F61
Nicotine Addiction & Licensing
June 10 2015
Comments
-
RHP User
10 years ago
This one is insane MrsPeachy. What a croc of shit. It is bad enough making two of the worst and addictive drugs legal as in cigarettes and alcohol but to go that step further what the hell is up in this world. I truly hope you misunderstood something about this or came in towards the end and missed something. Look forward to someone filling out the story completely as you said.
-
Mischeviouslad
10 years ago
When will governments stop pissing into the wind and just ban the damn things. IESet a date... 5 years from now = banned.Plenty of Health Services assistance to get off them for the next 5 years...... (which we already do now)..... but.... if you don't kick the nasty cancer sticks by that date.... no assistance, and reduced health services. Harsh.... I don't feel it is. ITs harsher to expect that the taxes of non smokers who recognise the dangers to support those people who clearly don't care to acknowledge them.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Just put a high tax on cigarettes that would go to fund health services and encourage people to stop smoking...I have never been a smoker,so I don't know what incentives could be put in place to encourage people to quit..XxFreya
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Alcohol to that list while your at it then, how many drunk drivers are still on the road killing people and damaging vehicles that make our premiums go up, taking up hospital beds for related health issues, violence when under the influence. Ban noisy kids from restaurants, crying babies from movie theatre, arseholes on RHP lol. Come on everyone has a right to live there lives as they choose as this is still a free country isnt it?? The only problem is when your life affects others directly in a negative impact.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
What I was listening to yesterday was talkback radio ABC 720, (not my choice of station :-P), and yes it was based on reality. . I found an article from 2013 on "news", headed "Experts want smokers to get license to light up". . SMOKERS already face Kevin Rudd's $5 a pack tax rise and now cancer experts want them to apply for a licence to smoke. . Professor Roger Magnusson of the University of Sydney's Law School and Professor David Currow of the Cancer Institute NSW say a smart-card licence would combat teenage smoking..Retailers would have to check the licence before every sale to verify that every pack sold is purchased by an adult, the authors write in today's Medical Journal of Australia..Even though it is illegal in all Australian states and territories to sell tobacco to anyone under 18 - 2.5 per cent of adolescents aged 12-17 years are daily smokers and another 1.3 per cent smoke less frequently..Thirty-one per cent of the tobacco smoked by adolescents was purchased from retailers or directly over the internet, the 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey found. ."Even if a smoker's licence results in some increase in secondary purchasing by adults for children, the overall reduction in access by minors would be substantial and could eclipse any other single tobacco control measure currently under consideration", they say..Magnusson and Currow also want the smart cards to be used to collect data on smokers that can be used to help them quit.."It will enable rigorous evaluation of smoking cessation programs, ensuring that public health dollars are focused on evidence-based strategies that yield the best returns," they say..A smart-card licence would also allow the government to see if smokers' purchasing behaviour changed in response to industry incentives such as retail price discounts..The authors reject arguments that the licence would attach a stigma to smoking by making smokers to feel like "registered addicts"..Instead, they argue smoker's licence would protects choice, "it does not impose a smoke-free lifestyle on adults who cannot, or who choose not to, give up"..The Federal Government wants to reduce the smoking rate from 16 to 10 per cent by 2018..Last year it introduced controversial plain packaging rules that mean all tobacco must be sold in drab, brown packaging with health warnings covering 75 per cent of the pack..Last week Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced it would raise the tobacco tax four times over the next four years to raise $1.3 billion..This will add over $5 to the price of a pack of cigarettes by 2016 bringing the price of each cigarette to almost $1 a stick..The public health cost of smoking is estimated to be more than $30 billion a year, killing 15,000 people annually.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
I've worked long and hard in this field under the closing the gal program's Smokes already carry a very high tax rate that is ment to feed back into the health system. Registering for smokers was an idea first thought of about 5 years ago in a bid to stop the kids taking up the habit and helping those register get off them, supported by cancer council and quit line. The fact remains a smoker will only stop when it's there time to stop ? No amount of product increase or lack of advertising will change that fact.
