The new smokes tax will cost me what?! Cough, splutter

Overflow says:

05:08pm | 29/04/10

I can see Roxon and Rudd now doing the sums, perhaps even an obesity tax.  The Hawker Britton spin would go something like ....... there are around 10000 deaths per year due to obesity and I your strong leader will fix it by introducing the strongest laws against fast food the world has seen ........

Imagine a world without fast food ads or sport sponsorship, it is pure nanny state Labor heaven.

Joan says:

05:16pm | 29/04/10

Let`s be fair -  if health is the concern Nanny Rudd should regulate to package all alcohol plain label, no advertising , increase taxes rates , also all processed food including bickies, such as TimTams cakes pasties pies- let`s get those fatsoes thinner - less diabetes—- no advertising and plain packaging more tax on all junk food catergory. Go Nanny Rudd more taxes healthier Australian!

H of SA says:

05:46pm | 29/04/10

I remember hearing a health expert from the UK saying that pretty much all Western countries won’t be able to manage their health budjets without either a raise in income tax or a fat tax sometime in the next decade. I reckon its coming.

Gene Hunt says:

09:21pm | 29/04/10

Don’t laugh - the socialist state of California (and, yes, I know The Governator is supposed to be a Republican but he’s bloody well not) has just started talking about banning toys in McHappy Meals to stop the food being attractive to children.

Seano says:

09:04am | 30/04/10

Rudd didn’t invent smoking taxes. Howard also increased taxes on smoking.

The rehtoric on this issue is fairly typical from the right, no one has mentioned a tax on Tim Tams.

Even allowing for a large margin of error on the estimated 183 000 children who will be priced out of taking up this habit the effect of this tax is absolutely worth it. Especially considering the proceeds from this tax are being redirected to the health system.

The Centre Punch. says:

04:47pm | 29/04/10

@ Mark, Brilliant.

@ Colgo, love the cartoon, but you left out the smiling, hand rubbing, chop chop dealer.

If you need any quit motivation think about your children, the self discipline will come, easily, may the force be with you.

Regards the formersnag & swinging voter.

Taylor says:

12:37am | 04/05/10

It seems everybody is missing the point.
What is all this moaning about “smoker’s rights”? If someone is smoking in any place where a non-smoker will have to inhale it against their will, it is not the smoker whose rights are being violated.
Human rights have to be balanced against each other. So smokers have to pay more tax….Non-smokers still have to breathe it in public places.
All these health arguments about obesity and drinking are redundant.
I don’t drink alcohol, and when I go out nobody forces me to inhale it against my will. I eat unhealthy food, but I still weigh under 45kilos despite that fact and have no health issues and when I eat my unhealthy food I DON’T FORCE OTHER PEOPLE TO INGEST IT EITHER. But when I walk out the door of the nightclub or cafe I am forced to inhale the fumes or give myself more immediate brain damage for trying to hold my breath. 
Smokers seem to be the most inconsiderate of all.
Yesterday I very nearly lost my sight in one eye because a girl wasn’t looking where she was waving her cigarette. I have numerous scars and property damage from other peoples cigarettes being in a public place. The worst I’ve done is got some salt on someone else’s blouse.
You can’t argue with the fact that eating bad food only affects the consumer and never others in anyway that isn’t superficial.

Emma says:

04:36pm | 29/04/10

Yep, over here and happy doing it. I love to smoke, I know it will kill me, but I don’t care because it makes me happy. Just like viagra, side affects are that it might kill you, but it makes you happy. Just like a big mac you know it hightens your chance but you do it anyway. Everyone has a behaviour they know is not good for them, that they do anyway. The only difference is smokers and the obese own up, mainly because its pointed out by such helpful people as yourself AFR. Why do I belive you lot are so kind as to point it out? Because that way we are paying the taxes on our own. What if your vice was taxed like mine AFR what then? Ps hope you enjoy the lung money.

bianca Borsody-Nagy says:

05:40pm | 29/04/10

emma the big difference is 2nd hand smoke, I don’t want to be breathing the crap in and I don’t want my kids to either.

Just like I don’t give my kids crap to eat, are you happy to roll around in a bubble sucking down your own second hand smoke every hour of every day…..

BTS says:

05:42pm | 29/04/10

but have you tried smoking viagra…

Ben G says:

05:42pm | 29/04/10

You must be easily amazed.

Joan says:

06:00pm | 29/04/10

It amazes me how many people still guzzle alcohol till they drop or smash up their car and maim other, and yet others bloated and gross still cram their faces with doughnuts and pies and greasy sausage rolls and other processed food. Let`s tax them all to high heaven - plain labels on all that nasty stuff and please no advertising- that`ll teach them.

Peter says:

07:12pm | 29/04/10

These hypocites Emma. They expect the smoking vice to be taxed, but will be the first to winge if one of their vices got taxed. The anti smoking campaign is nothing more than a hate campain now. We are not smoking is peoples faces, we are not smoking in buildings, we are not smoking in pubs and clubs. Why don’t they just leave us alone, and why do they think they have a right to interfere in our lives? Tobacco taxes now raise over 40 billion dollars off 18% of the population, mostly the poor. This is so wrong. These nongs don’t understand how heavy taxation limits peoples freedoms….

Vicki PS says:

10:05pm | 29/04/10

People are still smoking because it’s an ad-dict-ion.  What a big, grown-up word!  Can you say ad-dict-ion?

Did you know that over 50% of people who suffer from depression and other mental illnesses are smokers?  Did you know that if a smoker who has suffered from depression quits, he or she has around a 75% chance of suffering a relapse?  These are some of the facts that the health budget spin-doctors don’t want the public to know.  How much of the new tax increase windfall will be spent in the grossly neglected mental health area, do you reckon?

With health education and prevention policy firmly on the fiscal cost/benefit track, isn’t it about time the government started tackling some of the other high-cost health items?  Can’t we tax 18 - 25 year old males out of the market for fast cars or contact sports?  What about a rising scale of surcharges for couples wanting reproductive help, based on age?

