TheAgitator.com
Save Carthage!
Wednesday, August 13th, 2008There’s not much I like about this post written by Ezra Klein’s guest blogger Harold Pollack about tobacco control, but I do admire his forthrightness:
Cato the elder ended every speech with the admonition: “And Carthage must be destroyed!” Nothing against Carthage, but Cato was right never to let anyone to forget his simple message. Anyone blogging about public health must do the same….
More than 400,000 Americans die every year, completely needlessly, from emphysema, cardiovascular diseases, lung cancer, and the rest. Obesity is trying to catch up, but tobacco remains the number one cause of avoidable death and illness in America. The carnage is equivalent to three fully-loaded jetliners crashing every day of the year.
Except for the unspoken difference that smoking is enjoyable. Millions of Americans take pleasure in it. Though I was once as reflexively anti-tobacco as anyone, I’ve since joined their number. My road to the devil weed came not through peer pressure or manipulative Joe Camel ads, but through coffee. I saw that the language my cigar smoking friends used to describe their sticks was equivalent to that my barista friends used to descibe our coffees. Origin to origin, seedstock to seedstock, darkness of wrapper to darkness of roast. Once I got over my prejudice it became obvious that many smokers weren’t just in thrall to an addictive drug, that they had discovered something worthy of attention.
Tobacco is a wondrous plant, capable of relaxing us, stimulating us, and offering a fantastic range of flavors. The times I’ve spent smoking an occasional pipe or cigar are among my favorite memories of the past few years, times of reflection, celebration, and deepening friendship. I wouldn’t give them up for anything. And while I can count on two hands the number of cigarettes I’ve had in my life, I know that cigarette smokers on their furtive breaks outside get their own unique pleasures from the ritual.
Of course, the downside of tobacco is that it’s carcinogenic, and any balanced appraisal will consider this along with the benefits that advocates of tobacco control rarely acknowledge. Some restrictions are reasonable, such as forbidding sales to minors, taxes to cover external costs, and assertive informational campaigns about the dangers of smoking. Yet all of these measure are already in place. As even Pollack acknowledges, smokers pay their own way. Education, advertising, and warnings have succeeded to the point where smokers and non-smokers alike tend to overestimate the actual dangers of smoking. And while there’s no way to completely eliminate youth smoking, it’s always possible to more strictly enforce existing laws. Any expansion of existing regulations is almost certainly going to cross the line into blatant paternalism.
Yet Pollack continues his post to lament the failure of last year’s bill to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) funded by a 61 cent increase in the federal tobacco tax. While this attempt to foist the costs of the program onto the unpopular smoking minority was rightly scorned in many quarters, another part of the bill received much less notice from the mainstream press: it would have raised excise taxes on cigars from their current 5 cents a piece to a maximum $3. This was down from a proposed $10 cap, which was successfully negotiated down by panicked tobacconists. It’s difficult to predict what the effect of this tax will be if its revived under the next administration, but coupled with the increasingly few places one can legally smoke it’s safe to say that it would be a significant burden on tobacco shops. It would certainly threaten these small businesses and the communities that develop inside them, decreasing access to one of the safer forms of smoking. (Because pipes and cigars are smoked less frequently than cigarettes and are not inhaled, the associated dangers are lower.)
The tax hike failed this time around, but it could rise again. Along with increasing local and state taxes, ever more restrictive smoking bans, and a bill to give the FDA control over tobacco products and potentially forbid the marketing of safer cigarettes, our regulations are going far beyond legitimate concerns of public health. Rather than bullying smokers even further, the most respectful approach at this point would be to encourage at the margin greater moderation and less risky forms of consumption. Instead we’re headed down the path of forcing recalcitrant smokers to pay through the nose for unnecessarily dangerous cigarettes that they can only smoke at the fringes of polite society.
Unlike his plane wreck comparison, Pollack’s Punic War metaphor isn’t far off the mark: controlling tobacco has become a war bent on the destruction of smoking culture. I’m glad he’s honest about that. But if tobacco suffers the fate of Carthage, the world will be a sadder, less interesting place.
– Jacob Grier
What are the “external costs of smoking” that justify taxation? I thought most smokers consumed less publicly financed health care because they died years earlier than average.
External costs? From early sudden death (heart attack) or fast killing lung cancer? Smokers cost less as far health care, social security and many other government programs are concerned.
Kevin: the “external cost” is commie euphemasia for “You’re going to do what we tell you to do because we told you to do it.” What you’re never going to get them to admit — or even honestly think about — is that their assumption of authority for “health care” is the “external cost”: because they’re going to force everybody to pay for everybody else’s health care, it means that they get to dictate how you exist. If they kept their force of government out of that market, there would be no “external costs”. They will not consider that, though.
