Today I’ve joined the Maori Affairs Select Committee in Christchurch to hear further submissions on their inquiry into the affects of tobacco on Maori.
Although there is a huge number of organisations submitting, there is a very clear theme: That New Zealand should have a target of becoming smoke-free by 2020.
Today in particular we have heard a lot of calls for prohibition as part of a package of initiatives to reduce smoking rates. I’m not yet convinced the benefits outweigh the negative aspects of prohibition.
But what it is time to do is look at a broader spectrum of options to reducing smoking rates.
Recently Parliament increased tobacco excise tax. It was another step in the right direction. However what we are being told is that taxation is just a small part of the answer.
Key initiatives that keep coming up include:
-
Banning tobacco displays
-
Plain packaging
-
Increasing funding for quit smoking programmes
-
Licensing tobacco retailers
-
Legalising less harmful alternatives like e-cigarettes
I reckon the submitters are right. It’s time to pick up the pace. It’s also time to shift some of the attention off measures that penalise smokers (like tax) and onto things that will hit the industry and retailers a bit harder.
We’ve done well over the last 20-30 years but change has been slow. Should we continue the incremental changes or be really bold about eradicating the avoidable damage and costs associated with tobacco?
Spud said
Frakin’ marvellous idea mate. There’s some original thinking
If it’s a break even then increasing it is just plain greedy
People are harping on about the world being overpopulated, therefore the smokers are making this huge sacrifice for the rest of us. Brave guys
Iain said:
Oh come on, people have to die of something.
Hey hey j.k. OK?
More seriously, another idea:
Max number of cigarettes in a pack should be limited to 10 or 12, and you can only purchase one pack at a time.
With smaller looking packs and fewer cigarettes people will naturally pace themselves more.
(same idea as smaller plates/serving sizes when on a weight loss programme)
Spud you’re dead funny. Surely we could come up with a quicker and less resource-draining answer to over-population than lung cancer and emphasemia??
And on a serious note, increased excise tax is expected to result in a decrease in demand and therefore limited increase in the tax take.
@Loota – one of the ideas brough tothe select committee was gradually decreasing the amount of nicotene which, I suppose, is a variation of your ‘pace yourself’ approach.
There’s some probable fish-hooks, like people compensating by just smoking more / buying another packet (from somewhere else) but its worth thinking through.
Yes, folks do have to die of something. But so early and painfully??
When someone dies of a traffic accident (regardless of age the NZTA assigns a cost to the economy of $1.4 million, meaning if the same is applied to smoking it cots the country $8 billion p.a.
*side note*
@Stephenskim, petrol doesn’t have the crap taxed out of it, one of the best things we could do for NZ’s economy (if we aren’t going to stop subsidising trucking companies or make people pay for parking) would be to raise the taxes 50c per litre to reflect the costs to our economy our car dependency creates…
*end side note*
Jeremy
The little boy probably doesn’t want to see his dad hurt. How many have had a family member die after years of suffering as a result of smoking. How many kids have breathed in the toxins from a parent smoker.
How many kids have followed the example set by parent smokers.
The measures outlines include direct monetary penalty for the smoker but only indirect penalty for the tobacco industry through reduction in trade. Their trade needs to be directly discouraged and made responsible for the damage caused.
Addiction is the master to the smoking population.
Any form of promotion of smoking should be legislated against.
Any protection of the tobacco industry should be removed and punitive taxation placed on the manufacturers and distributes of tobacco. As this tax is ramped up each year and awarded to the health system the motivation to profit from creating and feeding dangerous addiction will very much reduced.
Hit the perpetrators directly and to hell with any business that get rich from creating misery and death.
@Jeremy M
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/E3FF7098-DBEF-4ECA-9E26-AB2AA13C39AC/448/0015Petrol3.pdf
John W said:
^ +1. nice.
but they aren’t creating death either, people who choose to take into the product create their own misery and death if they smoke it to a level that they become addicted
I think I agree with all of the
key initiatives except for no.2 because of the reasons stated above however
stephensmikm said
In that case any measure which helps consumers make good choices around this product category is probably a good measure.
I think instead of taxing cigarettes, there should be tax credits for quitters, complete with blood tests and check ins to prove that they are smoke free.
but can you make a good choice if the information isn’t in front of you
When they switched over to the nasty images they got rid of the “nutritional Info” section that listed the tar, Carbon monoxide and such on alot of the packages making so that there was no clear difference for a smoker between the “ultra light” and “heavy Duty/ Rich” brand types
stephensmikm
Addiction is not a matter of choice for some. Nor is it associated directly with a particular level of smoking.
