Depends on where you are - the federal tax on cigs is only a little over $1/pack, but state taxes on cigarettes range from 17 cents (Missouri) to $4.35 (NY). In addition most states charge sales tax (varies by state - ranges from 0% to nearly 10%), and some localities and cities have additional sales taxes (in some localities it's higher than the state tax). In all, the price for a pack of cigarettes ranges from a little over $6 to nearly $12.



Making it illegal to smoke in confined spaces certainly helped, especially in offices, restaurants, and stores.

Another thing that I believe has helped is really cracking down on underage cigarette sales. There was a time when parents could hand their little kid some money, and send them out on their bike to the corner store to buy them some cigarettes. And you know that if that kid had enough money of their own, they'd probably buy 2 packs and keep one for themselves, or sneak the occasional cigarette from mom or dad's pack when they weren't paying attention. Some parents even introduced their kids to the fine art of smoking, teaching them how to look cool with a cigarette hanging out of their mouth.

But kids can't buy cigarettes any more. Little kids, it's obvious they're underage. But local police depts have cracked down on underage sales so much that around here, the local police depts would recruit underage teens who looked like they were at least in their 20's to go into grocery stores, pharmacies, gas stations and anywhere else that sold tobacco to try to buy tobacco.

The cashier selling the cigarettes is supposed to confirm age with positive ID from anyone who looks like they might possibly be under the age of about 35 or 40 before selling them any tobacco products, and of course if the cashier neglects to card someone who happens to be under age and actually sells them tobacco, the cops are conveniently waiting right outside the store, so it doesn't go well for that cashier. It doesn't go well for the store either.

I think that's what has led to so many grocery stores and pharmacies around here discontinuing tobacco sales altogether. Pretty sure the convenience stores still sell tobacco, and of course there are some smoke and vape shops that specifically sell all things tobacco - but I think the fact that it's not quite as convenient to even buy tobacco as it used to be has helped cut down on smoking too, since they're not sold in nearly as many places as you used to be able to buy them.

Now that it's not quite so easy to for teens to get cigarettes, I think that has helped cut down on the total number of people even taking up the habit.

Nicorette and nicotine aversion drugs have helped some too - I used to have a customer who kept trying over and over to quit smoking. Apparently it was his New Year's resolution every year - He'd buy the Nicorette patches every January, but apparently his addiction was just too strong because he'd be back the next year trying again. I know someone else who even took a nicotine aversion drug, but for her it wasn't just about the nicotine addiction - it was about the nearly lifelong habit of lighting up, so she gave up and went back to smoking.

_________


I don't favor a health care tax on the obese as such. For far too many people it really isn't their fault they're obese, especially considering that the very same health care system has been giving us the wrong weight control information for the last 40-some years, and they're still constantly insisting that the only healthy way to lose weight is low fat/high fiber and 54 g of protein/day is plenty, be sure to exercise at least XX amount of time daily.

At the same time, the same health care professionals issuing dire warnings about the dangers of LC/Keto: unbalanced diet, unsustainable, heart attack on a plate, you'll have no energy, your body needs 300 g carbs daily, at least an absolute minimum of 130 g carbs daily, don't even think about going any lower than that.

If people trust their health care providers, they're following those recommendations. They're already blaming themselves for not being able to follow the advice perfectly, lose weight and keep it off for good. No need to tax them for trying to do what they've been told is the right thing to do for perfect health.

________

As far as a UPF tax - I think what the article said about taxing the companies that make addictive but nutritionally useless foods makes sense.

If the companies prefer to improve the UPF composition to meet certain nutrition standards instead of paying the tax, that's a least better.

If they want to keep it just as junky and addictive as possible and just go ahead and pay the tax, they'll need to increase the cost of the junk food to cover the tax. If the price goes up enough because of the tax, then less of that UPF will be sold. The more the price increases to cover what the company is paying as a junk food production tax, they'll eventually price those products out of the market, so the fewer people there are who will buy it. It'll eventually become a product that's not profitable enough to continue producing. They'll come up with something else, but perhaps learn something from the UPF tax and not make such junky food in the future.