# Resolved: Cigarette Taxes are a Very Bad Thing **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 11, 2004, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591 "2004-07-11T18:33:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2004, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591/81 "2004-07-13T06:05:07Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > No, I was bringing that up for a different reason. Smoking IS risky. But so are other things. Some of them very much so. Heart disease is the #1 killer. Alcoholism is a big problem. Or extreme sports. I was trying to put the risk in a bit of perspective. Actually, I think the cites I give put the risk in perspective, and they don’t sound quite as mild as what you indicated earlier, what with your claim that a “small percentage” of smokers getting sick, and all. > [@](#): > > My point was that it was not MY decision to make. It’s not my decision to make either. But I just don’t think that they are victims because smoking is expensive. > [@](#): > > But I DO know people who honestly enjoy it and have no intention of quitting. I know people who claim that they enjoy it too. But I smell a bullshit factor there, since, as one of my cites indicates, 9 out of 10 wish they could quit. But, sure, there are some who steadfastly think that smoking is the greatest thing that ever happened to them. While many claim that they enjoy it, but I’ve never met one that claimed it was wonderful and I should start smoking too. In my experience, they know, on some level, that it’s not a great choice. They especially know it when someone close to them gets sick. They still may claim that they “enjoy” smoking and won’t quit, but somehow . . . I’m not buying it. _Not that I’m going to nag them about it._ That’s so obnoxious. It’s still their choice, no doubt about it. > [@](#): > > It is their chosen lifestyle, and no puritan yutz has the right to decide that they must be punished by society for their choices. The government shouldn’t “punish” somebody for using a legal substance. It’s not the government’s business. But once again, :shrug: I just don’t see them as victims because they can’t afford to smoke as much. Anymore than the circus lady on the scooter is a victim because she can’t afford all the Big Macs that she wants. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2004, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591/82 "2004-07-13T11:34:07Z")
I agree that cigarette taxes are bad. A modest tax to defray the additional burden that smokers place on public resources is appropriate, but not the outrageous taxes that are imposed today. These are the result of the electorate not being willing to pay other taxes. If a governor proposed a hike in the state income tax, he/she would be run out of town on a rail. However, cigarette or liquor taxes are currently the only politically acceptable way for the government to increase revenue. ---
**Author:** ![cckerberos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@cckerberos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cckerberos)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2004, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591/83 "2004-07-13T14:06:12Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > A modest tax to defray the additional burden that smokers place on public resources is appropriate Do you have any cites that show that smokers place an additional burden on public resources? **DMC** ’s cite seems to show that there is none. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2004, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591/84 "2004-07-13T15:54:51Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Today our newspaper had an article about how our provincial government is becoming addicted to tobacco taxes, which raised $780 million dollars for the government last year. > > I submit that tobacco taxes are an abomination and a social injustice. I’m having a hard time seeing how anyone can support them. > > From a Libertarian standpoint, tobacco taxes are an infringement on freedom. The government has absolutely no business punishing people with taxes to ‘encourage’ them to give up behaviour they choose to do. > > From a social justice standpoint, tobacco taxes are highly regressive. Not only is the tax flat for all income categories, but poor people tend to smoke more than rich people. Which means that the government raised its revenue by $780 million dollars largely on the backs of the poor and middle class. > > From a health standpoint, tobacco taxes don’t change behaviour all that much. Tobacco demand is highly inelastic, which means it doesn’t change much with changes in price. Here in Alberta, we tax Cigarettes $4 per package (over the counter, cigarettes are $10 a pack). And yet, smoking went up 1.6% last year. > > So it seems to me that whether you’re on the left or the right, you should be opposed to tobacco taxes. So who is left to defend them? The puritans, the nanny-statists, and the government itself, which can spot a nice source of revenue a mile away. > > Should tobacco taxes be eliminated? Yep. They’re popular with both parties for the worst of reasons: it’s a revenue source that gets the public cheering. All the fun of raising taxes, with none of that nasty public relations fallout - because smokers are disproportionately the folks with little political power. If you can quantify the health costs tobacco imposes on the government, you