What I would really, really like to see, in our best of all possible nanny states, is a new law requiring all skinny, abstemious, censorious, adrenaline-addicted, bowel-motion-monitoring, my-body-is-my-temple wankers (are you reading this, Tony Abbott?) to have tattooed around their navels, “Smile, you miserable bastard!”

Duke says:

01:10am | 30/04/10

@ Peter,

I smoked for 40 years and only gave up after 7 days in hospital let me clear the crap out of my system.  I’m no hypocrite and I wish you and Emma the same luck when you crash, which you will.  But if you are smoking in the street, the carpark, the park or anywhere near me don’t get shirty if I sit down next to you and cough in your face.  Because thats what passive smoke does makes me do now.  Suck it in kids, the groin drips and stents are waiting, and at least you get to spend the ciggy bucks on medications for the constant, debilitating pain.

Peter says:

10:09am | 30/04/10

@ Duke. In 40 years ive spent $300 from medicare. I think i pull my weight when it comes to paying my fair share. Im not saying smoking is good for you, but its a legal product and and a legal practice. We shouldn’t be taking away peoples freedoms just because someone doesn’t like it. If you get a whiff of it down the street, suck it up, its not going to do you any harm. There are more unpleasant toxins in our air that we should be concerned about and some awful BO from some people… Make no mistake, taxation can be used to limit peoples freedoms, and that’s what this is doing. I love how the media says its mostly the poor that smoke. Well, if they weren’t giving the Government an extra $100 a week in tax, perhaps they wouldn’t be so poor…

Dean says:

04:42pm | 30/04/10

Its a personel choice

W. says:

06:07pm | 29/04/10

Am I alone in considering the constant sniping against cigarette smokers is actually a kind of mental ilness along the lines of compulsive handwringing?

centurion48 says:

11:09am | 30/04/10

I am happy for money raised in your tobacco taxes to go into health (and street sweeping to clean up after smokers) as long as the tax I pay only goes to support my vices. Since I don’t have any vices then I should pay no tax. Seems fair to me.

Fed up says:

03:58pm | 30/04/10

Hi Emma
I’m a non-smoker but I am disgusted at the way smokers are treated in this country. Not only are they openly considered and labeled stupid, addicted and irresponsible, but their basic human freedom of choice has been ridiculed. Where is the tolerant Australian fair go when it comes to smokers? Passive smoking is about the only reason why non-smokers should have any legitimate comment, and let’s face it, you people nowadays don’t get to smoke anywhere near anyone.
I say enough is enough. You cannot go down the road of “punishing tax” unless you look at the whole lot. As others have pointed out, there’s the far more socially harmful drinking, the junk food, the lack of exercise… If we taxed everyone for their vices then we would end up discriminating, not putting our funds together for a broader social good.

Alf says:

12:24am | 01/05/10

I don’t really care whether people decide to smoke or not. It’s their choice after all.

However, I DO CARE if I’m being forced to breath someone’s second hand smoke, for example, I was waiting for a bus and this guy walks up to wait as well and then starts puffing away while I try to hold my breath and cover my face with a thin piece of cloth.

Those kind of smokers piss me off to no end since they obviously don’t consider the consequences of their actions and should I ever develop lung cancer I will certainly know which to blame (BTW no history of respiratory illnesses in my family).

Elphaba says:

04:34pm | 29/04/10

Hahahaha, nice!

papachango says:

05:46pm | 29/04/10

Or marijuana. It’s cheaper, better for you than tobacco, and even harder to tax is it’s really easy to grow your own.

Bruce says:

08:46pm | 29/04/10

Looks like I picked the wrong day for quiting amphetamines !!!

Mark says:

04:26pm | 29/04/10

Yeh Colgo might be able to afford the electricity hikes for example.

Elphaba says:

09:59am | 30/04/10

True Mark.  In one hand and out the other. :-(

Super D says:

05:29pm | 29/04/10

Only Labor voters and Bob Brown

Dorian says:

06:58pm | 29/04/10

Yes Lauren, people still smoke.
Guess what though? Those people pay more tax than most others, which probably sounds fair to you.
The only problem is, once they all quit/die the Government is going to have to find revenue elsewhere…Say hello to taxes for something you enjoy doing soon!

persephone says:

07:31am | 30/04/10

Dorian

except if they quit, the health expenses on the government go down, so in the long term governments spend less.

If everyone quit smoking the government would save something like $25 billion a year (there would be a bit of a lag time, as smoking related health problems would still need to be treated).

Mark says:

08:06am | 30/04/10

Hush pers.

Simple stuff this.

Labor overspends then raises taxes. That is all. Nothing to do with health.

Hamish says:

09:35am | 30/04/10

Persephone this is a naked revenue grab and you know it. They’ve done modelling on how many people will quit based on the tax hikes and guess what, the gov is still $5 billion better off over 4 years.

If the gov was serious about taxing to make people quit they would increase excise by 100% and make a standard pack cost $20+. Of course, that would probably mean the gov would lose revenue so it won’t happen. Not with Rudd anyway, he needs cash bad.

Oh btw as a Labor apparatchik, what do you think about the branding stunt? You know he’ll just have to renege on it or pay the ciggie companies millions if not billions of dollars a year for stealing their intellectual property. What’s it like to support a spineless leader whose only talents are verbosity, grandstanding and surrendering?

Declaration: I’m a smoker.

persephone says:

09:59am | 30/04/10

My father died of lung cancer, having been told 10 years ago by his doctor to quit smoking or he would be dead in 10 years.

I look at my children every day and think that, if only Dad had heeded the warnings, he’d still be here today and they’d actually know him as a person.

They would have adored him. Their lives are the poorer because they never knew him.

This is not an issue I joke about, or play politics with.

Oh, and studies over many years in many countries have consistently shown the best way to encourage smokers to quit is to raise the price of smoking.

And the best way of stopping people taking up the habit in the first place is to raise the price of smoking - and to ‘de glamorise’ it.

The World Health Organisation has been recommending for some time now that cigarettes be sold in plain packages. They believe it will reduce smoking rates.

