the FDA is considering a ban on menthol cigarette sales
the FDA is considering a ban on menthol cigarette sales
You're viewing a single thread.
158 comments
-
They've already banned menthol in California and it did nothing. Alternatives are already being marketed and sold and some of the better ones recreate the exact same effect but cost $1.20 more per pack at the low end. To put it simply, this is dumb as fuck.
-
The point is to make cigarettes as expensive and unappealing as possible.
-
That's not in anyone's own interests. Smokers have to pay more, tobacco industry gets more money. Literally a lose-lose. Dumb. As. Fuck.
-
That's not how capitalism works. If the tobacco industry could raise prices and get more money today, they would. Since they haven't, you have to assume that any increased taxes or burden on them will reduce their profits.
Yes, it might increase prices to the end consumer, because the demand curve will change when the costs change. But that doesn't mean the tobacco industry is making any more money. If it did, they would already charge more.
-
Wrong. Prohibition increases demand.
Edit: Based off some replies, I think a lot of people are forgetting some rudimentary aspects of the concept of "demand", so allow me to help:
Demand is an economic concept that relates to a consumer's desire to purchase goods and services and willingness to pay a specific price for them.
When supply decreases, the price of the good increases. Inversely, when the supply of the good increases, the price falls
-
putting a tax on something is not the same as prohibiting it.
-
Go ahead and look at the post title
-
go ahead and look at the comment you were replying to
-
"That guy happened to tangentially mention tax so you must've been talking about tax, herp derp"
Edit: Is it really that hard to figure out that I started this whole thread in reference to the topic of prohibition as the title suggests? I'm not talking about taxes. I never mentioned taxes. I don't care that anyone else is talking about taxes.
-
-
-
-
Prohibition has no net effect on demand, it simply enables black markets. Alcohol use after Prohibition was not higher than pre-prohibition, but did rise to the same levels fairly quickly.
-
Incorrect. Prohibition decreases supply. Supply and demand have an inverse relationship. This is economics 101.
There exists no accurate data of consumption during prohibition because it was a black market.
-
Supply and demand do not have an inverse relationship. Demand exists, and when supply exceeds demand, prices fall. When supply does not meet demand, prices rise. You understand they are related but forgot the actual curve on the graph. Supply and demand can both be low, for instance, as is the case with mega yachts. Supply and demand have no direct effect on one another, though low supply does tend to encourage firms to increase supply to try to compete and meet the demand.
Data during prohibition is irrelevant to this specific discussion, because your claim is that demand goes up when goods are prohibited, which is false, as I showed with my link
I don't believe you have actually taken Econ 101, given the things Ive seen you say here.
-
When supply does not meet demand, prices rise.
Thanks for proving my point for me. I appreciate it.
Your link shows an estimate of alcohol consumption during prohibition based on mortality, but there is. Zero. Accurate. Data. of alcohol consumption during the prohibition.
-
The important part of that link was not during prohibition, which is irrelevant, because regardless of demand the number of people with access to alcohol was lower, but rather that after prohibition, usage rates did not surpass pre-prohibition levels.
When supply does not meet demand, prices rise
This is not an inverse relationship between supply and demand. The supply is not affecting the demand, which is what "inverse relationship" requires.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Don't ban them, tax them.
This way smokers have to pay more so the demand will decrease, tobacco industry gets less money, and the economic burden on public health and environment can be financed with the additional tax income.
-
Addicts will always find a way to justify their addiction. Price of smokes goes up? Welp, looks like Ol Johnny Blacklungs is going to buy less food this month.
-
So we shouldn't tax cigarettes then? It sounds like you've identified that addiction can quickly become a public health crisis if wealth inequality could cause addicts to choose their vice over food. We could fund programs to help addicts get help, but we would need to raise tax revenue.
-
If the government insists on high rates of taxation for the reason that the product has a high potential for harm, then shouldn't the use of that tax revenue be mostly, if not entirely, re-directed towards harm reduction programs around that substance or product? How can anyone possibly argue any other use for that revenue? When the revenue generated by 'sin taxes' is used for other unrelated purposes, they are effectively exploiting the users by recognizing that they will continue to be a source of revenue because the product is habit forming or addictive. The last time I checked on the revenue generated by tobacco taxes, only ~11% was spent on harm-reduction programs related to tobacco use and the remaining 89% was just paying for other government projects totally unrelated to tobacco.
To suggest that the solution is to further raise the taxation rates rather than properly allocating the current revenue is immoral and illogical IMHO.
-
-
-
-
Okay so here we are speculating about this, but there's data on this isn't there? Is it not the case that countries who tax tobacco more have all but eliminated it? I'm not well versed on the subject, but I think it's a bit silly to just pull this out of your ass as if it were fact. Here's a link to an ncbi article that talks about it. I'm sure there's plenty more out there to show one way or the other, so I'm interested to know whether you have anything to back up your stance.
