alt Hacker NewsIowa has the second highest cancer rate in the country.
Their leading solution?
Increase tax on cigarettes.
Not 'increase tax on cigarettes to increase early detection initiatives' or increase tax on cigarettes to increase screening subsidies', just 'increase tax on cigarettes so that the state has more money and poor people have less money'.
Replies
Smokers know the score by now. It's time for society to stop coddling them. Tax their asses to the Moon, call it reparations for all the smog and stentch they subjected the rest of us to for generations.
Increasing the price incentivises people not to buy it, econ 101
I think that one's pretty clear cut, people giving themselves cancer are a financial drain on everyone else. Both the supply and demand side should be punished.
Smoking is at historic lows [1] (~10-15%). Screening doesn't stop smoking, poor people will still be poor, smokers will still smoke, although GLP-1s may fix this [2] [3] (certainly, if this proves out, use cigarette taxes to help pay for GLP-1s for everyone to impair the dysfunctional reward center loop). There doesn't seem to be political will to simply ban cigarettes, so here we are. Making cigarettes expensive for poor people who smoke destroys demand, no? Otherwise, we accept the cancer rates for their choice and freedom to smoke knowing the consequences (~5k deaths/year in Iowa from this risk).
[1] https://www.radioiowa.com/2026/01/02/iowa-smokers-can-save-m... (“Increasing the cost of tobacco products is one of the most effective ways to reduce use,” Cale says, “and in turn, to lower Iowa’s lung cancer rates.”)
[2] GLP-1 drugs may fight addiction across every major substance - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47280797 - March 2026
[3] GLP-1 medications get at the heart of addiction: study - https://medicine.washu.edu/news/glp-1-medications-get-at-the... - March 4th, 2026
(i have personal experience with a loved one who will not quit smoking, so I am not unsympathetic to this risk and harm incurred)
Demand for cigarettes isn’t static. If you make them expensive enough, demand falls. Lower demand means less smoking which means less cancer.
The only real risk with pigouvian taxes is that if you raise them too high, you can foster the development of a black market, which comes with its own set of negative social consequences.