Aus - The $13 trick to get kids smoking

poledriver

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
11,543
Aus - The $13 trick to get kids smoking

A $13 packet of 25 cigarettes — just slightly dearer than the average price of a pack of illegal smokes — is the latest weapon from tobacco companies to fight the government’s tough anti-smoking laws.

British American Tobacco Australia began distributing the cut-price line of Rothmans — which it claims is the cheapest on the market this week.

With rising prices seen as one of the major motivators for people to quit, health campaigners are further alarmed after the company flagged the possibility of dropping prices even further to cater for what it claims is a surge in demand for cheap cigarettes.

The move is the latest salvo in what the industry itself is describing as “a race to the bottom” as cigarette suppliers scramble to retain market share amid efforts by the government to reduce smoking rates by raising taxes and plain packaging.

The trend has triggered calls from anti-smoking campaigners for the federal government to crack down harder, with a minimum price for cigarettes and subsidised nicotine patches. Under the cigarette tax regime implemented in December last year, a 12.5 per cent tobacco excise will apply each year over four years, ending September 2016, raising more than $5 billion for the government while lifting the price of an average packet of cigarettes to between $20 and $25.

The government has argued the excise and plain packaging laws are aimed at cutting smoking rates.

However, BATA claims it has had the opposite effect with rising prices driving demand for lower priced cigarettes.

It claims the cheap cigarette sector has grown by more than 66 per cent in the past five years as price sensitive smokers down trade to cheaper brands, with more than 42 per cent of the total legal cigarette market now priced under $15 per pack.

Dianna Larosse, 23, from Rooty Hill, who has been smoking for five years, said price was an important factor for her.

Smoked out

● 16.4% of adults aged 16 and over smoke

● 20.5% of men and 12.4%of women smoke

● 7.9% of boys and 7.1% of girls smoke

● 46,120 hospitalisations were attributed to smoking in 2011-2012

Source: NSW government

“I have a brand I like but they’re too expensive so I often settle for something cheaper,” she said.

Mandy Connor, 27, from Guildford, who has been smoking on and off for 10 years said she would consider cutting back if packs rose to $25 or more.

“You’d have to,” she said.

But BATA spokesman Scott McIntyre said the figures showed the excise had failed to curb smoking, especially among 18 to 30-year-olds, who were driving the cheap cigarette market.

He said prices could “potentially” drop further as the industry continued to battle for market share.

NSW Cancer Institute figures show smoking rates declined from 22.5 per cent to 14.7 per cent between 2002 and 2011. In 2012, the smoking rate rose to 17.1 per cent, an increase the Institute attributed to the inclusion of greater numbers of younger people and males in the survey.

Institute cancer prevention manager Claudine Lyons said the cost of cigarettes was one of the key motivators for people quitting.

“The fact cigarette companies are engaging in this price battles shows the policy measures are having an impact,” she said.

Sunday Telegraph Editorial:

CAN you smell the desperation in the air? Tobacco is a dying industry — no pun intended — but the cigarette companies are not going down without a fight. Their response to the federal government’s plain-packaging laws is twofold: first, to claim the laws are failing and more people are smoking and, second, to push down the price of cigarettes in order to entice more price-sensitive young people to become addicts.

So far there is limited evidence that plain-packaging is working, but what does work to discourage young smokers? Higher prices. The tobacco giants know it, and that’s why they’re pushing prices down.

They claim to be deeply troubled that smokers are buying illegal cigarettes. Well, thanks for the concern, but that’s a police problem. Plain packs were never intended to persuade hardcore smokers to quit. The evidence shows that no matter how much prices rise, there is a large number of dedicated smokers who will cut back on all other spending — even food.

But to keep their business alive, the tobacco companies need children — your children — to grow up and become smokers. They don’t care if that means cancer and early death. But the rest of us should. Nick Xenophon is right: let’s have a minimum price for cigarettes. Maybe we can get some committed smokers to cut down, even if they don’t quit. And we can definitely stop children from lighting their first fag.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...get-kids-smoking/story-fni0cx12-1226946898681
 
ciggs in australia are expensive. that's fine by me. oxy's really expensive here. it's the cool tax.
 
i wish i had no discerning faculties when it comes to quality, then i could smoke cheap cigs

but i know i would gag if i tried to smoke something cheaper than holiday and pall mall
 
$13, itd be cheaper to smoke crack around here


lol, these are the 'cheap ones' too, it's more like $20 bucks a pack for alot of the brands I think. Well for the 30 packs it was anyway, I'm over 6months off any form of smoking and I just use my vape for straight weed occasionally now, who the hell can afford to keep paying 20 bucks a pack. It's insane.
 
lol, these are the 'cheap ones' too, it's more like $20 bucks a pack for alot of the brands I think. Well for the 30 packs it was anyway, I'm over 6months off any form of smoking and I just use my vape for straight weed occasionally now, who the hell can afford to keep paying 20 bucks a pack. It's insane.

