5 ms·

It 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 the

It 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 ago
Depends 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 ago
  While 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.
  - flukus 10y ago
    It's not a failure of the health system though. Not everyone wants to optimize their life for living longer.
    - brokenmachine 10y ago
      > Not everyone wants to optimize their life for living longer. It would be real nice if they would refrain from optimizing the lives of everyone around them for not living longer as well.
  - Trundle 10y ago
    The entire reason we have our healthcare system is so that a long and high quality life is an option for the population. It seems pretty apparent to me that most people aren't optimising for either though. No reason to get paternalistic with it.
    - dbaupp 10y ago
      Smoking imposes one person's choice on many others, in terms of length and quality of life, via the negative effects of passive smoking (and also just day-to-day---I personally hate having to suffer through someone's acrid fumes). If people smoked without releasing the byproducts into the air everyone else breathes, this argument would make more sense. But even then, there's massive money and expertise behind advertising (etc.) for getting people hooked, against what may be their "actual" preferences.
      - flukus 10y ago
        Everyone releases stuff into the air that effects others, from perfume to car exhaust to barbecues. Why is your car exhaust ok but not my cigarette smoke?
        grzm 10y ago
        There are legal limits placed on exhaust. VW is one recent example of this. If I were to pump exhaust from my car into your home, I'm sure there would be repercussions. I believe there are regulations with respect to perfume as well— yup, there are ADA guidelines in the US[0]. I can imagine cases where barbecues have been considered a nuisance. Found an example of that, too.[1] When looking up the phrase "my rights end where yours begin", I came across the much more colorful "Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins". I don't think the freedom to emit noisome or noxious fumes is quite as unlimited as implied by your comment. [0]: https://www.laborlawcenter.com/education-center/new-ada-guidelines-for-fragrance-sensitivity/ https://www.laborlawcenter.com/education-center/new-ada-guid... [1]: http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2015/07/27/florida-county-tells-resident-to-keep-barbecue-smoke-in-his-own-yard.html http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2015/07/27/florida-county-... (includes autoplay video, sorry)
  - Laforet 10y ago
    Earlier but not necessarily cheaper, as they will pick up other forms of repiratory and cardiovascular disease before they expire (not every smoker end up getting incurable lung cancer, and its not like they should be refused treatment kf they do). Not to mention the secdonary harm they cause to the others.
    - flukus 10y ago
      I good portion of them would end up with some other chronic disease if the live to an older age.
- vacri 10y ago
  Well, thank god our friends and relatives are dying young so I can save a bob or two in tax!
- Asooka 10y ago
  I like that line of thinking. Can't we make it more efficient though? Like, have a live grenade in the filter of every 1% of cigarettes to blow off the smoker's head. Есть человек — есть проблема, нет человека — нет проблемы.
  - brokenmachine 10y ago
    Had to google translate your little saying there. There are people - there is a problem, there are no people - no problem I like the idea.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
phjesusthatguy3 10y ago
>It 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? Yes.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  That's a very short and unconvincing argument. Do feel free to expand on it!
tmnvix 10y ago
> [smoking] places an overall burden on society Are you sure about that?
- chris_wot 10y ago
  I am sure. Smoking tobacco is recognised as one of the largest preventable causes of death and disease in Australia. Each year, smoking kills an estimated 15,000 Australians and costs Australia $31.5 billion in social (including health) and economic costs. The Australian Government and state and territory governments, through the Council of Australian Governments, have committed by 2018, to reduce the national adult daily smoking rate to 10% and halve the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adult daily smoking rate (from 47% in 2008). http://www.health.gov.au/tobacco http://www.health.gov.au/tobacco
- gkya 10y ago
  I am. I've had to sit in smoke-filled cafes (nearly all were so) and to take busses and taxis filled with smokers. I have had to passively smoke in billions of public places and there's no opt-out from that. I'm so glad that in my country, Turkey, a smoking ban in public interior spaces is in effect, and I think that's what really reduces the number of smokers along with people learning how harmful it is. I'm not so keen about the effect of raised prices though.
tomjen3 10y ago
>with an extensive quit smoking program Do they hand out or heavily encourage ecigs? Are those cheap in general and permitted to be used everywhere on public property? Because if so I accept your agreement, because it is clearly not about punishing people for enjoying something, but if not, then I assume the people who run it are just another bunch of statists out to kill as much fun as they can.
- ekimekim 10y ago
  Can't speak to ecigs in particular, but most of the ads I've seen push addiction-combating substitutes like nicotine patches.

