Poor Smokers

Massive tax rises on cigarettes will mainly hurt those who will probably never quit.

The Rudd government has just announced that tax on cigarettes will increase by 60% over the next 4 years. Of course, health groups and many others will applaud the government for such a move citing the health benefits from reduced smoking rates. And there are many positive reasons for such a tax. But what about the negative impacts?

Price has proven to be the most effective tool for reducing smoking levels as we saw with the last major increase in Australia. When Rudd last increased the tobacco tax excise by 25% in 2010, the Department of Finance reported that smoking consumption decreased by a whopping 11%. Conveniently Rudd and co. leave out the fact that rates were already dropping by 6% and the actual affect was a 5% decrease. Still, more increases can only be a good thing, right?

Well, all is not what it seems. Research clearly shows that by dying younger we become less of a financial burden on society. Harsh but true. All the burbling about health costs incurred by smokers is just smoke and mirrors. And of course there is the growing black market. In the UK, 27% of cigarettes and 68% of roll-your-own tobacco is bought illegally. How big is the black market in Australia? All I know is that it's about to grow.

We all know that nicotine is highly addictive. Some politicians even claim it's more addictive than heroin. So why is this highly addictive substance suddenly so easy to quit? It's hypercritical when governments tout harm and addictiveness when trying to deter smoking but when they want to raise money by increasing prices, addiction is played down. Many, many people find it so difficult to kick their nicotine addiction that they will do almost anything to keep smoking. And there's no magic bullet here, this is the complex world of addiction and the rules are different for each person. 

The one vital question that has evaded this issue so far is not who it will affect but how much it will affect some people. After all, that's the point of this initiative … to affect people. To coax them out of their addiction by causing them financial pain. To put the price of tobacco out of their reach, forcing them to reconsider how they spend their often limited funds. It may sound logical and as a method for reducing smoking, it is largely successful. But elasticity of demand for tobacco is not linear and decreases as the price rises. It should be obvious that those who were going to quit because of price have most likely done so already. Only dedicated smokers, those who were rich enough not to care and the badly addicted soldiered on with their vice. Price hikes are a blunt tool and this new increase will not produce anywhere near the success of that in 2010. The most likely outcome is that it will mainly hurt those who may never quit.

Let's get some perspective here. Lower income families are already struggling, capriciously living day-to-day in a fragile financial environment. One big utility bill or unexpected expense can throw their lives into chaos, making them homeless or without electricity or gas. Add the costs for a smoker and it becomes even more precarious.  

Lack of money can often be the catalyst for family breakdown resulting in violence, ruined marriages and substance abuse. We see it everyday in this country and it's only going to get worse as cigarettes increase in price. Imagine living below the poverty line, week after week you struggle to make ends meet and one day the people who are supposed to represent you decide to rip your guts out.

Any new price increase will not force hard core addicts to quit. Instead, it will cause grief, family stress and force smokers into perilous situations. Do we really have to be reminded about the desperation of addicts and the massive cost on society? And it's not like the tiny population of those addicted to illegal drugs. There's 3.5 million smokers who will potentially be seeking alternatives to feed their addiction. It's not going to be pretty.

So, what does a hardcore smoker do at-the-moment when they don't have enough money? They skip meals or buy cheaper, unhealthy food. They wear shoes with holes in them. Car registrations and other bills are not paid. Then there's the kids. Forget that excursion little Johnny was looking forward to. And let's hope little Carrie likes stale vegemite sandwiches everyday for lunch. The reliance on welfare becomes part of their life. Asking for food vouchers just to feed their children doesn't seem so embarrassing anymore. Buying clothes from the op-shop is necessary. Living below the poverty line becomes a fact of life. 

It's about to get worse.

