The World Health Organization's reasoning to support the idea;
" taxation is an effective way of reducing prevalence and health risk,"
Entirely flawed and outdated opinions, promoted in self serving and selective reasoning in their arguments.
An idea increasing health risks in process
The basis for substantially increased direct health risk of tobacco smokers, a significant population sector. Based in facts provided to them primarily by those who will profit substantially from those promotions In particular the nicotine Replacement Therapy[NRT] Industry. What stands out is how little investigation of credibility or conflict of interest is actually applied.
The Conflicts are far too obvious to ignore. Public Health through Tobacco Control and it's financial partners demand autocratic judgment; the public should be punished and assume total responsibility for Smoking related injuries This has shown to be entirely profitable for the Tobacco industry in process. All the while the punishment of those whom Public Health has taken under it's protective wing, grows preventable dangers to millions of innocent people society is now encouraged to hate and reject.
The World Health organization is openly lobbying in promoted fear, to increase political motivation and allow decisions to be made, we would normally reject, on moral integrity grounds alone. Compromising the adherence to universal autonomy rights. This takes us back to a time we found reason to form the UN, to reject exactly these promotions for all time.
How soon we did forget. 
From A SAMMEC report In Canada you see the following;
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/18-1/c_e.html
"The result is that smokers paid in more than they took out by about $5.4 billion. After the reduction in excise taxes on February 8, 1994, however, smokers saw a substantial decrease in their smoking-related contributions."
The reasons for the decline in those taxes is not discussed, in anti smoker arguments in favor of taxation, From the World health Organization we see pleadings indicating the increases in taxation saw a significant reduction in smoker prevalence, giving Canada as an example in the time frame 1991-1994. What we actually saw was an increase of untaxed products from alternative sources which the Government was apparently powerless to asses, lower sales figures being construed as prevalence reductions. Much as recent statements by such determined advocates as Neil Coleslaw of physicians for a smoke free? [Variable] give themselves credit in the media for tremendous prevalence reductions. As much as 20% in less than a year as a result of smoking bans in Ontario. And similar claims across Canada with little supporting evidence other than sales figures of taxed products.
The latest research actually indicates smoking numbers are increasing for the first time in five decades. Most prominently those increases are noted among children despite the failed efforts to target this specific demographic. Adult smokers have been told for years, tax level increases were necessary to take the price out of the reach of children. Taking them out of sight and out of mind by removing display walls and hiding them behind curtains, all to no avail. Making cessation addictive alternatives easy to obtain while increasing fines to those who sell them to children had problems of it's own.
We banned all advertising to take away the enticement effects. We put nasty pictures on the packages and they collected them like trading cards. We even gave them a website with a name which screams hatred toward smokers accompanied by commercials of smokers rolling in dog feces promoting smokers stink at "Stupid.ca [Canada]" What was the result? By focusing children's attention like they have never been focused before? we brought on the increased reality of teen rejections of societal norms. As much as we sought to prevent it, child smoking is now becoming popularized as an indicator of a brave rebellious youth. The reduction of taxation in 1994 was not due to a kind reconsideration by government but primarily because, for almost two years the RCMP pleaded with the government to reduce the tax to free up manpower resources. Resources which were being stretched to the limit in attempts to curtail smuggling. Smokers had not been reduced, as almost every variety store gas stations and even cab drivers in Ontario were selling under the counter smokes. The level of organized crime was ballooning and we did not have the resources to stop it.
Today the problem has expanded across the country and the number of organized crime groups involved are expanded as well. The supply sources we did not see before are now; not just cheaper Canadian brands from the States smuggled back in through the reserves, but many international sources are much more predominant. The price today for a carton of illegal cigarettes is as low as 12 dollars an unpackaged carton [200] or 15 dollars in packages, compared to close to 90 dollars purchasing taxed identical products. In 1994 smokers happily paid 20 dollars compared to 40 dollars for the taxed product. As you can see the effect of the 5% mandated increase per year over inflation only increases the sales opportunities of the black market and the ferocity of competition in selling the illegal products. What you more significantly accomplish is an increase acceptance of organized crime and an expanded base of those involved.
