10 ms·
The cost of smoking in Australia is probably the main thing that has cut smoking rates. At $20+ a pack smoking is so expensive. It's also worth noting that Nic
by sien 10y ago
The cost of smoking in Australia is probably the main thing that has cut smoking rates. At $20+ a pack smoking is so expensive.
It's also worth noting that Nicorette is much cheaper than in the US. The moment you start using that you save money in Australia.
It's curious that the article doesn't mention e-cigarettes. It's funny how harm minimisation is pushed by academic researchers when it comes to most drugs but isn't discussed that much when it comes to tobacco. They have been pretty much banned in Australia.
- sanswork 10y agoI've seen high $30's per pack in pubs around Sydney which really kills the idea of just grabbing a pack for social smoking too.
- flukus 10y agoBefore we get into pack sizes, they're about $1 per cigarette.
- TylerE 10y agoThat's crazy. I dunno what prices are like in the US (I don't smoke), but really...I mean at that price it'd probably be cheaper to smoke weed...
- tomcorrigan 10y agoIt's definitely not. Illegal drugs are also much more expensive in Australia than in many other places in the world. There is a growing problem with black market untaxed "chop chop" tobacco here. The tax increases have made it more and more attractive to both importers and smokers.
- Trundle 10y agoFor imported stuff definitely. I wouldn't want to have a coke habit here. Weed seems as cheap as anywhere else though.
- ClassyJacket 10y agoIf you smoke the same amount of weed, it's probably not cheaper, but since it's typical to smoke maybe one joint per day but 20+ cigarettes, yeah, weed could be cheaper.
- adventured 10y agoWhere I live in the US a pack of Marlboros is about $6.x
- chris_wot 10y agoYeah, but you can't smoke in Sydney pubs any more so that stops it too. As a non-smoker who enjoys the odd drink, I quite enjoy a pub with no cigarette smoke.
- sanswork 10y agoThe Sydney Publican guide to dealing with smoking bans. Step 1. Open a pokies room with a slated wall Step 2. Let people smoke in it and call it "outside"
- jay_kyburz 10y agoI hope they ban pokies next.
- fian 10y agoThe pollies get too much money from the gambling sector (casinos, pubs, RSL clubs etc) to ever take real action in the eastern states. WA gets pinged by NSW and Victoria whenever GST distribution comes up for not having pokies as an alternative tax source. I hope WA continues to resist the temptation to allow them here.
- xzel 10y agoCame here to say that. It is ridiculously expensive there and that is the reason why smoking has dropped. I know plenty of aussie's who still smoke though. To me, the weirdest bit is how cheap it is a short flight away, say Indonesia; I believe I paid between 2 and 1.5 USD per pack, maybe 10 bucks for a carton. I'm in NYC and even the prices here, about 12 USD a pack, have made me cut down considerably.
- caf 10y agoA short flight? Sydney to Denpasar is 6 and a half hours...
- robotresearcher 10y agoAustralian short.
- sanswork 10y agoHour and a half from Darwin.
- cyphar 10y agoThat's short. Getting to the other side of Australia is also a few hours (4 from memory) and Europe takes about a day.
- xzel 10y agoSorry, yes might have been a bit of a hyperbole but to me a short flight is almost anything that doesn't require a sleeping for 7 hours on the flight.
- caf 10y agoIt's still a long way to go for a durry!
- dgfgfdagasdfgfa 10y agoWhile I'm both an avid user of e-cigarettes and I'm not eager to use them for harm minimization, their banning would be deeply concerning to me. It has not been demonstrated that they are a health risk, and it is vanishingly unlikely their health profile is anywhere near that of combusted tobacco, so banning it would amount to a dogmatic fear of nicotine. Which again, might not be so terrible given how little is understood about the drug. It can certainly be life-destroying if you smoke to get it.
- ehnto 10y agoIn the context of cigarrettes, it's easy to see why they banned it first. Cigarettes hadn't been demonstrated to do harm either. I hope though that the ban would be lifted if studies can show that they are not harmful. My intuition is on your side though, I imagine they are far less damaging than normal cigarettes.
- dublinben 10y ago>Cigarettes hadn't been demonstrated to do harm either Of course they have. There has been solid evidence of the harm of tobacco cigarettes for decades. Smoking bans are well supported by the evidence. Any restrictions on e-cigarettes is not.
- ehnto 10y agoYou missed the tense. When cigarettes became popular they weren't banned right away because we had no idea they would become harmful. Of course we know differently now. In this case, we are erring on the side of caution and banning e-cigs until they are further studied. Learning from our mistakes.
- diamondlovesyou 10y agoBanning something is a good way to prevent such studies from ever happening. Also, they aren't banned. The FDA just made it so small businesses wouldn't be able to make the ecig products (basically). Big tabacco, however, is able to take the hit. Take it how you will.
- flukus 10y agoAnd it's a regressive tax that mostly punishes the poor for smoking. Not to mention the ridiculous prices of alcohol. It's no wonder meth is exploding in popularity. It's an easy way to evaluate the real priorities of politicians though. If cost of living issues were really their number one priority then these sin taxes would be the first to go.
- chris_wot 10y agoIt certainly is a regressive tax, but is it really punishing someone if you make it more expensive to legally purchase something that only damages or kills them, is highly addictive and that only places an overall burden on society? After all, despite its flaws we in Australia have a great, free healthcare system, with an extensive quit smoking program. We tend to find that adequate and free government health services mean that the poorest in our society are looked after far better than in a society that has cheap booze and cigarettes and an incredibly expensive healthcare system. I guess it depends on the priorities of your wider society. I think ours is pretty right, personally.
- flukus 10y agoDepends on how the calculations are done but it can be shown to save money overall. Smokers have a tendency to die much younger and more rapidly which saves the health and welfare budget a tonne, smokers are certainly aren't causing the population aging. Aside from that there's the general problems you always have with prohibition, people will use other substances on the black market, many of which will be worse.
- kirrent 10y agoWhile it's technically true I've always hated this argument. Yes, smokers are without doubt cheaper for the healthcare system because they die earlier and faster. It's completely missing the point though, because the entire reason we have our healthcare system is to provide a long and high quality life for the population. Someone dying earlier may be cheaper, but it's also a failure.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 10y agoSin taxes work, I suppose.