During what economists call a short run, not all inputs can be increased at the same time with regards to the production process. At least one input in the production process is fixed. Let's say in this type of situation you decide to add more of the variable input to the process. At first, you would see a bigger jump in the total product produced as a result of this. However, as more of this input was added, eventually you would see a decline in the marginal product.
This is illustrated in Pierre Lemiuex's article on tobacco legislation (2001). Lemieux discusses the "diminishing returns to government intervention" (2001). Some points that the article makes that have merit is that the there have been strides made in tobacco legislation. At the time of this article, there had been an increase in the number of public places that no longer allowed smoking. Lemieux also mentions that most "smokers who were the most easily persuaded have already quit" (2001).
However, this last point, while proving his point that these campaigns had been working, also lessened the debate for me. Increasing the cost and tax on cigarettes had already deterred smokers who could no longer afford to spend so much on them, or at least could no longer validate spending more on them at the higher prices. The government warning labels had worked as well. The assumption, then, is that the people who remain smoking are not deterred by either of these factors. Increasing the price even more, or adding even more government warning labels still will not deter the people "who value smoking more" (2001). Therefore, would it not be a waste of government money and time to continue in this vein?
Lemieux indicates that banning smoking in public places "should not be discounted" (2001) in being successful while lessening their diminishing returns. If smokers continue to quit smoking, the demand for cigarettes would decrease, causing a surplus. Since the tobacco companies would not be able to lower the price, due to the price floor set in place by the government, they would be forced instead to slow production, which would also decrease supply.
If "sin taxes" were raised on cigarettes, this would also decrease the demand, since fewer people would be buying them at the higher price. Government tax revenue would rise because the demand on cigarettes is inelastic.
While it's good to see that these government actions have had some effect and there has been a decline in smokers, in my opinion at there are some people who will always smoke, regardless of the price or the warning labels. Lemieux briefly mentions prohibition as well, which would just result in cigarettes being smuggled in and the government losing out on the sin taxes. As long as the government gains more in sin taxes than it spends on anti-smoking campaigns, there is no harm in continuing.
Lemieux, P. (2001, Mar 19). The Diminishing Returns to Tobacco Legislation.
The Laissez Faire City Times. Retrieved on July 30, 2012 from:
http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artdiminish.html