Smugglers are heroes of sorts. The essence of what a smuggler offers is: "Government tyrants want to either prevent or interfere with peaceable voluntary exchange among individuals. I can reduce the impact of that interference." Let's look at smuggling, keeping in mind that not everything illegal is immoral and not everything legal is moral.
Leading up to our War of Independence, the British, under the Navigation Acts, had levied taxes on a wide range of imports. One of those taxes was on molasses imported from non-British islands. John Hancock, whose flamboyant signature graces our Declaration of Independence, had a thriving business smuggling an estimated 1.5 million gallons of molasses a year. His smuggling practices financed much of the resistance to British authority. In fact, a joke of the time was "Sam Adams writes the letters (to newspapers) and John Hancock pays the postage."
Hancock's smuggling, as well as that of many others, made the people of our nation better off by providing cheaper prices for molasses used for making rum. British oppressors were worse off by having lower tax revenues.
In 1920, the 18th Amendment, prohibiting the production, distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages in the United States, went into effect. It had wide public support. In my opinion, no case can be made for stopping another person from enjoying beer, wine and whiskey. That's oppression, but along came heroes to the rescue. The ink hadn't dried on the 18th Amendment before smugglers started smuggling beer and whiskey from Canada and Mexico. Ships lined up along our shores, just beyond the three-mile limit, to off-load whiskey onto speedboats. Smugglers and bootleggers spared millions of Americans from do-gooder oppression.
While the smuggler qua smuggler is my hero, several important negative effects surround his activity. Smuggling is illegal. It becomes a sometimes-nasty criminal enterprise because those who engage in it tend to be people with an overall lower regard for the law. Since smuggling is illegal, disputes must be settled with guns and violence instead of courts.
Plus, police and other public officials are corrupted. Worse of all is the reduced respect for laws by the public at large. After the 18th Amendment's repeal, virtually all of the crime and corruption associated with Prohibition disappeared.
Not many Americans are aware of today's big smuggling activity — cigarette smuggling. Confiscatory taxes that are as high as $7 a pack, in New York City, making one pack of cigarettes sell for $13, have encouraged a thriving smuggling business across our country. Like Prohibition, confiscatory tobacco taxes are popular with Americans.
A recent study by Michael LaFaive and Todd Nesbit of the Midland, Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy titled "Cigarette Taxes and Smuggling" shows that states with the highest cigarette smuggling rates are those with the highest tobacco taxes such as Arizona (51.8 percent of the state's total consumption are smuggled), New York (47.5 percent), Rhode Island (40.5 percent), New Mexico (37.2 percent) and California (36.3 percent).
Cigarette smuggling, like yesteryear's whiskey smuggling, has become a livelihood for criminals. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has found that Russian, Armenian, Ukrainian, Chinese, Taiwanese and Middle Eastern (mainly Pakistani, Lebanese and Syrian) organized crime groups are highly involved in the trafficking of contraband and counterfeit cigarettes. What's worse is that some of these groups use their earnings to provide financial assistance to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. That means tax-hungry politicians and anti-tobacco zealots are providing the means for aid to America's enemies.
The solution to cigarette smuggling, and the criminal activities associated with it, is to eliminate the confiscatory taxes. Unfortunately for tax-hungry politicians and anti-tobacco zealots, who see confiscatory taxes as a tool in their moral crusade against tobacco, only benefits count. For them, the costs of their agenda are irrelevant or secondary at best. And, as novelist C.S. Lewis put it, "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

|
 |
Comments
|
10 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
To Mr. Walter Williams: Sir, you are a breath of fresh air. I read your column every chance I get, and agree with you like Ivory Soap - 99.44% of the time. Keep it up!
Comment: #1
Posted by: Don Dieu
Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:04 AM
|
|
|
|
Walter,
Your recount of smuggling in the history of the United States of America is right on target. Your quote from C.S. Lewis is true of so many of the programs imposed on the citizens of this and other countries. Please continue to put your views in the public domain. We need some reason to balance the unreasonable.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Robert Hopkins
Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:24 AM
|
|
|
|
The reason we have so many laws today is that people are not willing to think and act for themselves. Trans fats can lead to poor health. Well, rather than asking people to stop eating krispy kreme and KFC for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, better to have the government (New York and California) outlaw those trans fats. Same with sugary soda, people love the taste of regular coca-cola. Rather than switch to diet or, gasp, 100% fruit juices or even plain old water, the government better impose a tax on sugared and HFCS-ed beverages. That won't stop people from drinking them, but at least they'll feel like someone is looking out for their health. It's the same for cigarettes. People can't be bothered to stop smoking, even though there are now numerous over-the-counter nicotine supplements that are now cost-comparable to actual cigarettes, but knowing that the government is looking out for their health (not really, but it seems that way) makes them feel better.
There is a general attitude of "as long as it makes me feel better, it sure beats actually doing something." Think about marathons run for charity. What does the actual act of running benefit to anyone? Wouldn't it be better to spend that time you spent running either volunteering or working to earn money to donate? But no, it's not about actually getting something accomplished (other than to bring notice to already over-exposed charities), it's about making yourself feel good. You suckered some friends into donating money while you yourself didn't accomplish anything, except get some exercise you might have been planning to get anyway.
It's the same with these excessive tax laws. The government, rather than work to help people with nicotine or alcohol addiction or those who are morbidly obese, simply taxes those people to make the general populace feel better. People support these laws to get in on that moral high and make themselves feel better. In the end, only the government and criminals (if there's a difference) truly benefit.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Nathan H.
Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:53 PM
|
|
|
|
Professor Williams,
Your wonderful articles inspire me to think and reason. Academically I have always been more of a follower than a leader; with a thirst for knowledge, a desire to apply my knowledge, your and other's willingness to teach, and with the good Lord's help, I will soon be soaring. Thank you for all you have done, are doing, and will continue to do.
Most Sincerely,
Jamie Leigh Shivery
Comment: #4
Posted by: Jamie Leigh Shivery
Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:53 PM
|
|
|
|
Notice that he, and, I think, the commentators above, do not go to the obvious logical conclusion. If regulating some drugs, cigarettes and alcohol, is clearly bad, why does he not address the other drugs? The war on drugs is a failure and the money we waste on it only goes to support the cartel's price structure. It is time to stop this disastrous policy of destroying lives and supporting crime. If voices across the political spectrum keep saying the obvious, perhaps the politicians will listen.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Mark
Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:13 PM
|
|
|
|
This is my one issue with the Fair Tax. It is, in my opinion, essentially a VAT. Along with the other gazillion taxes that states impose, I can see a thriving, John Hancock-like underground smuggling empire emerge. As always, a wonderful, insightful article.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Irene King
Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:22 AM
|
|
|
|
The hooligans who criminally destroyed the tea of the East India Company in Boston harbor in 1774 were smugglers, or agents of those smugglers (of tea), whose business was upset by the large legitimate importation of their product. As a destructive mob, they were condemnable. As smugglers, they were my heroes.
Those (yes, criminals) smuggling "illegal drugs" are also my heroes, not that I personally want anything to do with them OR their products. It's my RIGHTS that I want, and that perforce includes THEIR rights.
Comment: #7
Posted by: N. Joseph Potts
Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:29 AM
|
|
|
|
Hear Hear.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Charles Coats
Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:29 AM
|
|
|
|
The fair tax is not a VAT. A VAT is taxed every stop of the process of collection, manufacturing, and distribution of a product or service. The fair tax is only taxed to the final product. It is probably the only thing that will save the country.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Eric Jensen
Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:01 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: N. Joseph Potts I agree 100%.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Ironjohn
Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|