Comment

dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

As a former very poor person and now just regular poor person who used to smoke ikr.

That said, smoking never made me a happier person and at some point we have to do something. Smoking related issues cost the NHS an absolute fortune.

Do I think that corporations and billionaires should pay their fair share so us peasants don’t need to pay at all. Sure do.

Do I think that’ll ever happen. Heck no.

So given that, then we need to do something.

You shouldn’t make assumptions about people!!

source

Sort:hotnew top

gila@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
You can have a look at some places that implemented the policy you’re putting forward to check if it works though, right?

Have a look at Australia & New Zealand. Taxed at around 65-70% respectively with intent to make cigarettes cost prohibitive

A summary of some outcomes following a decade or so of implementation of these policies:

No acceleration in the overall decline of smoking rates at any stage following policy implementation

Reversal of trend in Australia where tobacco use is currently increasing

The disproportionality in smoking rates between Europeans and the countries’ respective indigenous groups is now higher

Politicians (even the health minister himself in Aus) now champion increases to tobacco excise as a means to secure the financial stability of the country

All this while cost of living increases, rate of poverty increases. I mean not all of these things are solely attributable to periodic tobacco excise increases but it hasn’t fixed a thing. The government got some more money to blow on some antiquated nuclear submarines to defend our massive island, surrounded by allied nations and thousands of miles from the nearest potential adversary. They’ll be ready in about 20 years. Great to see the extra tax dollars at work!
source
- dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Unless I’m mistaken but correlation isn’t causation. Meaning that an increase in tax revenue from cigarettes around the time some new subs were ordered doesn’t mean that one is paying for the other.
  
  Is it unreasonable to make the assumption that the extra tax revenue in fact goes into public health to combat the effects of smoking on an aging population?
  
  smoking for those abive 15 has dropped from 24% in 1991 to around 11% in 2019
  
  although i will concede that this tax disproportionately impacts lower income people
  
  source
  - gila@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    The current excise policies were implemented around 2010, at which point the global decline was already well underway. As I mentioned originally, there has been no stage following implementation of the respective policies in which the decline in smoking accelerated. It has only slowed since that time, and in Australia is increasing as of 2023.
    
    It’s unreasonable to assume that allocations of tax contributed by smokers and tobacco companies is proportionately allocated to areas relevant to the stated intent of the tax policy.
    
    correlation isn’t causation
    
    Do you think these are magic words or something? The entire stated intent of the policy is to cause a correlation that is inverse to the one that’s been observed since. Nowhere above did I say that tobacco excise causes the problems I mentioned - I responded to someone putting forward the idea that it is a viable solution to those same problems. I have trouble considering your response to be in good faith, since I already disclaimed this in my original comment.
    
    source
    dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    correlation isn’t causation. Do you think these are magic words or something.
    
    Actual quote
    
    I’m uncertain…
    
    So no I don’t believe they’re magic words and I find your quote disingenuous.
    
    Have a nice day and we can end this here. No hard feelings.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments