Will the New Tobacco Tax stop you from buying Tobacco to mix with your Marijuana?

[internettoughguy]

Clearly the solution is to make smarties with nicotine in them so people dont need to smoke anymore, they just need to eat a smartie

 

[Miss Peks]

I ended up quitting because of the price increases, and so did my partner. Although honestly it was the nail in the coffin so to speak, we were talking about quitting soon anyway.

 

[aero]

Aero, I wonder how you would like it if your DOC just increased in cost every couple of years to the point it was ridiculous? Its easy to talk shit when it doesn't affect you but the fact is we all engage in unhealthy behaviours and smokers are financially persecuted much more than most. Also, you miss the whole point of the article because the whole point is that the new tax is affecting NON-SMOKERS negatively, so maybe its so black and white "fuck the smokers" to you but the fact is the issue is starting to run deeper than that.

Smokeing is so irresponsible. It costs the country so much in medical bills, and why should we the tax payers fund your habit when you end up in hospital with cancer - and theres a 50% chance you will.

These forums are about harm reduction; defending smokeing is harmful.
It should never be defended, the more expensive the better.

It's not a drus it's a vice created to enslave. And the peons that subscribe to the smokeing myth are just funding it further.

 

[aero]

I sound a bit nazi on that above post but seriously it's documented how deadly it is widely. I mean I'm a reformed smoker and i'd rather of had another addiction IMO. Please do something else, anything really in moderation of course.

 

[bit_pattern]

Clearly the solution is to make smarties with nicotine in them so people dont need to smoke anymore, they just need to eat a smartie

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=n...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I still say breaking the addiction is a better idea but I could get behind subsidising NRT's to a degree that they cost the equivalent or cheaper than cigarettes. One of the better measure the government has introduced is subsidising Champix, it can be a rough couple of month but, man, the shit works.

 

[nath6023]

Aero, seriously, stuff you man, the tax we pay on smokes is way more then the tax taken to treat us. Even if one in 2 smokers got cancer, it would still work out, given the amount of money it actually cost to get cancer. A pack a day smoker will pay 3650 tax a year. Do some math, know how much smokes are taxed before making such strong comments. I wish people would stop driving, spewing chemicals in such a way it kills our planet. But thats freedom for you. Something i sujest you embrace, specially when you're on a site like blue light. Plus your post does not belong on this thread. Peace. Oh, and one last thing.......************************ "censored for the children of bluelight."

 

[aero]

Aero, seriously, stuff you man, the tax we pay on smokes is way more then the tax taken to treat us. Even if one in 2 smokers got cancer, it would still work out, given the amount of money it actually cost to get cancer. A pack a day smoker will pay 3650 tax a year. Do some math, know how much smokes are taxed before making such strong comments. I wish people would stop driving, spewing chemicals in such a way it kills our planet. But thats freedom for you. Something i sujest you embrace, specially when you're on a site like blue light. Plus your post does not belong on this thread. Peace. Oh, and one last thing.......************************ "censored for the children of bluelight."

How is preaching for smokeing harm reduction?
I'm pro choice of most things. But if it costs lives and money then i'm against it.

 

[lynnie]

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=n...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I still say breaking the addiction is a better idea but I could get behind subsidising NRT's to a degree that they cost the equivalent or cheaper than cigarettes. One of the better measure the government has introduced is subsidising Champix, it can be a rough couple of month but, man, the shit works.

Subsidising Champix and the website mytimetoquit has changed many lives here in Australia and it worked like a charm for me and i believe many should at least try and break the habit because it is just a cheap fling you can possibly break out of.

 

[aero]

I meant to add feel free to smoke. But don't complain about the price increase < That's the equivelent of me complaining about the increase in fuel costs because i wan't to inhale it.

Documented proof of damage to oneself. Extra price = less ciggarettes bought = less death = Harm reduction.

 

[hyroller]

I think the joy from smoking is derived not from the cigarettes themselves, but from the act of filling ones lungs with something other than oxygen....

 

[De quincy]

I think the joy from smoking is derived not from the cigarettes themselves, but from the act of filling ones lungs with something other than oxygen....

