The Negative Effects Of Tobacco Smoking In The General Public

Insurance companies using experience-rating are allowed to charge tobacco users more than 1.5 times the premium rate of a non-tobacco user.3 Smokers under employment-based health insurance could face up to a 50% increase in their premiums if there is no effort to cease smoking behaviors.4 The ACA has three main goals for restricting surcharges to smokers; limit the effects of high cost tobacco users, encourage smoking cessation and discourage others from developing smoking habits.5 Using surcharges to control tobacco use establishes the precedence that smokers are held responsible for preventing behaviors that lead to negative health outcomes. Smokers should hold a degree of responsibility for their tobacco use but they should not bear the complete burden if they actively participate in programs that promote the cessation or reduction of smoking habits. By doing so they are demonstrating their willingness to change their unhealthy behaviors as well as their commitment to the collective common good of health care and societal

History has proven that government penalties, in the form of taxes, deter smoking. The 2000 U.S. Surgeon General’s Report, Reducing Tobacco Use, found that raising tobacco-product prices decreases the prevalence of tobacco use, and tobacco tax increases produce significant long-term improvements in health. From its review of existing research, the report concluded that raising tobacco taxes is one of the most effective tobacco prevention and control strategies (7). Along with price increases, mass-media campaigns and smoking bans have made cigarette smoking pretty much unacceptable in today’s society. “Today, approximately 22 percent of adults age twenty-two and older are smokers, compared with 33 percent in 1979” (Thorpe 1440). It is clear, from these examples, the use of penalties to deter the unhealthy behavior of smoking is a successful intervention.

Raising taxes on tobacco products and implementing smoking cessation legislations can minimize the prevalence of smoking up to 30 percent to 80 percent over a 50-year period (Ekpu & Brown 2015).In 2009, NBC news stated that Kansas, one of the states, considering banning smoking at enclosed areas showed that if they banned smoking in restaurants, the state was going to save 20 million dollars in healthcare costs (Associated Health, 2009). West Virginia state implemented smoke-free laws and had an increase of almost 1 percent in restaurant employment (“Smoke Free Laws do not Harm Business,” 2017). Restaurant workers were more comfortable coming in to work knowing they would be breathing in fresh air. Although in Tennessee, percentage of adults who smoked in 2011 increased from 23 percent to 24.3 percent in 2015 (Fletcher, 2016). This increment was not that significant considering the fact that it was over a period of just 4 years. The annual health care cost in Tennessee directly to smoking increased from $2.16 billion in 2004 to $2.67 billion in 2017(“The Toll of Tobacco in Tennessee”, n.d.).

In the article ‘Cigarette tax hike sparks panic buying’, Hall (2010) discusses the effects of tax increase on cigarettes. The government has decided to raise the tax on cigarettes by 25%, costing $2.16 more on a pack of 30 cigarettes. This government intervention is an attempt to stop people from smoking and reduce the health bill caused by those who smoke. The increase in tax is expected to save $5 billion more of the people’s tax dollars and the government decided that it will be put into a better use for its health and hospitals reparations. This contractionary fiscal policy is expected to reduce the total tobacco consumption by approximately six percent and drive down the number of smokers by 87,000.

The marginal benefit and marginal cost of cigarettes are in competitive market equilibrium without government intervention, however, the negative social cost of smoking to society would likely lead to market failure without the involvement of the government (reference). Tobacco not only affects the health of its consumers, it can also affect the health of non-smokers who involuntarily inhale second-hand smoke (reference). With the continuation of tobacco consumption, society faces increased tax rates, a loss of productivity and an opportunity cost from patients suffering tobacco-induced health problems, potentially robbing others with unpreventable conditions from the medical resources and treatment they require. Each year Australians spend

The statistics show everything needed for financial and personal benefits from the ban of cigarettes, “Tobacco taxes are a proven strategy to reduce smoking, particularly among teenagers and low-income people. Given the high health costs of tobacco use, reducing smoking rates would lead to substantial health gains,” (Marr 1). By raising higher taxes on cigarettes, it raises revenue, lowers the amount of people buying them while lowering the health care taxes for those who need medical care as an effect of smoking. There are clear financial and health positive changes that could be made by banning the market of cigarette sales. Hundreds of years have gone by and thousands of people are suffering an addiction that can be easily controlled, just beginning with taxes on cigarettes, “ Extensive research shows that tobacco taxes reduce smoking and extend lives,” (Marr 1). Since smoking begins at a young age, with the taxes, that will hopefully lead up to a complete ban, will make young adults unable to sustain the lifestyle to buy cigarettes. The taxes will make it difficult for adults with low incomes to spend money on something that is unhealthy for them anyways. There is the point that the taxes would take a greater amount on lower income households but that may not be the case, “They point out that low-income people have higher smoking rates: 29 percent of poor adults smoke, compared to 18 percent of non-poor adults. Also, expenditures for cigarettes account for a greater share of lower-income households’ budgets,” (Marr 1). If tobacco only harmed the smokers the taxes might not have the amount of impact it is striving for, but is used to reduce tobacco use. It may also be used to raise revenue for our country which is an added bonus. To smokers and non-smokers, it brings on numerous health risks and higher

