Smokers Puff On Despite Thai Govt's Anti-Smoking Policies

[orosee]

It only took 10 posts for a smoker to use the "pollution" diversion card.

I wonder when the "smokers have rights" card gets played?

And it took only 3 posts for the first fool to mention secondhand smoke

And 19 for another fool to cry "Oh the children!!!"

And with that one included, the flood gates for a real hater and psycho opened...

30 posts until a balanced opinion appears.

So, what's your point? TV is TV is TV?

Edited May 31, 2012 by orosee

[JohnAllan]

Perhaps a change of tack is needed.

Forget the obvious health issues and target school kids with the message that anyone who starts smoking, far from being seen as cool and manly [or womanly], is more often viewed as a stupid cretin with a predicted short life span.

And a few pictures of some previous cigarette manufacturers' hollywood role models, before and after, could be something of a wake-up call; especially when you consider someone in the final stages of lung cancer looks much the same as one in the final stages of Aids.

[Smee]

Reality check: the anti-smoking efforts of countries in the west and in the east by and large don't work and never will. The data has been coming for years and the evidence is compelling - not that most of us ever get to see it as this information is not widely disseminated in the mainstream media thanks to pressure by the anti-smoking bloc, which is financed in large part by Bill Gates, Mayor Bloomberg of New York and the pharmaceutical companies, who are eager to cash in on their nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) - which by the way have a success rate of around 35% over a 6-month period - meaning 65% of NRT users revert to smoking cigarettes within 6 months. Anything vaguely pro-tobacco, even a response from a tobacco company to a blatant lie, is either ignored or twisted to suit the anti-smoking agenda in the mainstream media.

Some key points, all of which have been scientifically documented - try looking these up on Google and sift through the anti-smoking rhetoric to find the actual research done by scientists and researchers:

1 Graphic health warnings (GHW) will typically cause a dip in sales when introduced, but smokers quickly get used to them and the effect diminishes rapidly. Sales return to the normal levels within months. The only long term effect these have is to deface the packaging of the brand owner's products.

2 Raising taxes is touted as a sure-fire way to increase revenues and wean smokers off the weed. In fact, it encourages many smokers to downtrade to cheaper brands, and more to switch to illicit, tax unpaid and even counterfeit products. Some governments claim that the incidence of smoking declines after tax hikes, but in fact, these figures are based on sales of licit (tax paid) cigarettes, not smuggled (illicit) and counterfeit (fake and smuggled) brands. In the UK, for example, tax unpaid and counterfeit cigarette consumption is thought to be between 10% and 35%, based on studies of discarded cigarette wrappers at football stadiums and so on. Closer to home, in Malaysia, the illicit market accounts for around 30% of all sales - these are government statistics. In reality, government revenues typically fall when taxes are raised radically, in some recorded cases, by as much as 50% (don't take my word for it, look it up!). So the only people that really benefit from tax hikes are counterfeiters and smuggling syndicates.

3 Hiding product (display bans, as in Thailand). This encourages counterfeit goods, as consumers can't see the product they are buying, and in conjunction with advertising bans pretty much prevents the introduction of any new products, thereby cementing existing brand shares and creating a situation that is unfair to manufacturers seeking to introduce new brands and to consumers who may be interested to try them. So much for fair trade.

4 Banning non-conventional tobacco products such as e-cigarettes and snus (chewing tobacco that comes in a tiny tea bag) prevents tobacco users from accessing potentially much safer alternatives (again, the data is very clear on this: in Sweden, for example, where snus has been around for over 30 years, incidences of smoking-related illnesses, other than oral cancer, among snus users are no higher than in non-tobacco users). The justification for these bans is that these are products with nicotine in them and therefore "bad". Here's the part you probably didn't know, because the anti-smoking lobby doesn't want you to know: nicotine is NOT carcinogenic (elements of tobacco ARE, particularly when pyrolized, or burned, at the tip of a cigarette at between 800 to 1,200 degrees C, together with the flavorings and additives used in the manufacturing process). Nicotine is actually quite good for you in the doses a smoker absorbs: it boosts mental awareness, induces a feeling of well-being and aids in concentration, and it is safer than caffeine and has fewer side-effects. Nicotine is NOT proven to be physically addictive, like heroin or morphine or opium. It is mentally addicting, which is a different thing. That means, people smoke because they like to smoke, not because they HAVE to smoke, as a drug addict HAS to have a fix. Actually, this is something that is often referred to as the Human Condition: people consume things and do things that may not necessarily be safe or risk-free because they ENJOY them. Drinking alcohol, colas and eating candies and cookies and hamburgers are not healthy activities, but we enjoy them. Should they be banned? Of course not! Do we have the right to be truthfully and fully informed of the possible consequence of consuming these products? Of course! In short, banning potentially safer alternatives to smoking actually restricts smokers from accessing potentially safer products, and restricting pertinent information and outright lying to the public to justify these bans and to promote other ineffective anti-tobacco strategies is unforgiveable. How is this helping the health of the population?

