The Hypocrisy of Governmental Attempts to Stop Smoking
 

It really bugs me. I mean, I personally hate smoking, think it's a filthy habit and would be happier if nobody smoked, but hey, I don't run the world (yet), so who am I to say? But the way our government, at least, approaches "the problem of smoking" is so two-faced it must be impossible to sneak up on them!

Every single budget, the smokes get hit. Fifty cents here, fifty cents there: it's now over eleven Euro for a pack of twenty. And why? Cos they know that no matter how much they raise the price, smokers will pay. Then they justify this by saying "Oh it's bad for your health. We'd love to see everyone stop smoking."

No you ****ing wouldn't!

And here's why.

1. The amount of jobs that would be lost if suddenly everyone in Ireland quit smoking

2. The revenue that would be lost to the government

3. More people living longer, with a major cause of cancer gone. Therefore more pension to find, more expenses, more overcrowding and homelessness, more crime etc

4. The closure of charities and groups that help people quit

5. The loss of advertising revenue and the loss of major sponsorship of events

6. The possibility people, especially kids, might try harder drugs earlier? I don't know...


At least the doctors, surgeons and health professionals who call for a ban on smoking are being genuine and honest. I'd like to see the govt just once leave the smokers alone on Budget Day. God knows, they're paying enough for their addiction as it is, and every year it gets more and more expensive.

I don't get it. Even when I smoked I wasn't arsed. Yes it was expensive but I wasn't being forced and it was me who decided to start in the first place.

If smokers don't like the cost of smoking, stop smoking or look for cheaper alternatives.

I smoke. I pay around 7-9 bucks a pack depending on if it's a dollar or two off at the time because I smoke Marlboro 27's. I'm broke. I still buy them. I only have myself to blame but I can't stay away from that sweet sweet tobacky.

It's also my ticket out of here before the sun burns us alive.

I smoke because not smoking is a gateway drug.

Smoking reduces crime. I'll buy that.

I have to admit, I've got a lot of sympathy with smokers. Usually they started early (Karen started at 17 I think) and often just to be "one of the crowd", so you have peer pressure. Once you're there it seems you're stuck, as it is very addictive. It is dangerous, of course, but then so is alcohol and other drugs, so why don't governments recognise the massive contribution smokers are making to the economy and give them a break? Apparently the govt here rakes in two billion Euro every year in tax on cigarettes: that's a lot of money they'd have to look for elsewhere if nobody was buying cigarettes, no? Why not reward the poor put-upon smokers by maybe reducing the cost of a pack of twenty, or is that being too radical? They're gonna smoke anyway - how many people do you know who have said "I gave up smoking cos it was too expensive?" I mean, everyone knows it is that, but it doesn't seem to be a factor in people deciding to quit. After they have done so, yes, they see the benefit in their wallet or purse, but I doubt it's the original driving incentive.

Am I the only one who thinks 17 is actually late to start smoking? You could buy tobacco at 16 when I started and everyone got people to go into the shop for them, most people I know started at about 12/14 years old. If you've got to 17 without smoking you're doing well imo.

90% of the people who I know that have quit smoking did it because it's too expensive.

I rarely buy 20 packs since the prices here were hiked to over 11 Euro. The exception being on nights out when a pack is more convenient than rollies.

Continuously putting up the prices of cigarettes is not going to stop people smoking. There will always be cheaper alternatives. I've saved a ton of money by smoking Amber Leaf rollies instead (although I could save a lot more money by not smoking...)

Two words: Catholic Ireland. :D

Fair enough. I know once Karen and I sat down and worked out how much she would have spent on cigarettes and (especially) wine over her life. I know it came out to five figures easily.

You live in California though. I assume you have to get a bank loan for a pack of smokes.

And TH was talking about how raising prices didn't cause anyone to quit, so thanks for backing up my point.

I don't smoke. Tax away.

I'm sorry is this a debate? Cause if so then it's one of the lamer ones I've ever seen on this site.

It's one of those things where you brought up a counterpoint.

It's one of those things where I just kinda said something.

It balances out the healthcare costs smoking creates. :)

Do they actually balance or does one cost/provide more? Considering that smoking continues to decline I don't know that it makes sense continue to raise the tax.

Idk..

That's the excuse I use to piss off fat people. "You're a burden on our medical system!" It's hypocritical because I don't eat healthy at all.

I don't have a problem with high taxes on a pack of cigarettes; it's part of a policy of taxing luxury goods and other health-risk products like spirits.

What I find offensive are the profits made by the big tobacco companies, who pay nothing towards the damage they create; millions of addicts suffering with smoking-related health probs. Now that consumers in the USA and Europe are better informed and statistically are moving away from tobacco consumption, the tobacco companies are targeting third-world children. Just think what a disaster that's going to cause for struggling nations and struggling families:-



For an example of hypocrisy, don't miss what the BAT Chairman says to justify the legal war he is waging to prevent anti-smoking legislation becoming law in various African nations:-

" The industy should be regulated, but we want to see that regulation is serving the correct interests of the health mission....
from time to time it's necessary to take legal action to challenge new regulation."

The sub text here is "With BAT annual profits that rival your country's entire GNP, we can drag you through the international courts on a costly journey you can barely afford and we can stop you passing legislation that would protect your people from our lethal product."

I didn't know Batty had a corporation! :yikes:

I thought I was about to be put on blast tbh.

The Japanese government owns stock in Japan Tobacco, so I don't see this country going retarded like the West.

Stay evil, Japan.

When was it fully understood by the public that smoking was bad for you?

So's drinking. Let's tax that until it's prohibitively expensive.

What you on about? I'm asking a question. Was it the 50s, 60s, 70s?

Mass litigation began in the 1990s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_politics

That's a bit later than I thought. But the point was, you mentioned having sympathy, I do for the people who started when the effects weren't really understood (for example Johan Cruyff who quit for 20 years but still died of lung cancer), but very little for people of my generation who choose to smoke.

In California it seems like the peer pressure from younger generations is disappearing based on my own experience. Judging from my sister's experience in high school (she's 5 years younger than me), I'd even say that kids have started thinking smoking is straight up uncool.

Same here, the numbers are going down quite fast.

The smoking ban probably helped.

That's certainly good news, however I think that as long as their parents are against it, many kids will smoke just to be rebels or whatever.

There would definitely be some, but I don't think it's that significant of a number. With the way the culture is changing, it's about as rebellious as wearing all black. There are other more accessible, cheaper ways to rebel like buying weed, especially with California's regulations making 21 the minimum age for buying tobacco.

If I may flesh out TH's answer:-

I think there was plenty of scientific and then public awareness before litigation.

I suspect that the fifties was the last decade of guilt-free smoking. In the sixties and seventies the attitude was, "This is probably bad for me but everybody does it, don't they?" It wasn't until the eighties, though, that people became apologetic about smoking. In this decade there was a significant social change; the question that visitors asked as they took out their cigarettes used to be, "Do you have an ashtray?" in the same tone as you'd ask, "Do you have a bathroom?" By the end of the eighties, the question was, "Do you mind if I smoke?" i.e. the question had shifted from assuming a right to asking permission.

I suppose litigation came along belatedly because no government dared stomp on such a popular habit until they they were confident that there'd be only a limited backlash. (To say nothing of the hostility of the tobacco companies.)

huh

In San Francisco they're trying to ban flavored and menthol cigarettes. I'm trying to quit but it's pretty crazy to think about a world without Newport menthols, the best cigarette that ever existed.