Most hardcore smokers will never, ever quit cigarettes and they will do whatever it takes to get by. Some women will turn to casual prostitution. Others will commit opportunistic crimes like petty theft and shoplifting. Defrauding Centrelink will not seem so taboo anymore. Others will turn to violent crime, drug dealing and similar desperate measures. Tension between couples will become explosive as their financial situation becomes untenable. Screaming matches, smashing furniture and divorce will define the new household of a smoker. Sadly, children hiding under beds or in cupboards will go unnoticed as families try to adjust to this new reality. And I mean "reality". This is not a movie or a yarn but real people suffering beyond what most of us can even imagine. Can most of us even comprehend what being evicted really means when you have no alternative? Do we really know what massive stress is when you just have absolutely no way to pay that utility bill? Could you live for a few months without electricity? Go on, try and picture what you and your family would do if you received a final court ordered eviction notice and you have no money. Scary, isn't it.

Now spare a thought for the single mother staying home to look after her young children. If she smokes and cannot quit, life is basically over for her. Because of another thoughtful Labor government initiative, single parents with children over 8 are forced onto the lower paying New Start scheme. This nasty policy is spun as a caring way to gently "encourage" people into the workforce. 

The government is dressing up brutal financial attacks on those who are the poorest as compassionate policies. I'm simply lost for words here as I'm trying to describe how much it makes me despise the government. It probably best explains why I hate politicians so damn much.

Carnage from the tax hikes will be felt mainly by low income groups.

Let's face it. This is not a health driven issue but a need to plug a massive hole in the government's budget. Any government in power would be faced with this issue whether Labor or Liberal. Revenue is down and the budget needs to be balanced. Most people understand that. What I don't get though is why the government has an insatiable need to be in surplus? And isn't there better ways to raise this cash? As usual, the reasons are purely political and some smokers will have their lives ruined because of it. It's simply not good enough. Most economists agree that Australia can run a deficit like most other countries do. This basic strategy would eliminate all the government's proposed cuts and increased taxes. And then there's the petrol excise that was fixed by Howard in an attempt to win over voters while introducing the GST. A simple realignment would cost drivers only 1.5¢ per litre but would raise about $23 billion over the next four years. 

And as a final "fuck you" to smokers, the government maintains it's ban on electronic cigarettes containing nicotine … the single most effective method to reduce the smoking of carcinogenic cigarettes. It's a stark reminder that anti-drug lobby groups like Quit are just far too influential on government policy. If the government really cared so much about our health, they would ignore the anti-drug/smoking groups and give smokers access to e-cigs. 

If health was really the issue then this policy would have been better thought out. What about making cigarettes only available via prescription? This would stop most new uptakers and be too much trouble for casual smokers. What about age limits so that the price pain is only inflicted on younger, less addicted smokers? Why aren't e-cigs used for treatment? It's just so obvious that this is not about the government's concern for our wellbeing.

As usual, those with enough money will not be affected. I don't smoke that much anymore so personally it won't really effect me too much. And those I know that still smoke just feel betrayed by Rudd. Not voting for Labor won't be a vote for Mr. Rabbott or The Greens though. They fully support the idea of hammering smokers with increased prices. I dare say we will see a few votes going to The Australian Sex Party, Wikileaks or the Drug Law Reform Party. The main result I can see for Rudd's master plan will less votes for him. Maybe even 3.5 million of them.  

Related Links:
Smoking Taxes - What About Those Who Don’t Quit?
Smoking and poverty link probe
Smoking Ban - Putting the Boot into Mental Health Patients
Tobacco Tax Increase Hurts The Poor

Smoking Taxes - What About Those Who Don’t Quit?

This article might be 12 months old but it's still relevant considering there's a proposal to raise tax on cigarettes and push the price to over $20 for a pack of 30s.

---

(20/04/2009) The Heart Foundation and their chief Dr. Lyn Roberts, can go fuck themselves. These imbeciles are once again wanting to increase the tax on cigarettes in the upcoming federal budget as part of their relentless drive to outlaw tobacco. They want to increase the price of cigarettes by 21% which is 7.5¢ per cigarette or $3 for a packet of 40s, which incidentally is much higher than the current CPI. If you’re a regular reader here, you’re probably aware that I have harped on about this issue before when many smokers including myself were financially savaged previously by increased taxes. Did I mention that the Heart Foundation and their chief Dr. Lyn Roberts, can go fuck themselves?