I found myself paying $20 for a 20 pack of B&H at a local gas station a few weeks back. No idea where they fall on the cigarette quality spectrum, they were the first brand I ever smoked and I've just stuck with them since out of habit, but I was surprised at $1/cigarette. That said, I'm not a heavy smoker, I go through a pack over 2 - 4 weeks, depending on my drug use during that period, so it's not as big an issue. If I ever decide I want to nicotine in my bloodstream on a constant basis again, I'll buy a new e-cig.
 
Glad I'm not in Australia. I'm quitting smoking in America. I'm not saying where I am but wherever it is cigs are at most 5 bucks a pack for some Marlboro's. I'm glad my government isn't trying to force me to quit. It might make me want to smoke even more knowing that its expensive. I look at most drugs as a luxury. Not so with cigarettes but if I paid a dollar a cigarette then fuck yah that's luxury.
 
Sunday Telegraph Editorial:

CAN you smell the desperation in the air? Tobacco is a dying industry — no pun intended — but the cigarette companies are not going down without a fight. Their response to the federal government’s plain-packaging laws is twofold: first, to claim the laws are failing and more people are smoking and, second, to push down the price of cigarettes in order to entice more price-sensitive young people to become addicts.

So far there is limited evidence that plain-packaging is working, but what does work to discourage young smokers? Higher prices. The tobacco giants know it, and that’s why they’re pushing prices down.

They claim to be deeply troubled that smokers are buying illegal cigarettes. Well, thanks for the concern, but that’s a police problem. Plain packs were never intended to persuade hardcore smokers to quit. The evidence shows that no matter how much prices rise, there is a large number of dedicated smokers who will cut back on all other spending — even food.

But to keep their business alive, the tobacco companies need children — your children — to grow up and become smokers. They don’t care if that means cancer and early death. But the rest of us should. Nick Xenophon is right: let’s have a minimum price for cigarettes. Maybe we can get some committed smokers to cut down, even if they don’t quit. And we can definitely stop children from lighting their first fag.

Jesus. I'm gobsmacked. A reasonable and rational editorial from the Tele. I thought they'd be frothing at the mouth over the "nanny state" 8o
 
cost of living is also way higher in Australia. 13 dollars there means less than 13 dollars in the US even though our exchange rates are about equal. Unless you live in NYC where cigs are probably close to 13 dollars for certain brands.

Cheap cigs are under 5 dollars in PA and the average pack of Marlboros is about 6.50

cant really complain
 
^So you think the government should tax the hell out of cigarettes in order to make people safe? What happens when all drugs become legal and they do this to every drug (including ones you like)?

For starters, I'm a nicotine addict - I fucking love the shit - so please do not deign to tell me what I like and do not like.

Secondly, yes, I think government's should tax the hell out of cigarettes. I think it's a fine public health measure. Tobacco, unlike most other drugs, brings no tangible benefit for a user beyond getting them addicted and then relieving the symptoms of said addiction. It takes time, effort and dedication to become addicted. Most of which is almost entirely due to the insidious influence tobacco corporations have over society through being able to normalise such an addiction. Unlike virtually every other recreational drug I wholeheartedly believe that once the scourge has been broken - once smoking is thoroughly denonormalised, once it is too expensive for children to partake without expending time, effort and considerable sums of money, and once the rate of new addicts is close to zero - people wont actually choose to take up the addiction because it derives them no actual pleasure. I genuinely believe that smoking can be eradicated from society. Other drugs - let's say heroin - probably never can be because humans like to get high. Tobacco doesn't get you high. It gets you addicted. Then it relieves the withdrawal symptoms. If you remove all of the allure, the peer pressure, the advertising, the ridiculously cheap prices, people won't just choose to smoke tobacco. The scourge, with all the death, the suffering, the otherwise avoidable disease, will cease to be a problem in society. That will be a capital G and capital T Good Thing.

