The New York Cigarette Smoking Tax is Unethical

Eduardo Estrella
The New York Cigarette Smoking Tax Unethical

Even If the risk of cigarette smoking is known, why do people continue to smoke?  A look at how the individual plays a larger role in a society and how and why they fuel their addictions is necessary to understand such use.  With thousands of advertisements meant to instill fear into the mind of consumers, people are constantly being introduced to cigarette smoking or current users continue to use them, even while knowing their risks.  It is known that people of a lower economic status smoke more cigarettes, why is this the case even when the risks are known?  And also, if one is to delve deeper into the addictive nature of nicotine and self autonomy one is able to see that a vice is one of the few pleasures a worker is able to enjoy and regulate; something that brings a deep sensation and power over oneself.
Anti-cigarette campaigns will not work, for the real issue at hand is not cigarette smoking itself – or any other drug usage for that matter—but rather what motivates and individual to smoke.  Even if cigarette smoking may decline in a population, the use of another substance will increase; that which risks’ can be greater, or less, depending on what the switch is made onto.  Thus cigarette smoking, which in many studies is stated to a direct cause of various horrendous diseases such as lung cancer, becomes a social pathology because the abuse of cigarettes is considered a chronic disease causing harm to the body.  Social disorganization develops, almost singling out the cigarette smoker and creating other social problems than what existed beforehand.   The cigarette smokers themselves become like a disease ridden vermin in the eyes of the society at large which once accepted the use of tobacco is a great joy, but replaced such notion drastically evident in cigarettes’ slang nicknames, such as cancer sticks, coffin nails, and black lung – two out of the three are referring to diseases which can ultimately cause a painful death.  And the lower class due to newly imposed laws and norms—for example, New York City’s high taxation on cigarettes as an incentive for smokers to quit– are forced to either slide deeper into their pocket, leaving them with only the bare minimum amount of money in order to fuel their addictions causing them to fall deeper into poverty, people may also choose to partake in deviant behaviors, such as the purchasing of loose cigarettes,  – which too are illegal because the single cigarette is not taxed –or give up smoking altogether and find a new amusement, usually in the form of quitting and taking up a different leisure activity, in the form of another drug, which can also be illegal.
The imposition of illegality on a substance raises moral and ethical questions.  Why are drugs illegal if a population seemingly wants to use them?  The illegality of certain drugs, such as marijuana, also cause social disorganization, in where a population is unfairly treated and in many cases imprisoned because of their new found pleasures.  And because of suppliers, usually which a background of a lower economic status, people tend to label a whole people, such as the African American and Latino community, as “bad news.”  Drug use is spread throughout the whole American population without discrimination, yet because people from a lower economic background do not have great privacy in which to deal their vices they are easily caught and jailed.  If such drugs are deemed illegal, then why is usage continued so widely, and accepted by an increasing number of people each year?  Shouldn’t a legal government be susceptible to change and implement new rules, which can tie in such substances?  Or should they play an overarching role to exercise a certain amount of social control for what they feel is the well being of their people?  Once again, ethical questions arise.  Phrased differently, should a government limit our individuality of expression and consumption for our “safety and protection”?
The concept of two different states, one of suppression and one of individuality lies heavily in Victor Fuchs’ Tale of two Cities.  In it he tells a story of two states that are very similar in advancement of public institutions, but contain a great disparity in mortality rates among its population, attributed to the lifestyle choices of one over the other.  Utah is heavily impacted by the large Mormon community that lies within it and does not partake in many of the social pleasures – such as smoking, drinking alcohol, etc – which Reno, Nevada does.  In summary, he states certain central themes that he believes to be relevant to improving public health, one of the more prominent ones being:

“The Greatest potential for improving the health of the American people is to be found in what they do and don’t do to and for themselves.  Individual decisions about diet, exercise, and smoking are of critical importance, and collective decisions affecting pollution and other aspects of the environment are also relevant.”