I get it, smoking is a killer and increased pricing is an extremely effective tool for reducing smoking rates. I know that smoking related illness kills more people and costs more to the health system than alcohol and all illicit drugs combined. On the surface it all sounds compelling and is a “no brainer” as Dr. Lyn Roberts describes it but if you get past the moral imperatives and the anti-smoking dogma, then there are some serious issues that need addressing.

Let’s clear up one issue that unsurprisingly never gets mentioned by the anti-smoking brigade. The burden on the health system is huge running into the billions of dollars but alas, the tax income from tobacco is actually more. So, let’s get this out ... the government nets more money from smoking taxes than it pays out in health costs. I just needed to clear that up for the news.com readers who constantly whinge we are wasting medical resources on ambulances who pick up people suffering from drug related problems or self inflicted health issues.

Now the reality. Pricing deterrants have been proven to be very effective in preventing smoking rates. What it basically does is make smokers reconsider the financial cost versus the pleasure but for the poorer folk, it actually prices the product out of their reach unless they sacrifice something else ... and that usually means food, clothes or other essentials.

I use the term ‘smokers’ casually and I really should use more appropriate terminology ... addicts or substance abusers or those with a chronic relapsing disorder. Nicotine is highly addictive and some experts say it is the most addictive substance we know of, including heroin. Of course, these people have never gone through heroin withdrawals or if they have, they have short memories. The point is, smokers are addicted and quitting is not easy. It mightn’t have the severe physical effects of heroin withdrawals but physiologically it’s up there with the best of them - opiates, cocaine, alcohol, laughing at Andrew Bolt etc. Like all drugs of addiction, some addicts manage to abstain from tobacco better than others. For those who find the expense of cigarettes just too much to bear, and finally quit, it’s a success for the social engineers at the HQs of various anti-smoking groups. Less smokers, less smoking related illness, less deaths and it’s also great news for the ex smokers that are now free from nicotine. Yaaaaaaah!

But what about those who didn’t quit. Once we get past the hollow cries that smokers are pathetic and weak, we are still left with over 3 million smokers. Those who are on lower incomes are more likely to smoke than those who can afford to which adds to the problem. How are they going to cope with paying $3 extra per packet? Take an example budget where a couple buy 14 packets a week between 2 of them. That is already a massive $224 per week but with the proposed tax hike, it adds nearly $50 to the weekly budget. This is simply discrimination against lower income earners.

It might be okay for Dr. Roberts to skip into work all smiley and giggly that she has cut back smoking for the masses but all around her are millions of people who are being pushed to the edge. There are families being ripped apart by a legal product known to be highly addictive. Those that succumb to the strangaling prices and quit are off the hook but those who can’t are doomed to deepening poverty. Not having enough money to buy clothes, food or pay bills might not affect the anti-smoking crusaders but it is all too real for millions of people. Loosing $50 per week means something has to be sacrificed ... skipping lunch during the week, the kids miss out on school events, Christmas presents etc. These are real for many people but there could be more severe ramifications. Divorce, depression, alcoholism, suicide and wrecked families are all symptoms of financial stress.

I can hear some minds ticking over ... just give up smoking for god’s sake. Easily said but if it was that simple, we would not have this problem. So what are the alternatives? I am not an expert but blanket strategies never seem to work out well in any field. A more targeted approach is needed. For example, if one aim is to stop people taking up smoking then maybe existing smokers should register with the government and those without a permit pay the extra tax? Maybe the tax should be based on income/debt so that low income earners will not be forced into poverty. I’m sure there are more streamlined strategies possible. Until then, anti-smoking zealots are going to continue ruining many lives under the guise of saving lives.

Boost Tax On Smokers - Heart Foundation Sky News April 2009 Smokers who puff through a packet a day will have to find an extra $1,000 a year to feed their habit if a leading health group has its way.

The Heart Foundation is urging the federal government to target smokers in the May budget by boosting tobacco tax by 21 per cent - or 7.5 cents per cigarette.

