A plan to increase smoking
The short-sightedness of the anti-smoking lobby is striking indeed. They are all going nuts about a new report showing that cigarette manufacturers seem to have increased the amount of nicotine in a smoke--which, if true, would make perfect sense. There are fewer and fewer opportunities to smoke. People have to leave their workplaces and go outside, or puff as much as possible during breaks or before boarding a flight, wait through an entire meal and step outside etc. So an increase in nicotine released per smoke would be precisely would consumers would want. The idea that this is a plot to get people more hooked on the product is completely looney.
Meanwhile, the same lobby is calling for caps on nicotine levels, which will obviously increase the number of cigarettes that people smoke (all is being equal).
Comments (7)
David J. Heinrich
There are probably tax-considerations too. With cigarettes being taxed as much as they are on a per-carton basis (not per-nicotine-level basis) it makes sense that consumers would want the most nicotine per carton. Hence, cigarette companies increasing the nicotine levels.
Published: September 1, 2006 9:24 AM
Artisan
Yes, the solution to cap the nicotine amount per cigarette seems obviously the way to go for the government,... to keep its revenues high in a discrete manner, while officially fighting further the addiction!
A bit like the old "raising taxes through depreciating the value of money" thus...
The good news for the tabac industry: they will sell more cigarettes! So you can call that really politically correct... no jobs suppressed (just lives!!)
Go ahead you politicians! There's still some milk to get out of those poor cows!
But did you say slavery?
Published: September 1, 2006 2:05 PM
Nick Bradley
If I were a socialist-minded governor of a state and wanted to increase revenue, I would (1) mandate reduced-nicotine cigarattes, and (2) increase the filter size on cigarettes. Why? Less Nicotine in Less Tobacco = more cigarettes bought = increased tax revenue. While I was recieving this windfall, I could claim that I was acting in the public interest to protect people. Furthermore, I could claim that I was a fiscal conservative who was merely trying to reduce the costs placed on state-ran medical insurance programs. I could then bolster this claim by pointing to smaller budget deficits as a result of the increased revenue.
Published: September 1, 2006 4:39 PM
billwald
Smokers are good for the economy and the national debt because they collect less Social Security than non smokers.
My objection to ciggy butt smokers is that they are mostly slobs. I propose cutting the ciggy butt tax and adding it back as a tax on the filters.
Published: September 4, 2006 11:23 AM
Ryan Taylor
Your government at work: First they ban smoking because it's a "health hazard" and it will kill you. Then the ex-smokers start eating and get fat. Now we have an obesity epidemic and we'll all die from diabetes. The government will step in and ban junk food and put us all on mandatory, taxpayer funded exercise programs.
Leave it up to the puritan do-gooders and world-improvers to take away every little bit of pleasure from us. It's disgusting.
Published: September 4, 2006 6:43 PM
Dr. Mark Thornton
David had it right. The tax on cigarettes provides an incentive for cigarette makers to make cigarettes that are more potent with nicotine ceteris paribus. As the tax increases or as they find new ways to increase potency, nicotine will increase. You could think of it as the "Pall Mall effect." The effect was originally called the Alchian-Allen effect as it applied to the impact of transport costs on apples and we (RB Ekelund) dubbed the "Rhett Butler effect" the impact of the Union blockade on the types of goods blockaders brought into port--see our book.
Mr. Tucker is also correct that indoor smoking restrictions also encourage higher potency cigarettes.
The solutions is for smokers is to smoke the cigarettes they love (outdoors) and use smokeless tobacco otherwise.
Published: September 5, 2006 9:08 AM
quincunx
As long as the State does not make giving stuff away for free illegal the smoking tax will do absolutely nothing. Make the tax $50, and merchants will be having 'buy one get nine free' sales, not that much differently than the plethora of 'buy 1 get 1 free' or 'buy 1 get 2 free' offers from Marlboro available in many areas.
Or such an increase in taxes will spur huge capital flight to Indian reservations. Assuming they are still allowed to operate unchanged, the massive number of cartons bought at once (to save on car trips) will encourage people to smoke more.
Published: September 5, 2006 9:18 PM