Today’s Boston Herald features public health advocate attacks on the Senate’s amendment to abolish the cigarette minimum pricing law to offset the impact of the $1 tax increase on consumers and retailers: http://www.bostonherald.com/ne…
Even if we assume that this revenue legislation has somehow morphed into public health legislation, I have some questions: if free market competition will reduce the price of cigarettes below the minimum price law, why not just make the tax $1.15 per pack and dedicate the extra revenue to smoking cessation programs and the like? If we have to choose between higher prices caused by more tax revenue for the state, or higher prices caused by market controls and subsidies, doesn’t it make more sense to err on the side of more tax revenues?
Call me stupid, but I just don’t get the Tobacco Free attack on abolishing the minimum price law when we could easily control the total cost per pack by adjusting the tax revenue. Any help on this one?
Frankly, I would support making tobacco a controlled substance, and any measures that lead to less use of it would please me.
<
p>I don’t have any problem with upping the tax and leaving a minimum that keeps the price as high as possible especially due to research that shows price to be the best deterrent for youthful smokers.
If your objective is to drive price higher, do it by tax rates. The guaranteed profit of the minimum pricing law only ensures that tobacco and cigarette sellers will be able to have more dollars for marketing. Which means greater cigarette promotion. Assuming we don’t turn cigarettes into a controlled substance anytime soon, don’t you agree with this approach? Hooray for the Senate for a common sense solution!