5 To bring it all home, in Thailand around half of all tobacco consumed in the country is tax unpaid and unregulated. Roll your own, using a variety of wrappers and unregulated and untaxed tobacco, accounts for pretty much half of all tobacco consumed in the kingdom, as anyone that lives in the countryside will have no problem believing. So the legislation only affects around half of all smokers in Thailand anyway.

Finally, on a personal note, I am not a smoker, I don't work for a tobacco company, I don't endorse smoking and I believe that people are better off without tobacco in their lives. However, I do believe in informed choice, and the anti-smoking lobby is employing bad science, belligerent strong-arm tactics and outright lies to impose their views on legislators and citizens around the world, ultimately preventing smokers from accessing accurate and truthful information and restricting access to potentially less harmful products while, presumably unintentionally, boosting sales of illicit products supplied by criminal syndicates. I accept that cigarette companies have in the past used the same misleading tactics to promote their interests as the anti-smoking lobby is doing today. The pendulum has now swung the other way!

In Thailand and elsewhere around the region, foreign-funded anti-smoking activists lobby governments with impunity, often in defiance of constitutional mandates aimed at preventing foreign influence on legislators, and they aim to deny citizens the right to enjoy unfettered access to all sides of the story and to make informed decisions and access legitimate products that could be less harmful to them. How is this possibly in any way a good thing?

Edited May 31, 2012 by Smee

[transam]

"The number of smokers reached 13 million, resulting in 50,000 deaths each year."

I am sure the number 50,000 did not include victims of second hand smoke, not to mention how much it costs the health system to treat respiratory, cardiac and other ailments caused by primary and second hand smoke.

I doubt there is any strategy that would work to get people to stop smoking. Education and fear tactics don't seem to be working. I continue to see people smoking in restaurants while sitting near their young children. They are either oblivious to the fact that their smoke harms others, or just don't care. Making smoking illegal would not stop people from smoking and would create a black market, but at least it would drive smoking underground and protect non smokers from the effects of second hand smoke.

I am an occasional smoker but I am against smoking in any enclosed area, private or public and certainly not near children. Making smoking illegal would have as much effect as making drinking illegal did in the US especially as some things here can drive almost anyone to want a drink or a puff at times.

But ultimately everyone's rights should be respected... smoker and non smokers... although it can be quite ironic to see someone being told they cannot light up outside in a bar with diesel and petrol fumes from passing traffic overpowering any cigarette smoke!

100% correct. I drove a motor that was road legal that did 5 miles to the gallon. Edited May 31, 2012 by transam

[Kilgore Trout]

Reality check: the anti-smoking efforts of countries in the west and in the east by and large don't work and never will. The data has been coming for years and the evidence is compelling - not that most of us ever get to see it as this information is not widely disseminated in the mainstream media thanks to pressure by the anti-smoking bloc, which is financed in large part by Bill Gates, Mayor Bloomberg of New York and the pharmaceutical companies, who are eager to cash in on their nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) - which by the way have a success rate of around 35% over a 6-month period - meaning 65% of NRT users revert to smoking cigarettes within 6 months. Anything vaguely pro-tobacco, even a response from a tobacco company to a blatant lie, is either ignored or twisted to suit the anti-smoking agenda in the mainstream media.

Some key points, all of which have been scientifically documented - try looking these up on Google and sift through the anti-smoking rhetoric to find the actual research done by scientists and researchers:

1 Graphic health warnings (GHW) will typically cause a dip in sales when introduced, but smokers quickly get used to them and the effect diminishes rapidly. Sales return to the normal levels within months. The only long term effect these have is to deface the packaging of the brand owner's products.

2 Raising taxes is touted as a sure-fire way to increase revenues and wean smokers off the weed. In fact, it encourages many smokers to downtrade to cheaper brands, and more to switch to illicit, tax unpaid and even counterfeit products. Some governments claim that the incidence of smoking declines after tax hikes, but in fact, these figures are based on sales of licit (tax paid) cigarettes, not smuggled (illicit) and counterfeit (fake and smuggled) brands. In the UK, for example, tax unpaid and counterfeit cigarette consumption is thought to be between 10% and 35%, based on studies of discarded cigarette wrappers at football stadiums and so on. Closer to home, in Malaysia, the illicit market accounts for around 30% of all sales - these are government statistics. In reality, government revenues typically fall when taxes are raised radically, in some recorded cases, by as much as 50% (don't take my word for it, look it up!). So the only people that really benefit from tax hikes are counterfeiters and smuggling syndicates.

3 Hiding product (display bans, as in Thailand). This encourages counterfeit goods, as consumers can't see the product they are buying, and in conjunction with advertising bans pretty much prevents the introduction of any new products, thereby cementing existing brand shares and creating a situation that is unfair to manufacturers seeking to introduce new brands and to consumers who may be interested to try them. So much for fair trade.