can tax them exactly that much. Simple, ordinary pigovian tax. But as it is, the government already earns a profit off of smoking. ---
**Author:** ![PeeQueue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@PeeQueue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PeeQueue)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2004, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591/85 "2004-07-13T16:06:22Z")
Just to put things in perspective, when I started smoking, cigarrettes cost right around $2 a pack. 10 years later, when I quit, they were $7 a pack (typically one pack per day was bought). You can say cigarrette smokers are not victims all you like, but if any other commodity was raised nearly four times in price over the course of a decade, by government taxes alone, there would be plenty of sympathy for the users of said commodity. The truth is that the majority in this country greatly dislikes cigarrettes, and is willing to step all over the minority’s desires in order to get rid of them. I suppose this is no dfferent than many things, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when people openly and unabashedly promote this way of thinking. ---
**Author:** ![cdnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@cdnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cdnguy)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2004, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591/86 "2004-07-13T17:02:16Z")
Personally I don’t have a problem with the high taxes on cigarettes, and I smoke. It is a stupid, gross habit and I have no idea why I pay $8-10 to kill myself slowly. I have quit in the past, always started again though, damn its hard not to restart. You see it all the time, and just think God! I want one too. And I am far from rich so these taxes do take a larger proportio of my money. My problem with the taxing of cigarettes isn’t the rate at which it is charged, but the justification for such a tax, and what is done withthe tax dollars after. If, as it seems to me, the reaosn for the high tax is to discourage smokers from either starting or continuing, shouldn’t a large propprtion of this money go to such a need? Not all of it, just a good proportion, maybe 40-60 percent. The government, by its high taxes, is basically smoking is bad, don’t do it, but if you must you are going to pay for it. And you know what gets me mad? They say smoking is bad then have the gall to tax me on the products I use to try and quit! Shouldn’t nicorette and the patch not have a tax no them? I’m doing something the government wants me to do and being screwed again! And the quiiting aids aren’t cheap. ---
**Author:** ![Iridium](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e8c25b/32.png) [@Iridium](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iridium)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2004, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591/87 "2004-07-13T20:43:33Z")
Just linking some information about tobacco-related illness (e.g. cancer, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, asthma, heart disease, birth conditions etc) and its impact on one particular healthcare system (Ontario). Cigarette tax here is intended primarily as a deterrent for younger smokers, with additional strategies for quitting and prevention: [http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/tobacco/tobacco.html](http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/tobacco/tobacco.html) For context re: the stated $1b in tobacco-related health costs, Ontario’s total budget is about $78b, with about $30b going towards healthcare. [http://www.ontariobudget.fin.gov.on.ca/bud04e/papera.htm#pasection3](http://www.ontariobudget.fin.gov.on.ca/bud04e/papera.htm#pasection3) According to Health Canada, 26% of Ontarians smoke (~3.12m people). [http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/media/releases/1999/9912ebk.htm](http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/media/releases/1999/9912ebk.htm) Not knowing how many packs are consumed by the “average” smoker, I can’t say whether or not this tax covers off the $1b cost or is disproportionately high. Over here, “sin” tax increases are usually political quick wins. Feel free to run your own scenarios. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2004, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591/88 "2004-07-13T21:07:44Z")
Iridium, from what I could tell, that cite did not take into account the amount of money the healthcare system saves due to smokers, as a whole, dying younger and faster. If we’re going to measure actuals, we need to subtract the savings from the costs. The cites I linked to appeared to do that, and found that smokers are actually cheaper to cover over their lifetimes. If someone can actually show that smokers cost everyone else money in the long term, I will gladly join you in supporting taxes on cigarettes by the exact amount needed to make up the difference. From what I’ve seen so far, if one wants to use costs to justify the taxes, we should be subsidizing cigarettes instead of taxing them, as smokers are saving us money. ---
