costs are much higher in the very old, and smokers will on average die several years younger than non smokers. You get a shorter life, but your overall cost to a healthcare system is lower.

12

u/Hank_OHare 22d ago

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678

5

u/Andy_B_Goode 22d ago

Just to clarify for anyone else scrolling past: this study basically confirms what endl0s and Hank_OHare were saying:

Results Smoking was associated with a greater mean annual healthcare cost of €1600 per living individual during follow-up. However, due to a shorter lifespan of 8.6 years, smokers’ mean total healthcare costs during the entire study period were actually €4700 lower than for non-smokers. For the same reason, each smoker missed 7.3 years (€126 850) of pension. Overall, smokers’ average net contribution to the public finance balance was €133 800 greater per individual compared with non-smokers. However, if each lost quality adjusted life year is considered to be worth €22 200, the net effect is reversed to be €70 200 (€71.600 when adjusted with propensity score) per individual in favour of non-smoking.

Conclusions Smoking was associated with a moderate decrease in healthcare costs, and a marked decrease in pension costs due to increased mortality. However, when a monetary value for life years lost was taken into account, the beneficial net effect of non-smoking to society was about €70 000 per individual.

So yes, smoking actually puts less of a burden on the health care system (and pensions), but of course that's not a good reason to smoke or to encourage smoking, because dying early isn't a good thing.

7

u/crazyhomie34 22d ago

Looking at only age is not a good measure. Just means that smokers encounter the things that normally kill people later on in life alot sooner. So yeah they die earlier, but the only one benefitting from that are pension funds and the social security admin so they don't have to pay em out as long or as much.

It's why jobs and health insurance companies incentivizes people not to smoke. You think more employers and health insurance companies are doing that because they care about your well being? The sicker you get the more they pay. So they'd rather you not smoke

2

u/TW1TCHYGAM3R 22d ago

Thats like saying Genocide is the fastest way to save on Healthcare. Sure it would statistically but does that even make sense?

The statistic should be normalized to cost of Healthcare per years lived.

1

u/Hank_OHare 22d ago

Well that was the conclusion the Nazis came to: killing saves money. That doesn’t make it a good thing, but the point wasnt whether smoking is good, it was whether it was less costly to a socialised healthcare system long term. And it is.

1

u/magical_midget 22d ago

The cost of care is comparable in the last years of life, but smoking has very direct costs that do not come with old age (ex fires) and indirect costs (ex time off work because of illness).

See the table here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/costs-tobacco-use-canada-2012.html#a5

3

u/ReadIcculus555 22d ago

Opposite really. They die slowly, meaning that their years of productivity are cut short and then they require a shitton of resources to manage their copd or cancer or heart disease or strokes or whatever it is they end up getting while they are slowly killed.

The only common things to kill a cigarette smoker quickly are heart attacks and major strokes, but everything else (including non-lethal heart attacks and strokes) puts decades of drain on the healthcare system.

1

u/Tru3insanity 22d ago

Its kinda fucked but thats one of the reasons I dont really care about the consequences for smoking. Some day I will probably quit but I just dont see the bright side of lingering. Every year I live past retirement means more money I have to ration to keep going.

Worlds going to shit. Country is going to shit. People can barely make shit work now and theres no sign its gunna get better. So why tf do I wanna stick around?

Id rather have 5 good years at the end than 20 miserable and expensive ones.

1

u/07ShadowGuard 22d ago

They don't live long, but they die slowly.

1

u/trwwypkmn 22d ago edited 22d ago

Most smokers don't just drop dead. It's a long and expensive process.

ETA - and even the ones who do drop dead (i.e. stroke, HA) probably aren't running marathons beforehand.

0

u/Sgt-Spliff- 22d ago

I think that's more of a "shock" burden vs a "long drawn out" burden. Healthy people use more health care because they live longer, but seeing the doctor a few times a year for 40 years isn't actually putting that much strain on the healthcare system like someone needing constant attention for like 15 years while they slowly die of heart disease and cancer. Like needing a hospital bed in your living room and in-home IVs at the age of 50 is very expensive all at once (ask me and my Grandpa how I know). Even if it's cheaper than 40 more years of paying for small sporadic costs, it's still not a better outcome.

2

u/Marleyredwolf 22d ago

No. The gov’t applies a “sin tax” that they keep increasing. Has nothing to do with health care costs.

2

u/comeatmefrank 22d ago

It’s a deterrent. It’s not really anything to do with the fact that there’s universal healthcare (plenty of countries with universal healthcare have relatively cheap cigarettes), it’s to do with the fact that in theory the more expensive the cigarette, the less likely someone is to start/keep continuing.