It’s a vicious lie.
This is why love blogging here. I write a controversial post, and it’s the conciliatory passage that gets people upset!
You’re both right, our current taxes are too high, and I’d be happy to see them significantly reduced. Perhaps even to zero, but that’s not an argument I wanted to get into with this post.
Well aside from the complaints above…great post. Seriously. So few people even dream that people might just smoke because they…enjoy it. Crazy thought! Or that not everyone uses the exact same risk/reward calculus. Insanity!
I smoke. Smoke cigarettes and love it. Been smoking now for 20 years with a one year hiatus. Yes, I quit once. But nothing I enjoy better after a meal than a cigarette.
Wisconsin upped their taxes again on cigarettes. Bastards. Thieves.
Where’s the black market truck when I need one?
I miss smoking so much.
If Bush hadn’t vetoed that Cigar tax, there was a chance I was going to be arrested for physically harming legislators. I’m a husband, a father, a manager, as well as a coach, and an uncle. The only quiet time I get each day is the 25 minutes I spend sitting on the porch every night in the dark, drinking a glass of bourbon and smoking a cigar from my humidor. Take that away from me by making it cost-prohibitive to relax and I’d go nuts. Literally.
Cigar Magazine carries a state-by-state breakdown of the excise taxes on Cigars and Cigarettes each month if you’re interested.
Get government completely out of it. Truthfully, I would rather no one smoked, (because of the minor health reasons, mental status change, {makes one happy} and the addictive aspect). I would much rather people be able to be completely thrilled with just being alive, without chemically altering their state of mind.
That said, each their own. And using any form of state violence, theft through taxation, and all the other destructive measures our government comes up with are evil. While smoking is not.
I miss the days of being able to order smokes from Europe. They tasted better and were something along the lines of $6 a carton.
Got a call from my local paper asking me if it was ok to print a (rather angry) letter I sent them last week.
It was in response to an infuriatingly patronizing editorial they’d run about the “un-Canadian-ness” of buying untaxed native smokes. It made my blood boil.
We’ll see how much of my original outrage makes it to print.
Here’s the neo-fascist drivel in question: (warning, may cause blood pressure to rise dangerously)
Editorial
I quit, but it was because of my choosing to save money and my desire to work on cardio health, and not any of this BS nanny state crap.
I’ve got no problem with smokers in general. If I don’t want to be around smoking I’ll use my legs and move away.
KBR & Marc, Billy Beck is right. the entire “external cost” concept is a false premise. society HAS to tax tabacco and other ‘bad’ choices because of the costs the those choices impose on society. what costs you ask? health care. and with that simple statement the big-gov’t folks have make it appear that we’ve previously agreed to federal health care.
well when did we have that conversation? i never agreed to that, so why do i have to conceed to punitive taxes to cover a cost that has yet to be set?
I would much rather people be able to be completely thrilled with just being alive, without chemically altering their state of mind
Oh yeah, life goes on, long after the thrill of living is gone….
[...] in for Radley Balko, Jacob Grier has a nice little post about the joys of tobacco written in response to those wanting to restrict it more: Tobacco is a [...]
I remember speaking to a young woman outside a bar years ago as we both enjoyed a smoke (milling about on the sidewalk while my beer warmed up inside) about the basic right to do what we want with our own bodies, an argument that she was somewhat in agreement with, when she then threw out the caveat that banning smoking in restaurants and bars was reasonable because they were open to the public.
“But they’re not open to the public,” I told her.
“Not open to the public? Sure they are,” she reflexively replied.
“Does a bar or restaurant have the right to require a certain dress code? Of course they do, and if you don’t have a tie, or a shirt with a collar, or whatever, you find another place to eat or drink. You don’t have a right to pop in with friends just to play frisbee because it’s private property and they set the rules. Bars and restaurants deal in multiple, individual private contracts with private individuals; the rules may be unspoken and tacitly understood, but we recognize them and respect them all the same.”
“Huh. I never thought of it that way” she said with a distant, thoughtful look in her eye.
And now there’s another person in Eastern Massachusetts who considers the ideas of freedom and respect for private property.
Hell, there are probably *dozens* of us by now.
I don’t smoke but have long defended the rights of smokers to light up. The groups who want smoking curtailed go way too far in their idealism. The “evidence” they point to for second-hand smoke is not clear cut by any means. The draconian rules and ordinances that cities and states enact cut into everyone’s freedom. I’m much more sick of that than I ever have been of smoke in my lungs.
