5 ms·
Hawaii considers the benefits of creating a black market for tobacco
by giggles_giggles 8y ago
Hawaii considers the benefits of creating a black market for tobacco
- ams6110 8y agoIt's already there, because of taxes, but yeah, it would just get bigger.
- benj111 8y agoProbably? But then what's the alternative (assuming you agree with the decision to start with). People are always going to murder, evade taxes, do illegal drugs. The fact that some people won't follow laws isn't a reason not to implement them. I'm guessing that due to geography, Hawaii has the most chance in the US of making this work though.
- loeg 8y agoThe proposed bill doesn't ban tobacco, just cigarettes in particular. Oddly, cigars are not banned.
- eesmith 8y agoI don't know if it's the reason, but USPS at https://www.usps.com/ship/shipping-restrictions.htm https://www.usps.com/ship/shipping-restrictions.htm (expand 'Cigarettes & Tobacco') says "Most cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products may not be mailed domestically" while "Cigars may be mailed domestically." Ban cigar sales and many people will get deliveries by domestic mail. That doesn't hold for cigarettes.
- loeg 8y agoThat's an interesting point, thanks for raising it. > Ban cigar sales and many people will get deliveries by domestic mail. That doesn't hold for cigarettes. I bet you're right for people who currently seek out cigars (more or less). But I suspect there will be some substitution effect of cigars for cigarettes, if a bill like this is passed, and cigars can still be sold locally. I expect the effect would be smaller in magnitude if cigars could only be purchased from mainland sellers and shipped via USPS. But I am just speculating.
- DougN7 8y agoI’m guessing the percentage of people smoking cigars, and those who get started smoking via cigars, is pretty small.
- loeg 8y agoI agree, but unless it's some protected classification, what prevents Philip Morris from slapping some cigar branding on the packaging for cigarettes in Hawaii?
- sbuttgereit 8y agoAssuming you agree with the decision to start with, aren't you de facto say all those other things don't matter relative to your decision? I think you may of meant something a bit different: perhaps, that if you believe that government has a role in dictating certain health related choices, then what options do you have to achieve that other than something like this? If so, then you're just debating implementation details which I think is less important and less interesting than the real discussion about what personal autonomy, and personal responsibility, you should have to live your life as you see fit.
- benj111 8y agoYes that what I meant. I was intending it as an rhetorical question. Agreed personal autonomy, and personal responsibility are the interesting questions, not really where the comment I was responding was leading though.
- loeg 8y agoNot exactly: > If approved, the restrictions would only apply to cigarettes—not e-cigarettes, cigars or chewing tobacco. Just cigarettes. Oddly, cigars are excepted. Probably just get a lot of oddly thin and long cigar sales.
- kokokokoko 8y agoI'm curious if the ban may have to do more with littering and pollution as opposed to simply the health issues.
- pacoWebConsult 8y agoI think if that were the case they'd be pushing for bio-degradable butts and also coming up with some solution to throw-away vape cartridges like Juul pods which I see on the ground outside every gas station.
- geoelectric 8y agoWhen clove cigarettes were banned, clove cigarillos became quite popular. Ironically, they're probably even less healthy than the cigarettes were.