Blogging about Diminishing Returns

As a non smoker, I still found this debate to be quite interesting. Is it possible that too many warning on the dangers of cigarette packaging could be a bad thing? I think yes. The article states that most improvements on consumer awareness (of the dangers) have already been achieved. The article has merit when it mentions that most of those who could have been persuaded not to smoke, already have been and often choose to quit early on. However, those "die hard" smokers who simply are addicted just won't quit, no matter how many warnings appear on the packages. I also agree that too many words or pictures on the package just get ignored anyways. Nowadays we all know we shouldn't smoke, but those that do, do-it's fact! What should be done is more high impact ads on T.V. or phone apps, radio or even YouTube cites. Rather than less impactful ads on the packages.

Where the article loses merit I believe is when it talks about taxation. Higher taxes on cigarettes may have worked back in 90's but now, it really doesn't matter. Taxes are pretty high as it is. Sin taxes, or taxes levied on certain goods perceived as "not good" just won't work in this day in age. It's just another dollar spent. I drink pop. I know I like it, if it's taxed higher, I'll still most likely drink it. Companies like tobacco and soft drink company's are so powerful in the market they can reduce their price by a very slight margin to encourage more people to buy it.

Cigarette packs with warnings

The point of diminishing returns for government are government employees. It seems things go so slowly in government. It's because for something to happen, it has to be voted upon and agreed to by so many people, it just makes things too difficult. Like the "Sweet Spot" article says too many cooks spoil the broth. If laws or bills or proposals were seen and voted on by fewer, but more powerful people then things would get done quicker and we'd see results. It's like a school, we had a small school government in my high school. We took our problems to the administration (5 people) and things got done! The government can reduce costs and be more successful by having fewer people who vote for bills to become laws, or to which building projects get done.



The demand of cigarettes may never change. People will always want to smoke, it's so easy to try it and it's highly addictive. The supply could change; smokes could be sold in fewer places or tougher to get a hold of (perhaps by showing more than 1 piece of ID when purchasing). If it seems like cigarettes are tougher to come by (purchase) then, possibly it could become less demanded. As like the article alludes to, to simply try and make cigarettes undesireable (with price) could start a "war on drugs" sort of and encourage people to smuggle them in and sell them to others'. Everything effects the supply and demand, the article says (it seems) no matter what, those that want to smoke, will smoke, demand will be high within the smoking community of course, but with better ads more of the population may not want to smoke and demand would be lower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO0qwl5k9R4 "Anti smoking ad"


References
http://www.google.ca/imgres?hl=en&biw=1366&bih=685&tbm=isch&tbnid=I6FNqWV_Pqw02M:&imgrefurl=http://www.thai-blogs.com/2005/03/09/thai-cigarette-packs/&docid=DeMcgXFHOeVYwM&imgurl=http://www.thai-blogs.com/media/cigarettes_03.jpg&w=410&h=296&ei=Yn5jUJLRHeOMygHdu4CwCg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=690&vpy=396&dur=1183&hovh=191&hovw=264&tx=136&ty=191&sig=110826988698318660708&page=1&tbnh=148&tbnw=195&start=0&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:15,s:0,i:181