The problem with people who insist on improving everyone’s health is that there will never be any end to it. It’s not like, “Once we ban smoking our work will be done.” There will always be new ways they can make people modify their behavior to improve their life expectancy. That means these control freaks will always be riding your ass to make you chance your ways to conform with their values.
In a way, this crusade is just like the drug war. It can never be won and the longer you fight it, the more restrictive will be the rules under which you’re forced to live.
It’s as if liberty, the word most commonly used to describe the motivation for the founding of this country, is now the quickest way to elicit a blank stare (if not disdain) from anyone you mention it to. When the concept of liberty is pitted against the opportunity to justify the persecution of a minority, people always prefer the latter.
There’s nothing better than a good stout and a Partagas 10 at the end of the day.A women’s just a women,but,a cigar,that’s a smoke.
I actually like a nice cabernet with my Perdomo ESV 91′s. I never smoked until later in life (40′s), was always on the other side, but tried a Cigar one day and found out how enjoyable it was. I don’t do it every day, but have a couple a week.
The thing about the 400,000 number is what get’s me upset (as well as the second hand smoking fallacy, a relative risk of 1.19 good lord what a joke), the number is bogus as they include anyone who dies if they smoke regardless of their age (which by the way is the biggest factor in death). E.G. if the life expectance is 75 and you’re 90 and die but were a smoker, you’re included.
I’m an occasional pipe & cigar smoker (less than half a dozen times a year). I love a good pipe or cigar with a glass of single-malt. There’s just something nice about sitting with friends, discussing politics, and drawing on a rich smoke.
I understand the risks (exceedingly low), and appreciate the pleasure (rather high). I’m an adult capable of making my own choices. Apparently, I’m a rarity (or so people would have me believe).
As for the taxation aspect, I have one question: What happens if these moral crusaders DO succeed in banning smoking? How do they replace all those millions (billions?) of dollars that used to come from smokers?
I, as a non-smoker, have no problem if smokers want to put smoke in their lungs. That’s their choice. If they would just keep it there in their lungs, there wouldn’t have a problem. But, no. They insist on exhaling and infringing on my liberty.
Just for the record, “data reported by the National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 15, September 16, 2002″ – United States
Cause of Death/Age Range All Ages 85 and over 75 and above
Major Cardiovasular Diseases 936,923 340,450 296,202
Malignant Neoplasms (cancer) 553,091 77,136 165,009
Chronic Lower Resperitory Dis. 122,009 27,496 47,722
I wonder where all of the 400,000 people fit in? And then throw in the so-called obesity 400,000 number and it just doesn’t add up. And life expectancy continues to improve (78). I’m not saying cigarette smoking isn’t a cause of cancer, I’m making the point that it’s not as bad (especially second hand smoke) as it is inferred by the health nazi’s.
Blaze,Can you imagine the black market that would create?Millions of smokers and chewers becoming criminals over night.I can see people buying stogies in a dark alley wondering if there dealer is a undercover.The Dominican Republic would be the next Columbia.
My wife and I both have health problems causing it to be a problem to be around smoking. We were raised around people smoking, it wasn’t a problem until we were older, and we don’t mean to insinuate the exposure was the problem, simply that we have it now.
We don’t care about the questionable heath risks. If one wants to take those risks, that’s their business. We don’t even care about the questionable concerns about second hand smoke. These issues are overblown. We care about the fact that we immediately get sick from exposure to smoke.
Still we think people should be able to smoke. There shouldn’t be excessive taxation. That said we still see a lack of understanding in the mentality of smokers. They see only the abuses against them, but do not understand that some cannot tolerate smoke. Too many smokers have a defiant attitude, understandably to some extent, which causes them to resent giving any consideration to others. They seem to want no restrictions. As an aside, why is it that smokers are so inconsiderate with their cigarette butts? Are they totally thoughtless?
Smoke creates a stench that permeates ones hair, clothing, vehicle and home. My Aunt who finally quit smoking due to health problems later asked how we ever stood her smoking, as she could no longer stand being around the stench from others smoke. In empathy for my cousin, when our Aunt died, allowed him to smoke in our home while staying with us. We were sick from it, and also had to wash the drapes, walls and shampoo the couch and carpets. Never again!
We are actually embarrassed and sensitive about our health problem to smoke. We don’t like having to stay away from friends and family who smoke. We would like to be able to go out and dance, but we can sacrifice dancing. Other activities like eating out are a little difficult to achieve. We don’t like having to have consideration from others due to our problems. We wish it wasn’t so.