-
MsJonesy
10 years ago
So I have no idea why smokers need to be licensed. It's a fairly ridiculous concept. I bet they would charge smokers for the license... silly me, of course they would! Current tax rate is $0.47008 per stick (cigarette) as of 3/3/2015. Therefore when purchasing a pack of 25, $11.75 of the purchase price is passed to the government.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
As DG said, if the government was serious about getting people to stop smoking, they would ban it all together. But that will never happen because of the tax revenue that smoking rakes in. If I had the time & inclination I'd do a bit of research, and I reckon the figures would show that taxes raised on cigarettes is higher than the cost associated with smoking-related illnesses. Or at least not far off. So in my opinion, all this talk is purely cosmetic... designed to make it look like the government actually cares. They don't, and can't afford to lose a significant income stream. Same applies to alcohol.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Hi Tis. Apparently tis' true, and bollocks to them. ;-) . Freya, when I started smoking cigs were far less than a $1 for a twenty pack, the regular size then. It was after that when I was still in my young teens that my foster mum would say she would quit when they hit that magical $1. Apparently, the way the taxes are structured according to this article, by 2016 cigarettes will be close to $1 EACH! There are various ways of quitting, some more successful than others for different people, as things work in this world. I did part of a course at a Uni that helped me convince myself I could do it, and then just did it when the time was right. I can't even say I've never had another puff, 10 or so in the last couple of years at really emotional times but I have remained a non smoker. <3 xox . DG, I think it's far past time to try prohibition. I honestly don't think it would work. I've not heard about Health Services Assistance beyond handing out stickers and online support? Do you want to tell me more about it? . LOL Ms Silk, I do love your post, there's something resonating about how maybe we shouldn't be allowed to have children or practice dangerous sports. Respect and balance are wonderful things.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Hiya KissK, oh wow, I'm not sure the government can afford to ban smoking. :-( I've been a part of many tax rises as a smoker of close to 3 decades... but wow. The article I found today suggests a few different reasons including making sure cigs are actually being sold to adults but I just see as the loss of more personal freedoms and feel some sense of Big Brother considering the mention of following people's smoking habits on a smart card. . That's the feeling I get Astrild, it's just so much smoke screen. Haha, sorry for the pun. The figures you mentioned, curious. . Cheers all xoXox Peachy
-
RHP User
10 years ago
We should make them illegal DG? Like weed, heroin, MDMA, cocaine etc - they all went away didn't they. Regulation and taxation is the answer, the tricky bit is getting it right. I would be very happy if I never had to breathe in 2nd hand smoke ever again, but if others really want to pay evil corporate giants to kill them, then that's their right. They are taxed heavily for it to cover the medical bills, as they should be. A license seems a bit too far. If we are going to do that, then why not have a license to drink? There are a lot of dickheads out there that should just stay sober and stop messing it up for the rest of us.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Smoke screen... love the pun :) No idea what the actual figures are, but I seem to recall reading or hearing something to that effect. Maybe someone could chip in with actual facts lol?
