Insofar as governments have sought to ban and regulate nicotine, I think this makes as much sense as anything. Menthol cigarettes have historically targeted minors to get them hooked, even if adults today prefer menthols, there is a strong hook to pull in minors with flavored cigarettes and the marketing has historically matched that.
So I'm torn. We know drug bans don't work historically. But the intention of the law is to promote better health outcomes as Menthol cigarettes are more harmful than regular cigarettes.
It's don't think it's true that drug bans, universally, don't work. When part of a comprehensive program, bans can help reduce the number of users further. Cigarettes are probably one of the best cases of a comprehensive public health program, both moratoriums or regulations on sales, distribution, marketing, and access, with increased taxes/costs, and a huge amount of public health education which has largely been financed through 'the sin tax.' THis is definitely worked to dramatically reduce cigarette use in the United States, especially among minors (where cigarette sales are banned).
The trouble with a lot of other prohibitions, whether it's alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs, is that they often weren't accompanied by such sweeping public health education initiatives.
I respect the thoroughness of your reply, but I'm not sure you understand addiction. What we are talking about here is a tax on the poor. A tax on the poor born of virtuous reasoning - doubly odious.
I think that sin taxes, which are usually poor taxes, can be ethical if the revenue from the sin tax is used to educate the poor why that thing is "sinful" or harmful to them. Cigarette taxes are usually a good example (in most cities/states where they've been widely applied) of the right way to apply a sin tax / poor tax, because the revenue from that sin tax is used to educate the people targeted to dissuade them from smoking. With cigarette smoking, it's worked.
Other forms of sin taxes/poor taxes, like taxes on gambling, generally don't do anything to educate people why gambling is bad/stupid/negative. Part of the revenue will usually go to addiction services, but very rarely to public education about gambling, so it's basically the opposite. States with government gambling, like lotteries, usually do the exact opposite: They market to poor people about how playing the lottery is a fun game that's going to change their lives for the better; they usually put lottery games in places where poorer people are more likely to shop... Convenience stores, bars, etc. It'd be like if states actively marketed to people to buy cigarettes and told them that cigarettes would improve their lives like they do with gambling, it'd be deeply, deeply unethical. The way that most states treat gambling is similar to how cigarette companies targeted children in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
I'm ideologically opposed to sin taxes, but I understand their practical benefit v. cost (largely they're the easiest tax to pass with the least political ramifications in most states), but if revenue from the sin tax is used to discourage people from participating in that sin then I have less of a problem with it. I'm usually against sugar taxes because very few of them are also accompanied by comprehensive public education on why sugary foods are bad for you, almost none of them also accompany regulation on marketing sugary foods to children or the uneducated. THey're usually seen as easy revenue generators under the guise of public health.