flukus 10y ago

Depends 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 ago
While 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.
- flukus 10y ago
  It's not a failure of the health system though. Not everyone wants to optimize their life for living longer.
  - brokenmachine 10y ago
    > Not everyone wants to optimize their life for living longer. It would be real nice if they would refrain from optimizing the lives of everyone around them for not living longer as well.
- Trundle 10y ago
  The entire reason we have our healthcare system is so that a long and high quality life is an option for the population. It seems pretty apparent to me that most people aren't optimising for either though. No reason to get paternalistic with it.
  - dbaupp 10y ago
    Smoking imposes one person's choice on many others, in terms of length and quality of life, via the negative effects of passive smoking (and also just day-to-day---I personally hate having to suffer through someone's acrid fumes). If people smoked without releasing the byproducts into the air everyone else breathes, this argument would make more sense. But even then, there's massive money and expertise behind advertising (etc.) for getting people hooked, against what may be their "actual" preferences.
    - flukus 10y ago
      Everyone releases stuff into the air that effects others, from perfume to car exhaust to barbecues. Why is your car exhaust ok but not my cigarette smoke?
      - grzm 10y ago
        There are legal limits placed on exhaust. VW is one recent example of this. If I were to pump exhaust from my car into your home, I'm sure there would be repercussions. I believe there are regulations with respect to perfume as well— yup, there are ADA guidelines in the US[0]. I can imagine cases where barbecues have been considered a nuisance. Found an example of that, too.[1] When looking up the phrase "my rights end where yours begin", I came across the much more colorful "Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins". I don't think the freedom to emit noisome or noxious fumes is quite as unlimited as implied by your comment. [0]: https://www.laborlawcenter.com/education-center/new-ada-guidelines-for-fragrance-sensitivity/ https://www.laborlawcenter.com/education-center/new-ada-guid... [1]: http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2015/07/27/florida-county-tells-resident-to-keep-barbecue-smoke-in-his-own-yard.html http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2015/07/27/florida-county-... (includes autoplay video, sorry)
- Laforet 10y ago
  Earlier but not necessarily cheaper, as they will pick up other forms of repiratory and cardiovascular disease before they expire (not every smoker end up getting incurable lung cancer, and its not like they should be refused treatment kf they do). Not to mention the secdonary harm they cause to the others.
  - flukus 10y ago
    I good portion of them would end up with some other chronic disease if the live to an older age.
vacri 10y ago
Well, thank god our friends and relatives are dying young so I can save a bob or two in tax!
Asooka 10y ago
I like that line of thinking. Can't we make it more efficient though? Like, have a live grenade in the filter of every 1% of cigarettes to blow off the smoker's head. Есть человек — есть проблема, нет человека — нет проблемы.
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  Had to google translate your little saying there. There are people - there is a problem, there are no people - no problem I like the idea.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

phjesusthatguy3 10y ago

>It 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? Yes.

chris_wot 10y ago
That's a very short and unconvincing argument. Do feel free to expand on it!

tmnvix 10y ago

> [smoking] places an overall burden on society Are you sure about that?

chris_wot 10y ago
I am sure. Smoking tobacco is recognised as one of the largest preventable causes of death and disease in Australia. Each year, smoking kills an estimated 15,000 Australians and costs Australia $31.5 billion in social (including health) and economic costs. The Australian Government and state and territory governments, through the Council of Australian Governments, have committed by 2018, to reduce the national adult daily smoking rate to 10% and halve the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adult daily smoking rate (from 47% in 2008). http://www.health.gov.au/tobacco http://www.health.gov.au/tobacco
gkya 10y ago
I am. I've had to sit in smoke-filled cafes (nearly all were so) and to take busses and taxis filled with smokers. I have had to passively smoke in billions of public places and there's no opt-out from that. I'm so glad that in my country, Turkey, a smoking ban in public interior spaces is in effect, and I think that's what really reduces the number of smokers along with people learning how harmful it is. I'm not so keen about the effect of raised prices though.

tomjen3 10y ago

>with an extensive quit smoking program Do they hand out or heavily encourage ecigs? Are those cheap in general and permitted to be used everywhere on public property? Because if so I accept your agreement, because it is clearly not about punishing people for enjoying something, but if not, then I assume the people who run it are just another bunch of statists out to kill as much fun as they can.

ekimekim 10y ago
Can't speak to ecigs in particular, but most of the ads I've seen push addiction-combating substitutes like nicotine patches.