-
RHP User
10 years ago
I do get into my topics quite deeply at times Astrild ;-), maybe I'll dig for it. But without looking, as with other policies put in place to protect us, I'm sure this will be balanced in favour of the coffers. . SimonDoes, my skin crawls at the idea of the Big Brother aspect. It's an ism of some sort, surely. . Peachy :-)
-
tylannister
10 years ago
Ask and ye shall receive (primarily from the Tobacco in Australia website) - Smoking has been consistently on the decline since 1980 - current rate of smoking in Australia is about 18% (though this differs by state and age group). - There are a variety of arguments as to how government should set the optimal tax - Are you countering the societal cost? Are you trying to get people to quit? Are you trying to prevent young people from smoking? There's no consensus on the actual societal costs of smoking because this value includes a lot of intangibles, including individuals' discount rates, the value of a year of life lost, etc. Most studies agree, however, that taxes would need to be higher to adequately compensate societal costs. Costs I saw ranged from $19-$35 billion. - By contrast, tax revenue from cigarettes in Australia was roughly $8 billion - about 2.5% of total government revenue. This number has also been on the decline. Compare this to Indonesia where cigarette tax makes up 8.4% of government revenue. In the UK this is 2.2% and in Germany 2.8%. Because tobacco revenue is a small proportion of government revenue and the costs to the government of smoking are arguably higher than the revenue, the government doesn't necessarily have an economic incentive to keep people smoking. Coming from the U.S., I've been interested to find out if the gnarly "health warning" packaging of Australian cigarettes has actually increased the decline in smoking. It seems that, not surprisingly, it's difficult to tell how much of the decline in smoking since the Tobacco Packaging Act was passed in 2012 is attributable to the new packaging, studies did find an increase in calls to the Quitline, quit smoking helpline. So, it seems like this new licensing has been proposed for two reasons - to limit underage smoking and to collect data on smokers. I'm still figuring out how Australian politics works, but I can tell you in the U.S. there would be an uproar by information privacy advocates over this. Seems to me this is a far-fetched scheme put forward by academics that is unlikely to get any serious political traction. That said, doing a search about this story only found one hit more recent than 2013 - seems like the proposal is largely dead.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Not a chance of the government doing anything to effect the $3,000,000,000 tax dollars for government coffers (get it coffers ha ha) that smokers pay. This tax has been carefully targeted at less educated, lower socioeconomic groups as to not be considered unfair. We all know a smokers choose to smoke one of the most addictive substances known to man out of a sense of moral obligation to Australian non smoking tax payers. There is a glimmer of hope, a smoker today can expect to live an extra 20 tax paying years than a smoker that died today. It is a fact that future smokers will live far longer and provide tax well into their retirement, than their contemporary counter parts, who via their generosity in dying early have saved the government around $1,000,000,000 in health care costs that would otherwise have gone into looking after them as they die from non smoking related death. Smoking provides a net Tax of $4,000,000,000 a year. Though one could consider implementing laws that require smoke to contain the isomer of nicotine that has the same chemical structure, just a mirror image. It would provide the same great taste and mind spinning effect but would be no where near as addictive. It is estimate that such laws would in the first year reduce smoking by over 50% and with in 5 years make smoking almost non existent. But if you consider the almost $12,000,000,000 short fall in tax this concept is ludicrous to the extreme, and would require non smokers to provide the short fall. No one wins elections by increasing taxes on non smokers. Yep sounds like a joke. It would be funny if it was. Who would smoke if it was not addictive, who would pay the missing tax.. No government wants smokers to stop, they are worth to much. I could be wrong.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
being a parent with an adult child and a teenager what i have noticed with and among their peersis the take up appears to have become almost non existent. Due to many factors- education, being more aware, socially conscious of others and of their own health and the expense. Government policy has gone a long way to curb the start up rate with no sport sponsorship or advertising and hidden from point of sale or display and the introduction of plain packaging.It has become more restrictive in all public areas if you were to look back twenty or so years ago it was common place to see an ashtray on an office desk smoking on public transport, restaurants all now non existent so we do need to acknowledge there has been great change. For the addict keep putting up the cost put more graphic pictures up shame them do as you mustits not going to break their addiction.If you have noticed with plain packaging now many are just as happy to buy the cheaper brands.Who does it affect most- the tobacco companies bottom line and how do they find away around it?does an alcoholic care if they are sipping on a bottle of grange or a clean skin??
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Dope will be legalized in the future and licencing will be used by government to tax and control.Why not swing the cigarettes onto the same system. Yep conspiracy theory. Have a great day.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Should really consider the consequences of an increased tax on ciggarettes. People don't choose to be 'addicted'. It happens over a long period of time. The casual smoker, the person who smokes a cigarrette every couple weeks isn't the person who gets lung cancer. Yet it will be the casual smoker that cuts down on consumption. The ones who are heavily addicted. The ones at the highest risk - will remain smoking. The only difference is they will have less money to fund their dependents and lifestyle. For lower economic backgrounds, this can have a real negative impact. Stop smoking by changing attitudes and making it 'uncool'. It's already happening.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
There is no silver bullet solution to smoking but as a recent addict I can say that the banning in pubs and restaurants, the gross pictures on packets the emotional tv ads have all contributed to my quitting. My kids got in on the act too, they were firm but fair, lol.It used to be said that smoking was a dying habit I now think that is true and that it's "popularity" has lost it's critical mass but of course there is a ways to go but I think we are winning without causing massive social backlash, governments have to tread lightly where individual freedoms are concerned or people get worried about their "rights". If I was King of the world I'd ban Maccas and horse racing and golf on tv, but that's not really fair is it ?
