I’m glad that we live in a world where people skydive and even those people who have those winged cape things and free fall off cliffs.

That bad choice comes from the addiction, not the public policy. You also have to think about all those people who say they will quit if it goes up another dollar a pack…and then do. There is a balance, of course, between the public policy of discouraging smoking and the revenue side. Has anyone done that analysis here?

Revenue lost through raising the excise tax (from people quitting) over 30 years
+
Revenue saved over that 30 years (in discounted dollars) in the health system from those people quitting
=
?

I know this calculation has been done.

There are lots of dangerous activities one could slap a tax on. Skydiving. White river rafting. Scuba diving. Even riding a bike on our roads can be quite dangerous. Driving drunk. Getting in drunken brawls.

If one becomes paralysed doing any of those things, it means a big taxpayer hit, not to mention the personal suffering. Taxing those things is like imposing a mandatory insurance.

An excise tax on tobacco is a health system surcharge for unsafe activity.

I don’t think people should keep upping the taxes on the fun things in life though. Most people are not going to want to lead a completely goody two shoes life. Let giving up smoking be a choice. I’m glad smoking was banned from bars and restaurants, especially for the sake of non smoking bar tenders.

I was thinking as I was drinking in a bar this afternoon that poor hard core smokers who refuse to give up may be more likely to get sick if they stop buying essential food items to pay for their smokes.

Taxes on alcohol are too high now

R.I.P fun

Weed: illegal, but more so the more you have. There are fines for being caught, but doesn’t even compare with how much revenue one would obtain from excise taxes if it were legal. The cost of getting revenue from a banned substance is much higher (police) relatively speaking than a taxed substance (IRD). For one thing, people giving money to IRD do so mostly on a voluntary basis. That cuts down enforcement costs dramatically.

Cigarettes: there is a piecemeal system of banning it, ranging from banning smoking in pubs and most other establishments, but this is coupled with the ability to buy it with a high excise. The one area where a real ban would be welcome is at hospitals. Anyone visiting Dunedin hospital will notice all the people smoking just outside the front entrance. The smoke rises up and enters patients’ rooms. And smoker patients go back to their shared rooms, and the smoke smell coming off of them can be smelled by their roommates. That can’t be good. Smoke causes cancer.

Alcohol: high excise, but a different set of restrictions. One breaks the law being drunk in public, but you can suck down all the smoke you want walking down the street. Alcohol causes cirrhosis as well as cancer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_cancer

Sweets/carbs: let’s not forget that becoming overweight increases the risk of cancer. Perhaps we need some excise taxes on the things that make us obese. On the other hand,
there is the obesity survival paradox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity#Obesity_survival_paradox

So a few glasses of wine a week are good for you, and apparently there can be benefits from being obese. Wine and chocolates, anyone?