[sightbroke]

Do not let perfect be the enemy of good.

Money for social programs must come from somewhere.

Using tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, gambling (for example) to raise funding for socially beneficial programs seem better than not doing it.

[lupusreal]

It's a problem because once the state gets revenue from a vice, they have an incentive to promote that vice. This is particularly common with gambling, where you have state propaganda (billboards, TV and radio ads, etc) encouraging people to gamble, even portraying gambling as some sort of way to invest your money.

[sightbroke]

Gambling is also sometimes considered a tax on the poor. But my point is it can be easier to levy a vice tax than raise income taxes for example.

AND with vices people will do them regardless so maybe some social good is better than no good coming from it.

[duxup]

It's not an "enemy of the good" if good public policy is just a matter of a different law or approach.

[sightbroke]

What would be a good alternative then that would also likely be implemented?

[duxup]

A stable / consistent source of funding not connected to one industry.

Nobody is going to be better off if the funding for their mental health services is cut off because X industry is having a bad time or gets reclassified or something else.

I see this happen with sin taxes and other funding sources with education programs all the time. Programs cut, people fired because their funding is some sin tax or very specific source that dried up. Important services like mental health and etc should be funded consistently.

[sightbroke]

I don't disagree with you but where's the stable/ consistent source of funding?

It sounds good but where is it? Whom are you taxing or collecting funds from?