[woodruffw]

There's already a massive black market for people who want to smoke in the form of tax stamp fraud. It used to be even bigger than it currently is, but there are two forces working against it: the overall decline of organized crime starting in the 1980s, and the overall decline in the number of smokers.

Black markets are a reality under current economic conditions, and they're a reality even in completely legal markets (there's always someone willing to pay XX% less in exchange for YY% more legal risk). Putting extreme taxes and/or fines on smoking might pour gas on that market, but long-term trends just don't support its survival.

And as for fines: we already have a legal structure for that[1].

[1]: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/garnishments

[tedajax]

The knock on effects of fines and the damage the systems cause when someone can't pay a fine are far worse than the effects of smoking.

[woodruffw]

I think they can be, although I'd like to see specific numbers on that. Killing roughly half a million Americans a year is a high bar to clear in terms of harmful social policy changes.

But there's also a trend against long term damage here: smoking rates have been declining for decades, and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that higher taxes and civil penalties (like fines for smoking in parks) do reduce smoking across all ages and demographics. Fewer people smoking overall means fewer people who are subject to any sort of systemic abuse. That feels like a decent tradeoff to me, especially when we consider the knock-on effects of smoking itself (individual and community health, pollution, dental outcomes, &c).