why aren't cigarettes illegal? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

07/25/2006 01:21:34 PM · #51

In the UK, pack prices are about £6 (USD $9) for 20 cigarettes.

As I understand it, VAT is charged on them at 17.5%, and the manufacturer's profits are subject to corporation tax at 30%. The duty component on cigarettes is 22 per cent of the retail price plus £102.39 per thousand cigarettes. So, very roughly, 80% of the pack price is duty and tax. Or, in other words, the tax and duty paid are charged at about 500% of the base product cost.

The cigarette manufacturers are already potentially liable under huge claims for health related issues (second hand smoking risks being a key potential liability in various jurisdictions).

The tax does impose a barrier to people picking up the habit. However, the exclusivity of a high price can make them more attractive to young people. The tax also increases the amount of tax avoidance by smuggling and counterfeiting of cigarettes (c.20% of the market in the UK), which has the byproduct of increased danger for the smokers.

I do not think that, based on the experiences with cigarettes in the UK, the proposed legalisation, liability and taxation policy will have the desired effect in respect of drugs far more addictive and debilitating than tobacco.

The more effective policy for reduction of smoking appears to be a combination of price restriction, hard hitting public information advertising and cultural realignment. IMO, the legalisation of harder drugs would be highly counter productive as a method of public dissuasion.

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

07/25/2006 01:27:01 PM · #52

Then again it isn't the government's job to dissuade.

07/25/2006 01:32:30 PM · #53

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

Then again it isn't the government's job to dissuade.

Isn't it? I would agree with you about many things, but in respect of public health, I think that it is the government's job to encourage people to be healthy.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/25/2006 01:40:13 PM · #54

At least I'd like to see the laws criminalizing drugs bear some "proportionality" to the actual harm they cause. Right now, the penalties are not based on scientific evidence or rationality, but a combination of sterotyping, social hysteria, and outright racism. For example, in most of the US, the penalties associated with the "crack" form of cocaine (more popular/prevalent in minority communities) far exceed those of powder cocaine (more common in white, suburban communities), even though the medical risks (stroke, heart attack, seizures, psychosis) of each form are pretty much the same.

While tobacco is clearly linked as a risk factor for over 20 major diseases -- including many the taxpayers end up paying for -- and alcohol causes some 20,000 death/year in auto accidents alone (never mind the liver disease and nervous system damage), opiates, when given in known-safe dosages, have almost no deleterious effects on the body except for constipation. No liver damage, no heart disease, high blood pressure, brain damage, no nothing ... yet cigarettes and alcohol are available over-the-counter, while opiates are highly-restricted or completely unavailable.

Study after study has shown that pain is severely under-treated in the US, largely because physicians are unwilling to prescribe adequate doses of opiate pain-killers for fear of being busted by the DEA. I mean, if you have a cancer patient with six months to live, does it really matter if they become an opiate addict?

One of our (USA) founding documents might need one of its "inalienable rights" amended, to read "... Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (but only with a doctor's prescription)."

Message edited by author 2006-07-25 13:42:08.

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

07/25/2006 01:56:33 PM · #55

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Isn't it?

Nope.

They keep trying to do it but it's just another power they've managed to grab over the years.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/25/2006 01:59:45 PM · #56

Originally posted by "GeneralE":

What's the argument in favor of improving one's mood with Prozac or Valium but not with marijuana?

Touche....perhaps unmonitored recreational use?

That said, I could also argue that said drugs are not necessarily recreational. I was on Zoloft for 6 months. It wasn't for recreational purposes nor really to make me happy. It was to help balance out some chemical imbalances. After approx. 6 months I was doing much better and weened myself off of it.

"That should lower the current street price by about 75%."

Probably not. I have actually "legally" purchased cocaine, heroine and methylaphetamine (for scientific/industrial uses). It cost several hundred dollars for a few grams. Ironically, I could have bought the same materials illegally down the street and gotten a lot more for our buck. *lol*

Originally posted by "GeneralE":

At least I'd like to see the laws criminalizing drugs bear some "proportionality" to the actual harm they cause.

They are...if you take into consideration that illegally downloading a song can get you $150,000 fine and 10 yrs in prison.

07/25/2006 02:09:30 PM · #57

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I would agree, but arguing for the correct classification is far from arguing over legalisation of socially objectional drugs which is being partly proposed here.

Originally posted by GeneralIA:

...cigarettes and alcohol are available over-the-counter, while opiates are highly-restricted or completely unavailable. ...physicians are unwilling to prescribe adequate doses of opiate pain-killers

Agreed: it is odd. Socially, alcohol and cigarettes are acceptable, whereas other less harmful drugs are not. An accident of history largely, I think. Your argument for greater opiate use by qualified doctors is a strong one: the doctor is well placed to make the decision in a controlled environment, and should be relatively unhindered by socio-historical mores as to the effect of particular drugs.

07/25/2006 02:10:15 PM · #58

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

They keep trying to do it but it's just another power they've managed to grab over the years.

What is the purpose of government, in your opinion?

