Smoke (two of) ‘em if you got ‘em
Read this article from cnn.com. In the article, the head of the Food and Drug Administration comments on whether the FDA should regulate the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.
In a rare, sensible act from the head of the FDA, he suggests that the FDA should not regulate the amount of nicotine. What is this? A regulator saying he wants fewer things to regulate? This is indeed a very rare breath of fresh air.
The head of the FDA has the following claim – if the amount of nicotine was reduced in a cigarette, consumers would simply respond by smoking more cigarettes. Sounds right to me.
But let’s take a stroll down memory lane. Over the years, taxes on cigarettes have increased substantially. As with any tax, consumers and producers look for means to avoid the tax. If the tax on cigarettes was imposed by the pack, several options come to mind to implicitly avoid the tax. Producers of cigarettes could increase the number of cigarettes per pack (say to 50 instead of 20), increase the length of a cigarette, or, drum roll, increase the amount of nicotine (the active ingredient) in a cigarette. My students should be having flashbacks to alcohol prohibition and drugs.
Federal legislation explicitly prohibits cigarette manufacturers from increasing the number of cigarettes per pack, and the long cigarette was a flop as well. What does that leave to avoid the tax? Increasing the nicotine content of cigarettes. Over time then, the increased nicotine content of cigarettes is largely a direct result of government policy!
Back to the present day… nicotine is the active ingredient in cigarettes. A reduction in the amount of nicotine allowed in a cigarette is essentially an increase in taxes on cigarettes – or better still an increase in the taxes on nicotine. Why? Even though the tax is imposed per pack, what consumers are interested is in the tax per unit of nicotine. If there were 10 units of nicotine in a pack and the tax is $1 per pack, then the tax on nicotine is $0.10 per unit. If they reduce the amount of nicotine allowed in half, to say 5 units (and the size of a pack and cigarette stay the same, as does the tax per pack), then the tax of nicotine becomes $0.20 per unit. Another way to think of this is that you have to buy two packs to get the same amount of nicotine as before.
Now the problem has just been reduced down to the simple fact that limiting the amount of nicotine in a cigarette is just an increase in the tax on smokes. The price consumers pay will increase, the amount of nicotine consumption decreases (even though people would smoke more packs), and Uncle Sam collects some more tax revenue. As the demand for nicotine is inelastic, people end up spending more on nicotine.
Should we do it? A good thing will be that there will be a small reduction in nicotine consumption and some more tax revenue. The bad things will be that we are again taxing cigarette smokers, a tax which falls disproportionately on the poor. A second side effect is that there would be more overall smoking, and that means more inhalation of all of those other items that cause cancer in cigarettes.
My stance “ hurray for the FDA!
–CT
March 13th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Instead of minimizing the problem of ciggarettes being so addicted, this is just going to cause more problems. People buying more ciggarettes, complaining about the more smoking, and someone will try and throw the blame on the FDA for causing people to smoke more and get more harmful effects from the tobacco and other chemicals in ciggarettes. Bottom line I think it is a bunch of BS. Who are we to say how much nicotine and individual can have? If someone wants to pollute their lungs and everything else, why should we stop them and what right do we have to? What’s next, a law preventing one to commit suicide?
April 5th, 2007 at 9:09 am
For arguements sake, not saying I agree here. Let’s say I am for the reduction on Nicotine in a cigerette, and I can see benefits from it, but the son of a smoker, I also see the negatives.
If we decrease the tax it would be a great thing for the government and would provide jobs. For instance – the companies cannot just produce this extra pack without hiring employees, bosses, accountants to handle the extra paper work etc. Therefore society benefits from more jobs and is basically redisbursing the money to other people which will be helping some poor people!
Now the downside is that the more people smoke is the more 2nd hand smoke is in the air. Now being the son of a grandparent who died of 2nd hand smoke without them touching a cigerette in their life, where is that right? They made the choice to try and stay healthy, but for one to make the other choice, they die, not right.
So we can increase the nicotine in a pack, less 2nd hand smoke, less jobs, and simply wont happen because the companies are not maximizing profits. Or we can decrease nicotine, hurt the smokers pocket by redistruting it to others, increase more jobs, but hurt the surrounding individuals.
To me (a non-smoker), cigerettes are not a need, but someone who is a smoker might disagree. Simply leave it untouched I would say.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:50 am
The amount of nicotine should not be determined by the FDA. I am a non-smoker, but I feel that if they were to reduce it then why don’t they just raise the tax. Raising the tax will be the same because smokers will buy more if the nicotine is less. If the FDA has the ability to do this, then what will be their limit? They will think that they can make laws or rules for other things, too. I agree with Allie. Who is to say how much nicotine each person can have.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
I feel that the FDA is trying to figure away to stop people from smoking, but I doubt anything will actually work. If people want to smoke they will continue to smoke regardless of the amount of nicotine in the ciggrettes. I think that giving smokers the option of choosing the type of nicotine amount is a good way to start. But in the end smokers will still pay whatever price and get the amount of ciggertees to get the nicotine they need to get through there day.