Raising Minimum Smoking Age

[TNF]

it should be noted that over 10% of deaths due to smoking are from secondhand smoke, so the "well i'm just hurting myself, who cares" argument is bullsht.

now, unless you have a different argument than "i have the ｆｒｅｅｄｏｍ to shove tar into my lungs at top speed and ｎｏｂｏｄｙ ｃａｎ ｓｔｏｐ ｍｅ ≧ʍ≦" i'll be leaving this thread

What about the argument that prohibiting drugs doesn't work, which I made on the last page and which you never responded to?

didn't respond because it's apples vs oranges. it's worked pretty well for everything but alcohol and cannabis, and those are objectively an entirely different class of drug than tobacco.

Oh, so its working well in combating the heroin epidemic going on across the country right now? It worked well in addressing methamphetamine in the 2000s? It did a good job stopping crack and cocaine addiction in the 1980s?

A system that literally does nothing to stop the flow of drugs into the country (in which police forces, prison guards, and gangsters are all involved) and does not treat addiction is working 'pretty well'? One that incarcerates millions of non-violent offenders?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I'm fine with making people go outside or to designated smoking areas... but this country is a stressful and often horrible place to live for a vast majority.  Now the owning classes want to take away that one nice little treat that young wage slaves have to relax and chill them out if that's what they choose?  Most employers are even lenient with allowing smoke breaks so people can rest their weary bodies and minds outside of their woefully insufficient "lunch" (typically a pathetic half hour).   

No, I don't support taking cigarettes away from the young working classes while Mr. Boss Man puffs his Cubans in his office without fear of any consequences despite any laws he might be breaking. 

[Thunderbird is the word]

I'm fine with making people go outside or to designated smoking areas... but this country is a stressful and often horrible place to live for a vast majority.  Now the owning classes want to take away that one nice little treat that young wage slaves have to relax and chill them out if that's what they choose?  Most employers are even lenient with allowing smoke breaks so people can rest their weary bodies and minds outside of their woefully insufficient "lunch" (typically a pathetic half hour).   

No, I don't support taking cigarettes away from the young working classes while Mr. Boss Man puffs his Cubans in his office without fear of any consequences despite any laws he might be breaking. 

[tik 🪀✨]

I'm fine with making people go outside or to designated smoking areas... but this country is a stressful and often horrible place to live for a vast majority.  Now the owning classes want to take away that one nice little treat that young wage slaves have to relax and chill them out if that's what they choose?  Most employers are even lenient with allowing smoke breaks so people can rest their weary bodies and minds outside of their woefully insufficient "lunch" (typically a pathetic half hour).  

No, I don't support taking cigarettes away from the young working classes while Mr. Boss Man puffs his Cubans in his office without fear of any consequences despite any laws he might be breaking.  

I don't see the owning class calling for cigarettes to be outlawed anywhere, do you? Typically these proposals are from health groups and just ordinary people who hate smoking. And now, well, what I really want to do is highlight how the "relax and chill" effects of smoking are typically just the cessation of withdrawal symptoms and all the relief you feel is a farce. In addition to being a wage slave, you're also wasting your pitiful penance on something that will, in the long run, have an immensely negative effect on the quality of your life, and that all along you've been under its control, and you cannot stop, making you doubly the deluded slave.

BUT, you know, I've been there, big time. I remember running off when I had a spare five minutes to have that little joy. Now that I don't smoke anymore, I realise I was full of sh**t.. but I still remember what you described. And I so won't mention anything else, as I'm sure you know all of what I've said, and people like me are only an irritation, trying to take away your moment of relief. You stay in control, buddy.

[RINO Tom]

I think a lack of consistency when it comes to nanny-stating everyone (i.e., protecting people from their own stupidity) is in and of itself disturbing.  Either our society is going to infringe upon people's liberty a lot for the common good, or we're not.

[The Dowager Mod]

I always found it hilarious that in Texas it is far easier for a minor to buy a gun than a pack of Newport's.

[© tweed]

I don't think smoking should be banned and that I believe that the government is not in charge of making sure everyone is pressured into being healthy.

But, "let people consume what they want" is, just, sooo naive.

this is the right angle, though I would've gone elsewhere with the rest of the post.

regulation of smoking, soda, etc, etc arises from a fundamental tension.  'society' as a whole faces negative consequences when people make unhealthy decisions.  yet we all recognize that at a certain level, forcing people to make healthy decisions in contrary to liberty at a fundamental level.  nobody wants to see smokers executed or the obese fed steamed broccoli at gunpoint.

so, the question always is, where to draw the line.  the most convenient answer for the politicians is to tax the product at point of sale.  tobacco taxes are extremely regressive.  a sugar tax would be regressive, albeit less so. 

