The Economics of Smoking

Smoking has long been a concern of mine. For me and for others smoking has more drawbacks than benefits. To start off, I am not advocated a total smoking ban. We have rights to make certain decisions regarding our bodies, no matter how self-destructive they may be. This is why we have the right to live our life as we choose, provided that we only impact ourselves and not others. This is the essence behind out laws; they are not designed to impede the freedoms and liberties of the people, but to protect the freedom and liberties of those who are affected by the decisions of others.

Think about drinking and then operating a motor vehicle. This is illegal because you place the lives of others at risk by doing so. The same holds true for smoking. Smoking presents what is called a negative externality in that your actions can negatively impact others (unintentionally). By smoking in confined places, you are impacting the living condition of others and impacting their decision on whether or not they would like to smoke. True, they have the ability to leave the area in which you are smoking, but non-smokers have as much right to be there as a smoker.
The only difference between a non-smoker’s right and a smoker’s right is that a smoker’s decision to smoke not only affects the smoker, but all others around. Restaurants previously either banned smoking in their facilities altogether or had designated smoking areas. Cities today are banning smoking in public places for the same reason. A person’s right to breathe fresh air is impeded upon by a smoker’s right to smoke. Smokers can choose either to smoke or not to smoke at no harm to themselves, however a non-smoker, when around other smokers, is at the mercy of the smoker’s decision. Since a majority of Americans do not smoke, it further only makes sense to rule in favor of the majority.

Smoking bans do not impede on the rights of smokers. These bans make smoking allowable in certain places much like other currently existing laws. For instance, alcohol cannot be consumed in public except during certain exceptions (like a tailgate party). Try drinking a cold-one in public and you might end up with a public intoxication charge. Smoking is moving towards the same standard; get caught smoking in public where it’s banned and receive a citation.
Now onto the economic side. Why do people choose to smoke and continue to do so? Because quitting for most is an impossible feat. So they continue to pay to feed their addiction, not only to purchase their smokes but for any ensuing medical costs from smoking-related illnesses. Calculating the costs of smoking should not only be contained to the cost of a pack of cigarettes, but should also include (1) the costs of any additional health care and (2) any loss of productivity an individual may experience from smoking related diseases. I would also like to note the costs associated with the loss of life but this cost is both difficult and too subjective to determine.
Smokers with low income who suffer from smoking related diseases are more likely to have the costs of their medical expenditures paid by Medicaid, a program financed by tax-payer dollars. Essentially, those individuals who smoke and have low income are affecting the pocketbook of both smoking and non-smoking Americans alike. Smokers who have private insurance will also have higher medical costs which translate into higher insurance premium costs across the board for smokers and non-smokers alike. Smoking not only affects the health of non-smokers through second-hand smoke, but also results in less disposable income for all.

Now what about any benefits? Smokers obviously experience some benefits from smoking or else they would never start. The benefits they experience would be difficult to assess against any negatives a non-smoker may experience from second-hand smoke. So we’ll leave it at that it is noted nonetheless. Smoking generates a source of revenue for states from an established per unit tax rate. This revenue normally goes towards public programs that the state government has dedicated the tax revenue for (ironically, some states utilize these tax funds for smoking cessation programs). Sometimes the funds are used to help defray the costs of medical expenses related to smoking. This way at least those who are smoking are paying for some of their medical treatment. Additionally, any tax burden imposed by states is going to raise the price of a pack of cigarettes and make it increasingly less affordable for people to smoke. Higher prices for cigarettes will at least provide incentive for people to stop smoking in order to save money.
So given the inherent costs and benefits of smoking, in my purely economic opinion, smoking should be banned as a cost saving measure, for smokers and non-smoker alike. However, my legal opinion of the issue varies to the extent that smokers have a right to smoke, but this right should not infringe on those of non-smokers. Given both the legal and economic reasons presented here, I hope that this article garnishes a good discussion about the fate of a statewide smoking ban, or even a national smoking ban.