odds and ends
Smoking Policy Goes Up in Flames Bruce
All the smoke signals from the rise of the tobacco tax show, despite some smokers saved, that the other harms cannot be snuffed out
I
n an effort to reduce the number of smokers in Hong Kong, the government bit off more than they could chew. Now problems linger, stinking like stale smoke in the air affecting community health. As some elderly, mothers and their children have been vilified as cigarette smugglers, smokers were kicked to the curb. Is this what it takes to reduce smokers in this city? There are problems with the smoking policy, much of which has been adapted from international organizations. Today, people complain about the inexhaustible cigarette smoke they face walking down urban streets – a reminder of the logic flaws inherent in this policy choice. The first negative spinoff the community endured because of this policy was the hit on newspaper vendors and infringement on property rights of private venues. Next, the inescapable smoke as smokers poured onto the street with nowhere to go. Another consequence was the swelling of black market activity, not to mention the otherwise
50
Best Practice
unnecessary growth and spending to increase manpower in customs in response to the increase in illicit cigarettes. The most farcical in all this, recently, is that elderly and other community members are now vilified as cigarette traffickers and there is now talk to create outdoor smoking areas. In restricting outdoor smoking areas, policymakers further limit choice, the same logic which created the negative consequences in the first instance. The worst of it is that the black market trade is growing, which means youths have easier access to illicit cigarettes and the larger trade in general. Additionally, illicit cigarettes often times, if not always, are worse for your health. At this point, it would be wise for policymakers to revisit their decisions. It’s not easy to roll this up into a black and white situation. One can only narrowly blame the smokers for purchasing illicit cigarettes. It’s only logical for them to purchase the cheapest option. And you can’t blame community members wanting to make an easy buck for engaging in the illicit trade. Incentives matter. We can sympathize with all who are involved. How would you feel if, all of a sudden, the wine duty was reverted, or a favourite food had an extra 50 percent tax levied – you’d be outraged, and if it was banned, we’d have protests on the streets. Certainly the hike has helped
people quit smoking, but is it in the Government’s interest to impose behavioral changing incentives and has it been worth it? This tax is supposed to help smokers kick the habit, but if the government intended to stop people from smoking for their own health, the most effective policy would be to ban all forms of tobacco use outright. That said, implementing such a stringent policy would tarnish Hong Kong’s image, after all, the Nazi regime was the first to ban tobacco products. Moreover, what product would be next – McDonald’s and Girl Scout cookies? There are actually initiatives in the US to regulate these products – thus do not imagine Hong Kong is incapable of pursuing similar initiatives, straying from allowing informed adults to make their own decisions. The city certainly hasn’t gone that far, nor will it as far as most can see, but this is the current situation: demonizing community members, increasing illicit trade and cigarettes, endangering youths, infringing on property rights and smokers’ rights in the name of “protecting adults.” With shocking arrests involving the elderly, mothers and their children, increasing the tobacco tax has caused enough negative consequences that outsize the benefit the government originally intended. And whether it was ever their business in the first place remains a point of contention.