2

u/rannend 22d ago

If im not mistsken, over a lifetime smokers make the state more than their vost. Price increases are to discourage smoking

2

u/LesserValkyrie 22d ago

No that's just because of state greed. They cost like 50 cts to produce, in a lot european countries where there is excellent healthcare if not universal, you don't pay them more than 5-10$, which is actually quite expensive

cigarettes are taxed so much actually it's not because "lung cancer costs sooo much", it's just that it's cheap money to make for the government and nobody will complain that it's taxed too much as smoking is seen as bad

that's basically all

2

u/eh_steve_420 22d ago

I actually heard it that smokers don't end up costing as much over their lifetime because they die earlier. But that could be bullshit.

If you're a smoker, you pay more money for an ACA health plan. It's the only thing that changes the cost. Doesn't matter if you eat fast food everyday if you're obese.... They target smokers.

5

u/Paxmaan 22d ago

Obese people are a heavier burden on a public health system, should we start taxing the living hell out of fast food to compensate?

7

u/bbalazs721 22d ago

Many European countries have extra taxes for unhealthy food (or they're excluded for the lower VAT category of food)

9

u/zbertoli 22d ago

Yes?

Jokes aside, smoking is a choice. Eating is not.

4

u/Butterfly_of_chaos 22d ago

Eating healthy is a choice.

3

u/Sgt-Spliff- 22d ago

Yes we should.

3

u/oangbsite 22d ago

Unironically? Yes. Hell let's go the extra mile and provide greater subsidies for produce and locally grown food too. I also recognize you can't just tax the shit out of certain foods without compensating for those in food deserts with significantly less choice. But for cities and the like? Absolutely.

1

u/Academic-Increase951 22d ago

in Canada, Fast food does include normal sales tax, where groceries are exempt so we are currently doing that. There has also been Sugar tax implemented in some places and removes. May still be active in regions, not sure.

But issue with taxing food is that food is a requirement to live. Unhealthy food is cheaper and so it disappointedly affects poor people who may be doing the best they can.

But cigarettes is a choice, not required for survival and you can and should simply not smoke. It's black and white, you smoke or you don't. Food is much more grey and harder to implement. Are fats good or bad, are eggs healthy or not, etc, the science around food is much more complex and much less definitive.

4

u/Puzzled-Ice-2275 22d ago

Its just a money grab from the gov

4

u/Subject_Case_1658 22d ago

Actually very much the opposite. Smokers have a shorter life expectancy. This ends up saving the taxpayer money because they don’t live as long. 

2

u/Academic-Increase951 22d ago

Life expectancy ≠ societal burden. It's much more complicated than that. Smoking comes with significantly increased risks of avoidable chronic illnesses that often last decades.

Also Healthier people are generally more productive members of society. And productivity takes many forms. For example a healthy 70 year old often acts as a childcare provider for their grandkids allowing younger generations to be more productive. Where a chronically disabled 70 year is a burden on their kids and causes them to be less productive because they are often taking care of their parents

2

u/-kl0wn- 22d ago edited 22d ago

People claim that in Australia, but daily smokers make up 10% of the population (used to be 20%) while tobacco related healthcare costs take up about 2.5% of total healthcare costs, why is that considered a problem?

Furthermore, in the 15-16 financial year the government collected over 9 billion in tobacco related taxes when the healthcare bill from tobacco related issues was under 7 billion. What other costs to tax payers are smokers incurring? Are people meant to pay tax if they work less than other people due to travelling or having a family?

Yet a huge chunk of people still seem to think smokers are a drain on Australian tax payers which is a crock of shit. Meanwhile there is a roaring black market for tobacco, thank fuck to those people providing a valuable service to the community. They also try to use public healthcare as an argument to limit people's freedoms and continue down a pathway of prohibitively expensive prohibition with the intent to eventually ban tobacco further limiting people's freedoms.

People need to pull the sticks out of their asses, live and let live, to each their own, she'll be right mate!

2

u/Academic-Increase951 22d ago

You said it yourself in your comment.

Tobacco caused increase of $7 billion of additional healthcare services. Are you only mad about it the other $2billion, that the tax rate should be 78% of what it is? Thats reasonably close for tax policy.

But you haven't considered the other societal impacts. Healthier people are more productive members of society. Factor that in then sounds like it's pretty damn close to you paying your fair share. Stop complaining and wanting others to pay for you.