4 Banning non-conventional tobacco products such as e-cigarettes and snus (chewing tobacco that comes in a tiny tea bag) prevents tobacco users from accessing potentially much safer alternatives (again, the data is very clear on this: in Sweden, for example, where snus has been around for over 30 years, incidences of smoking-related illnesses, other than oral cancer, among snus users are no higher than in non-tobacco users). The justification for these bans is that these are products with nicotine in them and therefore "bad". Here's the part you probably didn't know, because the anti-smoking lobby doesn't want you to know: nicotine is NOT carcinogenic (elements of tobacco ARE, particularly when pyrolized, or burned, at the tip of a cigarette at between 800 to 1,200 degrees C, together with the flavorings and additives used in the manufacturing process). Nicotine is actually quite good for you in the doses a smoker absorbs: it boosts mental awareness, induces a feeling of well-being and aids in concentration, and it is safer than caffeine and has fewer side-effects. Nicotine is NOT proven to be physically addictive, like heroin or morphine or opium. It is mentally addicting, which is a different thing. That means, people smoke because they like to smoke, not because they HAVE to smoke, as a drug addict HAS to have a fix. Actually, this is something that is often referred to as the Human Condition: people consume things and do things that may not necessarily be safe or risk-free because they ENJOY them. Drinking alcohol, colas and eating candies and cookies and hamburgers are not healthy activities, but we enjoy them. Should they be banned? Of course not! Do we have the right to be truthfully and fully informed of the possible consequence of consuming these products? Of course! In short, banning potentially safer alternatives to smoking actually restricts smokers from accessing potentially safer products, and restricting pertinent information and outright lying to the public to justify these bans and to promote other ineffective anti-tobacco strategies is unforgiveable. How is this helping the health of the population?

5 To bring it all home, in Thailand around half of all tobacco consumed in the country is tax unpaid and unregulated. Roll your own, using a variety of wrappers and unregulated and untaxed tobacco, accounts for pretty much half of all tobacco consumed in the kingdom, as anyone that lives in the countryside will have no problem believing. So the legislation only affects around half of all smokers in Thailand anyway.

Finally, on a personal note, I am not a smoker, I don't work for a tobacco company, I don't endorse smoking and I believe that people are better off without tobacco in their lives. However, I do believe in informed choice, and the anti-smoking lobby is employing bad science, belligerent strong-arm tactics and outright lies to impose their views on legislators and citizens around the world, ultimately preventing smokers from accessing accurate and truthful information and restricting access to potentially less harmful products while, presumably unintentionally, boosting sales of illicit products supplied by criminal syndicates. I accept that cigarette companies have in the past used the same misleading tactics to promote their interests as the anti-smoking lobby is doing today. The pendulum has now swung the other way!

In Thailand and elsewhere around the region, foreign-funded anti-smoking activists lobby governments with impunity, often in defiance of constitutional mandates aimed at preventing foreign influence on legislators, and they aim to deny citizens the right to enjoy unfettered access to all sides of the story and to make informed decisions and access legitimate products that could be less harmful to them. How is this possibly in any way a good thing?

Wow, an informed, well read, thought out answer on TV. Whoda thunkit?

Nice one Smee

[keestha]

Well, the whole anti smoking trend certainly made me smoke less. There are more and more places where smoking is not allowed. But even if I were a non smoker, if I would operate a place like a gas station or a shopping center or a non smoking hotel, I would create a small area outside where smoking is allowed. People will smoke anyway, and if they do it somewhere clandestinely, things get messy.

[Payboy]

I wouldn't mind sharing a smoke or two with these lovelies.

[Reasonableman]

I wouldn't mind sharing a smoke or two with these lovelies.

Smoking!!

[gand]

As my sarge used to say, smoke 'em if you got 'em.

[fasteddie]

"The number of smokers reached 13 million, resulting in 50,000 deaths each year."

I am sure the number 50,000 did not include victims of second hand smoke, not to mention how much it costs the health system to treat respiratory, cardiac and other ailments caused by primary and second hand smoke.

I doubt there is any strategy that would work to get people to stop smoking. Education and fear tactics don't seem to be working. I continue to see people smoking in restaurants while sitting near their young children. They are either oblivious to the fact that their smoke harms others, or just don't care. Making smoking illegal would not stop people from smoking and would create a black market, but at least it would drive smoking underground and protect non smokers from the effects of second hand smoke.

Sir Richard Doll, the scientist who discovered the link between smoking and lung cancer, when asked in an interview on the BBC how he would feel about being in a room full of smokers, replied, ''the risk is so small, I wouldn't give it another thought''

The present furore about passive smoking is just a ''smoke'' screen perpetrated by namby pamby busybodys who just like to tell others what to do. If you object to my smoke then shove off.

Smoke on brothers and sisters, we will not be dictated to by these small minded dictators!

Edited May 31, 2012 by fasteddie

[fasteddie]

Reality check: the anti-smoking efforts of countries in the west and in the east by and large don't work and never will. The data has been coming for years and the evidence is compelling - not that most of us ever get to see it as this information is not widely disseminated in the mainstream media thanks to pressure by the anti-smoking bloc, which is financed in large part by Bill Gates, Mayor Bloomberg of New York and the pharmaceutical companies, who are eager to cash in on their nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) - which by the way have a success rate of around 35% over a 6-month period - meaning 65% of NRT users revert to smoking cigarettes within 6 months. Anything vaguely pro-tobacco, even a response from a tobacco company to a blatant lie, is either ignored or twisted to suit the anti-smoking agenda in the mainstream media.

