Paula Risikko needs a vacation
Wow, Minister of Socialist Health and Services, Paula Risikko (Kokoomus), has been a busy girl since she started in office! She wants to raise the alcohol tax…
Health and Social Services Minister Paula Risikko wants to see an increase in alcohol taxes from the beginning of next year.
And now she wants the use of images (like the one to your right) on cigarette packages…
Mandatory pictures indicating the dangers of smoking are to be included on cigarette packages in Finland. The newspaper Kaleva writes that Social Services Minister Paula Risikko will sign a statute ordering the use of the images in the autumn.
And raise taxes on cigarettes…
Minister of Social Services Paula Risikko wants a ten per cent increase in the tax on tobacco products from the beginning of next year.
Please woman, take a vacation!! Aren’t you supposed to be from the tax-slashing conservative Kokoomus party!? I want the Social Democrats back!!
Really a 10 percent increase in tax and pictures on the package isn’t going to decrease smoking, it’s just a tax grab. If she was serious about decreasing smoking a pack would run 8-10 euro, that might begin to curb some smokers. Cigarette’s can run as high as 10 to 14 dollars in countries such as Canada which have much lower smoking rates, big taxes will reduce consumption,30-50 cents a pack isn’t going to do it, it will just provide the government more money.
No different than the fuel tax, 3-6 cents a litre isn’t taking someone out of their car, it’s just increasing the cost of transport which increases the cost of goods and makes us tax payers poorer, receiving less services for more money.
Comment by mumboman — Wed, Aug 22nd, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
She’s just making the poorer even poorer. Like she gives a damn, Finland’s poor don’t vote for Kokoomus anyways.
Comment by Phil — Wed, Aug 22nd, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
Pictures of what? Corpses or something? Stooping to the level of putting pictures as warnings on cigarette boxes is insulting. It’s as if the populace is too stupid to comprehend text like “Smoking will fucking kill you.”
People still smoke because that’s what they want to do and it’s their choice. Just like it was my choice to quit. I didn’t need pictures to quit and no one else does, either.
Comment by gopha — Wed, Aug 22nd, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
Exactly! This is nothing more than to grab money from poor people.
It also highlights the problem with having a ‘public’ health system: The government can use any such public health excuse as a way to grab money.
“People, it’s for your own good.”
Give me a break :-/
Comment by Kristian — Wed, Aug 22nd, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Next they’ll be putting pictures of crying babies on condoms and pictures of dead fetuses on abortion machines.
Hey what’s the plural of dead fetuses? Is it feti? kinda like cactus becomes cacti?
Comment by Phil — Wed, Aug 22nd, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
First the smoke ban in bars and now this. Some people just dont understand it that some of us actually enjoy smoking. Sometimes I seriously consider of opening my own “hunting club” for smokers.
Comment by Jaakko — Wed, Aug 22nd, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
This could have been a good blog until I come to this portion…
“Hey what’s the plural of dead fetuses? Is it feti? kinda like cactus becomes cacti?“
WTF!!!As a native English speaker, you don’t need to be so awkward with the use of language, but you are! Tasteless, deranged, imbecile..if you were cracking this joke in a roomful of people…you would be met with dead silence!
You espoused individuality, equality, and tolerance…do you think all readers are chainsmoking atheist drunkards (and I don’t mean all are related to each other!). Practice what you preach, man, and have some respect for social minorities.
Comment by Nonsense — Wed, Aug 22nd, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
These are so-called Pigovian taxes, which are supported by lots of fine libertarian economists such as Greg Mankiw from Harvard.
One commenter above said that pictures on cigarette packets won’t help. Well, the Canadians have had them for many years and the research shows that they do.
Comment by Finnsense — Wed, Aug 22nd, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
Nonsense - I’m trying to prove a point about abortion (rather than make a joke). We pro-choice people take abortion very lightly, it should be easy, safe, cheap, a woman owns her own body etc… So I take the subject very lightly, nothing wrong with dead fetuses if you’re prochoice, right? They’re not actually human beings, so who cares? It’s kinda a test to see if prochoicers are REALLY prochoice, cause if you’re prochoice you shouldn’t be offended by such things.
