I detest smoking. The pervasive smell of cigarette smoke, the haze that lingers in your face and the associated choking that occurs when you inhale smoke are experiences that I attempt to keep to a minimum (excepting that I have a good friend who can, on some nights, resemble the Hogwarts express steam strain).
Last night the government passed, under urgency, a bill that will increase the excise levy on cigarettes in a bid to combat the level of smoking related deaths and illnesses. The increases will occur in three 10% increments that will result in cigarettes costing around $17 a pack by January 2012. Loose tobacco or rollies were also hit with an increase of 24%. Tariana Turia claims that the increase in excise tax, particularly for the rollies, was an attempt by the government to address the smoking issue amongst the young, impoverished and Pacific Island & Maori communities (who make up a significant proportion of rollie consumers).
My problems with passing this bill through urgency are not only that I think smokers are being pretty unfairly treated but also that I doubt that this is likely to reduce the number of smokers, particularly within the groups that the government is supposedly targeting. I was under the assumption that it has now become pretty widely accepted that smoking is an addiction, like gambling or alcoholism (I can't say the same re. sex addiction, Tiger...). It generally follows that in circumstances of addiction things like the cost became fairly irrelevant to a said adictee. Even without being addicted to something, the effectiveness of increasing a cost on a 'harmful' consumer good is dubious anyway. People who are addicted aren't likely to quit the habit entirely, some may reduce the number of cigarettes they smoke, however, by and large people will simply sacrifice other goods or services in order to sustain the addiction. I understand that changing the price of smokes may act as a deterrent to some new and younger smokers, however for those who are already addicted things are unlikely to change.
Having a Mum involved in social work, makes you aware of the wider social consequences of these decisions and in her experience the targets of such policy are rarely met. In the past, policy that has economically targeted such societal groups has resulted in money that is intended for food, health care and educational needs being instead filtered to cover the increasing cost of alcohol, tobacco etc. The victims then become the most vulnerable members of these groups- children, and arguably their parents (the targets) do not suffer the consequences of such strategies.
I am no expert in policy making, and it isn't that I think the government goes about making decisions on nationwide policy rashly. I do think however, that social attitudes need to be addressed before any real in-roads into such issues can be made. If the government is going to insist on targeting 'harmful' consumer products economically at the very least, do so consistently. I'm yet to see fast food to increase to astronomical prices in a bid to combat obesity...
To quote a smoker friend:
"I smoke, yeah, but I pay taxes like everyone else for the health care needs that my smoking may or may not cause in the future. I'm not obese, unemployed or illegally claiming the sickness benefit. I don't go around bashing my wife up, leaving my kids outside strip clubs or damaging public property and annoying the police. I think in the grand scheme of things, smokers aren't the worst people in the world"
Sorry if i was a bit serious this post... I'm sure my whimsical self will be back next time!
x
No comments:
Post a Comment