There is often the reference concerning restaurants, that they are private property. Being open to the public bring certain regulation requirements such as building codes for safety, etc. There are not blanket private property rights as there is for residential property. The reference made about using ones legs to walk away from smoking is good, except when one cannot escape, such as in elevators, restaurants, etc. Is it too much to ask one not to smoke in a restaurant, and wait and smoke their cigarettes outside? Should ones right to smoke be above all consideration of others rights? I always liked the quote comparing restaurants with non-smoking areas to having swimming pools with one end of the pool as the non-peeing end. Works great!
All this governmental telling me what to do makes me want to smoke! Dave Krueger is correct; the issue of smoking is only the tip of the behavior control iceberg. Basically, one day if not already, I will be a criminal. It’s only a matter of time.
I don’t like tobacco, and don’t habituate places where its use is common. Just my choice, is all. But that’s it: my choice not to. As much as I dislike tobacco, I would never seek to deny someone their own ‘poison’, as I wouldn’t want someone to tell me not to fly in light aircraft, eat hamburgers, stick cotton swabs in my ears, etc. ostensibly ‘for my own good’.
Anyone who has reached the age of majority in this society should not in need of (s)mothering, thank you very much…yet far too self-appointed ‘nannies’ of both sexes are willing to try, and use the power of government in order to do so. Enough, already! What’s the point of being an adult, if someone is constantly trying to make you a de facto ward of The State?
Robertson, you miserable old bastard: you go, mate.
Good to see you.
Just wait. They’ve almost finished making pariah’s out of smokers. Next, they’re comin’ for the fatties.
I thought there was an explicit law that it was illegal for the federal government (I know, like it’s ever stopped them before) to use taxation for the purpose of regulating something they couldn’t otherwise regulate? That is, the purpose of taxes has to be actual revenue generation, and not simply social engineering.
i.e.: How a 10,000% tax on firearms would be illegal, because the clear purpose of the tax would be to prohibit something, not revenue generation.
We need to rescue these anti-everything-that-feels-good people from their desire to control other people’s lives.
Surely there must be some way that we can prove that their mental attitude and activism is increasing their stress levels and thus increasing their chances of heart attacks and other health issues. They feel that they are doing GOOD but all these people like us don’t appreciate them.
Therefore there should be a law of some sort stopping them for their own good! Think of the children that grow up in these stress-filled households!
Maybe we can make them go to counseling or threaten to take away their children if they don’t stop.
end of sarcastic rant :)
I am a cigar smoker. But I would never think about imposing my habit on others. What gives the average smoker the right to impinge with their effluvia and detritus? Clean up your crap and keep it to yourself, will ya!
Personally, I don’t give a shit if cigarettes kill 400,000, or 2,000,000 smokers each year. I don’t think there’s numerical threshold at which it becomes ok for the government to start being our keeper.
When an overhaul of our health care system occurs, I’ll bet my last dime that, along with whatever new “goodies” they use to sell the new program to voters, will come expanded powers granted to the government and/or insurers and/or employers to dictate the way we spend our leisure time, what we eat and drink, how we drive, etc. You think this is ugly? Just wait.
HKL says:
When the last wave (of truly draconian) anti-smoking legislation passed here in Washington state, there were roughly 20% of the bars, restaurants, etc. in the state where you could still smoke. Now there are none.
Oddly, approximately 20% of the state’s population smoke. Hmmm…
But going into the 80% of the places that were non-smoking (by their own choice) just wasn’t good enough for the tobacco taliban. They had to take all of the places away. And throw in a “don’t smoke within 25 feet of a door or window” part too.
So you’re darn tootin’ we’ve got a “defiant attitude.” In fact, I’m just plain old angry. I used to be an overly polite smoker. But it has gotten to the “no more Mr. Nice Guy” stage.
I’ll “show some consideration to others” when those others step back out of my face.
Maybe.
Nicotine, caffeine, capsaicin, cocaine, strychnine are all alkaloid compounds produced by plants as biotoxins. These compounds are produced by plants to reduce predation. Of course along comes man and throws it all out the window.
Taxation is legitimately a revenue power. The rate/consumption curve have a maximum above which the taxation rate is no longer revenue generating but is used to reduce consumption. When the rate is above the maximum, the tax is not legitimate.
No one, the government included, has any legitimate authority to control what you do to yourself.
So thank you and I think a smoke one mof my Fuente Royal Salutes while I have some rum or maybe some cuervo on ice.