Comment by Phil — Wed, Aug 22nd, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
One commenter above said that pictures on cigarette packets won’t help. Well, the Canadians have had them for many years and the research shows that they do.
They might work a tad, but is this really what we want to be forcing on people? Aren’t there other, more civil ways to educate people? What next, pictures of bottles of alcohol? Pictures on condoms? Forcing women to stare at photos of dead fetuses for an hour before they have an abortion? It seems so archaic.
Comment by Phil — Wed, Aug 22nd, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
TAX ON HOOCKERS !!!!
Comment by WIFE — Wed, Aug 22nd, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
The problem with the pictures on the packets of smokes is that it presumes that the smokers are dumb and smoke for their good health instead of possibly enjoying them for the fact that they do, in fact, kill you eventually. They should simply stop selling them…but of course nobody has the balls to stop pedding one of their greatest tax cash cows. Where would the welfare state be without booze, smokes and gambling income?
Comment by hfb — Wed, Aug 22nd, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
Pictures on cigarete packsin Finland? Damn, and I alwways thought Finland was at least 5 years behind Australia. Seems like it’s only 4 now……
Comment by Punter — Wed, Aug 22nd, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
hfb, COME BACK. WE NEED YOU HERE.
Comment by Punter — Wed, Aug 22nd, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
“Smoking may make you look cool”???? I suppose if you had a time machine it might… smoking is seriously uncool, period. Even most smokers have realized that now. Apart from those idiots who think everyone else enjoys inhaling their shit, that is.
I say raise the tax on tobacco products by 200% or so and make smoking in public illegal.
Comment by Ano Nymous — Wed, Aug 22nd, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
Smoking is a severe plague to mankind and costs society on the whole huge amounts of money. Not just in health care, but in other costs as well. Companies stand to lose substantial sums of money from lost productivity of workers not only for the time they spend at work partaking in their habit, but also in the greater amount of sick leave smokers must take from their poorer health. There’s also the adverse effect of second hand smoke on those who do not smoke. As a whole, society only stands to improve by eliminating smoking altogether. The only reason why we can’t is that the black market for cigarettes would become so problematic that it would be worse than the disease. Taxation has been shown to effectively curb smoking, and we’re all better off with fewer smokers, aside from the cigarette companies (oh won’t somebody please think of the cigarette manufacturers…).
Poor people getting poorer? Here’s a suggestion, do everything you can to quit and start immediately. Don’t stop at any point. You’d be surprised just how much money you end up saving. Quitting won’t kill you, no matter how difficult you may feel it to kick the habit.
The advertising on the package does seem a little silly, but if it is shown to have a positive effect, then why not be all for it?
Phil, your analogy with abortions and condoms is completely moronic. Can you demonstrate how abortions and condoms are bad for public health in the same way smoking is?
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Aug 22nd, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
Can you demonstrate how abortions and condoms are bad for public health in the same way smoking is?
I’m sure many would argue that - If people simply refrained from having sex, like they should refrain from smoking, we wouldn’t have so many costly abortions, an unwanted children which surely costs society a LOT of money.
Comment by Phil — Thu, Aug 23rd, 2007 @ 12:17 am
There’s a marked difference between sex and smoking in that one actually has a useful role to society.
Furthermore, the costs of smoking are huge in comparison to the total costs of abortion.
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Aug 23rd, 2007 @ 12:26 am
I should also add that we’re biologically programmed for sex, smoking is certainly not hardwired into us. If someone never encounters cigarettes during their entire life, they will have an urge to take up such a habit.
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Aug 23rd, 2007 @ 12:28 am
By the way, this is taken from a packet of 25 Sultan Conture condoms and appears in English (along with Swedish and Finnish):
Use of condom cannot guarantee 100% protection against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases.