It would be the first rise over and above inflation in a decade.

The move would prompt 130,000 adults to quit and prevent 35,000 children from getting hooked on cigarettes, the foundation's chief Lyn Roberts says.

'Increasing tobacco tax is, quite frankly, a no-brainer,' Dr Roberts told the National Press Club.

'It will, in particular, benefit people of lower socio-economic status, drive up quit rates, improve health and increase disposable income.'

Dr Roberts said the increase would pour $1 billion into government coffers, which should be spent on preventative health measures.

'We have really quite a strong history over a number of years in Australia of being able to implement tobacco tax or excise increases quite successfully,' she said.

'If people could quit smoking in these tough times, an average smoker ... would probably save around $5,000 a year.'

A spokesman for federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon said the government would not be drawn into budget speculation.

The Cancer Council of Victoria has released a study of 4,500 smokers that found almost three quarters of respondents would try to quit if prices were increased to $20 per pack.

Smoking is a key risk factor in cardiovascular disease (CVD), which encompasses heart disease, stroke and blood vessel disease and is responsible for more than one third of all deaths in Australia.

Death rates for CVD have declined from their peak 40 years ago but Dr Roberts said she worried the downward trend could turn around. In January, a West Australian study of more than 1,000 Australian 14-year-olds found 29 per cent had a combination of risk factors that increased their chances of developing CVD.

'Like the US, progress here continues to lag in obesity, diabetes and physical inactivity,' she said.

'I ... fear that if these trends continue in Australia we could see CVD death rates rise again in the years ahead.'

Dr Roberts is pushing the government to develop a national food reformation strategy, which would pressure food manufacturers and fast-food outlets to make their products healthier.

'If we can get food companies and takeaway outlets to substitute palm oil (which contains about 55 per cent saturated fat) with oils low in saturated fat, we could make a very big impact on public health.'

She said a tax on junk food could be difficult to apply but the foundation was keen to explore the option, which was recently adopted in Denmark.

The foundation has also asked the federal government to become involved in its campaign to make people aware of the warning signs of heart attack and the importance of calling triple-zero fast.

'Disturbingly, far too many people wait too long to seek urgent treatment for heart attack,' Dr Roberts said.

Related Links:
Smoking and poverty link probe
Smoking Ban - Putting the Boot into Mental Health Patients
Tobacco Tax Increase Hurts The Poor

Smoking Ban - Putting the Boot into Mental Health Patients

Anti-Smoking groups are applauding the NSW government's decision to remove a smoking exemption for mental health facilities. The obvious question is, will it help patients? A third of mental health sufferers and two thirds of schizophrenics smoke but under the government plan, they have to quit or abstain while they are being treated. Is it really a good idea to put this extra unnecessary stress on people already confronting intense personal issues? Although nicotine is physically addictive, it also has a huge psychological dependancy that can make it extremely stressful to quit.

As a smoker I know about the compulsory need to reach for a cigarette regardless of the harms. Kicking nicotine addiction is simply not possible for many including myself especially during a time of stress. I don’t care how many anti-smoking groups or loud vocal nay-sayers harp on, I find it virtually impossible to quit. The idea of quitting whilst dealing with a major issue in my life is even more distant and I am sure this is the same for most long term smokers. And what bigger issue could one have to deal with than going to a psychiatric centre for a mental health problem? I could only imagine one worse scenario than having to deal with a mental health issue at a psychiatric hospital ... having to quit smoking as well.

Like most people, I understand the need for smoke free environments and designated outdoor smoking areas meet this need. But in a mindless and stupid attempt to appease anti-smoking groups, the NSW government has taken a Zero Tolerance approach and banned all smoking in mental health facilities. The alternatives ... quit smoking. This is just what someone needs whilst dealing with probably the biggest issue in their life. What a bunch of shit-for-brains.

