Dagon’s points are very good. There’s another aspect as well:
Tobacco import and distribution (and in some cases, production) are already nationalized in many countries, especially in the EU. National governments try to impose artificial scarcity (winding down operations, tax increases, fixed pricing), and this makes the statistics look better—officially monitored tobacco sales decrease.
Artificial scarcity cannot last: a black market of RYO tobacco, and home-made cigarettes of dubious origin is always ready to serve customer demands. In the end, the health effects of nationalizing the tobacco industry, and winding down operations, can easily be negative.
Artificial scarcity cannot last: a black market of RYO tobacco, and home-made cigarettes of dubious origin is always ready to serve customer demands.
True, but if it’s less than the total market that existed before hand, that’s still a public health gain
In the end, the health effects of nationalizing the tobacco industry, and winding down operations, can easily be negative.
It can be, but that’s just not the best supported hypothesis. The weight of evidence best demonstrates that control measures have thus far been quite uniformly positive.
The weight of evidence best demonstrates that control measures have thus far been quite uniformly positive.
I see. The black market effects are well-documented, but I am not familiar with evidence which shows that control measures have any measurable effects on public health. Where could I find that data?
I mean nationalized, as in the distribution of tobacco products (imports, wholesale, retail) is handled by companies that may or may not have been private at some point, but are now property of the state.
Dagon’s points are very good. There’s another aspect as well:
Tobacco import and distribution (and in some cases, production) are already nationalized in many countries, especially in the EU. National governments try to impose artificial scarcity (winding down operations, tax increases, fixed pricing), and this makes the statistics look better—officially monitored tobacco sales decrease.
Artificial scarcity cannot last: a black market of RYO tobacco, and home-made cigarettes of dubious origin is always ready to serve customer demands. In the end, the health effects of nationalizing the tobacco industry, and winding down operations, can easily be negative.
Australia has a track record of doing a better job of enforcing bans than other countries. It’s a island.
True, but if it’s less than the total market that existed before hand, that’s still a public health gain
It can be, but that’s just not the best supported hypothesis. The weight of evidence best demonstrates that control measures have thus far been quite uniformly positive.
I see. The black market effects are well-documented, but I am not familiar with evidence which shows that control measures have any measurable effects on public health. Where could I find that data?
that’s not what nationalising means
I mean nationalized, as in the distribution of tobacco products (imports, wholesale, retail) is handled by companies that may or may not have been private at some point, but are now property of the state.
What do you mean by nationalizing?