Granted, it’s small font, but you must factor in that condom usage really isn’t causing damage to anyone’s health. Honestly, the equating of smoking and sex is completely moronic. We often hear about a how a healthy sex life is crucial in relationships and marriage. Do you ever hear the same about smoking?
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Aug 23rd, 2007 @ 12:35 am
Phil, I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood. Kokoomus is basically an ultra conservative party which only demands tax cuts when in opposition.
Now that they’re in power, of course they want to raise many kinds of taxes, because it means more control for the public sector and politicians of our lives.
However, it’s amazing how many Kokoomus fan boys aren’t demanding tax cuts anymore now that social democrats are in the opposition.
If Kokoomus continues its current politics, their time in government won’t last for long, I predict.
Comment by espoolainen — Thu, Aug 23rd, 2007 @ 1:48 am
Why the hangups with smoking? Come on, get off my back. I choose to smoke and ENJOY it. Now in this country, if I was a drinker rather than a smoker, I would be able to gain all kinds of benefits and advantages. I would be diagnosed as “sick” and my smoking in places unpermitted (just like drunks do today) would de acceptable. I would have sympathy and enjoy the benefits of my habbit.
Unfortunately taxation doesn’t affect smoking numbers, rather education and regulation does. Tryth be known, if smokers were such a net loss for government then why isn’t it banned? The reason is simply because the money involved for The State is so huge that they would find it difficult to live without it and even morre difficult to find the revenue (and explain it) from elsewhere. Haven’t you noticed that as smoking numbers go down in society (through education and regulation) taxes on smokers go up? Rocket science.
Now, get off my back as I’ve missed my 10am cigarette and I’m getting pissed. Back soon.
Comment by Punter — Thu, Aug 23rd, 2007 @ 10:14 am
This is unfortunately where I lay my head in shame for being finnish.
Not so much these insane people suggest and do these things, but because we as a people let them.
Apparently these people have never heard of “EU” or “Estonia”, and therefore think these measures will have some sort of long-term effect in anything.
Of course there is the completely valid point that when ultimately the alcoholics and lung cancer patients fall on the goverment they should also have control over the causes of these things.
However in these new circumstances this kind of policy simply doesn’t work, and I’m amazed they can’t see it.
And yes there are tax cuts and then there are tax cuts. Kokoomus is about making semi-rich and rich people richer and fucking over the rest.
Comment by philtard — Thu, Aug 23rd, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
Phil, I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood. Kokoomus is basically an ultra conservative party which only demands tax cuts when in opposition.
Doesn’t surprise me, the Republican Party in the states do the exact same shit.
Comment by Phil — Thu, Aug 23rd, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Phil, I think this is the case of putting your foot in your mouth…
“I’m sure many would argue that - If people simply refrained from having sex, like they should refrain from smoking, we wouldn’t have so many costly abortions, an unwanted children which surely costs society a LOT of money“
I doubt if even the hardest atheists would argue that refraining from having sex would result to less abortions. Finland holds the
title of “CASUAL sex capital“ of the world…the way Finnish men and women behave shamelessly in Helsinki bars, copulating like rabbits with no regard for health issues among others is a greater cause for concern.
The cost of abortions in this country must be synonymous with vitro fertilization or artificial insemination performed by some women who may have become infertile because they have had to take artificial contraceptives in their early teens! For some, when the time comes to hear the biological clock ticking, it is time to resort to expensive, complicated measures like buying frozen sperms of some unknown strangers…
Ladies and gentlemen, get a grip on yourself…the KEY is QUALITY not QUANTITY…of sex partners. To be clear….there are no UNWANTED children in this country…there are hardly any children…people just want to fornicate without considering biological consequences!
To be sure, children does not cost Finnish society a LOT of money and the youth are certainly the backbone of ANY society. Alcoholic rehabilitation programs, public health care to treat sexual diseases, mental disorders, depression, infertility, among others DO cost any society a LOT of money!
