April 29, 2010
If the Rudd hospital reforms increasingly look as if they will make minimal difference to the way that public hospitals are run, then the shift to preventing smoking by ensuring that cigarettes would be sold in plain packs is to be welcomed.
This represents a reduction in cigarette advertising (brand names and product names will have to be displayed in standard colour, font style and position) and it will, according to leaks, be accompanied by a hike (25%) in the tobacco tax in the budget.
This public health policy is welcomed because it is a good public health measure: smoking kills people and the harm that it causes for smokers and non-smokers costs the nation around $31 billion.
The standard utilitarian argument is that if social costs are greater than social benefits then that activity should be taxed. Increased taxes act as a price signal to consumers to change their smoking habits. So Big Tobacco should pay some of the cost of smoking on the public health system.
Big Tobacco is outraged---the plain packaging legislation constitutes an expropriation of intellectual property rights (their trademarks). They are demanding billions of dollars to compensate for the loss of their trademarks. The argument is provided by Tim Wilson from the IPA in this paper on Intellectual property in a knowledge economy.
Commenting on this public health policy initiative Sinclair Davidson at Catallaxy says that Tobacco persecution continues. He says that both the increase in the tobacco excise and the plain packaging legislation are irresponsible and short-sighted.
However, in the latter Taxing fags: Repost at Catallaxy Davidson says that:
It is true that smoking has adverse health effects on smokers and non-smokers. This is well-known and has broad acceptance and understanding in the community and the incidence of smoking in the community has fallen dramatically in recent years.
So how does preventing people from dying from cancer square with the persecution of Big Tobacco? The latter implies a defence of Big Tobacco, the former implies the need to reduce smoking to prevent carcinogens.
So how do the right-of-centre libertarians square their circle?
|
Sinclair Davidson provides a useful service as a simple decision making heuristics tool...if you know what I mean.