-
Sure, and I agree that this should be approached with scepticism and not blind bias.
I'm basing this off tobacco being the third most addictive substance on the planet.
Being that dependent on a substance suggests that practical decision-making and rational thinking, such as adding motivation to quit through price, is certainly not going to be the most effective way to reduce dependency while also further harming those that fail to break their dependency.
Edit: Also I just want to point out, again, that I was never referring to tax. From what I saw there's not enough conclusive data for me to form an opinion one way or the other on the effectiveness of increasing tobacco tax . All of my comments are about this ridiculously assanine ban, or the increased prices that come as a result of this ban.
-
-
This is effectively a Pigouvian tax, and will absolutely keep some people from smoking.
Also higher prices do not necessarily mean the industry is making more money. Far more likely, given the saturation of competition, that they simply cost more to make.
-
Don't forget a lot of the cost of a pack of smokes is often more due to taxation than the cost of the product, even if you include things likes all the overhead for marketing and legal and shit.
-
Yeah that's because of aforementioned Pigouvian taxes. The entire point is pricing some people out of purchasing them.
-
AKA bankrupting the disadvantaged that have developed a drug dependence like a complete tyrant.
Did you know that tobacco is the third most addictive substance on the planet?
-
-
-
Thanks for your opinion.
-
This is not an expression of an opinion. These are statements of fact. As in our other discussion, I am simply explaining things to you.
You not liking these facts does not make them less true.
-
Then where's your data?
-
Would you like a citation on what Pigouvian taxes are, how the cigarette industry is flooded with competition, or that putting further regulations on products makes them more expensive to produce?
I assumed you could Google any of these but I can do it for you. Fair warning, you'll be getting a "let me Google that for you" link.
Not one of these facts is even remotely controversial so my mind is a bit boggled that you'd even try to contest any of them
-
So you have nothing to support your claims. Got it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
My dad quit when his cigarette of choice became $80/carton.
It's not lose lose if it's causing people to quit.
-
Hooray for your dad, but one anecdotal claim is hardly a proven method.
-
-
What do you mean? The more people have to pay in order to smoke the less people will smoke.
-
There's a reason why people tend to hit rock bottom before they finally kick their drug addiction. If they don't have the means, they will attempt to find it. Your logic is flawed, and only serves to disproportionately impair the poor while bolstering the very industry you fight.
-
I don't fight, and I am pretty sure the focus is too reduce new users. How the fuck do you hit rock bottom solely on nicotine?
-
Youve never been poor
-
How the fuck do you hit rock bottom solely on nicotine?
Tobacco, the main ingredient in cigarettes, is more addictive than meth. If you can imagine somebody hitting rock bottom on meth then it should be easy enough to wrap your head around it. Especially when cigarettes contain added chemicals to make it more addictive than tobacco alone.
Also, I would be inclined towards believing that the habit is mostly spread through peers. Price as a barrier to entry wouldn't be effective at preventing peer pressure if they're your first supplier.
-
To clarify, the addictiveness of nicotine ≠ the addictiveness of tobacco. Even aside from the additives used by the tobacco industry, tobacco naturally contains an array of MAO inhibitors and other compounds that work in harmony with nicotine causing it to be far more addictive than nicotine itself. Pure nicotine is much farther down the scale of addictiveness, classed as a "weak reinforcer" in studies.
If you are interested in the subject, I highly recommend reading the studies and posts by Maryka Quik, director of the Neurodegenerative Diseases Program at SRI International. I first found out about her in an interesting article published in Scientific American — LINK.
-
Okay thanks, but we are talking about tobacco. I understand that I messed up the terminology, but why are you replying this to me and not the one that is denying it?
Edit: Wait...you do know that cigarettes contain tobacco right?
-
…why are you replying this to me and not the one that is denying it?
I repied to you because of your reply to Jake_Farm. Jake_Farm stated:
How the fuck do you hit rock bottom solely on nicotine?
To which you responded:
It's more addictive than meth. If you can imagine somebody hitting rock bottom on meth then it should be easy enough to wrap your head around it. Especially when cigarettes contain added chemicals to make it more addictive than nicotine alone.
By inference you are claiming that nicotine is more addictive than meth and I'm just pointing out that isn't correct — you can't use tobacco and nicotine interchangeably in discussions, whether talking about addictiveness, harm, or just about any aspect of their short and long terms effects. The addictiveness is drastically different, the cardiovascular effects are vastly different, the effects on lung function are vastly different.
To your credit, the overall conversation is about tobacco and I should have clarified that my point applies to everyone in this conversation who is talking about nicotine and tobacco in the same breath.
-
-
-
I call bullshit on that. Not to meantion the danger of meth is the physically damage it causes starting from the very first dose.
-
One of the most well-known studies, by Nutt et al. [12] in the UK, ranked tobacco third in dependence, following heroin and cocaine.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5797716/
You call bullshit on scientific study?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
158 comments