4 ms·

>Number of states that have made efforts to ban tobacco: 0 Do you suggest that states should ban tobacco? I think that would be a mistake, judging by the effe

by nokcha 7y ago

>Number of states that have made efforts to ban tobacco: 0 Do you suggest that states should ban tobacco? I think that would be a mistake, judging by the effects of alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and the current war on drugs.

mullingitover 7y ago
I don't think it should be banned, but there's a level of taxation that will drive demand down to near-zero. If states really feel like you can't put a price on human life, and we should think of the children, etc, they could revise their policy and charge taxes at the price that would come extremely close to eliminating all demand.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  This is already true in some locales. NYC’s base price for a pack is $13. The main issue with this is, like guns and alcohol, localities and states all have differences of opinion, so that ends up not meaning much in practice when someone can just drive over the county line to get their cheaper fix. State and city level whack-a-mole is an intractable problem.
- JoshTriplett 7y ago
  If you tax it high enough, you won't necessarily drive demand down to zero, you'll just drive demand back to illicit sources just like currently illegal drugs.
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    I agree that there would be a small black market, but it would be just that: small.
    - admax88q 7y ago
      What is the effective difference between huge taxation and banning?
      - vkou 7y ago
        You, or anyone employed, owning, or contracted by any part of the supply chain, can get legal redress from any issues arising in the manufacture, sale, transportation, or consumption an expensive, heavily taxed product. With a black market product, your only form of redress for any issues that may arise from commercial activity surrounding that product is an incredible, and preferably disproportionate amount of physical violence.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  > but there's a level of taxation that will drive demand down to near-zero. Tell that to all the people who are still buying weed from dealers in states where recreational is legal (and taxed highly).
- reaperducer 7y ago
  High taxes won't stop many smokers from smoking. They just switch to cheaper brands, or buy them through illegal channels. That's how "loosies" became a huge business in poor neighborhoods.
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    It has marked effects on young adults, and reducing youth smoking is the most bang-for-your-buck public health impact you can have. It's unusual for adults to randomly just take up smoking if they didn't start young. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204416 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
vkou 7y ago
I have been exposed to the argument that prohibition was actually reasonably successful - alcohol abuse and liver cirrhosis hospitalizations went down, crime rates overall did not go up, and there was a net gain to public health.
brandonmenc 7y ago
Something like 90% of adults consume alcohol. Banning tobacco would not have the same effect as the 18th Amendment.

by nokcha 7y ago

mullingitover 7y ago

I don't think it should be banned, but there's a level of taxation that will drive demand down to near-zero. If states really feel like you can't put a price on human life, and we should think of the children, etc, they could revise their policy and charge taxes at the price that would come extremely close to eliminating all demand.

bobthepanda 7y ago
This is already true in some locales. NYC’s base price for a pack is $13. The main issue with this is, like guns and alcohol, localities and states all have differences of opinion, so that ends up not meaning much in practice when someone can just drive over the county line to get their cheaper fix. State and city level whack-a-mole is an intractable problem.
JoshTriplett 7y ago
If you tax it high enough, you won't necessarily drive demand down to zero, you'll just drive demand back to illicit sources just like currently illegal drugs.
- mullingitover 7y ago
  I agree that there would be a small black market, but it would be just that: small.
  - admax88q 7y ago
    What is the effective difference between huge taxation and banning?
    - vkou 7y ago
      You, or anyone employed, owning, or contracted by any part of the supply chain, can get legal redress from any issues arising in the manufacture, sale, transportation, or consumption an expensive, heavily taxed product. With a black market product, your only form of redress for any issues that may arise from commercial activity surrounding that product is an incredible, and preferably disproportionate amount of physical violence.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
> but there's a level of taxation that will drive demand down to near-zero. Tell that to all the people who are still buying weed from dealers in states where recreational is legal (and taxed highly).
reaperducer 7y ago
High taxes won't stop many smokers from smoking. They just switch to cheaper brands, or buy them through illegal channels. That's how "loosies" became a huge business in poor neighborhoods.
- mullingitover 7y ago
  It has marked effects on young adults, and reducing youth smoking is the most bang-for-your-buck public health impact you can have. It's unusual for adults to randomly just take up smoking if they didn't start young. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204416 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

vkou 7y ago

I have been exposed to the argument that prohibition was actually reasonably successful - alcohol abuse and liver cirrhosis hospitalizations went down, crime rates overall did not go up, and there was a net gain to public health.

brandonmenc 7y ago

Something like 90% of adults consume alcohol. Banning tobacco would not have the same effect as the 18th Amendment.