Many children have the chance to have their first puff at a very early age. Parents and other powerful role models have very strong influence on a young mind. Passive smoking has been shown as having an effect on the early propensity toward addiction.
Also some correlation of prenatal influences of smoking by mothers and likelihood of addiction is shocking.
It is all bad stuff that the industry grew on, knowingly exploiting young minds.
The choice to smoke assumes some power in the hands of the smoker. At what age do you see a person assuming reponsibility for their own misery and death.
Smoking was legal for a 15 year old. They became smoker victims assisted into addiction by the peer pressure and advertising myths promoted by big tobacco world wide.
The deadly health effects of smoking have been known widely for over 50 years.
12.
@ Iain – I don’t believe I’ve ever seen real figures, too many slanted costs to the economy like lost productivity but not the benefits like not paying on super. Opportunity costs seem to flow one way to fit the position promoted.
How bout another idea to stop kids picking it up, – Ban the filter tips, and make the taste bad. Really anything that pops the negative effects upfront for the first time smoker.
[quote]
Iain Lees-Galloway says:
May 16, 2010 at 5:03 pm
The latest figures I’ve seen are from the Health Sponsorship Council. They estimate the total cost of smoking to be $1.7 billion per annum. That includes health costs, lost productivity, benefit payments etc. The excise tax take is around $1.1 billion.
So at best you could say smoking income and expenditure is break-even for the government, but it actually looks like there is an overall economic cost to the country.
Oh yeah, and it kills 5000 people a year.
[/quote]
A few years ago the figure was about $300 million now you are saying $1.7 billion, a figure produced for the first time during a rush through in parliament. To suddenly say that the cost has risen would indicate more people are smoking or that the govt has got it’s figures wrong and is using the high ‘cost’ as justification of further prices rises.
I’m sick of not being given the right to choose what I do and don’t put into my body, this nanny state carry on has got out of hand!
Mark said:
Mark you’ll still have every right to poison yourself, if you wish. But its likely to cost you in the pocket a lot more, and be much more inconvenient for you to do.
The State’s job is to make sure that your choices don’t end up wasting my tax payers dollars, thanks, but if you feel that it is your right to go self harm yourself with ciggies anytime I won’t stop you.
So, just curious, what else do you want the right to put into your body?
It’s not nanny state if the product is available
I kinda think it is if the government is deliberately pricing people out of their habit.
They’re breaking even on the health care thing so upping the tax just seems a way to coherce people into quitting.
coerce. Sorry, headache eyes.
@Loota
It’s ok, If I wish to use tobacco I will just grow it myself, that way you get no tax and if my health goes down hill you will pay.
I am hearing alot more often of people looking at growing their own so upping the tax isn’t fixing the problem…
More than enough is already being taxed to cover health costs, this trumped up figure of 1.7 billion is absolute bollocks designed to fool the public.
Mark said:
Do you really really think that enough people are going to put together enough hectares of tobacco in NZ to compensate for big tax increases in smokes? I’ll bet you if that happens, they’ll get enough fresh air and sunshine to compensate so go for it!
The public is coming to grips with the fact that a lot of people suffer and die every year because of tobacco, maybe you should too.
Goodluck to you Mark, I hate smoking but I see where you’re coming from.
I do remember a few years ago I as a 10 year old could have bought a “grow ya own” tobacco plant at palmers I think it was might have been CGC…not sure if they are still stocked…
@Loota
you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, one tobacco plant is enough for about a months supply so 12 plants a year. Rest of the time can be spent sitting inside playing video games and spending the tax savings on KFC!
Alot of people are realising pharmaceutical drugs and alcohol are killing us and making us suffer too but the govts are very light handed when it comes to those. Care to provide an excuse for that?
What you lot don’t realise is that by the actions you are taking you are pushing this drug towards the black market.
You have failed to deal to cannabis in this way, whats to say you are going to be successful in wiping out tobacco use too?
While the official figure sits at 19% that still smoke, I wonder what percentage are growing their own..
In 10 years time I will go see a drug dealer and order an ounce of Afghani and a bag of tobacco, the govt gets no tax and if I get sick that lack of tax means it comes out of your pocket.
Since you don’t care, why should I?
@Mark – True about the pharmceuticals, but I do think Alcohol gets a bad rap and has been made too expensive in bars and restaurants.
Alcohol can be medicinal.
To me I guess it’s just a case of choosing the poison that works best for you.
Agreed, prohibition would be a bad solution.