I would argue that tobacco taxes have crossed a line from disincentive to actual punishment in the West.  given how regressive they are, and the inelasticity of product demand, the average pack-a-day smoker in NYC or Providence has gone from spending $2000/yr on cigarettes to $4500 or so.  that's a heavy, heavy burden to bear, for, say, a single mother with a working poor level income.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

I don't think smoking should be banned and that I believe that the government is not in charge of making sure everyone is pressured into being healthy.

But, "let people consume what they want" is, just, sooo naive.

this is the right angle, though I would've gone elsewhere with the rest of the post.

regulation of smoking, soda, etc, etc arises from a fundamental tension.  'society' as a whole faces negative consequences when people make unhealthy decisions.  yet we all recognize that at a certain level, forcing people to make healthy decisions in contrary to liberty at a fundamental level.  nobody wants to see smokers executed or the obese fed steamed broccoli at gunpoint.

so, the question always is, where to draw the line.  the most convenient answer for the politicians is to tax the product at point of sale.  tobacco taxes are extremely regressive.  a sugar tax would be regressive, albeit less so. 

I would argue that tobacco taxes have crossed a line from disincentive to actual punishment in the West.  given how regressive they are, and the inelasticity of product demand, the average pack-a-day smoker in NYC or Providence has gone from spending $2000/yr on cigarettes to $4500 or so.  that's a heavy, heavy burden to bear, for, say, a single mother with a working poor level income.

Smoking cigarettes does impose an "external burden" like you said, coming from secondhand smoke, mooching on health insurance policies, and improper disposal of butts having a negative impact on the environment.

Other people who aren't the smoker will have to bear the costs of the secondhand smoke health effects (which people can moan and groan that you can just walk away, it IS unavoidable), insurance costs that increase with more sick people, and cleanup efforts (40% of coastal trash California cleans up are cigarette butts, and animals, particularly birds, will eat cigarettes because they think it's food, then die from malnutrition).

So I'd say the question is: does the smoker deserve to pay "punishment" level cigarette taxes to make up for the costs imposed elsewhere?

[traininthedistance]

so, the question always is, where to draw the line.  the most convenient answer for the politicians is to tax the product at point of sale.  tobacco taxes are extremely regressive.  a sugar tax would be regressive, albeit less so.  

I'll simply say that "convenience" is far from the only reason that excise taxes are chosen as a solution.  They make solid Pigouvian sense even in the absence of political constraints, and in a very real sense constrain the liberty of the consumer less than other approaches such as outright bans, rationing, the sorts of state monopolies set up for alcohol after Prohibition, etc.

That consumption taxes (certain specific luxury goods excepted) tend to be regressive in practice is an issue, yes. But it's one that needs to be balanced against the severity of the externality problems, and also one that can and should be remedied in other parts of the code instead.  For most things, I'd be willing to entertain arguments that a proper balancing test of the external consequences vs. distributional pain should keep rates low.  Fossil fuels and tobacco are, however, the two shining examples where the harm is so urgent and pervasive that high-to-punitive rates are a moral imperative.  Eh... with tobacco, it might in fact be high enough already.  I'm plenty anti-tobacco, but this is a battle that has been largely won, at least in our neck of the woods.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What the hell is the point of smoking for "pleasure"? Unlike alcohol or marijuana or even hard drugs, it doesn't have cool or fun effects. All it does is smell disgusting and make you cough. It's the worst drug ever and one of the most idiotic things you can do.

[politicus]

What the hell is the point of smoking for "pleasure"? Unlike alcohol or marijuana or even hard drugs, it doesn't have cool or fun effects. All it does is smell disgusting and make you cough. It's the worst drug ever and one of the most idiotic things you can do.

Nicotine obviously has a number of pleasurable effects - otherwise few people would start smoking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Psychoactive_effects

Also, smoke rings are cool:

[RINO Tom]

What the hell is the point of smoking for "pleasure"? Unlike alcohol or marijuana or even hard drugs, it doesn't have cool or fun effects. All it does is smell disgusting and make you cough. It's the worst drug ever and one of the most idiotic things you can do.