Comment by Nonsense — Thu, Aug 23rd, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
@Nonsense
Could you please give a reference to this infertility cause by contraceptives? By websearch I found a few sites giving vague estimates about how long it takes for fertility to return but no talk about infertility.
Comment by Jarkko — Thu, Aug 23rd, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
#25 “Casual sex capital of the world”????
Hyvä Suomi. There we are, another thing we’re number 1 at. Wait for it in tomorrows Hesari.
Comment by Punter — Thu, Aug 23rd, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
hfb; probably in much better shape than it is with them.
If this ( http://www.a-klinikka.fi/tiimi/arkisto/205/kirja_tupakka.html ) source is credible (I wouldn’t know, but at least the state income figure is close enough to the one in HS’ article), the state gets about 600 to 700 million euros income from taxation of tobacco.
But.
The costs are estimated to be from 1.5 billion to 2 billion every year. Article doesn’t specify who ends up paying for this, but Finland being a welfare society - as Phil likes to point out “occasionally” - I’d guess that most of them end up being paid by the state itself.
If the figures are correct, it doesn’t really suggest that tobacco would be much of a cash cow at all. Except maybe a cow that takes your cash and runs away with it.
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Aug 23rd, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
@22
There are vast quantities of stupid people out there. Education only works for people with working brains. The sad fact of the matter is that there are a number of people who are going to continue smoking without paying attention to the massive amounts of data which show that it has a serious negative impact. The sad fact is that many others are going to be exposed to second hand smoke from these stupid people which will have a negative effect on some of them. The sad fact is that there will be a number of idiot teenages who pick up the habit from their parents or other close relatives/friends.
Taxation is effective against smoking.
Read:
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0146.pdf
For those of you who can’t bother clicking the link, the document contains quotes from internal memos of tobacco companies stating the effects taxation have on their sales volume.
Comment by The Jester — Thu, Aug 23rd, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
Jester get off your high horse and chill. I hate this moral crap coming from the mouths of people like you. How dare you call smokers, people like me, stupid simply because we “CHOOSE” to smoke? I am sure in your wonderful little (narrow) world there are things you do that risk your health daily. At the same time these actions risk the health of those around you. Whether it is your diet or the way you drive, hobbies I might find unsuitable for me etc. I still think it is a bit much to claim smokers are stupid. I’m sure there are and have been numerous smokers that fall under the genius category.
Jester??? Has a more suitable tag ever been used???
Comment by Punter — Fri, Aug 24th, 2007 @ 6:25 am
Is it possible people read this blog crap at 6am in the morning and even ant workers like me read it during office hours?! I think I have to start my own blog and compete with Phil’s Google ads income…at least I can set the topics and themes, so all you crybabies and moral perverts are welcome!
Comment by Ahhmmm — Fri, Aug 24th, 2007 @ 11:06 am
Punter, hate to break it to you, but your choice to take up smoking is stupid. Though it has been an informal observation of mine that better educated people are far less likely to smoke, there are well educated people out there that do smoke. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s a moronic decision to take up smoking due the fact that it does carry many very well documented and advertised health risks. It’s like purposely choosing to engage in reckless driving, you risk yourself and those around you for no good reason.
And no, I can’t see how my diet is a risk to anybody as I always eat healthy, none of my hobbies carry any notable risks and I use public transportation. But even if any of these things were true, I fail to see how that magically makes smoking not a stupid habit. Shouting that someone else does something dumb doesn’t raise your intellect.
Any chance that you have an arguments based on logic and reason to back yourself up with rather than just rely on ad hominems?
Comment by The Jester — Fri, Aug 24th, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
Yeah also Katainen doesn’t remember anything now… let’s raise the diesel and gas tax!
Porvari pettää aina.
