Smoking gets expensive

The largest federal tax increase on cigarettes in history took effect last Wednesday.

Bring it on.

My habit of indulging in the occasional social smoke or study boost will definitely become less frequent, but $10 a pack, as reported at one kiosk in New York, is still too cheap.

The latest hike increases the federal tax from $0.39 a pack to $1.01. With considerable evidence from the Centers for Disease Control correlating higher prices per pack with decreased consumption, it’s not surprising that smoking cessation hotlines have been getting deluged with smokers trying to quit.

Given the health effects of lighting up, this tax increase couldn’t come at a better time: About 450,000 deaths per year can be attributed to smoking.

Think about that number for a moment. It includes those exposed to secondhand smoke, too – those who didn’t even light up themselves.

If cigarette taxes were high enough that people had to refinance their homes to buy the leaf, they would seriously consider whether the nicotine high is worth the extra money. Sales of tobacco products have been in decline for the past several years – higher prices and also more stringent smoking bans in public spaces are likely significant reasons.

Admittedly, the argument that the tax would disproportionately affect the poor, who are more likely to smoke, has some traction.

There’s also the argument that the tax will fall hard on small businesses, like convenience stores, some of which make a good deal of their money from the sale of tobacco products.

Fortunately, for those worried about where the revenue will be spent, the tax increase will be used to fund President Barack Obama’s expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Sounds like a nice trade to me.

On a fundamental level, I’m finding it difficult to see the perspective of those who are opposed to such a tax increase, mostly because smoking, in just about every measurable way, is bad.

By some measurements, more than 90 percent of people who smoke regret that they started. There is also evidence suggesting that many smokers continue to smoke even though they wish to quit.

But telling people that it’s bad, that it causes cancer and that it’s bad for the people around you doesn’t seem to be as effective as raising taxes on it.

The wallet seems to be a more effective pressure point for addiction than any.

If the government is trying to reduce the number of smokers, the tax increase is simply good evidence-based policy.

In this case, the separation of tax policy from public health concerns is a mistake: The two are inextricable.

Smoking presents a formidable, significant public health problem. Pricing out the casual smokers will require a reconfiguring of monthly finances.

It’s just an added benefit that revenue from this tax helps us address deficiencies in American health care.