• stonedemoman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    They’ve already banned menthol in California and it did nothing. Alternatives are already being marketed and sold and some of the better ones recreate the exact same effect but cost $1.20 more per pack at the low end. To put it simply, this is dumb as fuck.

      • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not in anyone’s own interests. Smokers have to pay more, tobacco industry gets more money. Literally a lose-lose. Dumb. As. Fuck.

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not how capitalism works. If the tobacco industry could raise prices and get more money today, they would. Since they haven’t, you have to assume that any increased taxes or burden on them will reduce their profits.

          Yes, it might increase prices to the end consumer, because the demand curve will change when the costs change. But that doesn’t mean the tobacco industry is making any more money. If it did, they would already charge more.

          • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Wrong. Prohibition increases demand.

            Edit: Based off some replies, I think a lot of people are forgetting some rudimentary aspects of the concept of “demand”, so allow me to help:

            Demand is an economic concept that relates to a consumer’s desire to purchase goods and services and willingness to pay a specific price for them.

            When supply decreases, the price of the good increases. Inversely, when the supply of the good increases, the price falls

                  • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    11
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    “That guy happened to tangentially mention tax so you must’ve been talking about tax, herp derp”

                    Edit: Is it really that hard to figure out that I started this whole thread in reference to the topic of prohibition as the title suggests? I’m not talking about taxes. I never mentioned taxes. I don’t care that anyone else is talking about taxes.

              • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Incorrect. Prohibition decreases supply. Supply and demand have an inverse relationship. This is economics 101.

                There exists no accurate data of consumption during prohibition because it was a black market.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Supply and demand do not have an inverse relationship. Demand exists, and when supply exceeds demand, prices fall. When supply does not meet demand, prices rise. You understand they are related but forgot the actual curve on the graph. Supply and demand can both be low, for instance, as is the case with mega yachts. Supply and demand have no direct effect on one another, though low supply does tend to encourage firms to increase supply to try to compete and meet the demand.

                  Data during prohibition is irrelevant to this specific discussion, because your claim is that demand goes up when goods are prohibited, which is false, as I showed with my link

                  I don’t believe you have actually taken Econ 101, given the things Ive seen you say here.

                  • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    When supply does not meet demand, prices rise.

                    Thanks for proving my point for me. I appreciate it.

                    Your link shows an estimate of alcohol consumption during prohibition based on mortality, but there is. Zero. Accurate. Data. of alcohol consumption during the prohibition.

        • enigmaticmandrill@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Don’t ban them, tax them.

          This way smokers have to pay more so the demand will decrease, tobacco industry gets less money, and the economic burden on public health and environment can be financed with the additional tax income.

          • dangblingus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Addicts will always find a way to justify their addiction. Price of smokes goes up? Welp, looks like Ol Johnny Blacklungs is going to buy less food this month.

            • sodiumbromley@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              So we shouldn’t tax cigarettes then? It sounds like you’ve identified that addiction can quickly become a public health crisis if wealth inequality could cause addicts to choose their vice over food. We could fund programs to help addicts get help, but we would need to raise tax revenue.

              • SourWeasel@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                If the government insists on high rates of taxation for the reason that the product has a high potential for harm, then shouldn’t the use of that tax revenue be mostly, if not entirely, re-directed towards harm reduction programs around that substance or product? How can anyone possibly argue any other use for that revenue? When the revenue generated by ‘sin taxes’ is used for other unrelated purposes, they are effectively exploiting the users by recognizing that they will continue to be a source of revenue because the product is habit forming or addictive. The last time I checked on the revenue generated by tobacco taxes, only ~11% was spent on harm-reduction programs related to tobacco use and the remaining 89% was just paying for other government projects totally unrelated to tobacco.

                To suggest that the solution is to further raise the taxation rates rather than properly allocating the current revenue is immoral and illogical IMHO.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This is effectively a Pigouvian tax, and will absolutely keep some people from smoking.

          Also higher prices do not necessarily mean the industry is making more money. Far more likely, given the saturation of competition, that they simply cost more to make.

          • Case@unilem.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Don’t forget a lot of the cost of a pack of smokes is often more due to taxation than the cost of the product, even if you include things likes all the overhead for marketing and legal and shit.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah that’s because of aforementioned Pigouvian taxes. The entire point is pricing some people out of purchasing them.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              This is not an expression of an opinion. These are statements of fact. As in our other discussion, I am simply explaining things to you.

              You not liking these facts does not make them less true.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Would you like a citation on what Pigouvian taxes are, how the cigarette industry is flooded with competition, or that putting further regulations on products makes them more expensive to produce?

                  I assumed you could Google any of these but I can do it for you. Fair warning, you’ll be getting a “let me Google that for you” link.

                  Not one of these facts is even remotely controversial so my mind is a bit boggled that you’d even try to contest any of them

        • cjsolx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Okay so here we are speculating about this, but there’s data on this isn’t there? Is it not the case that countries who tax tobacco more have all but eliminated it? I’m not well versed on the subject, but I think it’s a bit silly to just pull this out of your ass as if it were fact. Here’s a link to an ncbi article that talks about it. I’m sure there’s plenty more out there to show one way or the other, so I’m interested to know whether you have anything to back up your stance.

          • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Sure, and I agree that this should be approached with scepticism and not blind bias.

            I’m basing this off tobacco being the third most addictive substance on the planet.

            Being that dependent on a substance suggests that practical decision-making and rational thinking, such as adding motivation to quit through price, is certainly not going to be the most effective way to reduce dependency while also further harming those that fail to break their dependency.

            Edit: Also I just want to point out, again, that I was never referring to tax. From what I saw there’s not enough conclusive data for me to form an opinion one way or the other on the effectiveness of increasing tobacco tax . All of my comments are about this ridiculously assanine ban, or the increased prices that come as a result of this ban.

        • Jake Farm@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          What do you mean? The more people have to pay in order to smoke the less people will smoke.

          • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s a reason why people tend to hit rock bottom before they finally kick their drug addiction. If they don’t have the means, they will attempt to find it. Your logic is flawed, and only serves to disproportionately impair the poor while bolstering the very industry you fight.

            • Jake Farm@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t fight, and I am pretty sure the focus is too reduce new users. How the fuck do you hit rock bottom solely on nicotine?

              • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                How the fuck do you hit rock bottom solely on nicotine?

                Tobacco, the main ingredient in cigarettes, is more addictive than meth. If you can imagine somebody hitting rock bottom on meth then it should be easy enough to wrap your head around it. Especially when cigarettes contain added chemicals to make it more addictive than tobacco alone.

                Also, I would be inclined towards believing that the habit is mostly spread through peers. Price as a barrier to entry wouldn’t be effective at preventing peer pressure if they’re your first supplier.

                • SourWeasel@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  To clarify, the addictiveness of nicotine ≠ the addictiveness of tobacco. Even aside from the additives used by the tobacco industry, tobacco naturally contains an array of MAO inhibitors and other compounds that work in harmony with nicotine causing it to be far more addictive than nicotine itself. Pure nicotine is much farther down the scale of addictiveness, classed as a “weak reinforcer” in studies.

                  If you are interested in the subject, I highly recommend reading the studies and posts by Maryka Quik, director of the Neurodegenerative Diseases Program at SRI International. I first found out about her in an interesting article published in Scientific American — LINK.

                  • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Okay thanks, but we are talking about tobacco. I understand that I messed up the terminology, but why are you replying this to me and not the one that is denying it?

                    Edit: Wait…you do know that cigarettes contain tobacco right?

                • Jake Farm@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I call bullshit on that. Not to meantion the danger of meth is the physically damage it causes starting from the very first dose.