This research has important public policy implications. As Stellman and Garfinkel (1989) documented, one's risk of lung cancer increases with cumulative tar intake. Given the results of this survey, it appears the current policy of increasing the cost of cigarettes will have a much smaller impact on reducing lung cancer incidence than politicians expected. This is not to say the policy has been a complete failure, the increased cost of smoking has motivated some smokers to quit the habit. However, there appears to be little benefit for those who continue to smoke since they tend to increase their tar and nicotine consumption.
Farrelly et al (2004) used their findings to support Harris's (1980) proposal. Over a score of years ago, JE Harris recommended taxing cigarettes based upon their tar content. The higher the tar, the higher the tax. If the purpose of a cigarette tax is to increase the health of the nation, this approach should be much more effective than the current system of taxing all cigarettes equally.
Definitions: Heavy smokers were defined as those who consumed 25 or more cigarettes per day. Current smokers were defined as those who answered yes to the question "Do you smoke cigarettes now?" and who had consumed over 100 cigarettes in their lifetime. Successful quitters were defined as those who were once current smokers (e.g., had consumed over 100 cigarettes in their lifetime) and had not smoked a single cigarette in at least six months.
Some specific findings: Men consumed more tar and nicotine than women, blacks consumed more than whites, and the less educated consumed more than the better educated. Those who lived in communities with high clean air laws consumed less tar and nicotine than those who did not, but this was only true of the youngest age group (ages 25-34).
While reasonable people may disagree if it is the role of government to intervene in health decisions, I think most would agree that if the government is going to do so, it should do so in an informed manner. For a social decision, the evidence is unusually and remarkable clear. If the government is going to have a special tax for cigarettes, I agree with those who would link the amount of the tax with the amount of tar.
Category: Domestic Politics , Category: Economics , Category: Science and Technology
If the point of the tax is to both raise money and to dissuade smokers, I agree with you. The two goals conflict.
In fact, I fear politicians will just look at this as free money and express concern if the anti-smoking efforts ever became too successful.
Actually, I did a little paper on this a while back, arguing against using cigarette tax revenues and money from state anti-tobacco lawsuits to fund anti-smoking campaigns.
I argued that it was self-defeating to do such, because it meant that the funding of the anti-smoking campaign is directly proportional to the financial success of the tobacco companies (assuming a US customer base only, which is of course incorrect). In other words, the more successful the campaign was, the less money they would get. One could get a nice little sine curve-- revenue is up for tobacco, funding goes up for anti-smoking. Anti-smoking begins to take effect, and tobacco revenues go down. Suddenly, anti-smoking doesn't have as much funding and their ads sort of drop off the face of the earth. Smoking goes up again... Ad infinitum.
Well, in any event, this is what happens when you try to overtax something people want. On the bright side, smokers haven't pushed bales of tobacco into Boston harbor yet, heh.