Some key points, all of which have been scientifically documented - try looking these up on Google and sift through the anti-smoking rhetoric to find the actual research done by scientists and researchers:

1 Graphic health warnings (GHW) will typically cause a dip in sales when introduced, but smokers quickly get used to them and the effect diminishes rapidly. Sales return to the normal levels within months. The only long term effect these have is to deface the packaging of the brand owner's products.

2 Raising taxes is touted as a sure-fire way to increase revenues and wean smokers off the weed. In fact, it encourages many smokers to downtrade to cheaper brands, and more to switch to illicit, tax unpaid and even counterfeit products. Some governments claim that the incidence of smoking declines after tax hikes, but in fact, these figures are based on sales of licit (tax paid) cigarettes, not smuggled (illicit) and counterfeit (fake and smuggled) brands. In the UK, for example, tax unpaid and counterfeit cigarette consumption is thought to be between 10% and 35%, based on studies of discarded cigarette wrappers at football stadiums and so on. Closer to home, in Malaysia, the illicit market accounts for around 30% of all sales - these are government statistics. In reality, government revenues typically fall when taxes are raised radically, in some recorded cases, by as much as 50% (don't take my word for it, look it up!). So the only people that really benefit from tax hikes are counterfeiters and smuggling syndicates.

3 Hiding product (display bans, as in Thailand). This encourages counterfeit goods, as consumers can't see the product they are buying, and in conjunction with advertising bans pretty much prevents the introduction of any new products, thereby cementing existing brand shares and creating a situation that is unfair to manufacturers seeking to introduce new brands and to consumers who may be interested to try them. So much for fair trade.

4 Banning non-conventional tobacco products such as e-cigarettes and snus (chewing tobacco that comes in a tiny tea bag) prevents tobacco users from accessing potentially much safer alternatives (again, the data is very clear on this: in Sweden, for example, where snus has been around for over 30 years, incidences of smoking-related illnesses, other than oral cancer, among snus users are no higher than in non-tobacco users). The justification for these bans is that these are products with nicotine in them and therefore "bad". Here's the part you probably didn't know, because the anti-smoking lobby doesn't want you to know: nicotine is NOT carcinogenic (elements of tobacco ARE, particularly when pyrolized, or burned, at the tip of a cigarette at between 800 to 1,200 degrees C, together with the flavorings and additives used in the manufacturing process). Nicotine is actually quite good for you in the doses a smoker absorbs: it boosts mental awareness, induces a feeling of well-being and aids in concentration, and it is safer than caffeine and has fewer side-effects. Nicotine is NOT proven to be physically addictive, like heroin or morphine or opium. It is mentally addicting, which is a different thing. That means, people smoke because they like to smoke, not because they HAVE to smoke, as a drug addict HAS to have a fix. Actually, this is something that is often referred to as the Human Condition: people consume things and do things that may not necessarily be safe or risk-free because they ENJOY them. Drinking alcohol, colas and eating candies and cookies and hamburgers are not healthy activities, but we enjoy them. Should they be banned? Of course not! Do we have the right to be truthfully and fully informed of the possible consequence of consuming these products? Of course! In short, banning potentially safer alternatives to smoking actually restricts smokers from accessing potentially safer products, and restricting pertinent information and outright lying to the public to justify these bans and to promote other ineffective anti-tobacco strategies is unforgiveable. How is this helping the health of the population?

5 To bring it all home, in Thailand around half of all tobacco consumed in the country is tax unpaid and unregulated. Roll your own, using a variety of wrappers and unregulated and untaxed tobacco, accounts for pretty much half of all tobacco consumed in the kingdom, as anyone that lives in the countryside will have no problem believing. So the legislation only affects around half of all smokers in Thailand anyway.

Finally, on a personal note, I am not a smoker, I don't work for a tobacco company, I don't endorse smoking and I believe that people are better off without tobacco in their lives. However, I do believe in informed choice, and the anti-smoking lobby is employing bad science, belligerent strong-arm tactics and outright lies to impose their views on legislators and citizens around the world, ultimately preventing smokers from accessing accurate and truthful information and restricting access to potentially less harmful products while, presumably unintentionally, boosting sales of illicit products supplied by criminal syndicates. I accept that cigarette companies have in the past used the same misleading tactics to promote their interests as the anti-smoking lobby is doing today. The pendulum has now swung the other way!

In Thailand and elsewhere around the region, foreign-funded anti-smoking activists lobby governments with impunity, often in defiance of constitutional mandates aimed at preventing foreign influence on legislators, and they aim to deny citizens the right to enjoy unfettered access to all sides of the story and to make informed decisions and access legitimate products that could be less harmful to them. How is this possibly in any way a good thing?