So our basis on telling more people they can't do something is 1) if it's bad for you and 1B) if it's not cool.

[© tweed]

What the hell is the point of smoking for "pleasure"? Unlike alcohol or marijuana or even hard drugs, it doesn't have cool or fun effects. All it does is smell disgusting and make you cough. It's the worst drug ever and one of the most idiotic things you can do.

you've said this before and it'd been debunked before.  nicotine can be at once a stimulant and an anxiolytic -- a rare combination.  it would not be so widely used for so many centuries if it had no positive effects.

it is possible that you would not enjoy nicotine, cigarettes, tobacco, whatever; the experience associated with any particular drug will have a strong subjective component.  ie, you mentioned that marijuana has "cool" effects; I long ago stopped using it because it made my anxiety levels go haywire, which was not cool at all.

[© tweed]

so, the question always is, where to draw the line.  the most convenient answer for the politicians is to tax the product at point of sale.  tobacco taxes are extremely regressive.  a sugar tax would be regressive, albeit less so.  

I'll simply say that "convenience" is far from the only reason that excise taxes are chosen as a solution.  They make solid Pigouvian sense even in the absence of political constraints...

That consumption taxes (certain specific luxury goods excepted) tend to be regressive in practice is an issue, yes. But it's one that needs to be balanced against the severity of the externality problems

right.  and the fact that these harmful goods are inelastic in demand.  a 30-year, pack-a-day smoker does not "choose" to smoke his next cigarette in the sense that I'll go choose to eat at x restaurant for dinner.  it's a captive, often poor consumer base, and my personal feeling is that $12 for a pack of cigs, $9 of it taxes, is exploitative and targets the poorest segments of the population.

something similar is true of gas taxes: people can't just up and choose not to commute to work via car anymore.  the society was deliberately designed to be sprawl-y in the early-to-mid 20th Century, for the benefit of the auto, gas and oil companies.  the only silver lining (though it seems weird to call it that) is that this targets the lower-middle through upper-middle classes rather than the underclass.

punitive taxes are not real solutions to problems.  they're a way for politicans to raise taxes in a way that's politically feasible.  the strategy with tobacco has actually been working: demonize it, massive ad campaign, free nicotine replacement starter kits, etc.  the % of the US that smokes has declined propitiously since its peak in the 50s/60s.  (of course the tobacco companies have shifted to targeting Asian markets, so even as they lose the lobbying battle here [except for the tobacco belt states, VA, SC, etc] they'll perfectly profitable).

the way to tackle the fossil fuel problem is much more difficult and complicated.  it's take massive public investment (hundreds of billions, trillions...) in both mass transit and alternative energy sources. it would face mass resistance from some of the most powerful sectors of capital. I'm pessimistic we'll get anywhere with that on any sort of mass scale.

[traininthedistance]

so, the question always is, where to draw the line.  the most convenient answer for the politicians is to tax the product at point of sale.  tobacco taxes are extremely regressive.  a sugar tax would be regressive, albeit less so.  

I'll simply say that "convenience" is far from the only reason that excise taxes are chosen as a solution.  They make solid Pigouvian sense even in the absence of political constraints...

That consumption taxes (certain specific luxury goods excepted) tend to be regressive in practice is an issue, yes. But it's one that needs to be balanced against the severity of the externality problems

right.  and the fact that these harmful goods are inelastic in demand.  a 30-year, pack-a-day smoker does not "choose" to smoke his next cigarette in the sense that I'll go choose to eat at x restaurant for dinner.  it's a captive, often poor consumer base, and my personal feeling is that $12 for a pack of cigs, $9 of it taxes, is exploitative and targets the poorest segments of the population.

something similar is true of gas taxes: people can't just up and choose not to commute to work via car anymore.  the society was deliberately designed to be sprawl-y in the early-to-mid 20th Century, for the benefit of the auto, gas and oil companies.  the only silver lining (though it seems weird to call it that) is that this targets the lower-middle through upper-middle classes rather than the underclass.

punitive taxes are not real solutions to problems.  they're a way for politicans to raise taxes in a way that's politically feasible.  the strategy with tobacco has actually been working: demonize it, massive ad campaign, free nicotine replacement starter kits, etc.  the % of the US that smokes has declined propitiously since its peak in the 50s/60s.  (of course the tobacco companies have shifted to targeting Asian markets, so even as they lose the lobbying battle here [except for the tobacco belt states, VA, SC, etc] they'll perfectly profitable).

the way to tackle the fossil fuel problem is much more difficult and complicated.  it's take massive public investment (hundreds of billions, trillions...) in both mass transit and alternative energy sources. it would face mass resistance from some of the most powerful sectors of capital. I'm pessimistic we'll get anywhere with that on any sort of mass scale.