Nicotine Dependency

Nicotine is one of the most heavily used drugs in the United States of America, along with its super supported drug of choice caffeine.  It is a highly addictive substance that is found in cigarettes bundled up with tar, which can lead to diseases such as lung cancer, emphysema, and bronchial disorders.  The carbon monoxide found in cigarette smoke can further lead to cardiovascular diseases and respiratory illness to the user and those around them.  In a survey done by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, they found that 73 million Americans age 12 and up had used a tobacco product at least one month before being surveyed.  This is the drug that keeps cigarette users coming back for more and more, even we it may damage their health.  Cigarettes are well worth it in their eyes.  Recently, the government, in attempts to further public health and prevent/reduce cigarette smoking, has decided to heavily tax consumers for the purchase of such products.  The price has skyrocketed to a level unseen before.

The Cigarette Excise Tax

“Lewit and Coate find that cigarette prices affect smoking primarily by reducing the participation rate; the estimated effect on the number of cigarettes per smoker is statistically insignificant.” And so we see that prevention of future smokers does, and will occur, with the implementation of a higher tax on cigarettes.  Teenagers who have never smoked will think twice about starting; heavily basing their decisions on the economic troubles that it will cause.  In New York City which prices as high as 9 dollars a pack the going rate, its enough to impoverish even the wealthiest individual; or at least it feels like so.
“In the short run, the major effect of higher cigarette taxes may be to increase taxes paid by the current smokers, without significantly reducing either total smoking or its associated health cost”  The policies enacted by Mayor Bloomberg, which rose taxation to incredulous levels in favor of “Public Health” does not help those who need the most help, smokers themselves.  Taxation money is said to go into anti-smoking campaigns and the distribution of anti-smoking products such as nicotine patches, nicotine gum, etc.  Yet, what is not stated is that the state relies on this taxation money to run business as regular.  Public health? Really Mr. Mayor?  Is that the issue you are really trying to promote, or is that just a cover up in order to generate more money into such a corrupt propaganda spreading system?

What we forget to see is that “an increase in the cigarette tax is attractive and effective tool of health policy…. It promises to increase federal revenues, especially in the short run.”  New York claims that it loses roughly $700 Million dollars a year in unpaid cigarette taxes.  This is caused mainly by smuggling and unreported sales of cigarettes by vendors, both online and offline.  Sometimes states can take this to the next level and prohibit the sale of cigarettes through the Internet just like how Ohio did so in 2005.  And so if states are trying to recover the taxes that were unpaid by raising such taxes and at the same time promoting, what I consider to be a bogus system of, public health by trying to “convince” people to quit, how do they then later hope to generate such levels of money in the future.  They complain that millions and millions are left unpaid, but if everyone is to quit in this “ideal society” that we live in, then no money will be contributed to such governments and thus non-smokers will begin to pay the price too.  Property taxes will rise, shopping taxes, income taxes, hell, who knows, they might tax you for breathing the air that you breath, for walking on their side walks, for using their roads and infrastructures– oh wait, they tax you for that one already.
And so the minority is discriminated upon because they exercise liberty over themselves to smoke; to inhale and exhale nicotine full smoke; to degrade their health at the cost of a chance to die early from the attainment of a deadly disease such as lung cancer.  Yet what the majority does not see is that if such liberty of thyself is prevented it will soon come back to bite them in the same ass cheeks they sit on their chairs of inaction with.  A common complaint is that cigarette smokers are costing the public health care system millions and millions of dollars in health care each year.  Smokers, even though living shorter lives, consume a substantial amount of health care in comparison to non-smokers.  And this is where government truly bases their devotion of public health.  The market, sadly, is the dominant aspect of social life in the United States and actions are not taken until it hurts the government’s oversized pockets in some way, shape, or form.  You see, smokers are unevenly distributed on a socio-economic playing field.  82 percent of smokers worldwide come from a lower economic status while only 18 percent of them are from a higher economic background.  And this is where the pockets start to flow out in a disproportionate way.  People from a lower status cannot afford their own health insurance and thus rely on government aid in the form of Medicare and Medicaid to be able to treat their individual health.  Such programs are free to the user. (Free in the sense that there are no upfront costs, but we all know that we pay taxes for such programs to work and be in existence)  And so this surplus of tax money becomes non-existent, as the system can seem to only meet enough funds to run itself.  It poses a serious ethical question though: When did the health of human beings become about profit?  When did the broad concern over the life and health of another become rooted in the love of money?

