Badmovies.org Forum

Recent news article about how people continue to start smoking in large numbers despite everything that is in place to discourage smoking, including scary ads, taxes, and prices of $6 a pack.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/14/greene.smoking.labels/index.html?iref=allsearch (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/14/greene.smoking.labels/index.html?iref=allsearch)

It never ceases to amaze me how much people just don't understand that the more difficult you make something to obtain, the more valuable it becomes, and the more people will seek it. It's one of the most basic economic concepts around, yet it's sad how few people get it. It's the same reason why the war on drugs is unwinnable.

Sorry, I'm feeling frisky today. Let the political rants begin.

$6 a pack is obscene. I can get an 8 pack of Budweiser for the same price.

I don't smoke. Never got into it.

Too many other vices.

Our dollar is better than the US at the moment, but our packs are about $15-$20 a pop, and it doesn't stop people from smoking [or at least, most of the people who smoke don't care]

That being said, recent research released here said the smoking rate is slowly declining.

I smoke.  :bluesad:
I drink.  :bluesad:
I usta do lotsa drugs. :bluesad:
I don't have unprotected sex!  :thumbup:

Oh yeh....I don't have sex.  :bluesad:

Dunno man, I think obesity will kill us as a race before smoking does.

The anti-smoking people are such a bunch of angry fanatics that they just come off as a bunch of self-righteous a-holes.  When people like that try to vilify something, it just makes it all the more attractive.  If they were to make a calm, reasonable argument and be sensitive to the people they're talking to, well, you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

I get what you're saying, Flick, but I don't think cigarettes are the right example to use.

(http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/files/2009/04/cigarette-tax-0306x.gif)

Common sense says that if you raise the price of cigarettes some people will decide they've had enough and quit.  Studies back that up.

You say that people are continuing to smoke in large numbers, but we're all aware that in the 1960s, about half of all Americans smoked, and now, only 20% do. 

It's true you won't be able to totally wipe out smoking with tax increases and other policies like warning labels, education, advertising bans, but you certainly can decrease it.  Nearly everyone (except addicted smokers and ideological libertarians) thinks that's a good thing.

By the way, look at the proposed new warning labels for cigarettes:

(http://img.medscape.com/news/tho_news/fda_anti_smoking_350x355.png)

Of course, none of this really effects me because I'm on the e-cigarrettes.  :wink:

Love to rant but I dont feel frisky today.

Speaking of scare adds, Sunday night I was watching The Unholy Three (1930) and there was a part in the beginning of the movie showing a strongman lifting weights, then the mother said to her child "You could be strong as that man if you dont start smoking" that was 1930's!

the most expensive baseball card is Honus Wagner... Why? In 1909, Wagner prevented his image from being used on tobacco cards produced in later years, hoping not to encourage kids to smoke. But a few were printed.

Smoking is not good... Thats old news... :)

I always respect your posts, Rev., and I understand what you're saying. Despite the overzealousness of my intial post, I don't doubt there are fewer smokers than in the 50's. My primary point, and as the article points out, is that despite the best efforts of government to curtail smoking by forcing scary warnings and applying steep excise taxes, there are still plenty of people who have no problem paying what's required to smoke. Besides, I don't believe for a moment that the goverment ever expects to curtail smoking to very low numbers. It's an addictive substance, and any addictive substance is a great revenue generator.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that they charge heavy excise taxes on cigarettes. It's better than making them illegal and forcing the money out of non-smokers' taxes to enforce it. I think they should also decriminalize all drugs, tax the s**t out of the users, and leave the non-users out of it. Just like in Portugal where they decriminalized drugs and almost immediately saw a drop in use. So, your point there is well taken. But I also know that there will continue to be plenty of smokers who will pony up the cash for a substance as addictive as tobacco.

I'm not a smoker, but I guess if people enjoy it $6.00 a pack may be a reasonable price to pay for relaxation.  Sort of like when I go to a casino to gamble.  I consider any losses to be the cost of entertainment.  It's up to me to determine whether the amount of fun I had is equal to or greater than the amount of money I paid.  Same goes for drinking, buying tickets to sporting events, taking vacations, or whatever.  My idea of a "good value" may not be the same as someone else's.  If I pay $10.00 to go to the theater and see a movie, someone who isn't a big movie fan might say it's a better value to spend only $6.00 on a pack of cigarettes.

Hmmm. People using their own judgement to determine what constitutes value. What a novel concept.

Please take that as my sarcastic way of agreeing with you entirely.

You truly are "the most interesting man in the world."

Peer pressure is a hell of a thing. That's why I did it in high school.

All I know is, I hate cigarettes with a passion!  We live with my 83 year old Mother in law, and she smokes a pack a day.  The stench is all through our house. DESTROY THEM ALL!!!!!!!!!!!! :hatred:

I detest a lot about the anti-smoking movement. I hate things like The Truth (http://www.thetruth.com/) for its faux political activism. I think laws banning smoking in bars are needlessly restrictive, and that decision should be left up to the owners rather than the government.

However, I also think that public education about smoking is better than ever. Smoking is a really stupid thing to do. It will shorten your life and it is almost guaranteed to kill you. It surprises me these days when I see kids smoking. Didn't you see all those warnings not to start? Have you talked to a single adult who is happy about smoking?

