Banning it.

I'm not even joking. If your only goal is to lower consumption rates, prohibition works. If you use cirrhosis deaths as a proxy, then alcohol consumption declined during the Prohibition era. [1]

The problem, of course, is everything else that happens in the wake of enforcing it.

An alternative option is to do nothing, because it's kind of a bikeshed issue, anyway.

[1] http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-3/209-219.htm

You have to show ID to purchase tobacco products. They even have signs at some convenience stores which say the year you must be born to purchase tobacco products, which the year is the current year minus 18.

Stop changing the cutoff year. This will allow the current generation of tobacco users to continue, but ban future generations from it.

I'm suspicious, mostly because it goes against the conventional wisdom that alcohol consumption increased during prohibition.

Hardly unbiased sources, but....

http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/e1920/chicagodea...

Be careful with this... It is the vapor salesman's false pitch. Nicotine is a known neurotoxin, it increases inflammation, lowers your hdl, raises your ldl, and stresses your endocrine system (adrenal et al.). While ecigs may deliver fewer toxins than analogs, that doesn't erase the fact that you are much better off without nicotine.

Unless there's a demonstrable, important (life affecting) effect, I wouldn't care too much about nicotine. Maybe some people are even naturally balancing some of their brain chemistry with it.

I wouldn't surprised if in 30 years we 'discover' that nicotine was okay all along, just like eating fat.

By the way, what is your opinion on caffeine?

I miss the neurostimulant effect badly... if you are right about nicotine being exonerated, I'll jump for joy and pick some up that day.

(And hey, I never said I supported it. tmvphil asked for less regressive alternatives to a straight Pigovian tax.)

If you are unsuccessful at discouraging people from smoking, people are going to pay more through health outcomes later on.

Health problems will be particularly difficult for poor people to overcome, even if they have help from the state (which may be increasingly over-burdened).

* the rich pay the tax too

* it has a cost and is a nuisance to others

* some countries fund the health programs caused by smoking thanks to those taxes

* you got to stop finding excuses about smoking, smokers are addicts, society must be intolerant towards regular smokers. I went through passive smoking as a kid, believe me, its awful.

And I'm just not sure I can get down with your intolerance. Smokers are people too. I know a tremendous number of them having made friends with my working class neighborhood in Brooklyn as well as my father. Passive smoking sucks but shaming people who smoke isn't really the answer just like shaming people who are overweight is also a tremendously shitty thing to do.

If both the supply and demand are high, but the health effect are bad, it's fair to introduce a tax.

It doesn't have a lot to do with regressive tax policies, which are based either on income or wealth, you can't apply that to tobacco products.

Next time are we going to argue about the tax on heroin once it's legal ? Public health policies are tricky because markets force are involved with addiction forces.

What happens to heroin addicts when the regular dealer go to prison ? They stop using.

It's a shitty situation in every way. There is just no way you can defend a lower tax on cigaret, except maybe if you're anti government. People will choose to buy food and rent before buying cigarets. At least it will reduce their smoking habits.

It's not just about funding government, it's also about discouraging people from buying cigarets. I honestly don't see any other way. Prohibiting would not work, it's a matter of game theory and a fine balance between smuggling cigarets and people buying them.

And honestly the cigaret tax paid is nothing compared to other taxes.

The rich don't pay the tax in proportion to their wealth, so it is by definition regressive. The rich will have a minuscule incentive to quit, while the poor will have a huge incentive to quit.

>some countries fund the health programs caused by smoking thanks to those taxes

The poor shouldn't pay a higher rate to fund health programs than the wealthy.

So are coffee drinkers. Do you give them a hard time?

High taxation hasn't help him. I'm not sure anything would?

*Now I understand, what I mean by a 'life for themselves' is be a functioning member of society who pays his debts.

I agree with the point about using the tax to recoup some of the inevitable costs to society as a whole. But, on the issue of using taxation to modify people's behaviour, it doesn't always work as intended.

I'm one of these people. I enjoy smoking cigars every once and awhile, and will enjoy a cigarette or two with no danger of addiction if I happen to be drunk and at a party with smokers. With that being said, I could easily see how an occasional smoker could turn into a regular smoker over time if tobacco was readily available and they were hanging around with other smokers regularly.

You can call this lying. However, it is what advertisers have been doing for ages.