Both the lecturer and the reading passage discuss special tax on tobacco products. The lecturer casts doubt on the author's assertion on several plausible advantages of increasing tax on tobacco, by presenting three counter-arguments.
First, the lecturer asserts that tax on tobacco will not deter young people from smoking, This is because young people would still illegally buy cigarretes from the black market of cigarretes. Recent studies indicate that in case of increase in tobacco price, teanagers are more inclined to buy from a black market rather than from a legal retail as black markets do not check teanagers ' ID and they can purchase cigarettes at a cheaper cost. This counters the author's claim that tax on cigarettes will reduce young smokers.
Second, The lecturer claims that increased tax on tobacco is not necessarily going to remunerate the envrionmental destruction. He says that not all tax revenue from tobacco will be spent on planting trees and cleaning up the environment. Actually, as increase in tobacco price leads to a decline in people who buy tobacco, less tax would eventually be available. This counters the author's assertion that increase in tobacco tax will help recover from environmental harm caused by cigarettes.
Lastly, the lecturer argues that increase in tax as a solution for poverty is problematic. He claims that in reality, tobacco industries contribute to creating jobs in agriculture, retail and manufacture. Therefore, if tax on tobacco increases, numerous jobs would disappear, making poverty even worse. This refutes the reading passage's claim that higher cigarette tax can be used to diminish poverty. |