Thank you, I need a good laugh at the moment

 

[drug_mentor]

You completely miss the point of HR, HR assumes people will engage in a particular behaviour whether it is dangerous or not and aims to inform these people of the safest way to engage in a behaviour that isn't neccessarily inherently safe. Telling people NOT to do something is not harm reduction, you are not attempting to reduce the harm associated with smoking, you are attempting to tell people not to smoke all together.

If HR was what you thought it was then bluelight would be echoing the same bullshit "say no to drugs" message as everywhere else. Obviously not engaging in an activity reduces harm, you could say it ELIMINATES harm. The fact is that isn't a realistic expectation so harm reduction doesn't try preach or control lives, it equips them with the knowledge they require to make the most informed and safe decisions they can while STILL engaging in harmful behaviour.

How in the hell do you figure nicotine isn't a drug? Just because its a "vice"? How absurd! All non therapeutic uses of drugs could be called a vice it doesn't mean they aren't drugs.

The fact your a reformed smoker really pisses me off too! It was OK when you wanted to do it but now because you have made a change other people should be subject to hgher fees than you or lets be honest if you got your way just plain banned from doing so. Thats a crock of shit mate and it makes you a hypocrite I am sorry to say.

I honestly believe that the taxes gathered from smoking would cover the health costs pretty easily, but I could be way off. I doubt the GST they collect at maccas and KFC comes close to covering the societal and health costs that are incurred by obesity. If it weren't for the fucking hypocrisy of it I wouldn't be *quite* so annoyed but how many god damned tax hikes do we smokers have to pay while they never bother with all these tax hikes on unhealthy foods or other causes of health problems.

 

[MovedToCairns]

Aero, I wonder how you would like it if your DOC just increased in cost every couple of years to the point it was ridiculous? Its easy to talk shit when it doesn't affect you but the fact is we all engage in unhealthy behaviours and smokers are financially persecuted much more than most. Also, you miss the whole point of the article because the whole point is that the new tax is affecting NON-SMOKERS negatively, so maybe its so black and white "fuck the smokers" to you but the fact is the issue is starting to run deeper than that.

agreed

 

[bit_pattern]

Aero, seriously, stuff you man, the tax we pay on smokes is way more then the tax taken to treat us. Even if one in 2 smokers got cancer, it would still work out, given the amount of money it actually cost to get cancer.

I've heard this said before, yet I suspect it is industry/think tank propaganda. got any sources whatsoever to back up the claim? I'd be well interested in seeing them.

 

[bit_pattern]

You completely miss the point of HR, HR assumes people will engage in a particular behaviour whether it is dangerous or not and aims to inform these people of the safest way to engage in a behaviour that isn't neccessarily inherently safe. Telling people NOT to do something is not harm reduction, you are not attempting to reduce the harm associated with smoking, you are attempting to tell people not to smoke all together.

If HR was what you thought it was then bluelight would be echoing the same bullshit "say no to drugs" message as everywhere else. Obviously not engaging in an activity reduces harm, you could say it ELIMINATES harm. The fact is that isn't a realistic expectation so harm reduction doesn't try preach or control lives, it equips them with the knowledge they require to make the most informed and safe decisions they can while STILL engaging in harmful behaviour.

How in the hell do you figure nicotine isn't a drug? Just because its a "vice"? How absurd! All non therapeutic uses of drugs could be called a vice it doesn't mean they aren't drugs.

The fact your a reformed smoker really pisses me off too! It was OK when you wanted to do it but now because you have made a change other people should be subject to hgher fees than you or lets be honest if you got your way just plain banned from doing so. Thats a crock of shit mate and it makes you a hypocrite I am sorry to say.

I honestly believe that the taxes gathered from smoking would cover the health costs pretty easily, but I could be way off. I doubt the GST they collect at maccas and KFC comes close to covering the societal and health costs that are incurred by obesity. If it weren't for the fucking hypocrisy of it I wouldn't be *quite* so annoyed but how many god damned tax hikes do we smokers have to pay while they never bother with all these tax hikes on unhealthy foods or other causes of health problems.

You could always just quit and improve your life in so many ways. A course of Champix only costs $70 with the current subsidy (underwritten, no doubt, by tobacco taxes).

 

[lynnie]

Hopefully the retailers make enough noise to get this tax reversed, they will never listen to the smokers but they might listen to the economy.

