I'll come right out and say that I've never been a smoker.  I was an athlete from junior high through college and the rule each season from the coachese themselves was no smoking.  More importantly I just never liked the way cigarettes smelled. I did try a cigarette in college during the off-season to see if I could understand the appeal.  I just didn't like it.  We do have a relative in our family who smokes though and feels that anti-smoking regulatiosn infringe on her rights.  As such, I find myself a little more tuned into smoking laws than I probably otherwise would be. 

New York just raised its tax on cigarrettes on June 2, 2008.  Yeah, yeah so it's another tax.  What's the big deal?  The big deal is that it drastically increased.  In fact it more than doubled.  It rose from $1.25 to $2.75 per pack to be precise.   This makes it the highest cigarette tax in the country. 

Time.com writes,  "'The number of calls to the state's Smoker's Quitline quadrupled to nearly 10,000 calls during the week of June 2, when the full $2.75-a-pack tax kicked in,' New York Health Commissioner Dr. Richard Daines said. 'Fewer than 2,300 people called for help during the same week in 2007."  2,300 less smokers would be great news, although the article mentions that not every caller becomes a quitter.  The Quitline data does not accurately tell us to what extent the tax hike reduced smoking.  The increase in calls certainly demonstrates that the taxes do discourage smoking. 

So why raise taxes to get people to quit smoking?  Why not just do more ads about the effects of smoking?  Yeshiva World explains it by saying, "Studies show that cigarette taxes are the most effective way to reduce smoking because higher prices drive people to quit smoking and prevent younger children from starting smoking.

"'Most smokers want to quit,' said State Health Commissioner Richard F. Daines, M.D. 'The cigarette tax is doing exactly what we intended, giving smokers another powerful reason to try to quit. We’re thrilled with these results.'"

Not everyone is happy with the use of fiscal policy to change people's consumption patterns.  Alex Jones' Infowars had an Editor's note reading, "It is a prime example of mobocracy in action — New York takes advantage of majority anti-smoking sentiment to impose taxation on drug addicts."

 
Mike Rigs wrote a post on Reason.com entitled I Didn't Ask for Help.  He stated "Kudos to Associated Press writer Valerie Bauman for getting Audrey Silk, head of NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, on the record stating her logical opposition to the $1.50-per-pack increase:

"'No matter the goal, it's disgusting that any group would actually boast that coercive government — this time through the hammer of taxation — to beat a class of society enjoying a legal product into submission is *successful,*' Silk said."

This is an interesting case of means vs ends.  In a free society, there is a limit to how much power we are willing to allow the government to exert to control individual behavior, even if it is for the "individual's own good."  On the other hand, smoking impacts the health of non-smokers and is a significant driver of health care costs that impact everyone.  All of the costs and benefits depend on whether the tax does work to reduce smoking, and that will have to remain to be seen. 

Alex Elliot also blogs at Formula Fed and Flexible Parenting.