It has been found, rather surprisingly, that nicotine has beneficial effects on brain function in schizophrenia (American Journal of Psychiatry, 1993;150(12):1856-61). Normally, people are able to adapt to background noise and disregard it, for example while having a conversation in a busy street. Recordings of brain activity show that this ability is impaired in people with schizophrenia, so they are more distracted by the surrounding environment. When they smoke, or use nicotine gum or patches, brain function normalises and they are less reactive to irrelevant sounds around them. When the nicotine is taken away, the problems return. -The Australian: Mentally Ill Smoke More And Quit Less.

Has anti-smoking hysteria gone too far? I remember when the idea of banning smoking in pubs was so far fetched, I just knew it couldn’t happen. It was the same when they first touted the idea of banning smoking in restaurants ... and offices ... and public transport ... and ... etc. So times change and we get used to it. I just want to know where the line is. 

In The Netherlands where you can buy and smoke cannabis in licensed coffee shops, they have banned tobacco smoking. Is this just anti-smoking fever gone mad or does it make sense? I’m still thinking about that one but what doesn’t make sense is removing designated outdoor smoking areas. Considering smoking is highly addictive, you would think the authorities would be more realistic. So what’s their solution ... more smoking bans. 

It’s obvious that the balance between the rights of a smoker being able to light up and the need to keep everyone else free from smoke is failing. This is especially true when anti-smoking zealots start to threaten the well being of people like they have with mental health patients. Can you see a pattern here? A group of fundamentalists with certain beliefs, forcing their views on the public through manipulation of the government. A group that is so desperate, they will ignore any harm caused by their suggestions and continue to ruthlessly push their agenda. A group that brushes off expert opinion and ignores the people they are supposed to be helping in favour of their own unqualified views. 

The common denominator is drugs and this time it’s nicotine. And their target is the patient being treated for mental health problems. The fundies just cannot let an opportunity pass to force some poor unwilling sucker to suffer like hell. The patient be damned. Who cares if they are treated successfully? Who cares if they check out because they can’t quit smoking? Who cares if it discourages patients from seeking medical help? At least they won’t smoke for a few days.

Tobacco Ban Leaves Mental Health Groups Fuming
Sydney Morning Herald
By Louise Hall - Health Reporter
March 2009

A BAN on smoking in all psychiatric facilities will go ahead despite vehement opposition from some members of the mental health community, who argue that strict anti-smoking rules will destabilise acutely ill patients and put staff at risk of violence.

NSW Health has ordered all facilities, including emergency psychiatric centres, to close designated outdoor smoking areas, confiscate tobacco products and supply free nicotine replacement therapy to staff and patients.

Anti-smoking groups say the department's decision to enforce its longstanding smoke-free policy in wards that had been granted an exemption will help to break down the "deep-rooted smoking culture" among mental health staff and patients.

The new guidelines will be implemented over at least six months to give workers, patients and visitors time to adjust and, ideally, to quit their habit, with the help of counselling and anti-smoking aids such as patches and pharmacotherapy. The director of NSW Health's Centre for Health Advancement, Liz Develin, acknowledged there was widespread hostility to the ban but said research in Britain, Canada and other Australian states showed careful planning and education can lower levels of patient distress.

About one-third of people with a mental illness smoke, rising to two-thirds for people with schizophrenia, compared to about 17 per cent of the general population.

"Some consumer groups see it as taking away a person's right but everyone has the right to be in a smoke-free environment," Ms Develin said.

The chief executive of the Cancer Council NSW, Andrew Penman, said arguments that people with psychiatric disorders smoke to self-medicate or relieve symptoms, stress and anxiety "are too easily used as excuses to justify inaction about smoking".

There was weak evidence that smoking improves the neurological functioning of people with schizophrenia, he said. But many of these patients want to quit and can quit to improve their overall wellbeing.

A spokesman for the Mental Health Council of Australia, Simon Tatz, said forcing a nicotine addict to endure withdrawal symptoms while battling an acute episode of mental illness may impose a disproportionate level of suffering on people who were already suffering enough.

"No one wants to defend smoking, but when you're dealing with people in extreme crisis, their mental health and wellbeing has to be the priority, not quitting smoking," Mr Tatz said.

