10 ms·

It wasn’t sin taxes that stopped those things.

mhh__ 5y ago
There is still less smoking regardless, though. Where I live if I see someone smoking in public more often than not they are a student from a country where cigarettes are much much cheaper. A packet of cigarettes is 4.5x cheaper in Poland than the UK for example.
scrollaway 5y ago
It is to a great degree. Many acquaintances have stopped smoking because it got too expensive. That many people stopped smoking is what enabled us to ban it in so many places afterwards. The bans are a huge inconvenience to smokers. That's the point, but it would have been political suicide a few decades prior.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- another-dave 5y ago
  though if that's correct, in that case, wouldn't the 'sin' tax have been political suicide if that was brought in first when there was even more smokers?
  - scrollaway 5y ago
    You can make a tax far more gradual than a ban. Slow boiling frogs and what not. And that is exactly what happened with cigarettes, at least here in Europe.
- kennywinker 5y ago
  If you’re just basing this on experience / memory idk if this is true. My memory says public opinion was swayed by advertising and health risks not cigarette prices. Without some hard data on this i think either story is just as likely true
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    > My memory says public opinion was swayed by advertising and health risks not cigarette prices. I'm confident smokers' opinions didn't reach quitting-stage due to ads.
    - kennywinker 5y ago
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775761/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775761/ > Results: On average, smokers were exposed to more than 200 antismoking ads during the 2-year period, as estimated by televised gross ratings points (GRPs). The odds of having quit at follow-up increased by 11% with each 10 additional potential ad exposures (per 1000 points, odds ratio [OR] = 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00, 1.23; P < .05). Greater exposure to ads that contained highly emotional elements or personal stories drove this effect (OR = 1.14; 95% CI 1.02, 1.29; P < .05)
      - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
        Was this study done in regions without cigarette taxes? Asking because about everyone ex-smoker I know (a LOT) quit after struggling to afford the things. Honestly, I can't come up with anyone who could be so powerfully swayed by ads that they could quit an addiction.
        kennywinker 5y ago
        I don't know, you'd have to read the study. Point was they found a strong correlation between ads and quitting. Obviously the ads were communicating health information, so it's weird to say that the ads were the reason since it was likely the health information in the ads. It's also quite possible your friends feel more comfortable citing the cost over the health impact, since they would have known about the health impact when they started. "It got too expensive" is an easier out than "I used to not care about my health, but I do now"
  - bluGill 5y ago
    They both had effects. I personally know people who quit smoking when it got expensive (for different levels of expensive). I also personally know people who quit smoking when they were convinced that it was unhealthy. Though all of the above quit before 1990 (US). Anyone who still smokes today, knows it is bad and costs money: they don't care. Now that I think about it most who quit because it was expensive were probably influenced by the unhealthy part, but it was the cost that finally tipped them over.
CodeBeater 5y ago
I'm a very big fan of the São Paulo approach, just ban indoor smoking everywhere, period. The only places you are allowed to smoke are inside a dwelling or out in the street (with the caveat that there must be a clear view to the sky). Cigarettes are still cheap, but unwanted smog doesn't bother me anymore.
- whymauri 5y ago
  Isn't this how it already works in the US?
  - gambiting 5y ago
    Also exactly how it works in UK - no smoking anywhere indoors.
  - dev_tty01 5y ago
    No, many bars still allow smoking.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >No, many bars still allow smoking. Where, exactly, is that the case? I've traveled all over the US and haven't been in a bar that allowed smoking indoors in at least 15 years. And as a smoker, I would definitely notice. Edit: As kube-system pointed out[0], there are a bunch of places that don't have indoor smoking bans. Although the Wikipedia[1] link they provided does say that ~80% of American live in a place with some restriction on smoking indoors. I stand corrected. Thanks kube-system! [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29003693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29003693 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_Un...
      - rileyphone 5y ago
        Specifically I've been to bars in Tennessee and Florida in the last 8 years that allow smoking inside, as well as a diner in Kentucky that still had a smoking section until a few years ago.
mullingitover 5y ago
That's a claim unsupported by research[1]. > Results >From 2001 through 2015, increases in state-level excise taxes were associated with declines in prevalence of cigarette smoking. The effect was strongest in young adults (age 18–24) and weakest in low-income individuals (<$25,000). So yes, taxes actually do at least affect smoking rates in the most vulnerable population. If you don't start smoking in your teens, you're much less likely to become a lifelong smoker. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6147505/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6147505/
- Kbelicius 5y ago
  Your source has no relation to the claim that you are trying to refute. That claim being: "It wasn’t sin taxes that stopped people smoking on planes, in restaurants, etc. "
  - tdeck 5y ago
    It has some relation. If people aren't smoking, then they aren't smoking in planes or restaurants.
    - Kbelicius 5y ago
      No, it has none. They aren't smoking in planes and restaurants because it is illegal to do so.
swarnie 5y ago
Increasing the price definitely prevents new people from picking up the degusting habit. I just checked and a pack of my old smokes are over £12 a pack ($16 in Monopoly money)! The only problem i see if that it hasn't already broke £20 a pack.
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  A weekend to Spain starts to pay for itself.
hackeraccount 5y ago
There's a graphic floating around that show cigarette consumption in the U.S. It goes up and up until about 1950 or so then it starts to go down and down. I always wonder about that. I mean, I understand that there were laws and taxes and reports about smoking. Looking at that chart though it doesn't look like that. It looks like everyone went - "You know, I don't want to smoke anymore and I don't want to be around smokers" - and then just slowly gave it up over 30 or 40 years. Was it the laws, taxes and reports? Or were all of those things just an expression of desire?
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  Reports on lung cancer became all the rage in the 50's: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22lung+cancer%22&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%22%20lung%20cancer%20%22%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22lung+cancer...

