Rudd to ban fancy packaging

[DerekP]

Derek, a study released the other day says kids are starting up smoking more now than in the past 10 years. Not bad considering governments tell us the ban on advertising works etc.

I don't doubt what you say - there are all sorts of conflicting reports out there these days. However just from simple observation when I go out to pubs (where you can smoke outdoors) / parties etc there are a hell of lot less smokers these days compared to when I first started going out drinking (that was a long time ago but we won't go into that!). I have noticed that particulary the younger generation, say gen Y's, it seems that very few of this generation smoke. I work in an office in the city and out of about 100 workers, only about 10 (max) are smokers.

For the record I am only what you would call a part time smoker, only when I drink - so I don't really give a rats either way.

 

[Anwyll]

Stores, drivers 'could be targets of ciggie thieves'

I'm not the only one who thinks pushing prices too far can create black markets for legal products.

What study was this minux? Did it say a greater proportion of 'kids' were starting or were starting at an 'earlier' age, was the uptake persistent or a short temporary spike which wasn't maintained in to adulthood? Were the children who were smoking, consuming more cigarettes than previously or smoking at a lower rate? What was the size of the study? Method of observation? Australian-wide study, single state or single area or community within a state? A study doesn't equal a body of evidence. Besides assuming an increase in smoking has occured despite reductions in advertising doesn't mean the reduced avertising had no effect, the increase may have been larger were advertising not banned or prices not increased. Banning advertising of cigarettes was hardly argued for as a panacea and if someone did then they're a moron. Causation and correlation are difficult concepts to disentangle from population-based research.

 

[Reaper]

ITT: smokers having a cry

get over it, i dont give a **** how expensive or what color the package is, because i DONT SMOKE, besides you think its a 'tax grab'?

the total ammount of tax dollars that come from smoking does not even come close to the total cost to the health system looking after people with illnesses related to smoking

Total cost of the health system - no, not even close however on the whole smokers are actually tax positive vs how much they drain from medicare.

I'm not a smoker either and don't particularly care what the excise is however I do like that smokers do subsidize the rest of us somewhat in the medical system

Reaper

 

[Tatiana]

Cigarettes demanded from Adelaide father and son at knife point | Adelaide Now

Sign of things to come with the price hike?

 

[Maci]

my aunty is a smoker, she read that they have increased the tax because smokers (on average) need more healthcare, so the increased tax money goes directly into the overall healthcare system improvements (haha, yeah right).
but in the next sentence it says "hopefully the increase will deter smokers from continuing to smoke"

 

[BoNeZ-01]

Cigarettes demanded from Adelaide father and son at knife point | Adelaide Now

Sign of things to come with the price hike?

Wow, that didn't take long, they only went up a few dollars.. :hmmm:

 

[BoNeZ-01]

my aunty is a smoker, she read that they have increased the tax because smokers (on average) need more healthcare, so the increased tax money goes directly into the overall healthcare system improvements (haha, yeah right).
but in the next sentence it says "hopefully the increase will deter smokers from continuing to smoke"

So essentially smokers are covering their own health care, from the tax on tobacco, as well as non smokers, that's actually an interesting theory.
I mean you would think the government would be making more off the tax on tobacco than they need, to cover the costs on the health system for smoking related illnesses.
Since not 'every' smoker has a need for any specific treatment, or see a doctor for any other reason, any more than the average non smoker does.

On a semi-related issue, using the governments way of thinking(increase tax for the 'better'), shouldn't that mean then, that the cost sun tan lotion should be increased, or swimwear, or put a fee on tanning at the beach, or increase the tax on tanning salons and so on?
Because skin cancer is also a major drain on the health system, and also one of Australia's biggest killers.

 

[Keepleft]

i smoke and it doesnt matter what they do i will always smoke because its my choice and i want to and because i love the taste. i really couldn't care what the government do to our packing and i couldn't care what they want to charge there are heaps of creative ways to source tobacco.

This is what what they are banking on.

 

[minux]

Wow, that didn't take long, they only went up a few dollars.. :hmmm:

The suspect is described as Aboriginal in appearance,

lol, aboriginal in appearance? So he looks like an aboriginal, but is not an aboriginal? ****ing PC police, call a spade a spade ffs. I think this would of happened regardless of the price hikes. I wonder if the budget has upped people who get the dole to cover the ciggy price rise? I mean, Ruddy cannot have his biggest voting base out of pocket...

Anwyll, trying to source that report for you, it was from a Doctor on talkback radio discussing the trends and also diswcussing the same trends in other countries who have taken the same cours eof actions re: advertising.

 

[Maci]

Since not 'every' smoker has a need for any specific treatment, or see a doctor for any other reason, any more than the average non smoker does. .

thats exactly right, but the government is banking on people continuning to smoke ,which MOST will, to provide this money for the healthcare system, maybe some will decide that its time to give up when its costing so much? That will mean there is less money being pumped into the health system.

On a semi-related issue, using the governments way of thinking(increase tax for the 'better'), shouldn't that mean then, that the cost sun tan lotion should be increased, or swimwear, or put a fee on tanning at the beach, or increase the tax on tanning salons and so on?
Because skin cancer is also a major drain on the health system, and also one of Australia's biggest killers.

Fining people for tanning at the beach and tanning salons +1, there are too many people worried about being pale skinned, and skin cancer is a big issue for the "beach loving Aussie"