Desley Casey, who has worked in the mental health field for 15 years and has been an acute psychiatric inpatient several times, said forcing people to quit when they are acutely unwell is inhumane and "goes against a patient's human rights".

She is concerned that some patients will not seek help or admit themselves to hospital if they know tobacco is banned.

Ms Casey disagreed that NSW Health had a duty of care to break the cycle of smoking and disadvantage. "Is it their duty of care to put someone through terrible nicotine withdrawal symptoms during psychosis?

"I'm a smoker and I would prefer to risk the dangers to my physical health than risk my mental health, which is far more precious to me."

Internal NSW Health documents show hospital administrators have expressed concerns that patients may abscond or become increasingly agitated or violent if not allowed to smoke.

But "in some circumstances smoking may be permitted on a case-by-case basis" if nicotine replacement therapy does not work or where "refusal may pose a significant risk of violence to a staff member, patient or another person", the draft guidelines outline.

The chief executive of the Richmond Fellowship of NSW, Fred Kong, said mental health workers often used tobacco to bond or develop relationships with patients, which could help their recovery. "I'm fearful that applying this sanction will interfere with the therapeutic relationship between staff and patients," Mr Kong said.

A review of 26 bans in psychiatric settings worldwide published in the Australian And New Zealand Journal Of Psychiatry in 2005 found there was "no increase in aggression, discharge against medical advice or increased use of as needed medication" linked to smoke-free policies.

Although there has recently been a big push to help psychiatric patients quit smoking whilst in medical care, searching through the internet I have found plenty of criticism of forced smoking bans. Most of it comes from doctors and those involved in the day-to-day operations who’s only concern is the well being of the patient. Being medical professionals, they obviously understand the danger of smoking but pragmatism wins out over the rigid dichotomy between anti-smoking rhetoric and the real world of mental health services. 

Although there is growing evidence that patients can quit smoking whilst keeping their place in treatment, there is equal opposition from those who work on the ground, doing the actual work. Treating a mental health patient is already extremely complex and unless we have perfected it recently then introducing additional, non related and non critical goals, cannot make the task easier. The losers are the patients and as usual, those who don’t easily adapt to a new system are merely statistics and left to fend for themselves.

Stopping Mentally Ill People From Smoking Is Cruel
Sydney Morning Herald - Opinion: Letters
By Dr Alvaro Manovel Randwick
March 2009

As a doctor I strongly support anti-smoking policies. But there are specific issues relating to mental health patients that make the move against smokers by NSW Health deplorable ("Tobacco ban leaves mental health groups fuming", March 19).

Mental health patients may be voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary patients may simply stroll off the hospital grounds to smoke. But involuntary patients are detained against their will in hospital under the Mental Health Act and are not allowed that liberty.

They are by definition so mentally disordered that the last resort of the act has been invoked because they may be a risk to themselves or others. These patients are frequently agitated and smoking is one method they use to calm down. In this state they lack the capacity to consider the benefit of stopping smoking, and this is clearly not the time in their lives to introduce intransigent non-smoking rules that only escalate their agitation.

In the past these patients were allowed to go outside to smoke escorted by security staff, but since the introduction of smoking bans they may no longer do so. In hospitals all over NSW these poor individuals are being physically restrained and given sedative drugs when their agitation escalates. This infringes the spirit of the Mental Health Act, which stipulates that it may be invoked to detain a person only when there is no less restrictive means of doing so. Clearly allowing them to smoke is far less restrictive than physical restraint and sedation.

We already make these patients suffer protracted stays in crowded emergency departments, due to the failure of NSW Health to provide beds for them. It is easy to imagine what effect this has on individuals who are at the lowest ebb of mental wellbeing. To add insult to injury they are now told that their last vestige of self control - to seek solace with a smoke - is being withheld, in what must seem an arbitrary and cruel act by their carers.

Doctors are placed in the unenviable position of choosing to restrain the individual or to let them out on their own, with the risk they may abscond and harm themselves. What a sad state we have sunk to.