Reality check: the anti-smoking efforts of countries in the west and in the east by and large don't work and never will. The data has been coming for years and the evidence is compelling - not that most of us ever get to see it as this information is not widely disseminated in the mainstream media thanks to pressure by the anti-smoking bloc, which is financed in large part by Bill Gates, Mayor Bloomberg of New York and the pharmaceutical companies, who are eager to cash in on their nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) - which by the way have a success rate of around 35% over a 6-month period - meaning 65% of NRT users revert to smoking cigarettes within 6 months. Anything vaguely pro-tobacco, even a response from a tobacco company to a blatant lie, is either ignored or twisted to suit the anti-smoking agenda in the mainstream media.

Some key points, all of which have been scientifically documented - try looking these up on Google and sift through the anti-smoking rhetoric to find the actual research done by scientists and researchers:

1 Graphic health warnings (GHW) will typically cause a dip in sales when introduced, but smokers quickly get used to them and the effect diminishes rapidly. Sales return to the normal levels within months. The only long term effect these have is to deface the packaging of the brand owner's products.

2 Raising taxes is touted as a sure-fire way to increase revenues and wean smokers off the weed. In fact, it encourages many smokers to downtrade to cheaper brands, and more to switch to illicit, tax unpaid and even counterfeit products. Some governments claim that the incidence of smoking declines after tax hikes, but in fact, these figures are based on sales of licit (tax paid) cigarettes, not smuggled (illicit) and counterfeit (fake and smuggled) brands. In the UK, for example, tax unpaid and counterfeit cigarette consumption is thought to be between 10% and 35%, based on studies of discarded cigarette wrappers at football stadiums and so on. Closer to home, in Malaysia, the illicit market accounts for around 30% of all sales - these are government statistics. In reality, government revenues typically fall when taxes are raised radically, in some recorded cases, by as much as 50% (don't take my word for it, look it up!). So the only people that really benefit from tax hikes are counterfeiters and smuggling syndicates.

3 Hiding product (display bans, as in Thailand). This encourages counterfeit goods, as consumers can't see the product they are buying, and in conjunction with advertising bans pretty much prevents the introduction of any new products, thereby cementing existing brand shares and creating a situation that is unfair to manufacturers seeking to introduce new brands and to consumers who may be interested to try them. So much for fair trade.

4 Banning non-conventional tobacco products such as e-cigarettes and snus (chewing tobacco that comes in a tiny tea bag) prevents tobacco users from accessing potentially much safer alternatives (again, the data is very clear on this: in Sweden, for example, where snus has been around for over 30 years, incidences of smoking-related illnesses, other than oral cancer, among snus users are no higher than in non-tobacco users). The justification for these bans is that these are products with nicotine in them and therefore "bad". Here's the part you probably didn't know, because the anti-smoking lobby doesn't want you to know: nicotine is NOT carcinogenic (elements of tobacco ARE, particularly when pyrolized, or burned, at the tip of a cigarette at between 800 to 1,200 degrees C, together with the flavorings and additives used in the manufacturing process). Nicotine is actually quite good for you in the doses a smoker absorbs: it boosts mental awareness, induces a feeling of well-being and aids in concentration, and it is safer than caffeine and has fewer side-effects. Nicotine is NOT proven to be physically addictive, like heroin or morphine or opium. It is mentally addicting, which is a different thing. That means, people smoke because they like to smoke, not because they HAVE to smoke, as a drug addict HAS to have a fix. Actually, this is something that is often referred to as the Human Condition: people consume things and do things that may not necessarily be safe or risk-free because they ENJOY them. Drinking alcohol, colas and eating candies and cookies and hamburgers are not healthy activities, but we enjoy them. Should they be banned? Of course not! Do we have the right to be truthfully and fully informed of the possible consequence of consuming these products? Of course! In short, banning potentially safer alternatives to smoking actually restricts smokers from accessing potentially safer products, and restricting pertinent information and outright lying to the public to justify these bans and to promote other ineffective anti-tobacco strategies is unforgiveable. How is this helping the health of the population?

5 To bring it all home, in Thailand around half of all tobacco consumed in the country is tax unpaid and unregulated. Roll your own, using a variety of wrappers and unregulated and untaxed tobacco, accounts for pretty much half of all tobacco consumed in the kingdom, as anyone that lives in the countryside will have no problem believing. So the legislation only affects around half of all smokers in Thailand anyway.

Finally, on a personal note, I am not a smoker, I don't work for a tobacco company, I don't endorse smoking and I believe that people are better off without tobacco in their lives. However, I do believe in informed choice, and the anti-smoking lobby is employing bad science, belligerent strong-arm tactics and outright lies to impose their views on legislators and citizens around the world, ultimately preventing smokers from accessing accurate and truthful information and restricting access to potentially less harmful products while, presumably unintentionally, boosting sales of illicit products supplied by criminal syndicates. I accept that cigarette companies have in the past used the same misleading tactics to promote their interests as the anti-smoking lobby is doing today. The pendulum has now swung the other way!

In Thailand and elsewhere around the region, foreign-funded anti-smoking activists lobby governments with impunity, often in defiance of constitutional mandates aimed at preventing foreign influence on legislators, and they aim to deny citizens the right to enjoy unfettered access to all sides of the story and to make informed decisions and access legitimate products that could be less harmful to them. How is this possibly in any way a good thing?