-
RHP User
10 years ago
of addiction and reasons why people smoke and what can be done to stop them . . . .makes me want a cigarette
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Here, have a Nicorette, careful though their addictive !
-
tylannister
10 years ago
"...golf on tv..." Fair? No. Right? Yes.
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Thanks Light_On, I couldn't see your post when I posted or I would have been sure to say something, it's because most people have delayed posting, and yours didn't show up till quite late... But I see you now, and thanks for the extra info. :-) I strongly support the premise that we can only support people in their addiction journey, cigarettes being only one of the legal vices. I'm supportive of a more understanding approach. . Hi Ty, thanks for some stats and facts. It occurs to me that most of my friends that smoke want to quit. They do want to do it on their own terms though and your mention of the cig packs makes me laugh. They compare when they buy packs to see who has what. I'm curious as to why I've heard a talk back radio story so recently on something that seems so out of date considering the last mention I can find was from so long ago. . Have you heard of ecigs Blindman? The ones I use occasionally are nicotine free but I came upon them as a long time non smoker who hangs around with smokers, lol. I believe the powers that be are working on making them illegal? . Hey Jules, good to see you. :-) I admire a lot of the efforts made towards minimising the attraction of smoking considering in my early youth it was the Marlboro Man amd unfiltered cigarettes. Smoking in appointments without a second thought. I don't even really remember the changeover except I remember realising I could live without cigarettes when I was busy. I didn't need them. And from there. ;-) ...Plain skin... Cigarettes all look pretty much the same when you take them out of the packet? . Too simplified for my tastes Andy, in a sense but with popular opinion swinging in favour of marijuana not being the killer it has long been painted to be, I will be fascinated how the powers that be will take control of that. ;-)
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Winning the war by attrition Slickz. The person who gets lung cancer though is not necessarily the heavy smoker and that is part of the uncertainty, where every smoker is paying the risk for every other smoker. The heavily addicted though pay the highest price, literally and you make the point I discussed with the Mr as we listened to the radio on the day. People tend to be addicted for a reason beyond the addiction itself, if I may say so. Anyway, attrition... and choice. . A dying habit, I like it 50z... I am a big one for not having the government control my life and I have very personal reasons for that. But I'm not unreasonable... . Score my dear friend Wild, LOL. I am so proud of you. But, you need something more suck worthy! Hugs XxX
-
RHP User
10 years ago
the do gooders, the authoritarians, and the "ban it" brigade, and thieving governments. Don't worry, if you're not a smoker, these freaks are coming after whatever you enjoy soon. The world needs more Libertarians! and a damn side less government. Cheers, N
-
RHP User
10 years ago
"Spare me..." My thoughts, exactly... Peachy
-
RHP User
10 years ago
Hows everything going?
-
RHP User
10 years ago
I'd say everything is going better than worse Nev, lol. :-) . As usual, I count my blessings and wouldn't swap. . I hope it is the same for you. Or at least that your freedoms are deprived later rather than sooner. ;-) xx
Boards
-
Hot Topics
Topics: 14361 Comments: 120840
-
Girls Ask
Topics: 1355 Comments: 14709
-
Guys Ask
Topics: 2425 Comments: 17234
-
Couples' Corner
Topics: 2405 Comments: 12737
-
Swingers Lifestyle
Topics: 794 Comments: 5154
-
Fetish & Fantasy
Topics: 1148 Comments: 6957
-
Hot Travel
Topics: 622 Comments: 2145
-
LGBT
Topics: 156 Comments: 1150
Forum help
-
Something related with that
-
Going somewhere & want to hook up?
-
Hasn't that topic been posted before?
RHP's popular dating tool
-
Where the heck did that topic go?
Discover what RHP is doing offline
-
RHP member's RL secrets
reply
like
Share