07/25/2006 02:12:42 PM · #59

Originally posted by theSaj:

I have actually "legally" purchased cocaine, heroine and methylaphetamine (for scientific/industrial uses). It cost several hundred dollars for a few grams. Ironically, I could have bought the same materials illegally down the street and gotten a lot more for our buck. *lol*

Isn't this the likely outcome of the legalisation scenario you propose?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/25/2006 02:13:48 PM · #60

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "GeneralE":
At least I'd like to see the laws criminalizing drugs bear some "proportionality" to the actual harm they cause.

They are...if you take into consideration that illegally downloading a song can get you $150,000 fine and 10 yrs in prison.

I'd laugh if it weren't so sadly true.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/25/2006 02:18:00 PM · #61

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by theSaj:
I have actually "legally" purchased cocaine, heroine and methylaphetamine (for scientific/industrial uses). It cost several hundred dollars for a few grams. Ironically, I could have bought the same materials illegally down the street and gotten a lot more for our buck. *lol*

Isn't this the likely outcome of the legalisation scenario you propose?

No, they're so expensive solely because of the restricted market and enhanced risk associated with their illegal status.

Pharmaceutical cocaine from Merck -- when I priced it in the late 1970s -- was something like $100 for a 1 ounce (not gram) bottle. The street price for an ounce of street-grade powder cocaine at the time was about $2,500. That was a profit-making opportunity which even savvy business executives such as John DeLorean were enticed into taking advantage of.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

07/25/2006 02:26:51 PM · #62

A good read on the effects of criminalizing consensual activities.

Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

07/25/2006 02:37:43 PM · #63

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

A good read on the effects of criminalizing consensual activities.

Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do

I have read that book it is fantastic, I agree and highly recommend it!
(It is about the size of "War & Peace" though):-P

I wish we had good old fashion "Mind Your Own Business-ism"

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

07/25/2006 02:50:59 PM · #64

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

What is the purpose of government, in your opinion?

To protect individual freedom.

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

07/25/2006 02:58:55 PM · #65

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by theSaj:
I have actually "legally" purchased cocaine, heroine and methylaphetamine (for scientific/industrial uses). It cost several hundred dollars for a few grams. Ironically, I could have bought the same materials illegally down the street and gotten a lot more for our buck. *lol*

Isn't this the likely outcome of the legalisation scenario you propose?

No, they're so expensive solely because of the restricted market and enhanced risk associated with their illegal status.

Pharmaceutical cocaine from Merck -- when I priced it in the late 1970s -- was something like $100 for a 1 ounce (not gram) bottle. The street price for an ounce of street-grade powder cocaine at the time was about $2,500. That was a profit-making opportunity which even savvy business executives such as John DeLorean were enticed into taking advantage of.

please check your facts on John DeLorean. there was no conviction

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

07/25/2006 03:27:31 PM · #66

Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by theSaj:
I have actually "legally" purchased cocaine, heroine and methylaphetamine (for scientific/industrial uses). It cost several hundred dollars for a few grams. Ironically, I could have bought the same materials illegally down the street and gotten a lot more for our buck. *lol*

Isn't this the likely outcome of the legalisation scenario you propose?

No, they're so expensive solely because of the restricted market and enhanced risk associated with their illegal status.

Pharmaceutical cocaine from Merck -- when I priced it in the late 1970s -- was something like $100 for a 1 ounce (not gram) bottle. The street price for an ounce of street-grade powder cocaine at the time was about $2,500. That was a profit-making opportunity which even savvy business executives such as John DeLorean were enticed into taking advantage of.

please check your facts on John DeLorean. there was no conviction

Where did he say "Conviction"? I only see "enticed".

Message edited by author 2006-07-25 15:28:52.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/25/2006 03:34:08 PM · #67

Why aren't cigarettes illegal?

Because they learned their lesson the first time.

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

07/25/2006 04:59:03 PM · #68

What would any sane person think he meant by 'enticed into taking advantage of'?

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

07/25/2006 05:08:00 PM · #69

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
What is the purpose of government, in your opinion?

To protect individual freedom.

Exactly!!

It's certainly not to impose some government constructed morality over a citizen's personal morality.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

07/25/2006 05:08:34 PM · #70

Originally posted by David Ey:

What would any sane person think he meant by 'enticed into taking advantage of'?

Um so to you there is no difference between these words.

Entice: to attract artfully or adroitly or by arousing hope or desire : TEMPT

Convict: 1. to find or prove to be guilty 2. to convince of error or sinfulness

Am I to infer you think I am insane because of my understanding of English?

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/25/2006 05:56:58 PM · #71

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
What is the purpose of government, in your opinion?

To protect individual freedom.

Exactly!!

It's certainly not to impose some government constructed morality over a citizen's personal morality.

You both get an F. The purpose of government is to restrict individual freedoms to the extent necessary to promote a healthy society. How much restriction, what sort of society - different discussions altogether. But every form of government is a restriction on personal freedoms through the creation and enforcement of laws.

Democracy - everyone can more or less do what they want, so long as what they want is acceptable to a majority

Facism - everyone can do what they want so long as it is in the state's best interest

Totalitarianism - feel free to do what you want, but we are watching and will slam the boot down on your face if what you want to do isn't what we want you to do

etc, etc