Great post but I fear you're flogging a dead horse! There's no room for the truth in this twisted world we live in.

[simple1]

Raising cigarette taxes savagely would work, but to the detriment of re-election chances.

If you have never seen it, I recommend the "Yes, Prime Minister' episode "The Smoke Screen" - when faced with losing the revenue from cigarette taxes which far exceeds the medical costs, Sir Humphrey comes out with "Think of it as smokers are dying for their country" or words to that effect.

Total cost to Australia of A$31 billion a year for tobacco related issues in 2008; refer http://www.ashaust.org.au/lv4/MediaBgrounder.htm

Are you suggesting the Australian government receives more tabacco related tax revenue than overall cost to the economy? By way of example, revenue from excise and customs duty and GST on the sale of tobacco products in Australia exceeded $6.5 billion in 2005–06

[Reasonableman]

Raising cigarette taxes savagely would work, but to the detriment of re-election chances.

If you have never seen it, I recommend the "Yes, Prime Minister' episode "The Smoke Screen" - when faced with losing the revenue from cigarette taxes which far exceeds the medical costs, Sir Humphrey comes out with "Think of it as smokers are dying for their country" or words to that effect.

Total cost to Australia of A$31 billion a year for tobacco related issues in 2008; refer http://www.ashaust.org.au/lv4/MediaBgrounder.htm

Are you suggesting the Australian government receives more tabacco related tax revenue than overall cost to the economy? By way of example, revenue from excise and customs duty and GST on the sale of tobacco products in Australia exceeded $6.5 billion in 2005–06

So, apart from the human deaths, pain, and suffering related to tobacco use, there was a net loss of over $20 billion to the economy in that period? That would mean all taxpayers are subsidising a minority's costly and destructive activity, would it not?

Edited May 31, 2012 by Reasonableman

[simple1]

Raising cigarette taxes savagely would work, but to the detriment of re-election chances.

If you have never seen it, I recommend the "Yes, Prime Minister' episode "The Smoke Screen" - when faced with losing the revenue from cigarette taxes which far exceeds the medical costs, Sir Humphrey comes out with "Think of it as smokers are dying for their country" or words to that effect.

Total cost to Australia of A$31 billion a year for tobacco related issues in 2008; refer http://www.ashaust.o...iaBgrounder.htm

Are you suggesting the Australian government receives more tabacco related tax revenue than overall cost to the economy? By way of example, revenue from excise and customs duty and GST on the sale of tobacco products in Australia exceeded $6.5 billion in 2005–06

So, apart from the human deaths, pain, and suffering related to tobacco use, there was a net loss of over $20 billion to the economy in that period? That would mean all taxpayers are subsidising a minority's costly and destructive activity, would it not?

Yes

[webfact]

related topic:

Thai Public Health Ministry plans strict measures against smoking

Full story:

[somtumlion]

Smoke all you want - away from me. If you blow smoke near me your gonna be wishin' you didn't.

[Reasonableman]

Raising cigarette taxes savagely would work, but to the detriment of re-election chances.

If you have never seen it, I recommend the "Yes, Prime Minister' episode "The Smoke Screen" - when faced with losing the revenue from cigarette taxes which far exceeds the medical costs, Sir Humphrey comes out with "Think of it as smokers are dying for their country" or words to that effect.

Total cost to Australia of A$31 billion a year for tobacco related issues in 2008; refer http://www.ashaust.o...iaBgrounder.htm

Are you suggesting the Australian government receives more tabacco related tax revenue than overall cost to the economy? By way of example, revenue from excise and customs duty and GST on the sale of tobacco products in Australia exceeded $6.5 billion in 2005–06

So, apart from the human deaths, pain, and suffering related to tobacco use, there was a net loss of over $20 billion to the economy in that period? That would mean all taxpayers are subsidising a minority's costly and destructive activity, would it not?

Yes

So, others have to pay for smokers' so-called "freedom to choose". One might wonder whether non-smoking taxpayers were ever asked if they were happy to do that? Perhaps this $20 + billion should be recouped from the tobacco industry and/or smokers who exercise their freedom to choose.

[Keesters]

Gave up smoking tobacco two years ago. Since then I've found other, far more interesting, stuff to smoke and keep my lips busy.

[tonytigerbkk]

Yes the taxpayers would be subsidising a minority's costly and destructive activity, if this were in any way related to the truth.

However I doubt the statistics that are being offered.

In fact on the website of Cancer Council Australia (Google is your friend) it is stated “Cancer costs more than $3.8 billion in direct health system costs”, which is well under the A$31 billion being quoted.

Australia's population in 2008 was 21,960,000 with around 19% pf the population being smokers.

So the estimated number of smokers in Australia in 2008 was 4,172,400 (19% of 21,960,000 is 4,172,400)

A$31 billion divided between the 4,172,400 smokers means that each smoker costs Australia A$ 7,429 (229,394 Baht per smoker per year).

