Does taxing vices help solve the problem?

I was in New York for a conference a few weeks ago and one thing I, as does everyone else, noticed was that it was more expensive than where I came from. It's more expensive than pretty much anywhere anyone comes from. Some of it is just because it's a desirable place to be, and some of it is higher taxes.

Alcohol is taxed, cigarettes are double what they are elsewhere because of tax, etc. Does that stop people from drinking and smoking? Not really, though there did seem to be less people smoking than I remember, but it's not like it went away.

Which brings me to the question posed in the Atlantic today: "Could Taxing Violent Video Games Actually Save Lives?"

My answer to this is that if you want the data to say yes, you can spin it that way, and if you want the data to say no, you can spin it that way too.

With something like cigarettes, you know people die from them. Smoke for 40 years and get cancer? It happens. Drink heavily and get liver problems or other issues? It happens. Play a violent video game and you become violent? Maybe. The jury is still out, and I think it always will be.

We don't understand the complex psychological triggers behind why people become violent. And we never will. When you find a new layer, there's always another layer underneath it.

Taxing people who make the games or people who buy them will not change the effect (or lack of effect) that the game has on violent tendencies. It will only change what people have to do to get their hands on the game. And any programs funded by those taxes will have a really hard time focusing on preventing theoretical real world deaths before they happen.

So, will taxes on violent video games save lives? I don't think so. What about you? Am I way off here?

Image courtesy of nialkennedy via flickr