But I also think those who choose to smoke don't need the castigation. Sure it's bad for you, so is eating bacon. Quality of life over quantity.

For the record, I smoke. But only when I drink. In my sober day I have absolutely no desire to smoke a cigarette. Look at it this way, tax it all you want, but is it the role of government to keep me from making a bad decision?

$6 a pack?  You guys get off lightly.  Here the suckers pay anything between $15 and $25 a pack  :bouncegiggle:

Thank you. And people pay it.

My master's economics teacher said to me once that the best thing you can do for a drug dealer is make what he/she is selling harder to obtain. That's a drug dealer's dream. The demand doesn't change, but the equilibrium price skyrockets. They can charge twice as much and do half the work. It ain't rocket science. Tobacco is highly addictive substance, so it carries with it as least some of that same phenomenon.

The way I see it is why do people pay ungodly amounts of money for a fart can, they just do.

Yah, I'm joining in.

If "your" healthcare costs being high drives up what I have to pay, too (since I have to share some of your risk), there are some risk taking behaviors that I do not do, that I will not agree that you should do.  Not if we're going to share the cost of your treatment.

The line can be clearly drawn for me in a few places.  Smoking is clearly one of them.  If you smoke, well, you should have to pay for your CABG, your abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, your iliac artery bypasses, your carotid endarterectomy, your vascular complications in general.  Or a large amount of it, at least, so that I don't have to shoulder that cost.  Because it was preventable in a very clear way.

Arguing that non-helmet wearing motorcyclists should have to pay all the ICU bill, or that type 2 diabetics with a BMI of 40 or higher should have a different insurance tier, or other hairsplitting like that... I'm not prepared to argue that.  But smoking is crystal clear, as examples go.   Your morbidity and mortality are MULTIPLIED if you smoke regularly.  If you do that, why should I have to share the cost?

Indiana, who buys your mother in law's cigarettes?  Does she go to the store to buy them herself?

I agree with you in principle, Zap.  

Actually, in a perfect system, I think we wouldn't be sharing risk: everyone should pay their own costs.  But I understand why that is unrealistic.

I think cigarette smokers, and people who drink alcohol or indulge in other risky behaviors, should pay higher taxes to offset the third-party harms they cause.  It strikes me as a better approach than either banning risky behavior, or allowing it with no consequences.  Of course, fixing the appropriate level of tax is a very tricky issue...

On the other hand, the really cynical, almost sick, approach to cost/benefit analysis of smoking is this: smokers may actually save the health care system money by dying early. "Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents." http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-tobacco-costs_N.htm

Years back there were studies showing that smokers cost the tax payers less in the long ring because they didn't live as long. Yes, they had high medical bills, but they weren't very high compared to simply the cost of getting very old. Once the anti-smoking movement started gathering steam, people started getting ostracized for saying anything other than that smoking is the root and cause of every evil.

And why should you share the cost? Because the rest of us share the cost of YOUR less-than-healthy habits. It's really no more complicated than that.

I happen to believe that it really doesn't make sense to share the cost of the effects of smoking on public health. Seems fairly fundamental reasoning to me. However, I'm not terribly interested in the argument.

My main point is that smoking is highly addictive, and as such, making them very expensive is never going to be an effective way of curtailing the number of smokers. It never has with any addictive substance that people crave, drugs, alcohol, etc. If anything is going to make a difference, it's simple education, and, in my own opinion, that has been the main reason why people smoke less now than then did in the 1950's. Knowledge of the health effects made it pretty irresponsible for the celebrities to be constantly portraying it, so little by little they stopped. But it all started with simple education. Aside from that, people have demonstrated that there will still be plenty of people who will pay over $6 a pack to smoke. So be it.

So, just smoking, none of the billion other unhealthy things people do?

I'm a former smoker who really wish the anti-smoking crown could or would realize what they sound like. They seem largely opportunistic, bandwagon-jumpers, just dying to join in on the complaining the 'in crowd' is doing. I've never heard the anti-smoking crown complain about the SAVINGS they realize due to smokers dying earlier and not being as much of a burden on the social security system, but they do complain about the money SPENT. I have news for you: More of your money is spent on people getting old than is spent on smokers dying. Shall blame THOSE people and stop paying for their care because they lived too long?

I wish non-smokers could realize how many of you had your lives saved by cigarettes because someone who was about to strangle you lit up a cigarette instead. . .

I'll disagree in this sense.  Every addictive drug has a unique profile.  The thing about cigarettes is, they are highly addictive once you've started, but they don't provide a euphoric sensation like alcohol, marijuana, heroin, etc.  So people don't seek cigarettes out for a thrill.  People try them for the first time because they're cheap and easy to get.  Although already addicted smokers will continue to buy as prices rise, you can discourage new users from picking up the habit out of curiosity.  If the price rose to $10 a pack, fewer people would try them for the first time.

It stands to reason, I'll agree 100%. Maybe 50 years from now when we're both dead from either smoking or non-smoking reasons, they'll know for sure. I still say education is the only real remedy, but even that only goes so far. I smoked for 19 years and quit cold turkey almost 5 years ago. Good for me, I guess. In any event, I think the jury is far from in.