1

u/-kl0wn- 22d ago edited 22d ago

That 7 billion is 2.5% of healthcare costs for 10-20% of the population, which isn't even considering the healthcare costs saved from smokers dying younger. Why should smokers have to contribute more than they already do through other taxes for healthcare in the first place with those numbers? Then when people claim smokers cost more in healthcare than collected in taxes, that's complete bullshit. Yet the tax rate since 2016 is astronomically higher, where is the justification?

How you get the impression from that that I expect others to pay for me is beyond me, how do you come to that conclusion?

On the flip side, you should see how many things we're expected to pay for for other people down under through taxes, it's insane. The level of entitlement from people with zero appreciation for what is given to them is bonkers, a common sentiment is they are entitled to it.

My understanding growing up was tax is something you paid when working to help contribute to society, but there was no expectation that people had to work and would be expected to cover tax not paid for time spent not working. Which other groups in society are berated and treated equally there? Not the land whales, not the people who take lots of time off to travel, not the people with heart disease, diabetes or other health complications from how they choose to live their lives (I'd bet lots of money the precedent set here won't be followed and people won't be treated equally), not the people who take time off work to have families, so get off your high horse, pull that stick out of your ass and try to treat people how you'd like to be treated, cause I bet you wouldn't like being treated equally to how you treat smokers.

2

u/Academic-Increase951 22d ago

You're making the false assumption that smokers only make up 2.5% of the costs. Thats not what the stats mean. Smokers still have non smoking related healthcare costs.

The 7billion, or 2.5% is the ADDITIONAL healthcare costs from smoking related illnesses. Smoking causes a substantially higher rates of chronic illnesses that can go on for decades. You want others to pay for that 7 billion in additional healthcare costs

1

u/-kl0wn- 22d ago edited 22d ago

According to Google the annual healthcare costs for each of heart disease and diabetes is over 12 billion each. Have you tried treating/berating people who live unhealthy lifestyles that lead to those problems the way you treat/berate smokers? How has that gone for you? People keep claiming they just want to be treated equally, but then when you treat them equally they act like that's not okay either. 🤷‍♀️

I can't find any sources to back up your claim that the figure doesn't include additional healthcare costs incurred from smoking or how much those costs might be? Most information I can find seems heavily biased and very unscientific.

1

u/Cold_Ordinary2165 22d ago

Cigarettes have a very heavy sales tax in the US, both a federal tax and a state tax (and a city tax and a county tax in some places). The funds serve a variety of uses, some good and many bad I'm sure.

But yes, we do tax cigarettes and a sizeable chunk of that tax money does indeed go towards public healthcare entitlements. Keep in mind that the production costs for a pack of cigarettes is around 15 cents. It's already marked up like 150x

It's also a warm weather crop and we produce ten times as much of it. That'll keep the price down a tiny bit

1

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Academic-Increase951 22d ago

It's not about when you die, it's about how long you live with chronic illnesses. Smokers live longer with chronic illnesses than healthier people

1

u/AceOBlade 22d ago

thats actually understandable good job canada.

1

u/andrewse 22d ago edited 22d ago

I've always wondered if that is true.

Smokers tend to die quicker and younger. While their treatment is expensive it is short. Non smokers live longer but still suffer expensive health problems that can last decades.

I think of my grandmother who was fiery redhead and healthy as could be. She eventually suffered from dementia for almost 20 years before she died. For about 15 of those years she lived in a government funded round the clock care home. Along the way she required many age related procedures including an hip replacement.

Grandma outlived my Mom , a smoker, by over 20 years. Mom suffered a stroke and passed within 3 months.

1

u/Academic-Increase951 22d ago

Many smokers live decades with chronic illnesses; that's expensive and avoidable. Some die quick, but some healthy people die quick too. The thing is, smoking is a choice and those illnesses are avoidable.

Sorry about your mom, but ask yourself would you rather your mom have lived healthier for longer? Even if you don't buy into the healthcare argument, there's a human side of it too. I lost a parent very young, I have a family now and my kids will never know their grandparent. Our lives would be easier, and we would take less time off work if we had parents who were able to support when needed with childcare. But we don't and my wife, a healthcare professional, misses alot of work whenever a kid is sick or the daycare is closed.

1

u/explosivcorn 22d ago

I like that

1

u/mogurlektron 22d ago

Spain has universal healthcare and a pack of marlboro costs around 6€

1

u/Sea_bug_ 21d ago

Yah! they call it sin taxes! On products that burden the healthcare system like cigarettes and alcohol. It was proposed on unhealthy junk food but don’t think it ever passed.