Preventing Smoking

In the long run, the toll of smoking is tied to the smoking practices of the youngest generation.  There is a widespread consensus that the ultimate conquest of smoking induced illness can come only from preventing the onset of smoking in the teenage and early adult years. Recent studies have shown that if teenagers are given a great intervention and coerced into not starting to smoke that it will have great benefits on public health in the long run.  In similar studies, it was shown that lower economic classes with less education show lower levels of smoking with higher priced products.  Yet, upon the higher prices a deviant group will arise with a new glamorous career along with it.

The cigarette smuggler is born.

He is introduced into the world with the notion of capitalism at heart.  He loves the rush of providing his product at a better than competitive rate for his clients who are satisfied with his glorious services.  What is also born is the store lay-away plan.  In where store customers are able to purchase loose cigarettes one at a time to meet their nicotine needs without dishing out $9 dollars from out of their pocket.  With the purchase of enough cigarettes its almost as if a whole pack was purchased.  Of course you end up paying a little more, in where the storeowner makes a couple of dollars in profit, but immediate gratification is better than a few measly dollars right?  These both seem like a win-win situations.  The smuggler is happy, his clients are happy; the storeowner is happy, his customers are happy; yet the government is steaming mad.
In the government’s eyes what occurred was clearly robbery; a crime deserving of imprisonment and huge unsympathetically based fines.
“How dare the poor steal back their own money from our almighty taxation laws?”
What? I’m sorry, say again.  It’s just as so.
If 82 percent of world’s population of smokers come from a lower economic status, then that means that they are the ones partaking in such deviant behaviors in order to make the cost their addiction more bearable.  You see, these “careers” did not come about until the heavy taxation was set in place by the government, at least not at the same level as are in existence today.
“Cigarettes! Newport’s, Reds, Spirits! I got you, what you want.” Is heard throughout the streets of New York City while trying to reach your destination.  These dealers are almost leaders of a social mindset (if you so choose to look at it that way).  They see that the price of cigarettes is unfair, so they bootleg them and sell them on the street for a more reasonable price.  Yes, what they are doing is stealing.  Do I condone stealing? No.  But if the creation of such careers came about, it is because a problem exists and must be resolved.  Politicians forget the law of cause and effect which states that for every action there is a reaction. Agendas are stagnant, and enforced violently in that the government imprisons these deviants and continues to impose their policies without remorse; thus the so-called liberty of the minority becomes dissolved by the majority. We come to see that smoking “behaviors by others, that some dislike, [are labeled] as a “disease” or a “public health menace”… [This] is an expression of the increasing politicization of society, whereby private dispute become objects of unrestrained political conflict.” (Smoking and the state)

Perspectives on Drug use in the U.S.

Drug use has not been reduced by the enactment of anti drug laws and formations of governmental policies to help regulate them.  Philosopher Baruch Spinoza (1632- 1677) said “all laws which can be violated without doing any one an injury are laughed at… [we] desire things we are not allowed to have… he who tries to determine everything by law will foment crime rather than lessen it.” The implementation of a new policy that offers no real solution but to quit smoking, will not work.  That’s an extreme jump almost as if one was saying, “live or die!”  Alternatives must be offered if real effects want to be seen.  To say to simply quit is undermining nicotine addiction and bringing it to the level of simply a personal choice.  While the debate about whether smoking is a choice or an addiction is often presented in the popular media as an either/or proposition, most serious researchers in the field view smoking behavior as a blend of a combination of both cognitive and non-cognitive elements. However, until the 1980s, most tobacco control programs and policies ignored the concept of smoking behavior as an addiction.  Instead the focus of programs and policy efforts to reduce tobacco use relied mainly on an informed consumer orientation.  And while I agree that education of the consumer is absolutely necessary, if you want to coerce people to quit you must go far and beyond such tactics.  One can say that the government took the necessary steps to help preserve the help of cigarette smokers by raising the taxes to such degrees, but as stated before hand, this does not necessarily reduce cigarette smoking, only the onset of it.  What do we do about the current smokers?  How do we get them to quit smoking?
Well, if you enter a fast food establishment and all they have on their menu is chicken, then you order chicken.  What if all of a sudden the society at large said chicken was completely unhealthy and cancer inducing thus must be repelled.  All chicken buyers would face a huge tax increase, directly imposed on them.  You’ve known nothing but chicken for most of your life.  What do you do now?  With no alternatives being offered to you, you pay the tax and enjoy your meaty, cancer inducing, unhealthy chicken.  Big billboards and television commercials can be developed informing consumers about these new studies, to little or no avail.  Some investigators have suggested that no matter how informed a consumer might be, it will not affect a smoker unless they are given substitutes to use in place of cigarettes.  Labeling something as a poison, especially if it has negative health consequences is completely justifiable, people will respond to it, just as long as close substitutes exist.  Cigarettes have the same information from brand to brand, thus implying that they are all in essence the same.  Cigarettes have no close substitutes that have no negative health consequences and supply the nicotine that smokers crave. Not until recently were nicotine patches and gum available for the public without a prescription.  Sadly, it seems that if we want people to quit cigarettes we have to get them hooked on something else.

