If Nicotine Taxes Save Lives, Let’s Start at the Governor’s Paycheck — PNW Podcast takes on WA Governor
I quit smoking because of a tax.
Not because a commercial scared me.
Not because a politician lectured me.
Not because the government suddenly cared about my lungs.
I quit because the Governor of Washington slapped a 90-something percent tax on Zyn, making the alternative to cigarettes so expensive it forced a choice. And for me, that choice worked.
But here’s the uncomfortable part no one wants to talk about:
From my perspective, that tax didn’t discourage smoking — it nudged people back toward it.
Let me explain.
The Policy That Accidentally Encouraged the Thing It Claims to Fight
Zyn isn’t perfect. Nicotine isn’t healthy. No one’s arguing that.
But Zyn exists in the harm-reduction lane — the same lane public health experts praise when it comes to needles, opioids, and smoking cessation tools. Less harm isn’t no harm, but it’s a hell of a lot better than lighting tobacco on fire and inhaling it.
By taxing Zyn at an almost punitive rate, the state didn’t just discourage nicotine use — it removed the economic incentive to choose the less harmful option.
For many people, especially working-class folks, the math is brutal:
Cheaper cigarettes
More expensive alternatives
Same addiction
That’s not health policy. That’s optics.
A Modest Proposal (With a Very Sharp Point)
So here’s my X-Files thought experiment:
What if we taxed the Governor’s wages at the same rate he taxed Zyn?
Not because we hate him.
Not because we want revenge.
But because policies feel very different when you experience them personally.
Imagine this logic applied consistently:
“We’re reducing harmful behavior by making it unaffordable — even if it hurts in the short term.”
If that’s true, then surely public officials — the architects of these policies — should feel the same pressure they apply to citizens.
If a 90% tax changes behavior, let’s test it where it counts.
Accountability Isn’t Cruel — It’s Honest
This isn’t about punishment. It’s about alignment.
Politicians make decisions insulated by salaries, benefits, and distance from the consequences. Regular people don’t get that luxury. When prices spike, we don’t debate theory — we adapt or we suffer.
I quit smoking because of that tax.
Someone else might start again because of it.
Both outcomes exist — and pretending otherwise is dishonest.
The Question No One Asks
If the goal is public health, why punish harm-reduction harder than harm itself?
If the goal is revenue, why pretend it’s compassion?
And if leaders truly believe in these measures, why shouldn’t they experience them at the same scale?
Final Thought
This isn’t an anti-government rant.
It’s not a pro-nicotine manifesto.
It’s a demand for consistency.
If taxes are tools to shape behavior, then those who wield them should feel their weight too.
That’s not radical. That’s accountability.