I really doubt it partly because this plan was Kevin Rudd's health care reform and if the Liberal opposes this through the senate then it will effect the popularity of the liberal party which will do no good for them because most Australian tax payers do not give a dam about smokers.

 

[bit_pattern]

Study: Cigarettes cost families, society $41 per pack

I'm currently looking for Australia stats and figures but I'm pretty certain the whole 'tax revenue is greater than healthcare costs' is pure woo.

 

[MovedToCairns]

So everyone should quit what they enjoy doing simply because the government has put a bullshit tax on it? get fucked

 

[bit_pattern]

^^ No, you don't HAVE to give up, I just think that it's a good idea, all you HAVE to do is just pay the costs that your choices are having on society, that is all. $10 billion in 'tangible' costs to society, compared to $6 billion in revenue. It's about right that smokers be expected to contribute to this significant drain on society imho.

http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.a...-future-directions-for-reform-of-tobacco-taxe

13.12.1.1 Recouping social costs

Many economists would argue that the 'correct' level of tobacco taxation is that which ensures that revenue from tobacco taxes is at least equal to the costs likely to be imposed on society resulting from tobacco use (that is, those costs not borne voluntarily by smokers themselves).243 While theoretically this seems like an attractive proposition, in practice governments attempting to set tax levels on this basis would face several difficulties.

Quantification of costs have been established for Australia, as for elsewhere, but the most comprehensive of these are estimates of current costs based on past tobacco consumption rather than estimates of future costs based on consumption by current smokers.[64] It doesn't seem very just to expect current smokers to bear costs associated with smoking by previous generations of smokers over whose smoking they had no control. If taxes were set to cover the costs associated with past consumption, then remaining smokers would have to contribute the same total amount of revenue, regardless of the total quantity of tobacco smoked, and regardless of how many smokers managed to quit.

Some studies have attempted to project future costs associated with smoking by current smokers, however because most health effects occur only after many years of use, and because medical treatments change rapidly, it is extremely difficult to quantify such costs with any accuracy. Gene therapies, for instance, could revolutionise the treatment of many cancers and cardiovascular problems over the next 10 to 15 years. The future population costs of treating virus-related conditions such as cervical cancer could be drastically reduced through investment in vaccination programs and other preventive measures over the next few years.

A further challenge would be to ensure that all the relevant costs were being included. For many of the health problems caused by smoking, the extent of mortality and morbidity has yet to be quantified. Also, there are many health conditions which scientists suspect may be caused or worsened by smoking, but where insufficient research has been conducted yet to ascertain causality. Further, current costs are based on average treatment costs. The cost of treating diseases in people who smoke are likely however to be higher than average due to problems such as slower healing of fractures and a greater incidence of post-operative complications.244 Authors of economic studies acknowledge that current estimates are likely to significantly underestimate the true costs for all these sort of reasons.245 If tax rates were to be set on the basis of likely future health care costs, then a mechanism would need to be established for more comprehensively and regularly updating estimates of the health burdens associated with tobacco use.

When thinking about recouping the social costs of tobacco use, one should always remember that it is smokers and their families who will bear the greatest proportion of the costs associated with smoking. In addition to costs borne by business and costs borne by government, costs borne non-voluntarily by smokers themselves and by their immediate families are a third, very large component of Collins and Lapsley's estimate of total tangible costs—$9,871.2 million or more than 50% of the total $19,609.3 million estimated tangible costs attributable to smoking for Australia in 2004–05. In addition to almost $10 billion in tangible costs, smokers and their families bear 100% of the intangible costs attributable to tobacco use, $19,459.7 million in 2004–05. Collins and Lapsley's estimate of intangible costs included an estimate of the value to individuals of a year of life lost in 2004–05, but they did not attempt to quantify the pain and suffering of those who grieve for smokers who die early. And as well as these economic costs, addicted smokers spent more than $10 billion in 2004–05 on tobacco products, which included more than $6 billion in excise and customs duty and GST on sale of tobacco products.[65]

 

[bit_pattern]

Pay extra for what? Cigarettes, sure, just like all the other smokers. You might not like it but basically you have two choices, suck it up and deal with it, or do yourself and your loved ones a favour by quitting