**Author:** ![Iridium](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e8c25b/32.png) [@Iridium](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iridium)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2004, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591/89 "2004-07-13T21:52:30Z")
Actually, I was doing a few coarse napkin-calculations based on half or full pack/day consumption per smoker and it looks like there is more than enough revenue generated to support related healthcare costs and program spending for prevention/cessation. Having said that, things like productivity losses (due to chronic illness) and cost savings associated with premature death do make the picture a little more complex. Even if smokers did save taxpayer dollars in the long run by dying early, encouraging this by subsidizing cigarettes goes against the mandate of Canadian health ministries, i.e. promoting the health and well-being of all citizens. Since there is a causal relationship between smoking and a wide range of illnesses, cessation/prevention is a priority at the policy level. The tax rate, I think, is more about politics than policy. Given that teenagers do have limited income, the tax could act as a deterrent in combination with anti-smoking programs. However, Ontario citizens tend to find sin tax increases more palatable than other forms of taxation (e.g. personal income). As of June 1, smoking is banned in nearly all public places in Toronto (including bars), so prevailing opinions on this issue are pretty clear. The minority does suffer, but they are also harming themselves by smoking. Guess it depends where governments draw the line re: the right to engage in risky behaviour? ---
**Author:** ![JohnBckWLD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JohnBckWLD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnBckWLD)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2004, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591/90 "2004-07-14T17:43:39Z")
$8 pack in NYC. To a person making $10/hour, that’s a pretty large tax bite. Wealthier smokers avoid cigarette taxes. They buy them over the internet, or pick them up duty free at the airport upon returning from vacation. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2004, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591/91 "2004-07-14T18:34:58Z")
> [@cckerberos](#): > > Do you have any cites that show that smokers place an additional burden on public resources? **DMC** ’s cite seems to show that there is none. Not yet, I’ll see what I can do. But the cite already cited only looked at the direct costs for health care. And even that cite said that if smoking were to suddenly stop, health care costs would at first decrease and then increase over time as ex-smokers lived longer and died of other things. But the problem is more complex than that, when you consider lost worker productivity (absences due to smoking-related illnesses). This lost productivity also manifests itself in lower earning potential for smokers and therefore less capital for smokers to invest in the economy. Other things to consider are: The fact that health resources are finite and that resources currently spent on smokers might be spent on other health issues. The impact on children of smokers from a second-hand smoke perspective. My guess is that the problem is sufficiently complex that the end result can be twisted to suit the aim of the sponsor of the study. As they say, figures don’t lie but liars can figure. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2004, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591/92 "2004-07-14T22:23:26Z")
> [@cdnguy](#): > > The government, by its high taxes, is basically smoking is bad, don’t do it, but if you must you are going to pay for it. And you know what gets me mad? They say smoking is bad then have the gall to tax me on the products I use to try and quit! Shouldn’t nicorette and the patch not have a tax no them? I’m doing something the government wants me to do and being screwed again! And the quiiting aids aren’t cheap. That would be a good use for the cigarette tax revenue: subsidies for quitting aids. It’s ridiculous that a pack of Nicorette costs so much that it has to be kept in a glass case at the grocery store. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591/93 "2004-07-15T21:39:34Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > From a Libertarian standpoint, tobacco taxes are an infringement on freedom. The government has absolutely no business punishing people with taxes to ‘encourage’ them to give up behaviour they choose to do. > > From a social justice standpoint, tobacco taxes are highly regressive. Not only is the tax flat for all income categories, but poor people tend to smoke more than rich people. Which means that the government raised its revenue by $780 million dollars largely on the backs of the poor and middle class. > > From a health standpoint, tobacco taxes don’t change behaviour all that much. Tobacco demand is highly inelastic, which means it doesn’t change much with changes in price. Here in Alberta, we tax Cigarettes $4 per package (over the counter, cigarettes are $10 a pack). And yet, smoking went up 1.6% last year. > > Should tobacco taxes be eliminated? 1. From a “Libertarian standpoint”- ALL taxes are an infringment of freedom. But I say that since you can choose whether or not you pay the tobacco tax, it is much more Libertarian than any others. As a libertarian myself, I’d have to say that of all the taxes out there- “sin” taxes are the ones that best fit a Libertarian viewpoint. Choice, not coercion. 2. All of whom have the choice to stop smoking. But very expensive cigars have high taxes, thus the tax is not entirely regressive. 