Comment by lahdc — Fri, Aug 24th, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Jester, I am sure if I was able to watch your daily/weekly habits that I too would find something you do that is dangerous to yourself and others. As for me smoking, well I combine that with 4 gym sessions, 40-60 kms (off season) running per week and sparring 3 times a week along with a balanced almost non alcohol diet. My vice is smoking. So what. A sub 3 hour marathon is my target within the next 10 months.
I don’t claim to be a genius, I’m just sick of the anti smoking lobby and their non stop BS. As I’ve said before almost every other vice or socially unacceptable problem nowadays is put down to genes and called “an illness.” People gain support and sympathy and even help. The smokers? Nothing but a bad rap and BS.
Comment by Punter — Fri, Aug 24th, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
So Punter, you’re basically admitting that you have no actual argument right? While it’s good that you perform regular exercise that doesn’t change the fact that your smoking is still a dumb habit as it still increases your (and others) risks of various diseases. Nothing you’ve said so far has made any attempt to refute the fact that smoking is dangerous and therefore a bad habit. Nothing you’ve said so far has indicated in any way that there is some benefit to smoking. You’re crying foul that the anti-smoking lobby is full of BS and yet you’ve not provided one shred of evidence to support this notion. The facts are that smoking does have well documented harmful effects and that taxation is a proven method for reducing cigarette consumption.
Stating that others partake in dangerous activities (without even elaborating on what these might be) in no way absolves you of the fact that you do have a stupid habit. It’s like a thief defending his stealing by stating that there are other people who perform other crimes.
Comment by The Jester — Fri, Aug 24th, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
I certainly haven’t said it’s a smart habit nor have I stated that I disagree with the dangers of smoking. I just wish people would accept the fact some of us smoke and let us be. It’s a perfectly legal thing to do so get over it. There are plenty of other harmful pastimes that get less hassle than an innocent smoke. The anti smoking lobby are full of BS and in fact are borderline facists by not only preventing us from enjoying a legal substance but preventing us from opening places where we are able to smoke exclusively. Where non-smokers would be entering at their own risk and foregoing the right to complain or prosecute.
As for my risk of disease, I figure my lifestyle with the exception of smoking is above average in terms of health and exercise. The difference as I see it is how would people react to me walking into Hesburger and singling out the fat obese slobs stuffing their face with 3000 cal meals? What about going into a bar and discussing the health aspects of a 10 pint 10 shot night? Perhaps the health risks of extreme sports or the risks of tatooing and piercing?
My point is I accept the risks and really don’t need a group of do gooding lefties sticking their nose into my (legal) business. That, more so than smoking, can be a real health risk.
Comment by Punter — Fri, Aug 24th, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
Punter, you do realise that just because something is legal, doesn’t make it good? Just because you have a legal right to smoke doesn’t somehow magically change the fact that smoking is harmful for yourself and those around you. Ever notice the amount of litter smokers leave in public places? It’s really disgusting and you realise that shit costs money to clean up. What makes you so entitled to smoke when the negative consequences of it are so well established? Because you enjoy it? You may as well argue that anything is permissable regardless of the consequences basis that someone enjoys it.
So you’re left with arguing that because things like alcohol and junk food are permissable then smoking ought to be too. The sad thing is that both of these things are bad for society and measures should be taken to reduce their consumption. I would gladly support taxation of junk food just like I do for cigarettes. For extreme sports, tattoos and piercings, you’re going to have to put up some statistics to show that the costs incurred to society by these habits are more than just marginal before I buy your argument that they should also be discouraged. You should also show how they cause harm for others like how smoking does.
You do realise that under the system where clubs are allowed to have people smoke anywhere they wish does cause more people to be exposed to second hand smoke and therefore more people fall victim to smoking related diseases. These people end up in the health care system and someone needs to take care of them. This costs everyone money since we’re all playing taxes. Tell me, why do you have some urgent need to smoke anywhere you want? How is it suddenly so bad for you to follow what amounts to very simple restrictions on where you can smoke?
Your assertion that someone “sticking their nose into [your] (legal) business” is more of a health risk than smoking is beyond stupid. Do you really have any sort credible evidence to support that claim?