As for ‘intellectual property rights’, the Federal government has very good legal advice and will have already run it by them. I’ve heard a couple of experts on the radio (so sorry, no link, but I’ll do a search if I need to!) say that, given the lack of tobacco advertising over the years, the ‘brand value’ of packaging is virtually nil now, so that it wouldn’t attract much compensation anyway (basically said the brand was now worthless), so it doesn’t sound like that’s a problem either.

I’m into saving lives. If it raises taxes as well, that’s a bonus.

Oh, and I would have thought you guys would be advocates for ‘user pays’ and ‘individual responsibility’ so what’s the problem?

Mark says:

10:35am | 30/04/10

Mark says:

  09:06am | 30/04/10

  Hush pers.

  Simple stuff this.

  Labor overspends then raises taxes. That is all. Nothing to do with health.

persephone says:

11:29am | 30/04/10

Mark

Labor spends money on improving the health system and taxes those who impose a burden on the same health system to help do this.

In doing so, it saves lives - not only the lives of the Australians who will now quit smoking but the lives of those who will now not take it up.

I’ve repeatedly said that one measure of a good tax is that it does more than just revenue raise - it targets behaviour.

So this is a good tax. It discourages people from undertaking an acitivity which will kill 50% of those who undertake it, whilst helping the taxpayer fund the costs those who continue to smoke will impose on the health system.

Even Tony Abbott recognises that.

Mark says:

12:03pm | 30/04/10

Lots of statistics with no proof. Provide proof.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/former-ally-david-penington-savages-kevin-rudds-status-quo-health-reforms/story-e6frgczf-1225859644876

That article seems to suggest your hope for any real reform in the health system is groundless.

Now let me see and I am going off the top of my head with dates here so please correct me if I am wrong. It has continually been suggested that T Abbott in his years as health minister did nothing to fix the system.

It is a fact that during his time as health minister states were in charge of the hospitals that are in such need of reform.

So now the list correct me if you will;

Qld - Labor since 1998, NSW - Labor since 1995, Vic - Labor State since 1999’, SA - Labor State since 2002, Tas -Labor since 1999

There you go. Our “deplorable” health system is in such disrepair after being run by the above Labor governments.

Now looking at what the good doctor as quoted in the article (remember a medical expert and supporter of the original scheme.)

“David Penington, a senior fellow at Melbourne’s Grattan Institute who initially backed the deal Kevin Rudd struck with the states, said yesterday he was “appalled at the lack of any agreement on governance that differs from the status quo”, and had little faith any real change would be forthcoming from the reforms.”

Note little real change. So we give the managers of the previous system more money and bribes to jump on board the political expediency train and pay for it with a tax grab.

But wait there is more the good professor is concerned about.

“The thing that will come back to bite Kevin Rudd will be that he will have achieved nothing to improve quality of hospital services, as they just continue to be controlled on numbers, as in every state at present.”

and more gold

“John Dwyer, another senior doctor and longstanding reform advocate who has been critical of aspects of the proposals, said last night he, too, had found fresh points of concern in the agreement detailing the COAG deal. One was the doubt hospitals would have the computers necessary to track their activities in the detail needed to claim payments under the proposed activity-based funding formula.

Professor Dwyer said he attended a meeting at a leading Sydney hospital yesterday where the doctors agreed the process was “going to be a nightmare”.

“We couldn’t see how it was going to happen without a huge increase in bureaucracy,” Professor Dwyer said.

Hmmm let me cast my mind back. Start up a program to install batts in roofs. Have warnings re concerns with implementation. Go ahead anyway. Death and destruction ensue. This is sounding familar.

More bureaucracy, little benefit, status quo. And yes I read the end where some support it.

The fact of the matter is the blame game will go on. Dangers are already being ignored. The plan has been chopped up and delivered to save political face by a political coward. A convictionless man.

This is a tax grab to prop up new spending he had to ante up after the states bent him over a barrel at COAG. Weak.

persephone says:

12:18pm | 30/04/10

I’m not sure what your definition of ‘proof’ is, if you’re not going to accept statistics.

Please point out any post where I have said or suggested or even hinted that Abbott did ‘nothing’. Please outline what he did do.

You can’t pull money out of the states to the tune of $1 billion and expect them to deliver the same level of health care. Furthermore, the Treasury figures show that health costs have been rising faster than state revenue. So of course the states have been falling behind.

As for the reforms, go back and re read my posts over the last week or so. These articles may be ‘gold’ to you, but they look like ‘same old, same old’ to me and I’m tired of repeating myself.

Jason says:

09:31pm | 30/04/10

You can stop repeating yourself anytime persephone…it’s not like we _need_ more Rudd loving spin.  BTW “proof” where statistics are concerned usually involves citing the source of those statistics (caution: the top of your head is unlikely to be considered a valid data source)

Emma says:

06:06pm | 29/04/10

I did not even think of this issue in this way before you mentioned this. Is it legal? Who would investigate if it is not? Can a government be audited by the Australian public or do we write to the queen requesting the Governer General investigate? What if fast foods and income tax and heaps of others are next? Is this like the holocaust where as long as you are not the group targeted it is ok?  I do feel very scared if the government can do what it likes willy nilly.

Ben says:

06:06pm | 29/04/10

Um, if they are that short of money that $2 extra on a pack of smokes causes financial harship, maybe they shouold be prioritising their expenses… If you can’t afford to eat and smoke, its time to give up smoking…

Bill says:

07:03pm | 29/04/10

Mate, every increase in tobacco tax is sprung on the Australian people without any more notice than it takes to get the word out to the people who have to change the price tags. This is the way it has been done ever since I can remember. I gave up about five years ago following tobacco tax increases under the Howard Government.

mtdd says:

09:45pm | 29/04/10

The alcopop tax came in overnight..this govt has form as it tries to cover and distract from its failures. Some 107 broken promises since elected in 2007..

Steve says:

11:34pm | 29/04/10

A lot of decisions by Rudd have been done this way.  They canned the solar program like this.  Stopped the insulation program like this.  I hate to think of the number of small business people who have been ruined overnight because of this, no time to adjust, change business plans etc.  Any tobaccanist in the country is tonight trying to figure out exactly how much to charge tomorrow without overcharging or ending up with a hefty tax bill.

