cigarettefumes.jpg

GOOD Magazine has a great little graphic up showing the smoking laws, price per pack of cigarettes, and how many smokers there are in each of the 50 states. 17.1% of the population of Washington State are smokers, which means we have fewer smokers than all but four states. Our price per pack is among the highest in the U.S., and we have more smoking laws than lots of other states, too. Do you think there’s a correlation?

The worst state is Kentucky, which has no major laws, charges roughly $2.90 a pack for cigarettes, and smokers make up 28.6% of their population. ‘Course, if cigarettes still cost less than three bucks a pack here, I’d probably still be smoking, too. Expecially if I could smoke them wherever I wanted.

23 replies on “Smoke Signals”

  1. It’s a fact that many people seem to forget. Smoking kicks ass. When it’s January 2nd, 2009 and you’re still a smoker, you are awesome.

  4. There may be a correlation, but not necessarily the one you’re getting at. States with fewer smokers are going to be more likely to pass anti-smoking laws as well as raise taxes for those who do smoke. Socio-economic status plays the biggest role in determining whether a person or a population smokes.

  9. Alaska shoots your theory to shit- it has one of the highest taxes in the country, smoking bans in bars & restaurants (at least in the Municipality of Anchorage), and one of the highest smoking rates, at 24.2%

    That, and you’d think the freezing cold would deter people… not so much.

  10. #4 has a point, but I think smoking restrictions are a first step in declining smoking rates. It eventually requires a cultural shift. It might take 5, or 10, or more years to see the results.

    Utah and California suggest price alone isn’t a determining factor.

  12. Do you think there’s a correlation?

    That isn’t a matter of opinion. You compute your Pearson R and your confidence interval and you have your answer. The more difficult question, with arguable policy implications, is “is there a causal relationship?” And that question is much harder to answer.

    It might well be, for example, that states with fewer smokers are more likely to impose high tobacco taxes because there are fewer affected voters to fight those taxes.

  15. Two words: Cash crop.

    I grew up in Kentucky. Talking about restricting tobacco access in Kentucky is ugly and unpatriotic. The people who want to limit access to tobacco in Kentucky (both in price and convenience) are the same people who want to eliminate no-call lists, send our troops back into battle in bullseye-painted tank tops, and give the Daily Show back to Craig Kilborn.

    Which… not that I’m defending Kentucky’s smoking, because it’s obviously not healthy. But the farmers are turning a profit and making donations to Kentucky’s politicians, and the taxes they pay fund Kentucky’s government and its programs. Kentucky already has a problem paying for its infrastructure, schools, and so forth, so nobody’s overly anxious to convince unsubsidized, profitable farmers to maybe grow something that earns less money.

  16. Not to mention the annual $1.5 billion Kentucky pays in health care directly caused by smoking. Have to sell a lot of tobacco to cover that.

  18. ARG! It lists NY as the most expensive at $6.52 per pack. But in NYC it’s about $10!!!! So ridiculous. If any other group of people was being gouged like this for a legal product, there would be uproar. ARG!!!

  19. no, lorinyc, true liberals (like the ones on Slog!) love state power to set social policy.

    Except for Prop 8…but hey, hypocrisy is just human, after all.

  20. The south is at the bottom of the list for health and health care. They also grow the most tobacco. They also call themselves “pro-life”.

  21. The existence of a correlation is self-evident. The question is whether there is causation. Perhaps the cause is that in states with few smokers, it is easier to pass laws/taxes that penalize that minority.

Comments are closed.