I recently saw some interesting gallup polls on smoking, and they got me thinking. It's been three years since I quit. I haven't had a cigarette in all that time, but I am still a nicotine addict, something I will talk about a little more later.
The gallup numbers were very positive. Smoking in the United States is at an all-time low. The number of young smokers, between 18 and 29, has dropped nearly 10 points since 2005 from 34% to 25%. Another Gallup poll found that those who do smoke smoke less than ever, with only 1% of smokers smoking more than a pack a day and 68% of smokers smoking less than a pack a day.
(more after the jump)
One has to wonder what has caused the decline in smokers. There is no denying that the cost of smoking has risen sharply in recent decades. Federal taxes alone add $1.09 to the cost of a pack. When factoring in state taxes, the goes even higher. The current average price for a pack of cigarettes is $5.29. In 1999, it was about $2.50. That is a 110% increase in 13 years. So, one might conclude that all of the taxation on cigarettes is working, but how true is that?
I couldn't find any US studies that explore people's motivation for quitting smoking, but I did find a French study on the topic, which might offer some clues. The French study found that 55% of people who quit smoking did so out of concern for their health. Only 24% of those studied indicated cost as a factor in quitting. In France, the average cost of a pack of cigarettes is equivalent to $7.87.
I bring this up because, even though I no longer smoke, I still identify with smokers. There is constant talk about raising taxes on cigarettes even further. In some states, that taxes are already more than double the actual cost of the cigarettes themselves. As progressives, we seem to take an "ends justifies the means" approach to cigarette taxes. The federal tax pays for the Children's Health Insurance Program, so it must be good, right? But, consider this, of the 20% of people who smoke, nearly half of them are not college graduates, which means they are among our lowest earners.
Is it really fair to shift so much burden for our children's health to such a small subset of people? Especially when a large portion of that subset is also the largest portion that needs the help? Shouldn't ensuring the health and safety of our children be something we are all responsible for?
Perhaps we feel that smokers deserve punishment for making such poor choices. Keep in mind, however, that the average age at which someone starts smoking is 15.1 years old. An age when we are expected to make bad decisions, cave to peer pressure and have poor impulse control. Consider also, that it has been proved that tobacco companies add toxic chemicals to cigarettes to make them even more addictive.
We may also think that pushing the cost up will force people to quit, but this is not likely the case. As the French study shows, only about a quarter of people who quit did some due to cost. I've personally never known anyone who successfully quit with cost as the only factor.
I personally quit smoking because of my job. I was working as a Math tutor at a community college. I would spend all day side-by-side with students, talking to them only inches away. I became really self-conscious and apologetic about the smell. That is what drove me to quit smoking, not the cost. Even though the cost burden was difficult, I was an addict, plain and simple. If it has only come down to cost, I would never have quit.
As a person who no longer smokes, I no longer carry the burden of children's health. But, you know what? I would gladly share that burden with smokers. I'm disappointed that more people don't feel that way.