Cigarettes, not guns or bombs, are the deadliest artifacts in the history of civilization. If we want to save lives and improve health, nothing else that is readily achievable would be as effective as an international ban on the sale of cigarettes. (Eliminating extreme poverty worldwide is about the only strategy that might save more lives, but it would be far more difficult to accomplish.)
AM: Really, Singer?
First, the war on drugs has been an astounding failure. Drug prohibition is probably the worst policy initiative of the 20th century in terms of cost, ineffectiveness, and unintended side effects. So lets keep that in mind before we up the ante.
You seem to have anticipated this response, but can you so easily write-off the war on drugs comparison? Prohibition has actually made drugs stronger and more dangerous: this was a black market innovation that directly resulted from illegality. Making tobacco illegal would do nothing to diminish the demand for tobacco, and everything to encourage the growth of a parallel economy. I mean, even high tax rates produce contraband. You can't keep a banned drug down. Your utilitarian calculation of costs and benefits drastically underestimates the harm caused by prohibition; and overestimates the benefits (effectiveness) of the policy.
Second, even if this could work, do you really think that the utilitarian notion of harm reduction overrides the basic principle of free choice? Granted, addiction and second hand smoke complicate the issue, but this remains, ultimately, a question of liberty. Don't ignore that.
Third, the negative externalities of smoking are better reduced through less coercive policies. In Canada, education, restrictions, and taxation have been pretty effective in cutting smoking rates and protecting the public. Smokers pay taxes; they can't smoke in most public places; and everyone is aware of the dangers. Tobacco companies can't advertise to children; and kids are educated on the risks of smoking, at an early age. This works. But we're not going to eliminate it entirely. Why go further and risk repeating a massive mistake like prohibition?
As unfeasible as an international ban on cigarettes is, you have to admit that in a hypothetical scenario where it would actually prevent people from smoking, this would make sense. Why should pot and other drugs be illegal when alcohol and tobacco are not?
ReplyDeleteI know I'm simply opening the door for your inevitable "all drugs should be legal argument," but the real answer is because white people make money off tobacco and alcohol, so they're OK. In Canada, virtually every drug that is illegal was made so in an attempt to keep immigrants from profiting here. Following the building of the railroads, Canada made it illegal for Chinese people to do most jobs here so they began importing opium, so it too was soon made illegal. Same goes for marijuana.
Anyway, Im off on a tangent. Bottom line: far too many powerful lobbies make ridiculous profits from tobacco to even consider the possibility that any government would ever make it illegal. But, obviously, if it were possible to protect people from tobacco, I think they would have to do it. Smoking kills more people than virtually any other substance--it makes no sense for other substances to be illegal while tobacco is legal (again, in a hypothetical fantasy land).
Have to agree with you, prohibition is not working. Hilarious that tobacco even has an alphabet letter agency associated with it - ATF.
ReplyDeleteWhat a waste of money. A fraction of those funds could support awareness campaigns, etc.
Well stated case.
RJ - Great reply.
ReplyDelete"Why should pot and other drugs be illegal when alcohol and tobacco are not?"
Your second paragraph of course nips this reply in the bud, but I'll go to it anyway: I support legal drugs with public awareness and safety campaigns, which are relative cheap compared to enforcement agencies.
Interesting regarding immigrant work - is that what Emily Murphy was doing in 32'? I thought she was afraid of Axe murderers!
In any case, if drugs were legal, good old Canadian's could produce it themselves, just as they do alcohol and tobacco.
Great tangent.
If you make tobacco illegal, when does alcohol follow suit?
We've been down this road!
Cheers
T
I completely agree that it's hypocritical. Tobacco and alcohol are no less harmful than some other banned drugs. But prohibition doesn't work. It doesn't work on its own terms of preventing drug use. Not only that, it has all sorts of unintended side effects: it spurs organized crime; it leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials; the products themselves become more potent and dangerous. Prohibition does not reduce harm. The costs of enforcement are enormous. And all of this to prevent people from something that really just harms themselves and no one else.
ReplyDeleteWe have an ok policy now: tobacco is controlled; taxed; restricted ;and we educate people not to use it. And it works. Reduction on the demand side is far more effective, far less intrusive, and we profit from it. Let`s stick with this.
Furthermore, the "harm" reduction argument does not convince me. How many deaths could be prevented if no one ate high fructose corn syrup? Probably a ton. What about alcohol? Why not also ban those things? We could justify all sorts of restrictions on personal freedom this way. But liberty, liberty to make personal choices about how to live life, is a good that is good for its own sake: even if people make bad choices sometimes.
The idea that banning tobacco companies will simply encourage organized criminal elements to step up to the plate and deliver the services themselves to the clients - leads me to ask: what is the difference between government doing it and them (so-called organized crime). They are both greedy, self-serving organizations controlled by elements that have never been elected, and by powerbrokers who do not have the common good in mind. DM
ReplyDeleteDM: well the government doesn't do it; private business do. But they can do it out in the open without fear of being sanctioned; they don't have to use violence and bribery; and the government can levy sales taxes. Criminals use violence, bribery, and the underground nature of the trade usually worsens the product.
ReplyDelete