Comment by The Jester — Fri, Aug 24th, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
In fact I do. Sitting (forced) outside a cafe having a smoke with a group of friends and hearing a comment along the lines of “Now we have to smell their smoke walking in and out of the doorway” from a visitor. Seems there is no satisfying some people. The effect to their health is the risk of a second hand (foot) nasal injury caused by a pissed off and frustrated smoker trying to his most to adapt to these stupid rules and still being persecuted.
If it’s so bad, harmful to all and expensive to The State, BAN IT! Make it illegal and we’ll stop. What’s that? You can’t? Why? Because The State, and particularly a welfare state would miss the revenue it generates for them. That’s right, the benefits outweigh the costs for The State.
Comment by Punter — Sat, Aug 25th, 2007 @ 12:31 am
For your information, cigarette smoke smells disgusting. You’d complain too if I were to fart in your face. And I don’t see how your complaint about stupid rules measures up, considering it’s not that difficult to find a place to smoke. But like a typical smoker, you bitch and whine like a 3 year-old because following a couple simple rules is too difficult for you, and then cry foul when others make valid complaints.
Smokers, as you so aptly demonstrate, are a whiney mob. If somebody were to suggest banning it, you’d be up in arms over it. There’s too many smokers out there and it would never see enough public support any time in the near future. And even if it were to be banned, we’d just see something similar to the effects that the prohibition had on the US. So the cure would end up being worse than the disease under these circumstance. It would be great for public health if we could effectively ban it, but we need to be realistic. Ergo, whatever we can do to reduce the number of smokers and the number of people exposed to smoke is a good thing. Do you have any shred of evidence to support your assertion that states only allow smoking so they can generate lots of revenue from it?
Comment by The Jester — Sat, Aug 25th, 2007 @ 10:31 am
Let’s take one point at a time.
Not difficult to find a place to smoke? Try it sometime. Try to find a place to smoke where you can do so peacefully without having snearing looks and bitchy complaints from non smokers. Smokers were happy to sit in a dark corner of pubs and restaurants and puff away under fans just to keep the smoke away from others. Was that enough? NO. Now we are forced outside to do it and still the complaints flow. Hell they’re even discussing stopping us from smoking on our balcony. And you call us whiners???
SECONDLY THERE ARE “TOO MANY SMOKERS OUT THERE SO WOULDN’T BE ENOUGH PUBLIC SUPPORT” Are you serious? Do you actually think before you comment. Smokers are a MINORITY of the population and increasingly fewer people are smoking. If we followed a simple voting procedure and all you non smokers voted accordingly then we would be screwed. Worl wide, about a third of adults smoke. Now that to me means two thirds don’t so please don’t say that there are “too many smokers out there bemding public support.”
As for the revenue generated from smoking, consider approx 80% of the price per pack is tax for the state. Add to that the countless jobs created in manufacuring, distribution, advertising etc and tax collected and as an industry worldwide, yes the states do very well indeed from the sale of this awful product. The funniest thing is the tiny percentage thrown back into education and prevention of children taking up the habbit and even more the EU subsidizes the tobacco growing industry in Europe. First they tell us to stop, then tax us and make it almost impossible to enjoy their legal product. With their profits they don’t follow their own advice and educate nearly enough and on top of all this they SUBSIDIZE the growing of the very product they wish us to stop using. Dah……It’s not rocket science.