It goes without saying the group most affected as smokers are those in the lowest of socioeconomic standing. It also goes without saying those most affected among the poor, are are the larger proportions of minority groups.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2621749&dopt=Abstract
Yes the same groups we protect against discrimination are now the same groups who will be affected the most. Tough love makes health scare a tool of abuse. With the increased separation of making a legal or non legal choice the strategy seems to be more realistically an attempt to criminalize those who are most disadvantaged and install more ill conceived roadblocks in a path of those who might somehow rise above poverty.
More immediately dangerous is the source of these new products. Sources now beyond anyone's ability to monitor or regulate. As a result the outcome has been a tremendous potential created, for increased mortality risk, arguably related directly to tax increases. The lowering of that risk can only be linked to lowered taxation which politicians will unanimously avoid, due to the obvious embarrassment attached to " going back" and their numerous media coerced commitments to going forward " the third way." Sustainable development gained by Pollitical corrections, install permanence in process. Who would dare go back?
If we know less than 10% of those who try to quit succeed, by increasing the financial burden you increase the anger taking away an environment many will require to change. Earned is only a likelihood of increased illegal product sales, which would have to be directly proportional to price and ones ability to pay. Again no dispute exists smoking is more predominant existing among those in the lower socioeconomic scale. Those most at risk are now more at risk of being pushed by financial incentive into criminal behavior. Financial punishment will have more effect obviously for some than for others. This allows the more afluent to be punished at different proportions comparred with the poor.
In reducing the taxation levels in 1994 the government actually increased their tax income levels which immediately shut down the criminal vendors who were left holding cigarettes for which they paid more than the market would now pay. Initially legal sales were seen to decline sharply after increased taxation drove many smokers to the illegal brands,. As time goes forward it is only a matter of time before economists for the government relay the facts to them although taxation is much higher this time around. The actual gains are much less than they could be if it were not for their competitors in crime taking a large portion of not only the market share but the ability to measure how many actually smoke. Criminals do not ask for proof of age.
Just to rub salt in the wound a conversation with a retailer recently revealed he actually beat the government to the punch installing a curtain in front of his cigarette section, prior to the expected legislation requiring he do just that. He has a sign which reads "children should not see tobacco products on display increasing their curiosity to experiment". He admitted to me his shelf space was limited and this policy allowed him to place the illegal cigarettes on the same shelf as the legitimate ones.
From the SAMMEC report Kaiserman goes on to say; "Was this excess payment a worthwhile investment for smokers? Raynauld and Vidal claim that smokers are aware that smoking is detrimental to their health and are willing to accept this risk. If this is true and if the $5.4 billion extra paid to government by smokers represents their total investment in their future health care costs, then smokers paid in an individual average of $800 in 1991 to help defray their future health care costs. This represents less than two nights in a hospital or about 26 visits to the doctor or about 34 prescriptions for medication. In contrast, it was estimated that the median cost per life saved from cancer was about $750,000 (US) in 1994"
Keeping in mind the above statement is from the economist who assessed the costs of smoking in Canada. The clouded bias he represents demonstrates his lack of judgment and perhaps lack of competence in making his statement. The excess over actual cost is an annual contribution over many years. Payments are made exclusively by smokers through cigarette taxation over and above normal payments into universal health care they make along side everyone else. He compares the annual cost as though it were a one time fee, to long term payments assessed as cost to government quite a stretch on it's own. The costs paid in 1991 health care were to treat primarily a population group among whom the rate of smokers was close to double the prevalence rate in 1991, the elderly. The overpayment is not total contribution at all, only the excess over actual cost and if the excess represents triple the cost to treat the former group, current levels will eventually compensate six times the actual [total smoking related diseases afforded entirely to smokers] costs of current smokers. They also state only one half of smokers actually die of smoking related disease which has a reality of it�s own. Currently taxation of cigarettes has risen well beyond double and in some places close to triple the rates collected in 1991.