Dani says:

09:42am | 30/04/10

Wait, Emma… do you seriously not know the process for challenging potential legislation??
Here’s a hint, it doesn’t involve the Queen! It’s a little institution we have called the courts…

BTS says:

05:47pm | 29/04/10

You betcha! Billy Hughes!

Ricky says:

06:32pm | 29/04/10

Well they couldnt have been any worse than the completly useless government we currently have.They are so inept its frightening.

Robert says:

11:41am | 30/04/10

Probably much better than today. As a child in a posh boarding school, (Yes, the “English Disease” was rife between teachers and students,) The school doctor at the time had all kids with asthma to go to the matron’s sitting room every day after lunch and they were required to smoke a full strength Menthol Cigarette. They had to inhale and hold it in for 30 seconds. This was to make asthma sufferers lungs expand & work better! We who did not have asthma tried to make out we did because at the time smoking was sooooo coooool!

Cindy says:

02:52pm | 01/05/10

Budz ... Um ...
I am a non-smoker.
I do not drink alcohol because I do not like the taste and only half a glass affects my senses.
I try to eat healthy foods most of the time.
I regularly exercise.
It’s called looking after your health.

I can’t believe people smoke, get drunk every weekend, take illegal drugs, eat unhealthy foods everyday, don’t exercise at all, or vote Labor.

I can’t believe that I see people with cigarettes in their hands when they are out exercising.
I can’t believe doctors and nurses smoke when they see first hand the ill-effects of smoking.

Rider says:

08:52pm | 29/04/10

+100 what Arios said.
Feeding the habit will come first. Always has, always will. And if the $900 big screen tv has to go to cash converters than so be it.

Gareth says:

09:45am | 30/04/10

It seems Arios is smoking something stronger than cigarettes. So you really think the Govt is going to “fix” things with this money grabbing tax? Provide us all with one example of these “things” you say will be “fixed” by our wonderful Govt.

Beagle says:

08:53pm | 29/04/10

What a ridiculous analogy. The only reason they came for you is because they could see the smoke from miles away and when you put it out, they could smell you from down the block.

Seano says:

10:53pm | 29/04/10

Melodramatic much?

No one is going to take you away for smoking. But you should pay for your habit and keep it to yourself.

Steve M says:

10:35am | 30/04/10

Yeah, keep thinking that Beagle. You are in for a shock!

Steve M says:

10:38am | 30/04/10

No Seano, its not melodrama. The point is when we allow social police to run our lives, where will it end?

Ausfire says:

02:35pm | 30/04/10

For those who don’t understand the context, meaning or origin of the quote, let me enlighten you ...

“They first came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

Pastor Martin Niemöller on 6th January 1946, regarding the Nazi rise to power by eliminating any opposition, group by group. Meaning, we all stand together against the government of the day on what is unfair or we fall one by one when the government chooses to work against what affects each one of us personally. Divide and conquer.

Seano says:

04:42pm | 30/04/10

Comparing smokers having to pay higher prices to people being rounded up and exterminated in death camps for their political opinions or religion is not only tasteless, it is a tad melodramatic Steve M.

Beagle says:

12:46pm | 30/04/10

And who will you vote for now that Abbott supports this tax and packaging? The Greens, family first, independents? Harden up and get off the fags.

persephone says:

08:30am | 30/04/10

Except your taxes don’t cost the taxpayer what you are likely to cost in health needs in the future.

There’s a $25 billion shortfall between the cost of smoking to the community and the amount raised from taxing cigarettes.

So enjoy the hospital treatment paid for by the non smoking taxpayers and don’t delude yourself that you’re paying anywhere near your share.

NotImpressed says:

10:28am | 30/04/10

I smoke and also pay for private health cover which I stopped today, I will be paying for my share with this tax hike. I have payed for private health for over 15 years and since I am healthy and have not been in hospital once in that period I figure I have paid more than my fair share.

Mark says:

10:30am | 30/04/10

Tax grab by a Labor government that in true Whitlam tradition has overspent the bank balance.

We are not shocked.

persephone says:

11:32am | 30/04/10

Good, NotImpressed.

We ordinary taxpayers can stop subsidising your private health cover, too.

Win-win.

Hamish says:

12:00pm | 30/04/10

Persephone,

By my estimates, I give the government around $3K per year in tobacco excise. I also pay normal taxes.

From the smh: ‘The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s latest figures show the nation spent $104 billion on healthcare in 2007-08 - that’s 9 per cent of gross domestic product or $4874 for every man, woman and child.’

Government spending is 71% of this (from the same article), so $3,460 for every person. So my cigarette excise payments alone almost cover health spending, let alone the taxes I already pay.

Plus, I’ve never been to hospital, so I’ve got about $20K already paid for.

Persephone, if this was about trying to get people to quit, they would, as I’ve already pointed out, raise excise by 100%.

persephone says:

12:24pm | 30/04/10

Hamish

I don’t think my father cost the health system much prior to reaching 63.

In the year after that, whilst he was dying of lung cancer, he would have cost the health system far more than he had paid into it.

The stats speak for themselves: less than $4 billion in, more than $30 billion out; 50% of smokers die from smoking related diseases.

There are also the incalculable costs: what has it cost my family, for example, to lose the love, guidance and knowledge my father would have given us all over the twenty extra years (given his family’s medical history) he would otherwise have lived?

You can’t put a price on human life in that way.

Mark says:

12:43pm | 30/04/10

Mark says:

  11:30am | 30/04/10

  Tax grab by a Labor government that in true Whitlam tradition has overspent the bank balance.

  We are not shocked.

Please stop with the emotional appeal. It is unbecoming. Many of the readers of the blog I am sure have similar stories but find it sensible to play the ball instead of emotions.

I want to see the source of your figures too please.

Hamish says:

12:48pm | 30/04/10

Persephone,

As I point out the gov (all govs) spends $71 billion on health per year. Your $30 billion figure suggests that 42% of this entire spending is smoking related. To be honest, I just don’t believe that figure.

