It would surely be wrong to require smokers to take a vaccine such as the one described by Mr. Sullum. In a free society, the desirability of a particular end is dramatized by other means, primarily taxation. The term "sin tax" logically emanates from the perception that there is something wrong with using the substance in question. Alcohol is (can be) damaging; therefore, make the acquisition of it dearer. I once upon a time listened with great interest to a sociologist who maintained that an increase of 4 percent in the cost of tobacco would reduce by 1 percent the consumption of it.
What other forces are there to be harnessed? Most obviously, health insurance. This becomes delicate because of the problem of enforceability. "Do you smoke cigarettes, ma'am? Well, then your health policy will cost you 50 percent more." And if the lady promises to stop smoking, what means do we take to monitor her habits?
This libertarian holds that Mr. Sullum is shortsighted in flatly discouraging the vaccine he writes about. If a 17-year-old were offered a vaccine that caused him to become insensible to the allure of smoking, what have we lost in a society that seeks both freedom and the scientific advantages that freedom effects in laboratories?
Speaking personally, I -- and I am certain everyone who reads these words -- would be spared terrible pain if some person we have in mind had taken such a vaccine years ago.