Comment by Punter — Sat, Aug 25th, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
What kind of delusional world do you live in Punter? Have you simply walked in the streets and noticed the grotesque amounts of cigarette butts lying on the ground. Especially at train stations in Helsinki, try looking at the platform and the train tracks. Heck, just walk to the platforms at Helsinki railway station and you’ll find plenty of smokers there. Now are you honestly going to tell me that it’s really so difficult to find a place to smoke. I really have to question what kind of world you live in when there is literally evidence scattered all over the ground proving you wrong on this one. Furthermore, in what pubs were smokers sitting in dark corners keeping smoke away from others? I’ve been out in pubs in Helsinki before the smoking ban was put in place, and every time I came home, I stank of cigarette smoke. It didn’t matter where you sat in a pub or club in Helsinki, the smokers where everywhere and the smoke permeated any place you went into. The fact is that you are a bunch of whiners simply because you have to take little bit more concern about where you smoke and you start proclaiming that the sky is falling. In no way have you made any sort of justification for your complaints, people who whine about you have every right. You stink! Quite literally. And you’d complain if somebody were continuously farting in your presence.
You do realise that just because someone doesn’t smoke, doesn’t mean that they’re going to vote for banning it completely. I’d love it if it were feasible to ban it completely, but because I have a couple brain cells to rub together, I’d definitely vote against any measure to ban smoking completely. Just because you’re a minority doesn’t mean there’s automatically enough support to ban what you do.
In the last section of your argument, you engage in an ad hominem against the government which really doesn’t address the simple fact that taxation is an effective method to stop smokers (link posted #29) and fewer smokers is better for everyone. Ergo, taxing cigarettes even further is better for everyone. Yes, there are governments that subsidise the tobacco industry which is stupid, I agree. But playing on these issues doesn’t change at all the core of argument that I’ve given from the beginning. With that in mind, I’d like to point out that the total health care cost per packet of cigarettes sold in the US is estimated to be $5.31. The average cost in lost productivity per packet is around $5.16. So that comes to $10.47 per packet sold in total costs to society for the US. Finland is bound to see similar figures.
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/state_data/data_highlights/2006/00_pdfs/DataHighlights06table4.pdf
You know that you have no answer for the argument against the fact that extra taxation of cigarettes is better for everyone. You’ve not made any attempt to refute this so you try to sidestep it and hope nobody notices. Whatever the motives involved behind extra taxation doesn’t change the fact that such a tax is still a benefit for eveyone.
Comment by The Jester — Sat, Aug 25th, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
As a continuation of my point about the lack of public support to ban smoking, I’d like to also point out that the tobacco industry spends huge amounts of money on politically lobbying to help protect their industry. So long as they have enough support from those in power, they’re not going to end up being eradicated any time soon.
Comment by The Jester — Sat, Aug 25th, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
You don’t see a thing you don’t want. Your points were wrong and your arguements weak. You switch and swap arguements from liter to health care all the while proclaiming increased tax. If you wish to tax everything bad known to mankind then lets start a list. Your public support arguement sucked so you try to wriggle out of it. You come on here all loud and strong against smokers then claim you wouldn’t vote to ban it. Just make us suffer a bit more? The train station for Gods sake? You’re the type that probably wishes us to stop smoking on our balcony. Are you? Tell me, where would you allow us to smoke, in the tiny fishbowl world you live in that is?
Comment by Punter — Sat, Aug 25th, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
Punter, your last post has made zero attempt to actually refute any point I’ve argued. Links have been posted showing that taxation is effective at reducing the number of smokers (as admitted by the tobacco industry itself) and the costs of smoking to society (from statistics gathered by the US CDC). Do you have any arguments at all to refute this evidence? Stupid hand-waving by proclaiming my points are wrong is not an actual argument.
I think I made it very clear that banning smoking completely would have an effect similar to what alcohol prohibition had on the US in my opinion. What the fuck is unclear about that?
Congratulations on proving that you are either blind or profoundly stupid. The groteque amounts of litter covering the ground show that people can and do smoke in many places without much problem. People rightfully complaining about your habits doesn’t prevent you from doing anything. Would I ban smoking on balconies? That would depend on whether you can provide any statistics to show that it has a negligible effect for neighbours. I’d have no problem if you owned a house away from others, but with apartment blocks, I’d rather err on the side of caution and reduce the amounts others are exposed to cigarette smoke.