The Fly In The Ointment?
A fact not well promoted in the public, but a fact just the same. Incredibly with all the health experts on the planet in all these years no one noticed? The lies of public Health have grown to such a proportion they can no longer be contained. But they are trying!
There are the same number of smokers numerically, in North America and in Canada today as there have been for over 50 years. Population has doubled resulting in lowered prevalence figures. Allowing us to be told smoking has declined when it has only remained stable for five decades. These numbers are used interchangably to create illusions which justify the much larger claims. Claims demanding compensations from the product victims, punished for the sinfull use, after all of a legal product.
What a tangled web we do observe
If we examine smoking related disease the distinction category is entirely misleading allowing for a much larger payment demand, than what is actually due. This can be demonstrated quite easily without vast and expansive studies rather in simply an examination of the facts.
In 1957 population prevalence was over 50%, Today close to 20%. A decline of 150% from 50-20%.
If smoking causes 20% of total mortality today by inversion we find smoking would have to be responsible for more than 50% of total mortality in 1957? With a constant cause we need to see a constant effect!!!
How can we have different rates of disease prevalence with a common cause?
We cannot, the numbers are wrong!!!
Time line demonstrates the assessment of smoking relation to be inaccurate and by a considerable margin. Funny no one else noticed?
As smoking prevalence numbers declined we should have observed at minimum a 50% decline of smoking related diseases. Without even taking into effect the advances in medical science. We in fact saw more than a doubling and in some categories close to quadrupling of individual disease categories. Rising more consistent with population than remaining as a constant in relation to the actual number of smokers as we should expect.
Regardless of how long diseases take to develop, because non smokers would not have ever smoked those diseases would be eliminated immediately with population increases in non smoking categories abd resulting prevalence figures. What we absolutely have to conclude from these observations is; at minimum 50% and as many as seven of eight smoking related diseases and mortalities are not caused by smoking at all. As such they do not deserve smoking related classification or payment by smokers to offset fraudulent costing assesments, From this we see the true risks of smoking are not nearly as high as we were taught to assume. What is more devastating to most would be a realization; what causes have not been investigated thoroughly enough and how many die as a circumstance. Further who is ultimately responsible?
The World Health Organization endorsed taxation based in outdated statements such as this;
"Cigarette smuggling is not caused principally by market forces. It is caused by fraud by the illegal evasion of import duty. The cigarettes involved are not the cheap brands from southern European countries. There is no international market for such brands. Cigarette smuggling is of expensive international brands made by the multinational corporations Marlboro, Camel, and Winston, for example. "
In Canada the reality is; the majority of illegal products are not packaged identifiable brands originating from traditional manufacturers. The largest sales are in fact knockoff products made to look like the original to avoid detection of authorities when used. Or as with reservation manufactured products sold in unlabeled bags, in most cases they actually have a surgeon Generals warning attached. We do not have a surgeon General in Canada, indicating the probable country of origin. As you can see in the following, taxation is not linked to cost of smoking at all but as a punitive measure to increase the level of punishment until it has an effect. As we learned from prohibition efforts in the past there are limits which; once exceeded, have a regressive effect as we are now experiencing expanding underground markets and eventually prevalence. With the addition of NRT the overall addictive nicotine market has expended tremendously with World Health Organization approval is evident in many Tobacco Control offerings and campaigns.
The ability for a child to purchase over the counter addictive nicotine products is not only going unnoticed, but is actually being promoted world wide by government agencies and the UN. Recent research contradicts previous promotions indicating it is safe to use NRT while pregnant. We now know severe damage can occur to a fetus in significant research numbers although few involved stakeholders are coming forward to enhance warnings in avoiding the undeniable effects which will now occur. It is also no secret NRT reduces the rate of success of quiting, contrary to claims from many medical and government sources. The manufacturers cited blinded clinical trials which were found to be flawed. Most smokers in detecting reaction to withdrawal symptoms and obvious body reactions to NRT devices, are able to consistently identify the product and the placebo.
