The law of diminishing return is a decrease in the
marginal output of the production process as the amount of a single factor of
production is increased, while the amount of all other factors of production
stay the same (Wikipedia) .
In Pierre Lemieux article The Diminishing Returns to
Tobacco Legislation he speaks about the diminishing return of the government dollars
spent on the fight to stop smoking (Lemieux, 2001) . Governments have
long since taxed the sinful items which we as individuals indulge in, these
funds are inelastic to the government. They can raise these taxes and increase
their revenues year over year.
Then a point in time came when smoking was linked to
serious health problems and the social conscience was awoken in regards to
governments becoming responsible to their citizens for their health and well-being
rather than just to make money off of people’s addictions. The information supplied
from Pierre Lemieux in his article says that cigarette prices in the United
States increased by 52% from 1985-1995 during which time 18% of smokers quit
smoking then from 1995-1999 prices increased 48% with 11% of smokers quitting
smoking at this time (Lemieux, 2001) , from this information
it looks as if the law of diminishing return started for the governments with
regards to the effectiveness of the use of their anti-smoking dollars during
1995.
From the article we do not know the total number or
percentage of the population that smoked in the United States during the time
periods of 1985-1995 or 1995-1999. We do not know how many new smokers started
each year, the length of time people smoke before they decide to quit? As well
we do not know what was the deciding factor for an individual to quit? Was the advertising
on the cigarette packages offensive and that was the cause for them to quit, or
was it due to another factor such as their physician advising them of
complications due to smoking. Without the further details of the reasoning
behind someone quitting it is truly hard to say when the law of diminishing
return started for the government with their anti-smoking dollars.
Myself I quit smoking in 2000 (I realize it is
outside of the time used) the reason I did this is because my children were
getting older and I did not want them to start smoking. All of the advertising
for all those years did not impact me. My mother quit a year ago she smoked for
55 years; the reason she quit was because she ended up in hospital again with pneumonia
for the second time in less than a year. It was a very severe case with her
long term prognosis not know for quit sometime. Again the anti-smoking campaign
did not have an impact on her quitting either.
In Pierre Lemieux article he makes the state of “or it may be that most smokers don't
really see, or care about, such government warnings” (Lemieux, 2001) , I do not agree with this statement.
All levels of government have different types of regulations and warnings to try
and help us help ourselves; over and over as individuals we continue these
different behaviors as we choose. The drinking alcohol and driving campaign is
a prime example of individuals also not being impacted by the graphic displays
of motor vehicle accidents caused by drinking and driving. My opinion is that
individuals see the advertisements but do not really believe that this would
happen to them until it is too late and they have lung cancer or caused a motor
vehicle accident.
Pierre Lemieux spoke about mild forms of prohibition
not to be discounted when it comes to smoking (Lemieux, 2001) . However in the past when there was prohibition
around alcohol all this did was to create an underground society which made and
transported alcohol and increased alcohol consumption. The increase in demand
for alcohol rose and so did the illegal making of alcohol so that supply
increased as well. Prohibition was proven to not be a viable solution in the
past when it came to alcohol and with the data we have from that experience this
would lead us to believe that it would also not be a good solution to the
anti-smoking campaign either.
What is the answer to continue momentum in the
anti-smoking campaign and see government dollars used in the best way? I do not
know what the answer is for a better use of the government’s anti-smoking
campaign dollars and how to keep the momentum going, however social change has
started and this to have a momentum that will hopefully help in assisting the
anti-smoking campaign.
Lemieux, P. (2001, Mar 19).
The Diminishing Returns to Tobacco Legislation. The Laissez Faire City Times. Retrieved on August 24, 2012 from:
No comments:
Post a Comment