The report talks about how the sale tax will reduce health but the tax hike varies. In fact, the demand for cigarettes should be price inelastic because cigarette smoking is addictive therefore there are no good substitutes for it. It explains why the indirect tax is relatively not effective in reducing consumption because it would only lead to higher price. As PED for a cigarette is inelastic only a very large amount of tax will bring the market output close to the socially optimal level.

Department of Health & Human Services 2000 report by the Surgeon General. Increasing the price of a pack of cigarettes by ten percent has been shown to reduce smoking rates by an average of 4.8 percent (a mean price elasticity of -0.48) as more smokers quit and fewer potential smokers start. This effect is greatest among youth and low income consumers, who are particularly sensitive to price. However, inelastic goods, such as tobacco, have fewer substitutes and a price change will not have a significant influence on the quantity demanded. In the long run, time may be the greater influece as it moves the elasticity of cigarettes to one that is more elastic, if the smoker finds he can no longer afford the $2 per pack and eventually begins to kick the

The use of tobacco is a very controversial topic here in the United States. The harmful side effects of tobacco are well known and consequently, many believe that it should be outlawed. Though this has not yet occurred, constant regulations on the industry and

The smoking of tobacco has continued to have an unfavorable influence on our health care system in association with spending. In recent studies and surveys, researchers discovered approximately $170 billion dollars of healthcare spending is paid towards diseases produced by tobacco smoke (Kennedy). A large sum of the money put towards tobacco-related illnesses is also taken from government sources. Making smoking tobacco illegal would allow the government to save billions of dollars, money that could be used for important needs in our country. Roads, bridges, and government projects could all be funded with smoking becoming illegal. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention states that more than $156 billion in lost productivity is due

Thomas provides an evidence in regard to tobacco use. He states, New York City made reducing smoking a top priority, increasing the tobacco tax in 2002 and making virtually all workplaces smoke free in 2003. Tobacco use declined rapidly in 2003 and 2004, but the decline then stalled, a development that would not have been known if New York City had not begun conducting large community surveys on an annual basis beginning in 2002. In thinking of this evidence, there should be more implementations such as these to prevent the public from the use tobacco. Since this works I t would a great to increase the tax on tobacco. The government should really take in the over this since the people do really care about the health I just that it necessary for someone people to be treated as kids. I just that it is even worse than in the case of children these people know that the use of tobacco is wrong, but they go head and use it. It is just frustrating and angry some to see people waste their health to something not worth of wasting for. It is just my belief the government not only to increase taxes on tobacco but also ban it. In a sense I viewed tobacco as bioterrorism to the public. Not only to the consumer, but also the public in general because this is causing the second hand smoker people to get sick. Then again, it is all profit and whatever that makes the most profit to the economy and one going chain. The sellers are gaining their profit and the health care as well and only person at the damaging is the

understanding, most tobacco companies are targeting young people as replacement smokers. They use different strategies that encourage teenagers and young adults to start or continue consuming their products (NIDA, 2012).

"Smokers have more diseases than nonsmokers”, in other words, “nonsmokers are healthier than smokers” (Leu & Schaub, 1983). If the population of people smoking decreases, there will be a large amount of savings in healthcare costs, however, only for a short duration of time. Within 15 years of the process (of smoking population decreasing), health care prices will increase dramatically to 7% higher for men and 4% higher for women (Barendregt, Bonneux & Van Der Maas). In the meantime, the article further explained the economic consequences and showed 2 points of view regarding the idea of having cheaper health care costs for smokers.

Tobacco products, specifically cigarettes, are products that usually cause a slow, painful death. If death is not eventually caused as a direct result of tobacco products, they can still result in various other debilitating illnesses. It is not only health that the use of tobacco products causes to decline, but also the monetary security of the individual indulging in these items. Whether it is money or health, tobacco products cause severe degradation in both categories. Cigarettes and other items such as snuff can be both directly and indirectly linked to many thousand cases of death and illness each year in the United States. There is no benefit to be gained from use of these harmful reagents, and for that reason a debilitating excise tax should be placed on tobacco products.

With regards to a tax on smoking I believe that it would be unlikely that the negative externalities, the spill-over effects onto third parties that are not given compensation for those issues, of smoking would be corrected solely by a tax on them. The reason why government intervention is required within the cigarette market is because it is a market failure – there is an inefficient allocation of resources causing both too much production and too much consumption of the product. The following evaluation will identify my reasons why a tax is likely to be ineffective.