Actions should consequences -- but they're meaningful only when the consequences are relatively immediate. Smoking had been known to be a bad thing for a long time, but people continued to smoke because the consequences were remotely in the future, and few people would publicly declare having lung cancers. Had cigarettes been $30 or $40 a pack, fewer people would have smoked, or smoked less, mainly because a surrogate consequence - the emptying of one's wallet - would be immediate. When a single cigarette costs $3, I think there would be a drastic and immediate cost/benefit trade that would swing the decision to something else.
Of course, the downside would be that roast duck would probably wind up being $40/each instead of the current $16/each
Current sin taxes are not sufficiently high enough to be deterrents, simply because they're not really actuarially prescribed. Rather, the tax is usually something that would up as a compromise between opposing sides that paid lip service to being a sin tax. This would be the biggest obstacle to a true valuation of the life cycle cost of most items; their manufacturers and their lobbyists would be crying a river about loss of jobs, restraint of trade, blah, blah, blah.
TTFN
faq731-376
Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529
Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!