Given that a huge percentage of these smokers would not have been treated for smoking related illnesses during 2008, and that second hand smoke related illnesses would be very hard to prove, it appears that the statistics have been manipulated to show all cancer related illnesses/deaths.

Lumped in there would be non smoking related cancers including cancers caused through age, pollution, work place hazards, alcohol (liver cancer), growing older, family history of cancer, skin cancers from sun exposure (over 440,000 Australians are treated for skin cancer each year), etc.

The statistics which are being offered look a lot like one would expect from an anti smoking group with their own agenda.

[toybits]

Major tobacco companies will do everything to protect its market share. Smoking is even worse that opium addiction - because it affects a lot more people that opium or heroin ever did. Smoking kills more people than illegal drugs. And yet - smoking is LEGAL. Now is that is not ridiculous?

Public opinion regarding tobacco smoking should change. The more people speak negatively about smoking the more pressure Tobacco companies and governments will feel. Hopefully the non-smoking sector will increase so that it has more power to twist the arms of governments and multinational tobacco companies.

[edgarfriendly]

Raising cigarette taxes savagely would work, but to the detriment of re-election chances.

If you have never seen it, I recommend the "Yes, Prime Minister' episode "The Smoke Screen" - when faced with losing the revenue from cigarette taxes which far exceeds the medical costs, Sir Humphrey comes out with "Think of it as smokers are dying for their country" or words to that effect.

Total cost to Australia of A$31 billion a year for tobacco related issues in 2008; refer http://www.ashaust.o...iaBgrounder.htm

Are you suggesting the Australian government receives more tabacco related tax revenue than overall cost to the economy? By way of example, revenue from excise and customs duty and GST on the sale of tobacco products in Australia exceeded $6.5 billion in 2005–06

So, apart from the human deaths, pain, and suffering related to tobacco use, there was a net loss of over $20 billion to the economy in that period? That would mean all taxpayers are subsidising a minority's costly and destructive activity, would it not?

but we're fools and psychos to point it out.

as far as im concerned you can all smoke as much as you want filterless even better. just not around people who would prefer not to add the 'insignificant' risk along with the rest of the filth in the air.

and poo-pooing people who complain about your poison doesnt make it any more appealing.

only other suicide pact members will pat you on the back.

please, die quicker. u stink.

and as for 'going outside for a smoke'. do you really think we dont suffer the stench when you come back in REEKING of carcinogens?

how many people ive met in teaching positions who 'have a quick smoke' in between classes makes me puke!

yet theyre oblivious, and after their 'quick drink' after work they obnoxious, and tedious and quite vulgar.

carry on

[Kilgore Trout]

Raising cigarette taxes savagely would work, but to the detriment of re-election chances.

If you have never seen it, I recommend the "Yes, Prime Minister' episode "The Smoke Screen" - when faced with losing the revenue from cigarette taxes which far exceeds the medical costs, Sir Humphrey comes out with "Think of it as smokers are dying for their country" or words to that effect.

Total cost to Australia of A$31 billion a year for tobacco related issues in 2008; refer http://www.ashaust.o...iaBgrounder.htm

Are you suggesting the Australian government receives more tabacco related tax revenue than overall cost to the economy? By way of example, revenue from excise and customs duty and GST on the sale of tobacco products in Australia exceeded $6.5 billion in 2005–06

So, apart from the human deaths, pain, and suffering related to tobacco use, there was a net loss of over $20 billion to the economy in that period? That would mean all taxpayers are subsidising a minority's costly and destructive activity, would it not?

but we're fools and psychos to point it out.

as far as im concerned you can all smoke as much as you want filterless even better. just not around people who would prefer not to add the 'insignificant' risk along with the rest of the filth in the air.

and poo-pooing people who complain about your poison doesnt make it any more appealing.

only other suicide pact members will pat you on the back.

please, die quicker. u stink.

and as for 'going outside for a smoke'. do you really think we dont suffer the stench when you come back in REEKING of carcinogens?

how many people ive met in teaching positions who 'have a quick smoke' in between classes makes me puke!

yet theyre oblivious, and after their 'quick drink' after work they obnoxious, and tedious and quite vulgar.

carry on

Perhaps you would have enjoyed living under the third reich, they seem to share your affinity for fascism.

[Reasonableman]

Research and studies on tobacco's effects on the population's health were more advanced in Germany than in any other nation by the time the Nazis came to power. The link between lung cancer and tobacco was first proven in Nazi Germany, contrary to the popular belief that American and British scientists first discovered it in the 1950s. The term "passive smoking" ("Passivrauchen") was coined in Nazi Germany. Research projects funded by the Nazis revealed many disastrous effects of smoking on health. Nazi Germany supported epidemiological research on the harmful effects of tobacco use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany

Yes, for some of their excellent groundbreaking scientific work, we should indeed be grateful, thanks for pointing that out

[sirchai]

Is it true that they had to stop SMOKING?

[fasteddie]

Smoke all you want - away from me. If you blow smoke near me your gonna be wishin' you didn't.

Is that a fact? ooh I'm trembling in my flip flops!

