Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Philip Morris - A Stock For Wealth Or Poverty (MO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ralph Bergmann who wrote (1344)	4/9/1998 9:10:00 AM
From: Geoff	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6439

Interesting, but IMO a tax alone will not solve the problem here. I agree that there will be a price shock, then things will settle down, but the steep increase in price will cause many adult smokers to quit. I don't think that underage smoking will subside though... at least not through increasing the price. Below is my letter to the NY Times on the subject, let me know what you think... =================== To the editor: I am 22 years old and have never smoked a cigarette; I think it is a disgusting habit. However, a vast majority of my friends smoke regularly. I have followed the tobacco settlement with great interest as a non-smoker, and as a shareholder of one of the major tobacco companies. The announced settlement of 20 June 1997 should have been an historic event, and it was, but the opportunity now seems to be lost according to yesterday's developments. ("Tobacco Companies Pull Back From Settlement" - 9 April 1998 - DAVID E. ROSENBAUM) Since every sound-byte on television, and every quote in the newspaper, contains some iteration of the phrase, "we need to protect our children," I ask why is the sole focus of the means to that protection an increase in taxes on cigarettes? Especially when those taxes may not be spent on smoking-related programs. My question to Congress and the President is, why isn't there any mention of stricter enforcement of the laws against the sale of cigarettes to underage smokers? What disturbs me the most about the entire debate surrounding a national tobacco settlement, is the fact that since the initial agreement was announced, that no one has revisited the idea of increased enforcement of the "18 or Over" law which prohibits the sale of cigarettes to minors? It seems to be visible only by those big circular yellow and red buttons worn by convenience store clerks. I recall that the initial settlement required the tobacco companies to greatly increase their efforts to have retail outlets "card" young individuals when they tried to buy a pack of cigarettes, and that the tobacco industry agreed to such a measure. This idea of "carding" underage smokers seems to have been lost. The alcohol industry has been quite successful in reducing underage drinking, not by increasing the price of its products through new government "sin" taxes, but by a much stricter enforcement program. I remember last year in college that several convenience stores proudly displayed the hundreds of fake ids that they took from minors trying to buy alcoholic beverages. I do not understand why this isn't applied to packs of cigarettes. Sure there are some problems to this solution, like vending machines, which is why enforcement of the "18 or over" law is just the beginning. I'm not about to suggest definitive solutions to the tobacco debate, because to do so in such a short letter would be impossible. Please do not misunderstand, I support some increase in the price of packs of cigarettes, but I think that enforcement is what will drive down underage smoking, and at the same time allow adults to continue enjoying smoking at a price that is satisfactory. A real settlement will need the coordinated effort by the parents, by the retailers, by the health community, by the federal government, and by the industry.