Conclusion

The ethical rules and norms that require that public health institutions act in a timely manner on the information they have and that they make the information available to the public.  Yet I consider it unethical for a government to tell you how you must exercise your individual liberty.  Notice I speak of government!  If an private organization takes such a mission under their belt, then the case is completely different.  Yet when a government who is able to act as an overarching figure and demand certain things, such as taxes, from individuals, the situations gets fishy.  The social power that they possess then becomes too much.
Respect for the individual is a principle rooted in the western tradition, which grants importance to individual freedom in political life, and to personal development.  Principles of justice are important.  And when we see the underlying themes we see injustice is at play. For example, The price has gone up tenfold, and this has had the effect of impoverishing the poorer class of addicts and reducing them to a condition of such abject misery as to render them incapable of gaining an honest livelihood.
Epidemiology prefers to see the whole issue as a problem in public health.  The cigarette smoker is said to be someone who has someone who caught an as yet unfamiliar disease.  The disease is not yet fully understood but its incidence can be traced, its causes can be ferreted out, and appropriate social policies can eventually be established that will inoculate the population against it. What we must understand is that, cigarette smokers are first and foremost persons.  They are not behaviors to be manipulated or controlled, diseases to be cured, wild animals to be caged, scores on survey questionnaires, and variables in equations, constructs in theories, mechanisms to be repaired, or ignoramuses to be educated.
We must allow people to exercise their form of liberty, or lest we degrade the foundations of our American society.  Public health is an important overarching issue that in term affects us all, but that should not be above freedom.  A government should not coerce its people into doing things that way that they like, even if it is for the best.  In situations regarding self-determination, they should stand clear.  If not, I fear that this public health excuse could be used to attain more power and drive more fear into people’s hearts.  So to smokers, who want to smoke, let them smoke.  And non-smokers alike should defend their right to do so.  We must protect the freedom to express, even if one’s health is at risk.  Liberty is above all.

Works Cited

Chaloupka, Frank J.. “Global Efforts for Reducing the Burden of Smoking.” Dismanage Health Outcomes 2003 11.n/a (2003): n/a.

Cummings, Michael. “Programs and Policies to discourage the use of Tobacco.” Oncogene N/A.21 (2002): N/A.

Editors, Various . Community Epidemiology Work Group Proceedings. Rockville, Maryland: Public Health Service, 1986.

Editors, Various. The Cigarette Excise Tax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, 1985.

Northridge, Mary E.. “The Value of History to Public Health.” American Journal of Public Health 96.2 (2006): N/A.

Palmer, Stuart , and John  Humphrey. Deviant Behavior. New York: Plenum Press, 1925.

Tollison, Robert D. , and Richard E.  Wagner. Smoking and the State. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1988.

Perspectives on Drug Use in the United States (“Drugs & Society”) (“Drugs & Society”). New York: Routledge, 1986.

Filed under: Drugs, Government, philosophy, Policy, sociology