Tobacco excise

[Goose]

I just saw that tax on beer had increased.... grumbles....

What about smoking ? Is excise on tobacco a Government revenue raiser or a deterrent in the interests of reducing healthcare costs for the community ?

So the price of a packet of cigs is going above 20$ and steadily rising under new excise laws introduced by the Rudd government.

I guess the only people it bothers are smokers. And the freedom of rights activists. I once saw one get up on stage and tell the audience that he felt it should be anyone's right to do what they like with their own health. Yeah right, we all know the issues with that in the context of passive smoking.

What's worse, increasing the excise to $100 a packet or banning it outright ?

 

[dibby33]

Is it illegal to grow tobacco in Australia?

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Very illegal

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Making smoking to expensive is prob the only way to stop people smoking. I know a few that have either stopped or cut right back due to the cost. Works out at nearly $1 per cigarette.

Along with the fact that smoking is banned just about everywhere. Which is a good thing.

 

[bradsbrew]

Very illegal

To grow or harvest/process?

 

[Goose]

Along with the fact that smoking is banned just about everywhere. Which is a good thing.

if I had the power probably ban it. But then again, I might lose that needed tax revenue to balance my budget... quandary..

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

To grow or harvest/process?

All of the above.

Tobacco growing is strictly controlled. Pretty much has to be grown under high security to stop it being stolen. There are only a few growers left. Some is grown for nicotene exraction thats used for pest controll.

 

[dibby33]

Of course it would be illegal. Money is involved. I was not thinking clearly!

You might accidently grow it though if you were to get confused

http://www.burkesbackyard.com.au/factsheets/Flowering-Plants-and-Shrubs/Ornamental-Tobacco/2111

 

[Bribie G]

Very few people would grow tobacco illegally and I'd guess if you were supplying it then word would get around and you would stand out like the dog's, as opposed to another nameless plant that very many people grow (including several of my extended family and friends) so the chances of being picked up are minute if it's just a couple of pots of well pruned bushes hidden behind the tomato plants.
Reminds me only a couple of months to harvest time, man. B)

 

[pedleyr]

To me it's pretty simple: if it's as bad for everyone as they say it is then ban it. Don't **** around with plain packaging laws and higher excise and all of that.

If however the excise is purely revenue driven then fine, I have no issues, but be honest about it and give some accurate numbers on things like the burden it causes on the health care system.

 

[Airgead]

To me it's pretty simple: if it's as bad for everyone as they say it is then ban it. Don't **** around with plain packaging laws and higher excise and all of that.

If however the excise is purely revenue driven then fine, I have no issues, but be honest about it and give some accurate numbers on things like the burden it causes on the health care system.

Actually its not that simple. It never is.

Banning outright is like banning drugs outright. it just gives the market to organised crime and turns tobacco control into a law enforcement problem. By treating it as a public health campaign instead, you get much more effective reductions in smoking rates. Compare the big reductions in smoking rates with the massive increase in illegal drug use....

If they make dope legal and put health warnings on the packs and slowly ratchet up the price, it would do far more to reduce use than locking people up.

And exact numbers on healthcare costs are out there and have been for 50 years. The whole "we don't really know how much it costs" thing is a furfy put out by the tobacco companies. Try here - http://www.health.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/34F55AF632F67B70CA2573F60005D42B/$File/mono64.pdf for a start.

In short... if you smoke, suck it up cancer boy.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Very few people would grow tobacco illegally and I'd guess if you were supplying it then word would get around and you would stand out like the dog's, as opposed to another nameless plant that very many people grow (including several of my extended family and friends) so the chances of being picked up are minute if it's just a couple of pots of well pruned bushes hidden behind the tomato plants.
Reminds me only a couple of months to harvest time, man. B)

I have noticed the possums are harvesting my top most leaves h34r:

 

[pedleyr]

Actually its not that simple. It never is.

Banning outright is like banning drugs outright. it just gives the market to organised crime and turns tobacco control into a law enforcement problem. By treating it as a public health campaign instead, you get much more effective reductions in smoking rates. Compare the big reductions in smoking rates with the massive increase in illegal drug use....

If they make dope legal and put health warnings on the packs and slowly ratchet up the price, it would do far more to reduce use than locking people up.

And exact numbers on healthcare costs are out there and have been for 50 years. The whole "we don't really know how much it costs" thing is a furfy put out by the tobacco companies. Try here - http://www.health.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/34F55AF632F67B70CA2573F60005D42B/$File/mono64.pdf for a start.

In short... if you smoke, suck it up cancer boy.

As a non smoker I completely agree with your final sentence. I also agree that banning it won't stop it (not that I think it should be banned either).

I just am uneasy ideologically about the idea of demonising something that is perfectly legal. If people want to smoke and it's legal, let them do it in peace (provided it doesn't impact anyone else, such as in passive smoking).

You are right about the data on cost being out there - what I ought to have said is that the revenue raised should be directly fed into spending on those costs (thinking of health care here). It isn't.

I guess a different way of making my point is to ask why obese people aren't taxed more? Why isn't there a junk food excise? From what I understand, obesity has a comparable cost to society as smoking, if not greater, but there is no plain packaging or excise on KFC. No ban on advertising Hungry Jacks.

Obviously that's never going to happen, but the fact is that as much as I find smoking disgusting, it's perfectly legal. Obesity and nicotine addiction are both illnesses, I just don't think that it's the role of the government to be this involved in people's personal choices.

 

[Donske]

As a non smoker I completely agree with your final sentence. I also agree that banning it won't stop it (not that I think it should be banned either).

I just am uneasy ideologically about the idea of demonising something that is perfectly legal. If people want to smoke and it's legal, let them do it in peace (provided it doesn't impact anyone else, such as in passive smoking).

You are right about the data on cost being out there - what I ought to have said is that the revenue raised should be directly fed into spending on those costs (thinking of health care here). It isn't.

I guess a different way of making my point is to ask why obese people aren't taxed more? Why isn't there a junk food excise? From what I understand, obesity has a comparable cost to society as smoking, if not greater, but there is no plain packaging or excise on KFC. No ban on advertising Hungry Jacks.

Obviously that's never going to happen, but the fact is that as much as I find smoking disgusting, it's perfectly legal. Obesity and nicotine addiction are both illnesses, I just don't think that it's the role of the government to be this involved in people's personal choices.

I completely agreed with you up to that point, ok there are some rare conditions that cause people to put on excess weight but by and large being fat and being a smoker are choices, not illnesses, call them what they are, don't dismiss the role people are playing in their health issues, people need to own their vices rather than cower behind the good old "I can't help it, addiction is an illness" bullshit that gets pandered.

NB. I am both a smoker and overweight.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Personally I think the government should have a part role in our personal choices, especially when its the government, via our taxes, who are responsible for the care & treatment of those that are overweight,smokers or alcoholics.

I think its fair to say "we will not treat you if you dont stop your unhealthy lifestyle" is reasonable to a point. It can never be a blanket approach but it is fair to stop organ transplants to those that refuse to rectify their lifestyle that causes the need for the transplant in the first place. Why give a smoker a heart/lung transplant if they are only going to continue to smoke. Same as liver transplants for alcoholics.

 

[pedleyr]

I completely agreed with you up to that point, ok there are some rare conditions that cause people to put on excess weight but by and large being fat and being a smoker are choices, not illnesses, call them what they are, don't dismiss the role people are playing in their health issues, people need to own their vices rather than cower behind the good old "I can't help it, addiction is an illness" bullshit that gets pandered.

NB. I am both a smoker and overweight.

You're actually spot on. They're not illnesses, they're health issues that are primarily borne by choices people make.