Also, holding companies liable for illegal usage of their products is a constraint on growth.
Why not charge the store that illegal sold the children the Menthol cigarettes?
Why not ask the children what ads they say with cigarettes in them and charge the marketing agency?
Should we hold government officials in contempt of society when they build roads that people die on? Should we hold generals as murderers when a mission fails?
Is it better to save 1000 lives by regulating something than saving 10000 lives over the long run with new technology?
It's much harder to quantify the negative impacts of regulations in terms of medicines never developed, healthcare never delivered, food innovation never discovered, etc.
This is done already in the form of large fines and revoked licenses.
Otherwise: Assuming the companies would just pass on the cost by raising prices, this is making people accept personal responsibility. A direct tax on cigarettes would be a different way of doing it.
I wouldn't limit this to estimated costs for illegal smoking. Make everyone pay more for cigarettes to cover their actual costs-- costs currently payed by society in general. Right now the increase in medical costs is subsidized by non-smokers.
Strict individual responsibility had been the rule for cigarette smoking before and it was not successful.
Market growth is not so important.
We'll see if markets crash around the globe the famine that emerges.
Market health is important, fixation on growth is in my opinion a big cause for lots of issues we face globally. Everything is built in a way where it constantly has to grow in order to work. But everything we have and do cannot be done or had endlessly, everything has its limits. Our markets don't exist in a vacuum, growing means to take space away from other things or beings.
Constant growth is not possible and things which are focused on it are bound to fail or turn ugly.
What's a better way to do it?
People who know what the Club of Rome discusses might be able to chime in, but 2052[1](not affiliated) largely shaped my opinion about this topic. Can't put it into perfect guidelines, but I would wish for a system which is dicated based on how happy it makes its people and on how sustainable it is.
Otherwise, if we still stay focused on growth, I don't see how we should handle climate change and other global issues. Because exactly this desire to always grow and expand seems to be the common factor behind a lot of these issues. Continue growing and buying Co2-certificates is not what's going to save us, we have to rethink our western, first-world way of living and maybe turn down our luxuries a bit.
In my opinion, expanding wealth gaps are a big issue as well. People who have the means to just ignore climate change and other things by spending money will never care, at the same time the same people are exactly the ones using the most resources.
As you can see, I'm more rambling than really answering your question, but we can gladly continue discussing this topic.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2052:_A_Global_Forecast_for_th...
Market growth for tobacco products is not important, full stop.
Why? People always put this out there as a universal moral virtue but I just don't see it that way. The ideology of individual responsibility for all negative consequences has led us to horrific places. It's useful and necessary sometimes but not always, and I don't think here.
> Also, holding companies liable for illegal usage of their products is a constraint on growth.
Who fucking cares? Again, growth in itself is not a virtue we need to cultivate for its own sake. Growth of what, and for what ends? Growth is a tool we can use, so what are we using it for in this case. And do we even want to be?
Starving people across the world. As the pie grows everyone gets a slice. Now the pie needs to be better divided across the globe, I agree.
> Why?
Inalienable rights are a cornerstone of this country. I think this should include what we ingest. Now, we're not exempt from the consequences of what we ingest. I can def understand situations where the collective has a higher responsibility, but I don't think smoking flavored tobacco is one of them.
Edit: To the person below me, it is ludicrous that healthy people subsidize non-healthy people's healthcare when they choose to smoke.
Should we do the same for people who consume alcohol? What about people who aren't fit, overweight? What about excessive sport, bad posture, eating lots of red meat, sugar or fat, or do or consume [INSERT LIST OF UNHEALTHY THINGS]
Someone may call this a slippery-slope argument, but I'd disagree. If the argument is that people should pay for their own reckless, unhealthy or dangerous behaviour, I don't understand why we would only apply this to smoking.
Lots of things we do as humans are unhealthy and unnecessary, I really don't understand the focus on smoking.
PS: I am not and never was a smoker.
I agree, and don't think it's a slippery slope. I see nothing wrong with health insurance premiums being partially determined by life choices. Life insurance often already does this to some degree. Car insurance does this all the time based on the choices a person has made (choice of car, choice to speed, drive drunk, or otherwise engage in riskier behavior)
The fact that people might argue over where to draw the line is never, by itself, justification for not drawing a line at all. Smoking & alcohol at least are areas with enough research to quantify costs a bit more. Excessive sport is murkier: Are risks of injury offset by an overall healthier body?
Food is more difficult. There are a lot of socioeconomic issues surrounding access & affordability to healthy foods that mean the issue isn't purely one of choice.
Wow, this is a great quote. I'm using this in the future.
This is probably different from person to person, based on their ideology or world-view. Because I don't think that we should be treated differently based on our choices. For me insurances are an act of solidarity - We all pay, and if someone needs money, they receive it. Of course that excludes fraud, but I think you know what I mean. But I respect your view, I understand why people would want premiums to be individual. It's just not my style.
> socioeconomic issues surrounding access & affordability to healthy foods
That's true, yes. Socioeconomic standings can however also influence other factors we have mentioned, though admittedly not so much as food. But one example I have in mind is drug use - Technically opiates and other hard drugs are very dangerous and harmful, and I think we're both aware how much socioeconomic factors influences consumption of such substances.
I have to agree with the other commenter, this sentence is very quotable: "The fact that people might argue over where to draw the line is never, by itself, justification for not drawing a line at all." Good insight, thanks. Will keep this in mind the next time I think about potential lines.
Every ideological group will salivate at the idea of controlling what you can and can't do with your body if the result could be higher medical expenses that need to be paid for by the community.