To Ban or Not to ban

[Madasever]

For years now, the government have been preaching anti-smoking laws to us .. "can't smoke here, can't smoke there ..." Bans in all government buildings, with the A-Typical law of a 4 meter proximity ban from the entrance as well. Now my complaint here is not about smokers, or non smokers ... so please don't feel as if i am about to take a stab at you ... the public, because that was never my intention.

Every so often we get reacquainted with term excise, meaning the luxury tax imposed on all things good and evil, but are not necessarily detrimental to our well being (yes i hear some people saying "speak for yourself Mad") but hear me out, as i said, this is not a stab at you guys.

So if tax on items such as cigarettes and alcohol is creeping up ... does this mean they would rather rake in the revenue from them, then try to actually provide the treatments/medication/expert advice needed to actually help people reduce their consumption of such products?

Well to be blatantly honest ... the only methods they offer (free) ... DO NOT WORK ... so with all the tax imposed on these products over the years, why is it now being spent back on the anti smoking campaigns now plastered all over the TV and just about everywhere else you go, when it doesn't do a god dam thing to help?

To anyone, smoker, ex smoker and non-smokers alike ... i am sure you guys would all agree with me to a point ... IT's JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH !!! The programs they offer consists of various literature, a telephone quit line and to my knowledge, bugger all else is offered ... hence the fact i say, what are they really doing to help people cut down and or quit smoking or their alcohol consumption ??? The answer is simple, the methods they are offering are so outdated, that it may have worked for your father's father ... or your grandparents ... but it sure as hell doesn't work for the bulk of the general population.

So why are they using the taxes collected, to only supplement anti smoking campaigns that DO NOT WORK ? Again there can only be one solid answer to that ... the tax income (excise) from such items is so lucrative, they don't really want it abolished ...

The question i also want answered is ...
Q: What is excise?
is it considered part of their surplus income?
is it considered part of their main tax income?
Q: Why aren't these monies being used to implement the latest methods of reducing the exacting problem in conjunction with anti smoking laws and people who actually want to quit or reduce their smoking and or alcohol intake?

In my mind, it simply isn't good enough and i would very much like to see something done about it.

With the recent additions of alcohol tax
(to help curb binge drinking for pre-mix alcohol or RTD's)
and also placed on cigarettes ... raises my red flag and says ... it's just a clever way of implementing a higher excise on items already taxed to the hilt.

[tdierikx]

Cigarettes and alcohol have addictive properties... those addicted will pay whatever it costs to get them - just like the "harder" drugs...

I am a smoker and a "reformed" alcoholic, and I can tell you now - the addict has to WANT to give up the drug of choice before ANY quitting program (free or otherwise) will work.

T.

[snaic61]

"..... the addict has to WANT to give up ....".
Absolutely true, even with the available medications. I reckon though, the Government should apply the excise and the GST raised from the purchase of the legal product as a rebate - it's odd that so many addicts are amongst the poorer members of society - these meds are very costly; from memory about $43 for 105 pieces of gum (which would buy nearly four packets of cigarettes).

[greatgats]

Amazing that they collect SO MUCH TAX and there is no direct benefit back to help smokers quit....

[samantha22]

What about some registration.. like a line where you can quit and get help.. better for families..

[dusty_rusty_2000]

I'd rather see all the Government funding go to a worthier cause than have it wasted on treating self inflicted illnesses. These extra dollars should be poured into finding a cure for diseases such as type 1 diabetes or cystic fybrosis, instead of it being wasted on those that choose to poison their bodies and the air around them.

[geewhizz]

You are spot on tdierikx. Governments need to appear to be doing something about the issue, and we pay in the end. it goes round & round

[Legless]

Gee dusty_rusty_2000 it would be fantastic to live in your perfect world where people don't don't suffer from the results of "self-inflicted" conditions. I've never been a smoker or a drinker but have problems related to an injury and am overweight. The injury must have been partly my fault as I chose to be on the road that day and being overweight would be so easily fixed if I just exercised some self-control right?