Is the $30 billion figure actually health costs or some vague economic modelling of community costs from smoking? If so, it is largely unrelated to questions of taxation. It is also worth noting that something like alcohol would also have a very high community cost, but as many more people drink than smoke, it is probably not possible to tax it nearly as much.

persephone says:

01:26pm | 30/04/10

Mark

I’ll argue any way I want to and use any story I want to, which is my right.

If you dispute my figures, you’re welcome to correct them.

Try google.

persephone says:

01:43pm | 30/04/10

Hamish

hmmm….tried to link to the site but it’s blacklisted!!! Must be because it contains the word ‘drug’.

So please google “Collins and Lapsley”. It seem to be the report everyone quotes. It’s from 2004-5 (apologies: I thought it covered 2006).

And you’re right; smoking costs society far more than smokers pay back in tax. So anything that can be done to reduce its incidence is obviously good for all of us.

AdamC says:

02:43pm | 30/04/10

Persephone, your figures are as ridiculous as your mind-bogglingly inflexible partisanship.

The quit smoking lobby has become a victim of its own success. Let me get this straight: a bigger gangrenous foot picture on the packet will make smokers stop smoking; a sudden, 25% increase in excise with no warning (which may have facilitated people planning to quit before it was enacted) will also make people stop smoking - at least once they have finished the five cartons they bought last night to beat the increase.

Is that what I am expected to believe, Persephone?

Smokers do not smoke because it is unhealthy; they smoke in spite of it. Smokers do not smoke because it is cheap; they smoke in spite of it being very expensive.

Just like, evidently, Labor voters do not vote Labor because they (still) represent the interests of ordinary people; they vote Labor in spite of the fact that they do not.

Persephone, for once can you acknowldge that the ALP machine can be wrong?

Elphaba says:

03:58pm | 30/04/10

Ah, AdamC, that’s going to be like getting blood from a stone!

Elphaba says:

10:13am | 30/04/10

Absolutely.  If the Govt wasn’t concerned about the revenue, they’d just ban them completely or forget about pursuing it all together.

“Don’t smoke, don’t smoke - now give me all your money.”

It’s astounding.

Steve M says:

10:40am | 30/04/10

And fatties arent? Drinkers arent?

Bob says:

05:23pm | 30/04/10

yeah but junk food and drink, in moderation, does not hurt others.

and yes I reckon tax maccas etc. more

and I reckon food vouchers for those who can’t manage their lives

Ausfire says:

08:23am | 30/04/10

More from the ABS (same source as quoted above):-

Main cause of death for age range 15-44:
Intentional self-harm (X60-X84)(g)
(Not smoking related)

Main cause of death for age range 45-64:
Malignant neoplasms of digestive organs (C15-C26)
(Not smoking related)

Main cause of death for age range 65+:
Ischaemic heart diseases (I20-I25) - (various causes including aging - see above post)
(May or may not be smoking related)

Baaaa!!!

Given the above statistics (previously unknown to me before today) maybe the government needs to put more spending into Mental Health issues than anti-smoking. Considering the statistics I read last week that the majority of persons affected by mental health are also a majority of smokers, maybe fixing mental health may go a long way into stopping people smoking.

Marie says:

10:08am | 30/04/10

Ausfire: Agree with your comments. Regarding your point 7: I can not help but feel that Rudd needed a win, any win, an easy win. Unfortunately, for Rudd, this looks like a school kid looking for a fight, he knows he can not beat the big kids, so you pick an easy target.

persephone says:

10:45am | 30/04/10

From a link provided in the same publication:

’ Cancer (C00-D48) was the underlying cause of 42,418 registered deaths in Australia. This accounted for 30% of all registered deaths’  with cancer being the fourth highest cause of death overall.

‘Smoking’ is not put down as a cause of death for statistical purposes.

Your own quote shows that the ABS ranks ‘cigarette and tobacco smoke’ as the main cause of heart disease (hint: that’s why it’s listed first).

Of course 15-44 year olds don’t die of cancer as a general rule (it takes a bit longer than that to kill you).

And gee, ‘malignant neoplasms’ means ‘cancer’. Which implies that the 45-64 year olds are dying of smoking related cancers before they reach the age to die of heart disease, which may be smoking related.

So, using your own quotes: heart disease (which can be caused by cancer) and malignant neoplasms (cancer) are two of our biggest killers. The incidence of both can be reduced if people don’t smoke. Therefore dissuading people from smoking will reduce two of the biggest causes of death in our society. Therefore any measure which reduces the number of people who smoke is a Good Thing.

And you will be pleased to know that part of the government health plan includes more money and resources for mental health.

Mark says:

12:07pm | 30/04/10

“Pers says “And you will be pleased to know that part of the government health plan includes more money and resources for mental health.

I will let the medical expert reply

David Penington, a senior fellow at Melbourne’s Grattan Institute who initially backed the deal Kevin Rudd struck with the states, said yesterday he was “appalled at the lack of any agreement on governance that differs from the status quo”, and had little faith any real change would be forthcoming from the reforms.

He also deplored the fact there was no commitment to the key issue of “a vastly better interface” between the hospital sector and primary care, or aged care and mental health - “all issues of critical importance for the longer term”.

Hmm who to believe? Pers or the medical guy. That’s a real head scratcher that one.

persephone says:

01:30pm | 30/04/10

Mark

you don’t even understand what you’re quoting.

Pennington is talking about the way health is admininistered, specifically the way care is co ordinated between hospitals and other health organisations - that’s the context for his comments on mental health.

So he is not saying that the package won’t deliver extra resources for mental health.

The COAG communique outlines an additional $115 million for mental health, with an emphasis on prevention and intervention.

Ausfire says:

01:58pm | 30/04/10

persephone says: “And gee, ‘malignant neoplasms’ means ‘cancer’. Which implies that the 45-64 year olds are dying of smoking related cancers before they reach the age to die of heart disease, which may be smoking related.”

I’m glad you understand the meaning of ‘malignant neoplasms’ which is the medical terminology given for ALL cancers, including melanomas which are NOT caused by smoking. Or, are you going to tell me that if I’m a smoker and develop a melanoma, then it is cancer related?