Thirdly, the cost of tobacco is laughably small in comparison to other recreational drugs. And, mark my words, if some shit-eating corporation was selling any other form of death - be it heroin, be it cocaine, be it methamphetamine - and they were making a king's ransom in profits from exploiting that death legally then - fucking AY - I'd want the government to take it's cut from that. Indeed,I'd demand it. If drugs were legal do you think the state WOULDN'T recoup losses it incurs from drug use? Hell, that's one of the strongest arguments for the regulation of drugs currently prohibited. Bring the market back into the fold. Let the costs be accounted for. Let users be accountable for their habits. Let all of us as free-choosing, sovereign individuals make our choices and be responsible for the outcomes. With freedom comes great responsibility. The two go hand in hand. Why should society pay the external costs for YOUR choices?

The only reason I don't still buy tobacco is because it is actually cheaper to buy nicotine lozenges now than it is to smoke. And for that I am eternally grateful to whichever grey-skinned, dull-eyed and thoroughly humourless bean-counting bureaucrat came up with the idea of taxing smoking out of existence. I could quite literally kiss him/her. At least when I take my last breath I won't be gargling for it on a respirator through miasma of tar inflected mucus.
 
Last edited:
^So you think the government should tax the hell out of cigarettes in order to make people safe? What happens when all drugs become legal and they do this to every drug (including ones you like)?

You're going to be taxed for it either way. More smoking = more medical problems = more unpaid medical bills = burden passed on to taxpayers.
 
For starters, I'm a nicotine addict - I fucking love the shit - so please do not deign to tell me what I like and do not like.

Secondly, yes, I think government's should tax the hell out of cigarettes. I think it's a fine public health measure. Tobacco, unlike most other drugs, brings no tangible benefit for a user beyond getting them addicted and then relieving the symptoms of said addiction. It takes time, effort and dedication to become addicted. Most of which is almost entirely due to the insidious influence tobacco corporations have over society through being able to normalise such an addiction. Unlike virtually every other recreational drug I wholeheartedly believe that once the scourge has been broken - once smoking is thoroughly denonormalised, once it is too expensive for children to partake without expending time, effort and considerable sums of money, and once the rate of new addicts is close to zero - people wont actually choose to take up the addiction because it derives them no actual pleasure. I genuinely believe that smoking can be eradicated from society. Other drugs - let's say heroin - probably never can be because humans like to get high. Tobacco doesn't get you high. It gets you addicted. Then it relieves the withdrawal symptoms. If you remove all of the allure, the peer pressure, the advertising, the ridiculously cheap prices, people won't just choose to smoke tobacco. The scourge, with all the death, the suffering, the otherwise avoidable disease, will cease to be a problem in society. That will be a capital G and capital T Good Thing.

Thirdly, the cost of tobacco is laughably small in comparison to other recreational drugs. And, mark my words, if some shit-eating corporation was selling any other form of death - be it heroin, be it cocaine, be it methamphetamine - and they were making a king's ransom in profits from exploiting that death legally then - fucking AY - I'd want the government to take it's cut from that. Indeed,I'd demand it. If drugs were legal do you think the state WOULDN'T recoup losses it incurs from drug use? Hell, that's one of the strongest arguments for the regulation of drugs currently prohibited. Bring the market back into the fold. Let the costs be accounted for. Let users be accountable for their habits. Let all of us as free-choosing, sovereign individuals make our choices and be responsible for the outcomes. With freedom comes great responsibility. The two go hand in hand. Why should society pay the external costs for YOUR choices?

The only reason I don't still buy tobacco is because it is actually cheaper to buy nicotine lozenges now than it is to smoke. And for that I am eternally grateful to whichever grey-skinned, dull-eyed and thoroughly humourless bean-counting bureaucrat came up with the idea of taxing smoking out of existence. I could quite literally kiss him/her. At least when I take my last breath I won't be gargling for it on a respirator through miasma of tar inflected mucus.

I mostly agree with you, but nicotine is actually quite pleasurable in one situation, and that is in combination with other drugs. There is a reason people smoke a lot when they are on alcohol, on amphetamines, on cocaine, on heroin, etc etc etc. Because it feels great. I don't know why, I hate cigarettes when I'm sober, but even just as my morning dose of of suboxone and valium is kicking in, it just feels great. It's like a spice, I wouldn't eat it by itself, but a little bit sprinkled on top of the main course adds some flavor and rounds out the whole package.

It's also great for maintaining a clear head when tired, for me anyway.
 
Top