Related articles: Mentally Ill Smoke More And Quit Less

Tobacco Tax Increase Hurts The Poor

A cigarette price increase to fund smoking prevention programs sounds like a good idea. . . . That is unless you're poor.

There currently is a call for a tobacco tax increase to be used to fund more smoking prevention initiatives. A proposed rise of 2.5¢ a cigarette would push a pack of 40s up another $1 and is hopefully going to reduce smoking by 2.6 per cent. This equates to about 50,000 less smokers and $400 million dollars in addition revenue. It sounds like a win-win situation by lowering the amount of smokers and providing more funds for anti-smoking campaigns. But there are some nasty holes in this strategy. Smoking costs the community $31 billion dollars every year which makes $400 million dollars seem a little insignificant . The real problem though is, who are the people who won't quit despite the price rise. For those who earn an average wage, it won’t matter too much but those who are less fortunate, it will hit hard ... very hard. Monetary penalties are biased and for people who have a good income, it offers little incentive to abide by whatever rules they are are penalised for. We see it intrenched in our society like parking fines, court fines, tax penalties etc. For example, if you are in court and can afford expensive legal representation, you have a greater chance of getting off. That leaves those who can’t afford to ‘buy’ off their conviction and are stuck with budget solicitors. What about speeding fines? If your in a hurry, why would a few hundred dollars worry you if you’re on your way to meeting where you could earn thousands of dollars? Being in a hurry to drop off the kids to your grandparents so you can make it in time to that part time cleaning job is not worth your week’s pay for a speeding fine. Monetary penalties are not relative to your wealth.

We all know smoking is wrong and those who smoke are evil, weak and decadent. Luckily we have someone to guides them away from their wicked ways. Addiction is just an excuse. -The ideology of government anti-smoking programs

Smokers are addicts. Very simple to understand but what’s harder to grasp are the levels of addiction and the addict's situation. A financially secure tobacco addict can simply keep smoking if their addiction is bad enough. But what if you can’t afford it? The calls for an increase in tobacco excise, like most policies regarding addiction, is based on wishful thinking. Addiction can cause those with less disposable income to act completely different to our expectations and when faced with price increases will often accommodate the increase by missing out on something else. Instead of fresh healthy food, they might buy cheaper alternatives. If they need new shoes for their kids, they might keep them wearing them for a few more months. The car needs new tires? That can wait until next year. Simply increasing the cost of something is a broad remedy to discourage use. We see it in the way a tighter monetary policy is used to control inflation. We see it with alcohol being priced out of the reach of heavy drinkers. It might achieve some of it’s intended outcomes but the cost to some is far greater. It is a lazy way to achieve results and requires some spin to get support.

"With rising costs in food, petrol and housing, tobacco is now relatively inexpensive'' -Quit executive director Fiona Sharkie

Relatively inexpensive! Smoking is about 10-20% of a household budget for low income earners, about the same as food. Increasing the price of tobacco will have a profound effect on these budgets and absurd comments from anti-smoking groups show they care very little for people but more for statistics and numbers. Like most drug related programs, financially challenged and the worst effected lose out by broad, disproportional strategies. Strategies that give great headlines and target the easily converted. Of course there is never an analyses of who doesn’t quit smoking and how it effects them but plenty of back slapping at the many who have been rescued from their evil ways. The call for proper analysis is raised every time a “price increase” strategy is put on the table but it gets approved very quickly to avoid full scrutiny.

"With tobacco costing the Australian community $31.5 billion every year, it is essential proven tobacco control strategies, including tax increase, are put into place as soon as possible ...'' -Quit executive director Fiona Sharkie

We have just seen “Alcopops” receive a huge tax increase in an effort to stem “binge drinking” of teenage girls. While it is generally taboo to criticise any effort to reduce smoking levels, alcohol strategies do face scrutiny. This latest “price increase” strategy for “Alcopops” has come under criticism for lack of research, not being effective and for disproportionately effecting the less fortunate compared to average wage earners. I wonder why those same people are basically ignored when it comes to tobacco.

[Article Bumped up from May]