Numerous studies find Cold turkey to be enormously more successful six months out than any NRT products can claim. Less than 10% of those who succeed in use of NRT products. 90% of those who purchase NRT are bound to fail a substantial number of those who use NRT are now addicted to it as the WHO apparently intended reducing the risk of smoking. Unfortunately a good number of them never smoked.
The WHO and the World Bank highly recommend regular increases in taxes on tobacco products to ensure that the price of all these products increases by at least 5% over inflation every year. They augment this, with statements such as;
http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/economics/en/index.html
"In high-income countries up to 15% of the health- care budget is spent on dealing with tobacco-related diseases. Within countries, tobacco consumption is inversely related to the socioeconomic level: it goes up as the standard of living goes down. Higher smoking prevalence means that it is the poorer who bear more of the burden of both the health costs and the economic costs of tobacco." More predominantly resulting now from non inclusive and careless Tobacco reduction efforts. For many the mindset of promoters drawn toward the hatred of smokers, is seen is an enigma, how can so many find this attitude acceptable? If you study the document here.
http://www1.worldbank.org/tobacco/book/html/chapter3.htm
You quickly realize what an uninformed lot they really are. This report is a substantial document driving the so called "intellectuals" who claim to protect us, yet even those with little education can quickly understand it's inherent flaws. Perhaps the deliberate exclusion of those affected by smoking in favor of those who will profit from them. Has led participants to believe a lot more than they are able to credibly sustain if ethics had any say here. This quote says it quite eloquently;
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTETC/Resources/375990-1089904539172/474683-1089904575523/TobaccoFacts1-6.pdf
"A simple index of how corrupt a country is explains more of the variation in smuggling than price differences.
" 
In Canada we just sent a government packing for corruption, and the present government has adapted most of the same policies. Top down we can expect smuggling to continue and expand a buyers market as taxation and risk increases. When you take out the cost of bloated health bureaucracies built of late as a result of similarly HIA designed public inspired fears, [Look in Webster for coercion] duplicating departments at Federal levels, again in all the Provinces and Territories and yet again duplicated at regional and municipal levels. All spending enormous resources in advertising and social marketing as described at Health Canada, primarily a distribution of hatred and fear [Look in Webster for Terrorist] for political advantage. Information in the majority from the same source [WHO Health care reform]. All claiming to provide efforts limiting risk and preventing disease inspiring estimated costs. The actual costs of treating all diseases in Canada may as previously described well be surpassed by smokers contributions alone.
In actual mortality reductions few will be seen until governments are encouraged to support toxic reduction regulation of the products as preexisting processes demand. Regulation which will actually have an effect, if disease reductions above profit are in fact the goal. Punishing the victims of government failures in product regulation, is a convenient subsidy for general budget expenditures. This reveals a massive organized criminal protection racket which exists within Government at all levels [ Refer to laws governing expenditure of public funds for political purposes.]. Criminality shared by any government which fails to criminalize the use if HIA health interventions, which legitimize the speech of David Duke, The [Galton Institute] Eugenics movement, The Taliban and the current Iranian government." For our own good" Genetic health protection utilizing a population view can not avoid discrimination of minority groups. Failures to monitor and regulate product safety is the most predominant risk factor of smoking related disease, being ignored deliberately so smokers will never believe smoking could be safe. The " no safe level" beyond scientific reason, promotes the fact they can be much safer reducing risk as all the epidemiology ETS calculations will concur a reduced risk to all in society A tremendous cost and societal benefit considering the costs of the current campaigns and the mortality effects of larger lineups in emergency rooms around the planet.