Well... you do realize that a lot of the proposals to institute carbon pricing have a "feebate" component, where a portion of the revenues just get turned right back around as a citizen's dividend, or somesuch?  That ought to by itself allay most distributional concerns.

Second, relatively inelastic is not the same thing as perfectly inelastic.  There are changes and choices that people can make, even in our current environment.  Not everyone can move to Manhattan... but everyone can shop online or get a smaller car (and most people can choose where to live in such a way as to lessen their commute). And, well, the current sprawl paradigm wasn't around forever, it would be irresponsible to assume that it'll be around forever (and, thus, passively let it stick around until a shock renders it completely untenable, rather than work to repair its scars).

Finally, pessimism simply isn't an option here. Throw up your hands and say, "oh well, it's too big, no way to fix it", and well, that's gonna cost us way more in the end.  It's not gonna get fixed immediately, but you know what they say about those thousand-mile journeys...

[traininthedistance]

Well... you do realize that a lot of the proposals to institute carbon pricing have a "feebate" component, where a portion of the revenues just get turned right back around as a citizen's dividend, or somesuch?  That ought to by itself allay most distributional concerns.

The relevant concern here is that carbon pricing is likely to be harmful for some low-income groups, not that it can't be otherwise. Consider, for instance, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. In New York State, money from these carbon permit auctions is supposed to fund renewable energy and energy efficiency programs.¹ In practice, it's a massive pot of money that sufficiently powerful political actors can raid for other purposes. Some RGGI funds may even go toward constructing the new Tappan Zee Bridge.

I agree with the rest of your post, by the way. But, as a supporter of carbon pricing, I prefer admitting to weakness on this front. It's the only honest answer in the face of a political process that gives very little standing to the people whom Tweed is concerned about in this instance.

¹Which, of course, disproportionately benefit commuting, landowning upper-middle class suburbanites, but we can leave that aside for now...

The difficulty with that is there are so many people who are eager to selectively say "oh no this hurts poor people!" when it comes to gas/carbon taxes (even and especially when they are far from poor themselves), but are oh-so-silent when it comes to the myriad other ways that low-income people have it rough in our society.  While I don't doubt that tweed's concern is genuine, I also don't doubt that a large percentage of the concern here is little more than concern trolling, meant to preserve privileges and sub rosa subsidies that should never have existed in the first place.

So I kinda have to fight that tooth and nail.  I mean, if folks want to raise that issue as a way to make sure that any future carbon tax has a feebate component, fine, all power to them.  I am happy to go along.  If they want to bring it up as nothing more than a roadblock/conversation-ender, and especially if they are doing so while not being at least as loud in decrying other parts of our tax/zoning codes, then f**k that noise.

And, anyway, this line even gets used on the milquetoast suggestion that fuel taxes merely be indexed to inflation.  That's nuts– indexing it wouldn't actually make the pain worse, it merely ensures that the externality-correcting effects don't get ever more inadequate over time.

There's a fine line between intellectual honesty and unilateral disarmament.  There's little that I value more than intellectual honesty– but ceding this point, I think, crosses that line, and by a pretty wide margin at that.

[© tweed]

Finally, pessimism simply isn't an option here. Throw up your hands and say, "oh well, it's too big, no way to fix it", and well, that's gonna cost us way more in the end.  It's not gonna get fixed immediately, but you know what they say about those thousand-mile journeys...

the pessimism is my way of saying "I don't think getting off of fosssil fuels [quickly enough] can happen within the contours of the current system".  there are things that people can do that are facially apolitical but can be a part of movement-building: buy food locally, etc.

there's also the issue of whether we're past the tipping point to begin with.  I'm not a climate scientist and never will be, but plenty of reputable climate scientists expect catastrophe by the end of the Century even if we act now, decisively, to reduce emissions.

I mean, one of the two major parties in the largest country by GDP in the World denies that there even is a problem and will promote policies to make the problem even worse.  the other one admits there is a problem but does between little and nothing about it.  it's just about time for our tears -- hopefully we'll be dead by the time it gets really bad, but may God damn you if you have children.