You can get cancer from something as simple as bumping yourself against something - all that is needed is for abnomal cell growth. There are a wide range of chemicals that have been linked to cancer research, including unleaded fuels, and BBQs. Do we ban the Aussie barbie? Will the government do anything about unleaded fuels? Of course not.

The main problem with research - determining cause and causality. Some lung cancers (i’ll use simple terminology to make things easier) have been caused by for example asbestos: in China, drinking scalding hot tea is the main cause of throat cancers. Some mouth cancers have been associated with bacteria. With “medical statistics”, If you have any of these cancers and smoke, it is always ASSumed that smoking is the cause.

But, you cry out, there have been tests that prove smoking causes cancer in mice. 1) mice have a different physiology 2) the test include overdosing on substances. From a test I recall from memory, when mice were given an overdose of vitamin A, they developed cancer. Gasp! Quick, we have to ban vitamin A.

The only long term testing (life span) is in the area of gathering medical data and reaching a conclusion is that your *chance* of being affected by a cancer related to smoking is increased. Please note, that is a chance and NOT definate. Point of reference being a 102 year old US woman who was a pack a day smoker all her life and never had cancer - died in her sleep from old age. Before her death, she attributed her health to a healthy diet and hard manual work.

Baaaa!!!

Mark says:

03:41pm | 30/04/10

Understand perfectly well.

Lets dumb it down. Rudd was taking over the whole shebang.

Now the experts say

“He also deplored the fact there was no commitment to the key issue of “a vastly better interface” between the hospital sector and primary care, or aged care and mental health - “all issues of critical importance for the longer term”.

Sure the promise of cash sometime in the future was there. Now remember WA has not signed up either so lets all see what happens ther but assuming, as I do, we go forward then yes they have split the money from the tax grab down lines and they say $115 million extra is targeted for mental health.

Note what I said. Not one darn thing about your figures being wrong. I concur fully with them.

But let us again revisit recent history and look again with interest at this statement

“We couldn’t see how it was going to happen without a huge increase in bureaucracy,” Professor Dwyer said.

So let us see. Throwing money unfunded at that stage at a popular “problem”. Big tick.

Not having a proper agreement sorted. No thought on implementation. Rushed planning, changes at the last minute for political convenience
Another big tick.

Remind anyone of the batt scheme? The simple process of insulation.

And you have faith that all this money will be delivered to improve patient care?

“...a huge increase in bureaucracy,” Professor Dwyer said.”

Wow sounds truly awesome.

Now how will we fund this all? This policy on the run remember. Kruddd was keeping the premiers locked up till he had an agreement he boasted….lawl. Then the cave in to the states. Going to cost a few billion…hows the bottom line looking Swannie? asks Kevvie I backed down on everything else I promised so you can add it all back because I lied and will not do anything anyway? What you say…nothing in the till?

Well gee whizz.

A great big new tax.

When shall we do it .

Now!!

Status quo, Labor state governments running it. More of the same.
Funded by increasing taxes.

Very Whitlamesque. Very Labor. Very appalling.

labor increases taxes to counter wasteful spending. The end.

persephone says:

10:07am | 30/04/10

Except that there has been bans on tobacco advertising for years, under both parties, and this hasn’t happened.

All the research I’ve read says the most effective way to stop smoking is to raise the price.

Mark says:

10:34am | 30/04/10

It is also an excellant short term fix to any budgetary and overspending problems you have had while fumbling batt schemes and building overpriced school sheds.

It is especially good when you promise the odd extra 5 billion or so on a health scheme that after you bastardise it and convolute so much it is unrecognisable from what you already have bar a change in funding mix and an extra layer or two of bureaucracy.

Nothing like a saving the kiddies tax grab to help the bottom line

Cricketor says:

08:57am | 30/04/10

I just heard on the news that despite Abbotts yelling about this being a new tax he is supporting it and will continue to do so if elected, my advice to you is to vote Independent, The Greens have proved to be very disapointing, so they will not get my vote. Its time the smokers spoke with their vote and said , we have had enough of your rubbish

slugger says:

09:22am | 30/04/10

42 years of being a rabid labor voter has come to an end.for all he uninformed health nuts here,it may interest you to no that smockers pay 3 billion more than there health cost per anum,therfore thisi is a simple tax grab to balance a budget.and dont forget that people who smoke also pay income tax to cover there health costs.plus g.s.t.now thats unfair

Hermano says:

09:25am | 30/04/10

Easy solution to all this: quit smoking.  Non-smokers don’t pay the tax on tobacco.
As for smokers being outcast:  I ostracise my friends that smoke, and it seems to work a treat.  They either stop smoking around me or quit altogether.  It’s a bloody horrible and inconsiderate habit.  It’s killing you and those around you.  Wake up to yourself and stop whinging about paying a little bit of extra tax.

persephone says:

10:10am | 30/04/10

Slugger

no, smokers pay about $3 billion in excise per year, and cost $31 billion to society.

Mark says:

11:04am | 30/04/10

Well pers hpw is this going to raise $5 billion then.

25% hike in excise of $3 billion does not give you $5 billion extra? Simple maths 3billion x 25% /= $5 billion. Please explain?

Where are you getting your figures from? Where is this cost figure coming from? I know they would cost heaps but just want to check it out and am lazy today.

Care to share with us?

I love a good tax grab on a Friday morning.

persephone says:

11:39am | 30/04/10

Mark

to be consistent, I have used ABS figures for both from 2006.

I would assume that both the tax take and health expenditure have gone up since then, which would explain discrepancies.

Like you, I can’t be bothered doing the research to find something more up to date - it’s certainly not findable on a quick google.

Mark says:

12:49pm | 30/04/10

Cool thank you pers.

So in other words you are tossing out irrelevant numbers to attempt to back a weak and at times purely emotional argument for this tax grab.

Bringing made up numbers and misleading information to the debate is part of your normal operation now it seems.

It is a tax grab. Thanks.

persephone says:

01:46pm | 30/04/10

So, if you can’t find numbers which contradict mine, mine are correct.

Thanks.

