I think part of the reason they don't want to use the "sin tax" argument is the same reason they run into crimalizing problems -- 1st amendment. Smoking and drinking aren't protected under "freedom of expression", but nude dancing actually is. So they're running into legal problems single strip clubs out for a tax where they don't with other products.
But I don't see how the "but this tax stops rape!" argument helps any with the constitutionality question. Unless you argue that nude dancing fails the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" test. Which would be an even DUMBER argument. :D
Anyway -- agreed that it's still a sin tax, and calling a tax anything else is silly at best, and doublespeak at worst.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 06:42 pm (UTC)But I don't see how the "but this tax stops rape!" argument helps any with the constitutionality question. Unless you argue that nude dancing fails the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" test. Which would be an even DUMBER argument. :D
Anyway -- agreed that it's still a sin tax, and calling a tax anything else is silly at best, and doublespeak at worst.