[fasteddie]

Research and studies on tobacco's effects on the population's health were more advanced in Germany than in any other nation by the time the Nazis came to power. The link between lung cancer and tobacco was first proven in Nazi Germany, contrary to the popular belief that American and British scientists first discovered it in the 1950s. The term "passive smoking" ("Passivrauchen") was coined in Nazi Germany. Research projects funded by the Nazis revealed many disastrous effects of smoking on health. Nazi Germany supported epidemiological research on the harmful effects of tobacco use.

http://en.wikipedia....in_Nazi_Germany

Yes, for some of their excellent groundbreaking scientific work, we should indeed be grateful, thanks for pointing that out

Not the nazis or yanks but Sir Richard Doll.

[fasteddie]

Raising cigarette taxes savagely would work, but to the detriment of re-election chances.

If you have never seen it, I recommend the "Yes, Prime Minister' episode "The Smoke Screen" - when faced with losing the revenue from cigarette taxes which far exceeds the medical costs, Sir Humphrey comes out with "Think of it as smokers are dying for their country" or words to that effect.

Total cost to Australia of A$31 billion a year for tobacco related issues in 2008; refer http://www.ashaust.o...iaBgrounder.htm

Are you suggesting the Australian government receives more tabacco related tax revenue than overall cost to the economy? By way of example, revenue from excise and customs duty and GST on the sale of tobacco products in Australia exceeded $6.5 billion in 2005–06

So, apart from the human deaths, pain, and suffering related to tobacco use, there was a net loss of over $20 billion to the economy in that period? That would mean all taxpayers are subsidising a minority's costly and destructive activity, would it not?

but we're fools and psychos to point it out.

as far as im concerned you can all smoke as much as you want filterless even better. just not around people who would prefer not to add the 'insignificant' risk along with the rest of the filth in the air.

and poo-pooing people who complain about your poison doesnt make it any more appealing.

only other suicide pact members will pat you on the back.

please, die quicker. u stink.

and as for 'going outside for a smoke'. do you really think we dont suffer the stench when you come back in REEKING of carcinogens?

how many people ive met in teaching positions who 'have a quick smoke' in between classes makes me puke!

yet theyre oblivious, and after their 'quick drink' after work they obnoxious, and tedious and quite vulgar.

carry on

get a life!

[Reasonableman]

Research and studies on tobacco's effects on the population's health were more advanced in Germany than in any other nation by the time the Nazis came to power. The link between lung cancer and tobacco was first proven in Nazi Germany, contrary to the popular belief that American and British scientists first discovered it in the 1950s. The term "passive smoking" ("Passivrauchen") was coined in Nazi Germany. Research projects funded by the Nazis revealed many disastrous effects of smoking on health. Nazi Germany supported epidemiological research on the harmful effects of tobacco use.

http://en.wikipedia....in_Nazi_Germany

Yes, for some of their excellent groundbreaking scientific work, we should indeed be grateful, thanks for pointing that out

Not the nazis or yanks but Sir Richard Doll.

Not quite so fast fasteddie! Sir William Richard Shaboe Doll CH OBE FRS (28 October 1912 – 24 July 2005)[1] was a British physiologist who became the foremost epidemiologist of the 20th century, turning the subject into a rigorous science. He was a pioneer in research linking smoking to health problems. With Ernst Wynder, Bradford Hill and Evarts Graham, he was credited with being the first to prove that smoking caused lung cancer and increased the risk of heart disease. German researchers had previously discovered this link in the 1930s, but that work was not widely known until recently.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Reasonableman

[gand]

I like the scene about 8:15 in and he says keep the pack of cigarettes, I just quit.

movie 'Dead Again' (1991)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjx8Dzj2q30&feature=relmfu

[simple1]

Yes the taxpayers would be subsidising a minority's costly and destructive activity, if this were in any way related to the truth.

However I doubt the statistics that are being offered.

In fact on the website of Cancer Council Australia (Google is your friend) it is stated “Cancer costs more than $3.8 billion in direct health system costs”, which is well under the A$31 billion being quoted.

Australia's population in 2008 was 21,960,000 with around 19% pf the population being smokers.

So the estimated number of smokers in Australia in 2008 was 4,172,400 (19% of 21,960,000 is 4,172,400)

A$31 billion divided between the 4,172,400 smokers means that each smoker costs Australia A$ 7,429 (229,394 Baht per smoker per year).

Given that a huge percentage of these smokers would not have been treated for smoking related illnesses during 2008, and that second hand smoke related illnesses would be very hard to prove, it appears that the statistics have been manipulated to show all cancer related illnesses/deaths.

Lumped in there would be non smoking related cancers including cancers caused through age, pollution, work place hazards, alcohol (liver cancer), growing older, family history of cancer, skin cancers from sun exposure (over 440,000 Australians are treated for skin cancer each year), etc.

The statistics which are being offered look a lot like one would expect from an anti smoking group with their own agenda.

Please read the report provided in my post by way of URL. The $31 billion talks to the total economic cost, not just $3.8 billion in direct health system costs