You can't always overgeneralise a problem or make assumptions. Certainly people should never start smoking to begin with but they also deserve help to stop doing it when they make the decision to quit. Addiction is a hard cycle to break. Not everyone has the strength of will to go cold turkey.

[bronhill]

Interesting how the Government has no qualms about raking in dollars in taxes from tobacco on the pretext it will discourage smokers from imbibing! They aren't silly.
Of course they understand that price increases will not force people to give up regardless of their financial situation. Of course they understand that cigarettes are addictive; of course they realise they are doing little about hard illegal drugs by merely labelling them " recreational drugs". They would much prefer to book someone for speeding than work the streets fixing the drug use problem- is easier revenue!Issues are never resolved by apportioning blame to the victim, rather than proffering support mechanisms to address the issue which isn't increasing the price of the drug. Nothing is ever simple! I guess for some they consider it one of the few pleasures of life. Ever noticed how it is the working class who always cops it in the neck? Also the ones who are least considered the least supported by programs and the least heard?
Re the fags: Heck- why not go cold turkey- its the only real option left- or was for us many years ago and it does work and costs nothing not even your health!

[Billythedog]

Hey all,

I read this thread and it prompted me to become a member so that I could post a reply, the long and short of it is this, the government does not want you to quit smoking or drinking and for anyone out there that doesn't smoke or drink you don't want them to give up either.

The tax revenue from tobaco and alcahol is roughly the equivalent of 2/3 the amount of money that goes into medicare and various other health and community services. Should all the smokers and drinkers out there give up because the tax is to high these services would suffer beyond all imagination, cut to shreds with programs and practices thrown in the bin! Hmm doesn't sound right does it, no what would actually happen is the money would need to be raised elsewhere, raised taxes or the GST would go through the roof.

We can moan and grumble about smokers and drinkers all day long but as long as they keep footing the bill and follow the rules about where they can and can't do it then we should all smile and hold our breath as walk past them, safe in the knowledge that they just paid for my next elective surgery.

Don't be daft folks, keep the tax levels the same, keep on smoking i can't afford to pay for the bad habbits of other people!

[whalan_boy]

A lot of good posts here but did anybody mention that the NSW government has invested in Phillip Morris (the tobbaco company). I call it sitting on the fence, tell people to quit. Lift the taxes levies and stamp duty then balance it off by selling the product.

If we had the right to not vote how many people would choose not to.

[computerflyer]

> The tax revenue from tobaco and alcahol is roughly the equivalent of 2/3 the amount of money that goes into medicare and various other health and community services

I would like to know where you got your 2/3's number. Opinion, anecdotal, researched, or "I read it on the internet so it must be true"?

By reducing and eliminating smoking you don't mention the number of smoke induced medical cases being treated would be reduced to essentially zero; families would not be unnecessarily losing loved ones early and having the traumatic experiences; those smoking tax payers would not become drains on the social purse through being unable to work and taking a dole; fewer butts would be on the ground since many if not most smokers have no more consideration for the environment than dog walkers who don't pick up (unscientific personal observation); reduced 2nd hand lung cancer; fewer fires from smoking in bed; etc, -- and the prospect of freeing beds for the queues of people not having self induced medical problems.

Tobacco is perhaps the only life threatening and addictive product, that is sanctioned by governments in the name of almighty taxes. Very sad in reality.

[Platycat]

NSW government has invested in Phillip Morris (the tobbaco company).
--


I call it hypocritical, they tax Tobacco to the hilt--but they forget that those that smoke are only hurting themselves, they don't get in a car and kill someone and it also doesn't alter their brains so they get into fights etc--unlike Alcohol and/or drugs but they still have a needle exchange and shoot up rooms, seems a bit of a puzzle to me when these two cause more harm than any Tobacco product.