There is still less smoking regardless, though. Where I live if I see someone smoking in public more often than not they are a student from a country where cigarettes are much much cheaper. A packet of cigarettes is 4.5x cheaper in Poland than the UK for example.

scrollaway 5y ago

It is to a great degree. Many acquaintances have stopped smoking because it got too expensive. That many people stopped smoking is what enabled us to ban it in so many places afterwards. The bans are a huge inconvenience to smokers. That's the point, but it would have been political suicide a few decades prior.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
another-dave 5y ago
though if that's correct, in that case, wouldn't the 'sin' tax have been political suicide if that was brought in first when there was even more smokers?
- scrollaway 5y ago
  You can make a tax far more gradual than a ban. Slow boiling frogs and what not. And that is exactly what happened with cigarettes, at least here in Europe.
kennywinker 5y ago
If you’re just basing this on experience / memory idk if this is true. My memory says public opinion was swayed by advertising and health risks not cigarette prices. Without some hard data on this i think either story is just as likely true
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > My memory says public opinion was swayed by advertising and health risks not cigarette prices. I'm confident smokers' opinions didn't reach quitting-stage due to ads.
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775761/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775761/ > Results: On average, smokers were exposed to more than 200 antismoking ads during the 2-year period, as estimated by televised gross ratings points (GRPs). The odds of having quit at follow-up increased by 11% with each 10 additional potential ad exposures (per 1000 points, odds ratio [OR] = 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00, 1.23; P < .05). Greater exposure to ads that contained highly emotional elements or personal stories drove this effect (OR = 1.14; 95% CI 1.02, 1.29; P < .05)
    - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
      Was this study done in regions without cigarette taxes? Asking because about everyone ex-smoker I know (a LOT) quit after struggling to afford the things. Honestly, I can't come up with anyone who could be so powerfully swayed by ads that they could quit an addiction.
      - kennywinker 5y ago
        I don't know, you'd have to read the study. Point was they found a strong correlation between ads and quitting. Obviously the ads were communicating health information, so it's weird to say that the ads were the reason since it was likely the health information in the ads. It's also quite possible your friends feel more comfortable citing the cost over the health impact, since they would have known about the health impact when they started. "It got too expensive" is an easier out than "I used to not care about my health, but I do now"
- bluGill 5y ago
  They both had effects. I personally know people who quit smoking when it got expensive (for different levels of expensive). I also personally know people who quit smoking when they were convinced that it was unhealthy. Though all of the above quit before 1990 (US). Anyone who still smokes today, knows it is bad and costs money: they don't care. Now that I think about it most who quit because it was expensive were probably influenced by the unhealthy part, but it was the cost that finally tipped them over.

CodeBeater 5y ago

I'm a very big fan of the São Paulo approach, just ban indoor smoking everywhere, period. The only places you are allowed to smoke are inside a dwelling or out in the street (with the caveat that there must be a clear view to the sky). Cigarettes are still cheap, but unwanted smog doesn't bother me anymore.

whymauri 5y ago
Isn't this how it already works in the US?
- gambiting 5y ago
  Also exactly how it works in UK - no smoking anywhere indoors.
- dev_tty01 5y ago
  No, many bars still allow smoking.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >No, many bars still allow smoking. Where, exactly, is that the case? I've traveled all over the US and haven't been in a bar that allowed smoking indoors in at least 15 years. And as a smoker, I would definitely notice. Edit: As kube-system pointed out[0], there are a bunch of places that don't have indoor smoking bans. Although the Wikipedia[1] link they provided does say that ~80% of American live in a place with some restriction on smoking indoors. I stand corrected. Thanks kube-system! [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29003693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29003693 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_Un...
    - rileyphone 5y ago
      Specifically I've been to bars in Tennessee and Florida in the last 8 years that allow smoking inside, as well as a diner in Kentucky that still had a smoking section until a few years ago.

mullingitover 5y ago

That's a claim unsupported by research[1]. > Results >From 2001 through 2015, increases in state-level excise taxes were associated with declines in prevalence of cigarette smoking. The effect was strongest in young adults (age 18–24) and weakest in low-income individuals (<$25,000). So yes, taxes actually do at least affect smoking rates in the most vulnerable population. If you don't start smoking in your teens, you're much less likely to become a lifelong smoker. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6147505/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6147505/

Kbelicius 5y ago
Your source has no relation to the claim that you are trying to refute. That claim being: "It wasn’t sin taxes that stopped people smoking on planes, in restaurants, etc. "
- tdeck 5y ago
  It has some relation. If people aren't smoking, then they aren't smoking in planes or restaurants.
  - Kbelicius 5y ago
    No, it has none. They aren't smoking in planes and restaurants because it is illegal to do so.

swarnie 5y ago

Increasing the price definitely prevents new people from picking up the degusting habit. I just checked and a pack of my old smokes are over £12 a pack ($16 in Monopoly money)! The only problem i see if that it hasn't already broke £20 a pack.

Scoundreller 5y ago
A weekend to Spain starts to pay for itself.

hackeraccount 5y ago

There's a graphic floating around that show cigarette consumption in the U.S. It goes up and up until about 1950 or so then it starts to go down and down. I always wonder about that. I mean, I understand that there were laws and taxes and reports about smoking. Looking at that chart though it doesn't look like that. It looks like everyone went - "You know, I don't want to smoke anymore and I don't want to be around smokers" - and then just slowly gave it up over 30 or 40 years. Was it the laws, taxes and reports? Or were all of those things just an expression of desire?

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
Reports on lung cancer became all the rage in the 50's: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22lung+cancer%22&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%22%20lung%20cancer%20%22%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22lung+cancer...