3 ms·

> That's almost all taxes. I mean, that’s a good thing, right? Smokers should pay for the externalities their habit has on society as a whole.

fierarul 6y ago
... and I feel that less than $1 per cigarette so somebody else enjoys 2nd hand smoke doesn't come even near to covering it.
- smabie 6y ago
  Okay, how much do you think a cigarette should cost?
  - NullPrefix 6y ago
    About $3.50
  - fierarul 6y ago
    I dunno, how much should I be fined for, say, screaming on a megaphone while you try to enjoy your meal? I think they should be banned altogether in locations where non smokers might be. Putting a price on this seems the odd way to go.
nmfisher 6y ago
Except smokers actually aren't actually a net cost to the healthcare system, because they die earlier. "complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs" https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506
- refurb 6y ago
  Not only healthcare costs, but also national pension costs. I remember a study was done a long time ago (20 years ago) and smokers were a net contributor to the gov't coffers. They paid a lot in cigarette taxes (even when the taxes were lower). Those that got lung cancer didn't cost that much to treat because, well, there weren't great treatments. Lung cancer progressed fast enough that they might spend their last week in the hospital, but that was it (versus say Alzheimers where they might require a handful of years of institutional care). They contributed to their national pension their entire life and then either died before collecting it or died less than a decade in.
- rootsudo 6y ago
  Haha, that is funny and sad at the same time.
strawberrypuree 6y ago
Cigarette taxes are overwhelmingly paid by the poor, and impact them disproportionately. They do not have a significant impact on the smoking rates (people who would have quit due to the price already have) and there’s no data on how that tax money is spent to offset the externalities. Some info: https://priceonomics.com/how-cigarettes-tax-the-poor/ https://priceonomics.com/how-cigarettes-tax-the-poor/ TL;DR cigarette taxes feel fair to non smokers because it appears to discourage a habit with bad outcomes, but economically they aren’t effective.
- ytwySXpMbS 6y ago
  Yes, perhaps raising the taxes wouldn't stop more people, but lowering the taxes may encourage more people. One could imagine that having no taxes may make it easier for teenagers to start smoking, for instance.
sbmthakur 6y ago
> I mean, that’s a good thing, right? Not being specific to NY or the US. This is not good when illegal/fake cigarettes are readily available. With these cigarettes, none of the entities(tobacco farmers, the government, smokers) will benefit from smoking. https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/alert-you-are-buying-illegal-fake-cigarette-every-one-out-of-three-times/1862444/ https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/alert-you-are-buyi...

fierarul 6y ago

... and I feel that less than $1 per cigarette so somebody else enjoys 2nd hand smoke doesn't come even near to covering it.

smabie 6y ago
Okay, how much do you think a cigarette should cost?
- NullPrefix 6y ago
  About $3.50
- fierarul 6y ago
  I dunno, how much should I be fined for, say, screaming on a megaphone while you try to enjoy your meal? I think they should be banned altogether in locations where non smokers might be. Putting a price on this seems the odd way to go.

nmfisher 6y ago

Except smokers actually aren't actually a net cost to the healthcare system, because they die earlier. "complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs" https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506

refurb 6y ago
Not only healthcare costs, but also national pension costs. I remember a study was done a long time ago (20 years ago) and smokers were a net contributor to the gov't coffers. They paid a lot in cigarette taxes (even when the taxes were lower). Those that got lung cancer didn't cost that much to treat because, well, there weren't great treatments. Lung cancer progressed fast enough that they might spend their last week in the hospital, but that was it (versus say Alzheimers where they might require a handful of years of institutional care). They contributed to their national pension their entire life and then either died before collecting it or died less than a decade in.
rootsudo 6y ago
Haha, that is funny and sad at the same time.

strawberrypuree 6y ago

Cigarette taxes are overwhelmingly paid by the poor, and impact them disproportionately. They do not have a significant impact on the smoking rates (people who would have quit due to the price already have) and there’s no data on how that tax money is spent to offset the externalities. Some info: https://priceonomics.com/how-cigarettes-tax-the-poor/ https://priceonomics.com/how-cigarettes-tax-the-poor/ TL;DR cigarette taxes feel fair to non smokers because it appears to discourage a habit with bad outcomes, but economically they aren’t effective.

ytwySXpMbS 6y ago
Yes, perhaps raising the taxes wouldn't stop more people, but lowering the taxes may encourage more people. One could imagine that having no taxes may make it easier for teenagers to start smoking, for instance.

sbmthakur 6y ago

> I mean, that’s a good thing, right? Not being specific to NY or the US. This is not good when illegal/fake cigarettes are readily available. With these cigarettes, none of the entities(tobacco farmers, the government, smokers) will benefit from smoking. https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/alert-you-are-buying-illegal-fake-cigarette-every-one-out-of-three-times/1862444/ https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/alert-you-are-buyi...