Tobacco taxation can reduce consumption. Not sure what EU freedom principles are, but those are immaterial if you want to save people and work on preventable deaths.

Very good evidence that raising tobacco tax will discourage consumption. An older NBER study suggests that every 10% rise in taxes results in a 3-4 % consumption reduction, especially in younger adults. The question is analogous to whether requiring people to wear seatbelts (which they are required to pay for when then buy new cars these days) is an affront to their freedom. Since tobacco remains the leading cause of preventable death in many advanced countries and more developing countries as time goes by, it seems like a simple question, n'est ce pas?

ISSUE: Whether tobacco tax impinges on fundamental freedom(s)?

FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM: Fundamental freedom is comprised of the following four fundamental rights: (i) freedom of religion and expression of opinions; (ii) freedom of movement; (iii) freedom of security in person and property; and (iv) freedom to pursuit one’s livelihood, i.e. freedom for the pursuit of happiness. See Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms. See AUDIO at this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iHKtrirjlY

Positive law or law enacted by the state violated the fore mentioned four fundamental rights are deemed violating fundamental rights. These four fundamental freedoms may not be impinged upon. Positive law (legislation) may regulate “all other rights” or sphere which may be summed as “the regulation of health and safety” of members of the civil society. The regulation of tobacco, alcohol, car’s safety belt, etc. falls upon this broad spectrum of “police power;” therefore, is not considered a violation fundamental rights or freedom of the people. See US Const., Amend. X, as a cross reference to the EU that all fundamental rights are universal.

RIGHT TO DIE OR SELF DESTRUCTION: In some states, suicide is considered a crime. The moral basis for such law rests on the premise that “life,” no matter how imperfect or dissatisfied, is worth preserving. Therefore, the destruction of it should be discouraged. People who favor suicide as the exercise of the ultimate personal freedom may also argue that the right to suicide is fundamental. In light of the 4 freedoms which constitutes fundamental rights of a person, this argument pale by comparison. Thus, the argument that even though tobacco is dangerous, the choice to use it is an exercise of personal freedom; therefore, tobacco tax is an impingement upon that freedom. This argument is subsumed under “health and safety” concern of the legislation, and, thus, is lack luster.

PERSONAL JOY & CONVENIENCE IN SMOKING DOES NOT RISE TO THE “PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS”: It has long been argued by smokers that smoking is a personal choice and that this exercise of choice is akin to the right of personal expression and the joy derived from smoking is akin to the pursuit of happiness; therefore, the choice to smoke tobacco should be accorded with the same protection as a fundamental right. This argument contravenes the legislative intent for regulating tobacco. Tobacco is a consumer product. This product is classified as Veblen good whose consumption is seen as conspicuous consumption. The basis for levying tax upon tobacco may be founded in the revenue raising power of the state, as well as the police power of same. Under both rationales, tobacco use lacks the force of being “fundamental.”

Personal joy of smoking carries the effect that is a cost to society, i.e. hospitalization and the effect of second hand smoking. It is an accepted legal principle that the exercise of “personal rights” shall not come at the expense of others, i.e. society, hence, the bound of personal freedom is circumscribed by the consideration of the body politic.

DUE PROCESS: The person affected by the law must receive notice and due process of law. In the case of taxation on tobacco and related products, notices are generally given in a form of pre-legislative hearings and presentation of evidence. It is through the consensus of the legislative bodies, generally comprised of the congress and senate and then the final acceptance by signature of the president (under the American model and similar practice in the European continent), that such law came into existence. During this process, tobacco companies, deeper pockets representing the smoking world, had plenty of opportunity to raise objection and forward their arguments. Thus, due process was duly accorded.

For the foregoing reasons, there does not appear to be a violation of fundamental rights or freedom caused by the imposition of taxation upon tobacco and related products---which may be called conspicuous consumption products. The effect of tobacco legislation causes inconvenience. Personal convenience and the “right” to consume a particular product and whose consumption may affect society at large may not rise to a fundamental freedom. Therefore, its regulation (taxation) is not constitutionally or fundamental repugnant.

REFERENCE:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Increasing taxes typically results in a drop in consumption. Even those with strong addictions may decrease their tobacco use. And for some, it is an impetus to quit. Unless one argues that taxes themselves are an imposition on freedom the effect on principles of freedom of choice are not affected. Society reserves the right of taxation to reflect its needs. People are free to purchase, or not. Should the tax become prohibitive...society has the right to ban substances it finds harmful. But if a portion of the increased tax is put to tobacco substitutes and counciling, that would serve. So, too, would be the removal of tobacco substitutes (nicotine gum, vapes smokeless products, etc.

Taxation of tobacco could be understood as a freedom promoting policy, depending on how the resources are use afterwards. If founding is provided for tobacco cessation programs and treating the NCD consequences of tobacco consumption, the tobacco taxation policies increase the freedom of the population: you can consume, but making yourself responsable of the consequences of your behavior.

It has been arguied in Chile that higher taxation will lead to illegal sells (like the alcohol ban in USA). Any comments regarding experiences in other countries?

Freedom to kill!  Tax and Tax and Tax, the most efficient measures against the deadly burden of tobacco and alcohol.  This well evidence based. 

Since 1999, the United Nations intervene in countries to protect civilians from the effects of armed conflict: the responsibility to protect (R2P, resolution1265). In 2012, armed conflicts caused between 37,175 and 60,260 deaths.

Tobacco kills 5 to 6 million adults yearly. War against cancers requires a comprehensive policy with politicians protecting their citizens, not vested interests.

The level of corruption at the European level is incredible. The Dalligate scandal wihch is in fact the Barossogate scandal is the tip of the iceberg. http://corporateeurope.org/tags/dalligate

Tobacco tax affect consumer behavior through price mechanism. This mechanism only narrow the window of choice, but it doesn't closed the window. Tobacco tax would never diminish affordability of tobacco products entirely. The consumers are still able to exercise their freedom to choose between smoking or quit, and between smoke the same amount or less. Or, unfortunately they can choose between legal product or illegal one.

Therefore, tobacco taxation may affect good behavior when consumers smoke less or even quit, due to health or economic concern. On the contrary, it might affect bad behavior when it makes consumers sacrifice other products in favor of tobacco products, or when it provides consumers with insentive to consume illegal product. Alternatively, tobacco taxation may not affect behavior when consumers just shift down to less expensive brands.