3. You’re wrong. In CA and the USA as a whole- smokinh has gone down, in fact higher taxes are often cited as a reason for lower smoking rates. Alberta (nice place though it may be) is such an underpopulated province that it is hardly a region I’d base an arguement on. :dubious: 4. Secondhand smoke is still dangerous- causes or makes worse many lung problems. Yes, the evidence it causes _cancer_ is debateable. You can die without getting cancer you know. :dubious: :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Snake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Snake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snake)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591/94 "2004-07-17T05:08:37Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > The gigantic financial burden smokers place on the heathcare system (including in the form of higher health insruance premiums) more than justifies taxation. If anything, the taxes are too low. > > Or, if you get rid of taxes, then deny insurance coverage, or jack up the premiums, for people who have health problems attributable to smoking. > > I prefer the first option, frankly. > > “Resolved.” What an asswipe way of presenting a debate. > > :rolleyes: So we should deny insurance to overweight people because they put a heavy burden on the health care system , and of course, the suspension on the ambulance. Hey , they CHOSE to eat those whoppers and fries . Or maybe we should tax the fat people? Hell, you can point your taxation finger at any number of people that take part in dangerous, but legal, behavior that adds cost to health care. Lets tax water ski gear, mountain climbing gear, racing equipment and parts. Why stop there ? Lets go after professions too. Firemen, cops, chemical plant workers, painters, and electricians would have a higher overall medical cost than say, a librarian. Tax the cops for burdening your health care system. You want to relieve the burden on your health care ? Go after the drug companies for outrageously overcharging for medications. Go after the doctors for prescribing meds to anyone who wants something. Doctors have people taking drugs like they’re friggin PEZ. Go after the douchebags who tie up the court system with stupid personal injury lawsuits. Thats the stuff that will lower your medical insurance. Cigarette taxes should not be increased any more than they already are. Too many holier than thou non smoking idiots jump on the tax wagon way too fast because smoking is something they, blessed as they are, don’t approve of. Geez, what an asswipe way of replying to an OP ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591/95 "2004-07-17T23:21:31Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Should tobacco taxes be eliminated? Warning: Message board high-horse pomposity ahead. I don’t mind tobacco taxes but I don’t think they’re necessary. All other things equal, you already come out on top of smokers by simply not smoking. Gratuitous taxes on tobacco inch non-tobacco users a bit higher financially, but it’s just icing on the cake. Since smoking is often just a symptom of the larger problem of poor decision-making in general, the taxes barely register once you throw in gambling, obesity, too many kids, unemployment, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591/96 "2004-07-18T21:51:43Z")
I haven’t been following this thread too closely, however this Guardian article is something that ought to be tossed into the mix: [Warning: nicotine seriously improves health](http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,2763,1263918,00.html) It seems a shame to tax something that many people _require_ for their continuing sanity. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591/97 "2004-07-18T22:18:07Z")
Uh, couldn’t they chew nicotine gum or find some other way to ingest the nicotine? I don’t believe that cigarettes are the _only_ way for a person to obtain nicotine. In fact, I thought I read that it wasn’t the nicotine that causes cancer, it’s the other stuff in cigarettes. (Cites indicating otherwise are welcome, of course.) ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591/98 "2004-07-18T22:33:38Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > Uh, couldn’t they chew nicotine gum or find some other way to ingest the nicotine? Have you run a pricecheck on nicotine gum recently? There is no cheaper, safer alternative to cigarettes. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591/99 "2004-07-18T22:39:15Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Have you run a pricecheck on nicotine gum recently? There is no cheaper, safer alternative to cigarettes. So get on the people who price nicotine gum, then. That’s an entirely different complaint, isn’t it? Unless the government is putting a “sin tax” on gum. Is it? And you say that there is no _safer_ alternative to cigarettes. I thought that nicotine gum was somewhat safer (though not great). Could you provide me with a reputable cite indicating that there is no _safer_ alternate way to get nicotine into your system? (Which, I presume, is your point?) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591/100 "2004-07-18T23:37:26Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Have you run a pricecheck on nicotine gum recently? There is no cheaper, safer alternative to cigarettes. Stopping altogether is quite a bit cheaper, and MUCH safer. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-cigarette-taxes-are-a-very-bad-thing/254591.md?page=6)