, Blue Ink wrote

*snip*

That's not even remotely the same thing: drunk driving is illegal, which means it's not just a risky behavior, it's a criminal one. It's not a matter of semantics: firstly, drunk drivers are not punished because they may hurt themselves, they are punished because they could end up killing someone else. Secondly, the law distinguishes between the bad behavior (DUI) and its ultimate consequences (manslaughter). Thirdly, the punishment is more socially fair (or should be, let's not get there just yet).

How is that different to criminalizing smoking in a car with your children forced to inhale the smoke? Here, let me help - imagine for a second that smoking in a car with your children is illegal, and then we'll try your paragraph again with the nouns changed:

That's not even remotely the same thing: smoking in a car with your children is illegal, which means it's not just a risky behavior, it's a criminal one. It's not a matter of semantics: firstly, smokers who smoke in a car with their children are not punished because they may hurt themselves, they are punished because they could end up killing someone else. Secondly, the law distinguishes between the bad behavior (SIACWYC) and its ultimate consequences (manslaughter). Thirdly, the punishment is more socially fair (or should be, let's not get there just yet).

price is not a deterrent against ... behaviors

I don't see how that view is consistent with the fundamental lemma of Capitalism, i.e. that rewarding good behaviour with money encourages that good behaviour.

And it also doesn't seem to reflect reality. In the UK, for instance, we've been increasingly taxing the use of petrol more and more with really unpopular fuel taxes - making a litre of gas in the UK more than three times as expensive as an equivalent one in the US. And people drive their cars less because of it.

Taxes aren't popular, but claiming that they are ineffective at driving behaviour is another thing entirely.