I oppose, for the most part, what most people refer to as the “Sin Tax”. I mean that extra fee besides sales tax that is tacked onto things deemed “sinful” like cigarettes and alcohol.

While I think that a small tax on luxury goods and items of this nature would be acceptable, in some places the taxes are high enough to create black markets. If I smoked, and I could buy some cigarettes smuggled in from a neighboring state for less, I would. Sure high prices may begin to curb consumption, but they are also going to encourage that black market scenario I just mentioned.

It is also a limit on free choice when the sin tax makes things cost prohibitive. Just because you think the consumption of alcohol is a sin does not mean you have the right to project it upon somebody else. Why should you be able to penalize somebody else for their decisions? Especially when their decisions are primarily going to affect only themselves.

Here’s the big one: health expenses. Many supporters of the sin tax say it helps to offset the cost of providing health services to the users of sinful items. In theory, that makes sense. This extra bit of tax would help cover the cost of treatment for lung cancer of smokers for example. One study on people in the Netherlands on obesity found the opposite to be true.

Until age 56 y, annual health expenditure was highest for obese people. At older ages, smokers incurred higher costs. Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers.

If you think about it, that makes a ton of sense. Sure the diseases and risks of smoking are expensive, but they die sooner. Keeping “healthy” people alive to the ages of 80, 90 or even 100 is more expensive!

I say to each his own. Smoke, drink, do whatever pleases you. Just follow my cardinal rule of good citizenship “Do whatever the fuck you want, so long as it does not infringe upon my right to do whatever the fuck I want to do”.

Today I have another guest post from frequent commenter, James Smith. As usual, he brings up some excellent points. Enjoy.

There is no substantive evidence for an omnipotent father-figure deity as postulated by the Christian/Jewish/Islamic tradition.  So without religion can there be morality?  Certainly, because true moral behavior is based upon simple self-interest.  The guiding ethic is to truly act in your own best interest.  That would mean treating all people fairly, honestly and, as it says in the Hippocratic Oath, “Cause no harm.”  Religions invent all other “sins” to increase their control over people.

Practitioners such as atheists live in a state of enlightened self-interest.  An individual’s self-interest is best served by doing no harm to others except in defense of themselves or those in their care.  This thinking does not need threats of eternal punishment to follow, It only requires thinking about what will ultimately yield the best results for yourself.  Treating others fairly and generously is always better for yourself, personally, financially, and socially.

For example, robbing a bank may yield temporary wealth, but at the expense of either a prison term or a life of fear, running from the law.  Similarly, cheating others in business dealings may increase profits for a time.  Eventually, your reputation will be so poor that your business may fail.  This is a simple principle that “It’s always cheaper to make a customer happy than it is to make him angry.”  That same idea can pay dividends in ordinary human relations.  For reasons I don’t understand, few businesses or people appreciate this idea.  Maybe it’s because they operate on deist principles?  Everything is forgiven if you repent before you die. Although that wouldn’t seem to help those you cheated, treated badly or even murdered.

So should nothing be discouraged?  Should everything be permitted?  Capable, informed individuals could engage in any activity that interests them even if it puts them personally at risk.

An example would be an automobile race.  It is certainly dangerous to drive at racing speeds and it is equally dangerous to stand near the race course to observe or record this event.  Two people may choose to do these things if they understand and accept the risks involved.

One question that arises from this would be, what if one or both of these people have a spouse and children that depend upon them for financial and emotional support?  Should they still do this knowing that if they are injured or killed it will cause some degree of harm to these dependents?  If they choose to do so, does anyone else have the right to prevent them?

Those are ethical questions that can and should be debated, but each person must be free to choose his own answer.  No other person, religion, or government should have the right to make these choices for us.  You can do what you want if you are prepared for all possible consequences, no matter how remote the possibility.

To a Christian, getting a new follower is probably great news. Getting an atheist to convert is probably an even larger victory. The problem is an atheist has committed the only unforgiveable sin. I am not talking about the whole we are all born atheists arguement either. What I am trying to say that as soon as anybody is competent enough to declare themselves an atheist, they are denying the existence of the Holy Spirit. Here are some direct quotes from the Bible:

Luke 12:8-10: “I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.”

Mark 3:28-30: “Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven all their sins and all the blasphemies they utter. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin.

Matthew 12:30-32:…But the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Really anything else can be forgiven in some form. Once you have denied the Holy Spirit though, you are fucked. Game over. You are 100% for a fact going to Hell. Of course this means absolutely nothing to me since the concept of Hell doesn’t scare me. Even if you have “saved” an atheist and converted them to Christianity, aren’t they still damned? It seems to me once anybody declares themself an atheist they deny God’s existence. It’s a waste of time, because once somebody has commited the “eternal sin” there is no going back. This doesn’t worry me at all. Part of my disbelief in God, and the Holy Spirit is an equal belief in that there is no Heaven or Hell.