Show us the smoking gun

FINANCE Minister Colm Imbert gave sobering statistics in Parliament on Monday.

As he introduced a 20 per cent tax hike on tobacco products, Mr Imbert lamented the prevalence of smoking and pointed to its terrible effects.

Smoking takes 12 years off the life of male smokers and 11 from female smokers, the minister reminded us, and it is linked not only to cancers but also diabetes and vascular disease.

Despite this, one third of males and one tenth of females still smoke. Worse, this country has one of the highest rates of smoking among young people between 13 and 15.

The Finance Minister should be commended for using fiscal policy as an instrument to point to healthcare issues facing the country. As he observed on Monday, it costs $500,000 to treat one lung cancer patient. Prevention is better than cure.

However, it cannot be denied the picture in relation to tobacco is a little more complex than the straightforward health warnings plastered on cigarette packs.

“Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world,” writer Mark Twain once said. “I know because I’ve done it thousands of times.”

Mr Twain’s aphorism points to the fact that smoking is additive. While taxing cigarettes could help dissuade people from taking up the habit, it is harder to state whether the impact on existing smokers is punitive or, rather, a true deterrent.

Economists might tell you that since smoking is difficult to quit, demand for tobacco products is somewhat inelastic, meaning price changes are likely to result in only small shifts in demand.

But we find no basis to go as far as Opposition MP Rushton Paray, who, in Monday’s debate on the new tobacco tax measure, dismissed the possible altruism behind Mr Imbert’s position.

However, Mr Paray did have a point when he called for more transparency on the overall strategy to deal with smoking and the use to which tax revenue is being put.

It is precisely because smoking is so prevalent that Mr Imbert should provide more data to support the belief that raising taxes will cause a decrease in the demand for tobacco in this country. Certainly, we have seen international studies that suggest such might have an impact when done alongside a suite of measures.

According to a study by Prof Konrad Jamrozik of Imperial College London, these price increases have the greatest impact among adolescents.

At the end of the day, though smoking is a social issue. Smoking is addictive. But nobody is putting a gun to the head of the consumer, who can be presumed to have a degree of choice. It is not wholly correct to say that the State is taking advantage of them.

The reality of the difficulties involved in curbing any kind of bad habit – eating sugary foods, eating fatty meats, drinking too much alcohol – point to the need for more than just fiscal measures.

Mr Imbert will likely agree the new tax alone cannot save everyone from the error of their own ways.