Reply #100: Price might have stopped them,

[wickerwoman]

who knows? That's the point.

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/11/suppl_1/i62

A study of tobacco companies findings on price elasticity and the relationship between cigarette price and smoking prevalence:

"Related to this are many documents that describe the impact of state tax increases on cigarette smoking within a given state. For example, two documents from Philip Morris described the impact of the 1989 increase in the California cigarette excise tax from 10 cents to 35 cents per pack; one of these also includes a discussion of the impact of the New York tax increase of May 1989 which raised the state tax by 12 cents... Significant declines were observed in response to both state tax increases. Based on data from a Nielsen panel, total industry cigarette sales in California declined by 7.6% for the period from January through August 1989, compared to the prior year. Similarly, New York sales declined 6.2% from May 1989 through August 1989...

Similarly, a 1994 report prepared by SE Surveys, Inc for Lorillard described the findings from a study of three tracking surveys of Michigan smokers (from a statewide sample, a sample from the Grand Rapids marketing area, and a sample of black smokers) that looked at the impact of the 50 cent increase in the Michigan cigarette excise tax on 1 May 1994. The study reported that two months after the tax increase, there was a significant reduction in the number of smokers in all three samples, with the number of smokers in the statewide sample falling by 7%, in the Grand Rapids marketing area falling by 10%, and among blacks falling by 4%.

These experiences in California, New York, and Michigan, where higher prices resulting from increased cigarette taxes led to significant reductions in the number of smokers, confirmed the findings of a national survey done by The Roper Organization Inc, on behalf of the Tobacco Institute in 1978. Among the many questions asked in the survey was a series of questions asking smokers whether or not they would continue to smoke after tax increases of 5 cents, 50 cents, and $1. In response, 93% of all smokers indicated that they would continue smoking after a 5 cent per pack tax increase, while 62% and 41% said the same after tax increases of 50 cents and $1, respectively.

These documents clearly support the findings from academic and other research that demonstrate that price is a key determinant of overall cigarette smoking, ***that price increases lead to significant reductions in overall smoking, increases in smoking cessation, and reductions in smoking prevalence, with relatively large effects on young people***...The tobacco industry's own internal documents confirm the effectiveness of large cigarette excise tax increases as a potent policy for governments in their efforts to reduce tobacco use, particularly among the young."

Families who can't feed or clothe their children can take advantage of government safety net programs like food stamps and WIC. There's no reason we should hold off on increasing cigarette prices because some parents choose to smoke instead of take care of their families despite the very obvious health and economic disadvantages of doing so. Again, smoking is a luxury, not a necessity. It is not a regressive tax policy to tax luxury items. Is it regressive to tax SUVs because some people would rather go into massive debt to buy a gratuitous status symbol than feed and clothe their children on the salary that they actually earn? Is it regressive to tax gold and diamonds because gangsta baby daddy would rather buy bling than diapers?