BTW, correction - the study (by Collins & Lapsley) covers 2004-5. However, it is the one accepted by those in the field as the best, so I’ll stick with it.

persephone says:

10:20am | 30/04/10

1. Great. Quit smoking. Save the health system $20 billion a year. Win-win.

2. Bzzt. Obesity and related diseases cost the Australian taxpayer about $3.7 billion a year (Access Economics)) , smoking $31.5 billion.

The government’s plan for diabetes control will focus a lot on GPs supervising patient’s diets to reduce obesity.

There’s extra money also being put into anti smoking campaigns, so the tax revenue is being directed that way. Research shows, however, that that’s not as effective as raising prices.

Mark says:

11:06am | 30/04/10

Figure proof please. Sincerely not trying to be smart. Just want to know the real cost for intellectual exercise only.

Toss me the link please.

persephone says:

01:52pm | 30/04/10

Collins & Lapsley: costs of tobacco smoking per year $31 billion (sorry, it won’t link, apparently because it’s a ‘drug’ site but it’s easily found by googling).

Estimated tax take - I’m revising my figures like a good researcher, before I just used excise, this uses GST as well - is $6.5 billion.

http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-17-economics/17-4-benefits-of-tobacco-to-the-economy-

I’d already fudged my figures, on the basis that I would rather be under estimating then over estimating, so we have a tobacco cost as follows:

$31 billion - 6.5 billion = $ 24.5 billion.

Gave you the source for obesity costs.

Ben81 says:

02:16pm | 30/04/10

Mark - I had a look at the access economics source persephone mentioned, the numbers thrown around here are, of course, garbage.

Have a look at the report, hit the link to the PDF of the 2008 one (1st link, and that’s the most recent one that seems to be there)
http://www.accesseconomics.com.au/publicationsreports/search.php?searchfor=obesity&from=0&search=Go

“The financial cost of obesity in 2008 was estimated as $8.283 billion”
“The net cost of lost wellbeing (the dollar value of the burden of disease, netting out financial costs borne by individuals) was valued at a further $49.9 billion, bringing the total cost of obesity in 2008 to $58.2 billion.”

Notice the sneaky cherry picking of just one direct taxpayer cost when talking about obesity (the $3.6 billion productivity cost) and referring only to what obesity costs “the tax payer” to what smoking costs “the health system”.

persephone says:

03:02pm | 30/04/10

OK, if we’re going to factor in ‘lost well being’ as a cost, then we need to factor in the ‘lost well being’ of people who have lost family members to smoking. Or the ‘lost well being’ of smokers who are on oxygen to breathe, or have restricted lifestyles due to the health consequences of their habit.

As I’ve already said, these costs are incalculable. You can’t measure the cost of losing someone prematurely to a preventable disease.

I wasn’t being misleading but comparing ‘like with like’ - the cost to government of each condition.

Regardless, my point is the same: smoking costs the taxpayer far more than is collected from smokers in tax.

Castro says:

10:10am | 30/04/10

Hey Tors did you leave a couple of words out there?

Should that have read: “I’ve never seen him touch a girly or a beer”?

No I’m joking, I just really enjoy teasing Colgo.

Markus says:

10:19am | 30/04/10

Boags is a craft beer now? Last I checked it was cheaper than VB, and didn’t taste like s**t!

Daddio D says:

10:50am | 30/04/10

What crass comments by Castro. Go back to Cuba, find Lazarus’s remains there and wake up.

Castro says:

11:35am | 30/04/10

Boags: imbibed by people named Markus.  I rest my case.

Daddio D sounds like a herbal tea drinker to me.

Beagle says:

12:53pm | 30/04/10

Boags was actually a very decent beer until Lion Nathan took it over and changed the taste.

H of SA says:

04:21pm | 30/04/10

Coopers and Little Creatures are bad now? I never knew it was so immasculine to enjoy beers that don’t taste like an NRL player’s post game jersey.

thatcherschild says:

11:43am | 30/04/10

Ausfire, you beat me to it.
My partner and I managed to import e-cigs a few months ago - what a revelation!
After years of wasting money on patches and gum, after being tripped out by Zyban, finally, a product that worked.
We then did a bit of research and discovered that these e-cigs, freely available in USA and UK, are actually banned here.
I know 8 people in the UK, all 20+ a day smokers who literally gave up overnight with e-cigs.
Now we have the e-cigs our problem is acquiring the cartidges, these have to be ordered/imported from UK or USA, and a few times weve had our orders held back by Customs.
For me (and I imagine a huge amount of smokers ) the e-cig works, and the best scenario would be to allow these miracles to go on sale throughout Oz, available through current ciggie outlets, and taxed, but at a lesser rate of tobacco.
I was truly disgusted that Ms Roxon outlawed e-cigs based on personal opinion, shes obviously never been a smoker trying to give up.
The e-cig is the only product that works for my partner and I, yet we are still buying cigs cos our only method of stopping smoking has been banned.
And no, I have no involvement with any company/business associated with the e-cig - but this product should be available to anyone trying to give up their ciggie addiction.

ElizaMay says:

12:42pm | 30/04/10

I have tried it all to, everything from patches and gum to hypnotherapy and even acupuncture, that Zyban made me so sick and I never slept the whole time I was on it. The acupuncture infected my ear it blew up like a balloon, they put a stud in your ear you are supposed to rub everytime you want a cigarette. I was so stressed I smoked more than normal. if this e-cigs work why can’t we have it? That’s cruel and inhumane punishment!! Maybe because they just want the money and hope we don’t quit

Beagle says:

12:57pm | 30/04/10

Why don’t you e-cig fans just suck on a dummy instead? Doesn’t cost much and you can re-use it. Seriously

Diane says:

04:53pm | 30/04/10

Ausfire. Good luck with it. I have been trying to get the cartridges in to the country for well over three months now and have had no success. It amazes me that you can get Nicorette inhalers legally but not these E cigarettes. They are the only thing that has worked for me and my husband. Over a pack a day smokers and have been for at least 30 years and yet with the electronic cigarette we never touched a normal cigarette in the two weeks we had the cartridges. My friends loved it, my family loved it and I felt so much better.

