I’ve said it before, so I won’t repeat myself. Instead I’ll just leave this link:
3 Likes
Definitely agreed. I always find it weird that prohibition-level alcohol or tobacco tax does not lead to black market when actually restricting their sales does.
1 Like
Completely agree that taxes ought to motivate a black market on a lesser scale of a ban, but there are of course just places where there’s less of a smoking culture, and since any given game of Democracy can go for multiple terms, a concerted effort to kill a culture of vices with tax would be have every chance of having an effect.
Fair points, certainly tobacco usage would have to tie in with the impact the tax has on the black market. However, what out current model motivates simply would work in reality which is:
-Turn 1 spend 1 or 2 PC to implement and max out the tobacco awareness program because that’s not much PC.
-If I started with organized crime active then cancel tobacco restrictions, otherwise:
-Ignore it for the remainder of term 1 because other things are going on.
-Some time in term 2 when I have 32 PC max out tobacco tax so I only have to spend PC on it once.
-cancel the restrictions and awareness program when I’m getting nagged about bureaucracy.
So, problems here are:
-As per post topic, tobacco tax doesn’t fuel either of the black market or organized crime,
-The outputs of tobacco restrictions are backwards. Organized crime gets a bump the moment the first “No smoking” sign goes up, but tobacco consumption isn’t impacted until 50% policy strength. I’ve mentioned this to Cliffski before.
-I can free up the bureaucratic capacity for a space program by canceling a TV ad campaign about cigarettes.
Anyways, that’s my little rant for the morning while I slurp my coffee.
2 Likes