Ausfire says:

10:20am | 12/05/10

Since this article was first published I have been doing ALOT of research on E-cigarettes, contacting government agencies (Customs, TGA) to finally be able to notify anyone interested in importing the E-cigarette for thier own PERSONAL use.

On speaking to customs this morning, they say that a permit is needed from the TGA.

On speaking with TGA (devices section), I am told that a permit is not needed under the Theraputic Goods Regulations 2002, Schedule 4, Pt 1.

To be on the safe side, you should import no more than 3 months supply of the e-liquid. No taxes are required to payed on the import.

If per chance Customs does seize the item (their directive - seize and hold till cleared by the TGA) , the TGA will be able to clear it up using the above information from legislation.

I hope this helps anyone in Australia wanting to switch from tobacco cigarettes to the e-cigarette.

Scott Glennon says:

11:50am | 30/04/10

@Zeta,

Sad Bambi..

Peter says:

10:58am | 30/04/10

Rich people smoke too Rebecca. These taxes are deliberately designed to make a lot of people poor. I heard one person on a recent blog saying that when he sees commission housing, there are a lot of families that smoke there, if the didn’t give the Government $220 (for a couple) a week, they probably wouldn’t be in commission housing to begin with… Our kind and loving Government force these people into public housing through their heavy taxation…

Beagle says:

12:24pm | 30/04/10

only if you’re a smoker. 400 packs and you’ve given the money back

Seano says:

08:36am | 01/05/10

Smokers are actually a smallish minority and I strongly doubt there is a majority Labor or Liberal bias amongst them.

Mark says:

12:54pm | 30/04/10

Exactly.

It will hurt the less well off than the rich of the smoking sector.

Blatant tax grab.

Could have saved the billions from managing the batt and school shed debacles from the outset.

You poor buggers that still smoke (ex here) are going to pay for his waste and mismanagement starting right now. We will all have to pitch over time of course…./sigh.

[As a personal note to all the smokers a visit to the Dr and a course on Zyban got me off them quite well. Have a search and a think. I can recommend it from personal experience and many many failed attempts at quitting via other methods. Only available via script and it can have side effects. Check with your Dr]

Beagle says:

01:02pm | 30/04/10

I don’t recall there being a tax on smocking.

Matter of fact, I don’t even know what smocking is, but I suspect it is some cross-dressing game.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Now that Abbott supports both the tax and the packaging, who you gonna vote for? family first? Just stop smocking.

Scott Glennon says:

02:16pm | 30/04/10

@Beagle,

It’s an addiction Sir! I like to be considered the valetudinarian of society. Besides if we all did what you say we wouldn’t have people like Lindsay Lohan running around. Everyone needs to hate somebody.

I vote for George Washington, not because I want my own slave although it would make growing tobacco a lot easier but because there’s more chance of GW jumping from his grave and whipping us into shape then our leaders developing anything innovative or even realising the correct procedure to lay a cable.

Beagle says:

03:59pm | 30/04/10

@ Scott Glennon,

Sir,
Hypochondriacal you may be, but Lindsay Lohan has nothing to do with it.  It is a diseased mind looking for a disease any disease to appease the hunger.  Smoking gives you many to choose from. Perhaps you will have one from column a and one from column b.
Continue to smoke and your hypochondriacal desires shall be realized

James says:

02:19pm | 30/04/10

Bring it on, give an chance to finish off these turds once and for all.

Scott Glennon says:

03:43pm | 30/04/10

@James,

I wouldn’t be so sure the result would be what many desire. There is decades of evidence to suggest that international governments have over regulated the sale of tobacco. Almost to the point where it’s pointless to expect business growth within the tabacco industry.
I bet the trademark dispute will kick start Phillip Morris and I doubt your popular opinion would be considered by the High Court.

persephone says:

03:05pm | 30/04/10

Buzz

way less than ‘user pays’.

Sorry, trying to save lives here.

If you have people who love you, and will cry for you when you’re dead - not only at your funeral, but for years after - for their sake’s, quit now.

Please.

I’d rather have you around than your taxes.

Ausfire says:

03:47pm | 30/04/10

While we are at it, everyone stay off the roads to avoid drunk drivers that kill or maim (as happened in my case). Wrap your kids in cotton wool and live in a plastic bubble, breath filtered air, eat organic hydroponically grown foods using filtered water - then we’ll save lives.

Live for the here and now, because there maybe no tomorrow. SPLAT!!!

BTW, one of my grandfathers died from a heart condition, my other grandfather died from lymphoma (nearly 20 years after quitting smoking) and my grandmother died of a stroke - all attributed to smoking by the anti-smoking lobby and anti-smoking propaganda but only 1 was a smoker. My father had prostate cancer and never smoked, my mother breast cancer and never smoked. By my reckoning 1 in 5 of these cancers *MAY* of been caused by smoking. Smoker or not, this makes me a cancer candidate whichever way you look at it through family history. All I can do is get regular testing to “be on the safe side”.

buzz says:

08:23pm | 30/04/10

persephone
after 11 yrs of liberal govenment the light shone bright
im here to govern for all aust to end the blame game
but that dosnt mean you smoker
we need more tax now you could lift the gst or tax the ritch
our attack an addiction not a hard choice there…A
i have read your post in the past and admierd your loyalty
but to sugest that kevin is trying to save me from me…well
kev is not my mother or father
god the father said you have free will
as for any one morning my passing my little dog bella will
and i thank you for your kind thoughts

Ausfire says:

05:19pm | 30/04/10

From a recent news article: “The number of cigarettes a person smokes a day and the difficulties they might face in giving up the habit are largely driven by their genetic make-up, scientists say.”

AND

““That certainly is a possibility, but first and foremost it shows that even when it comes to things like addiction to nicotine there is a significant contribution by genetics,” he said.

“There’s so much celebrated free will, it may perhaps be a mixture of illusion and reality.”  - (source: ABC News -  Can’t quit smoking? Blame your genes) <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/26/2882621.htm?section=justin>

I really do hope you succeed - many others have, where I have not.