Comment by The Jester — Sun, Aug 26th, 2007 @ 8:30 am
I guess the obvious arguement to refute your claim is “the alarming increase in youth smoking” along with “the increase in women smoking.” Although overall levels have declined, youth (next generation) and women have seen an increase in taking up the habit. Hey, perhaps you good get big government and the facist anti-smoking lobby to propose a higher tax on smokes if you’re female or young? Deep poo poo if you happen to be a young female though.
As for your wish to protect people from cigarette smoke, maybe you could look at the other sources of polution while your at it. The crap we’re exposed to day in day out is far worse than sitting close to me and my Malboros. But then again, it’s not as easy to single out and kick all these polluters is it?
Comment by Punter — Sun, Aug 26th, 2007 @ 10:49 am
Punter, you’re a complete an utter moron. You’ve not posted a single statistic or study or any tangible evidence whatsoever to back up any of your ridiculous claims. You literally are pulling your arguments out of your arse.
“Jeffrey Harris of MIT calculated… that the 1982-83 round of price increases caused two million adults to quit smoking and prevented 600,000 teenagers from starting to smoke… We don’t need to have that happen again.”
–Philip Morris internal memo
http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2022216179_6180_0.PDF
Any credible evidence to show that your cigarette smoke is less harmful than the general level of pollution an average person is exposed to every day? It’s a very well established fact that smokers have a shorter life expectancy than others. It’s established that second hand smoke is harmful and those exposed to it face more health problems than those whose are not. What makes tobacco so holy that we shouldn’t try to restrict it as much as possible? Cars and trucks pollute, but they’re also critical to the transportation infrastructure of society. What are the necessary benefits of smoking to society?
Comment by The Jester — Sun, Aug 26th, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
The benefits are as a source of pleasure and relaxation for millions of people worldwide. As for the stats, just look at most (yes Finland included) western societies and the growth in teen smoking and as mentioned particularly girls. It’s a well known and published fact. If you need a perticular link or something that says MIT on it, I suggest you search. Just don’t fall over the pile of results in front of you.
There are countless other things in society that we can do without, that are not essential. We still do them. As an almost non-drinker I could also wonder why on earth we sell alcohol when it harms your health, hurts others, costs society so much and leads to crime and violence. Fortunately I have more important things to do than play God and try to restrict others even though their actions may put my own health at risk. I’m a citizen, not God. I don’t understand the need for people to drink and especially not in the way people here do but it’s legal, they’re adults and it’s their choice. Leave us/them alone or ban it. Simple really.
Comment by Punter — Sun, Aug 26th, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
I’d like to see some evidence showing that smoking is an effective method of relaxation. From everything that I’ve heard, the nicotine addiction causes increased anxiety which is only relieved by giving the body nicotine. Ergo, it only helps fix a problem it creates itself. Furthermore, how is this sourse of pleasure and relaxation so necessary for society? There are plenty of sources of pleasure out there that don’t hurt yourself or others. So, why do we need smoking? If all smokers quit permenantly, what would be the negative consequence of that?
If smoking numbers are increasing and it’s a well known and published fact, post some credible evidence supporting that. I’m not doing your homework for you. You’re the one making a claim, you back it up. By the way, the burden of proof is not for you to show that smoking rates are increasing (they may well be but that’s beside the point), you need to show that taxation does not effectively reduce consumption. Furthermore, you’ve also seen the health costs per packet of cigarettes sold. These costs need to be at break even otherwise smokers are draining more public resources than what they put in.
By the way, I’ve stated before that I support reduction of alcohol consumption. Alcohol related deaths are huge and drunk driving is a serious risk to public safety. It’s moronic to engage in a black and white fallacy saying we can either keep it or ban it. Reduction does result in fewer deaths and an overall greater public health and fewer costs to society. Just because someone is legally an adult, doesn’t make them mature (or intelligent for that matter).
Comment by The Jester — Sun, Aug 26th, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
If you want evidence of smoking and relaxation why don’t you come around and visit me. First we’ll have a chat about various topics and I’ll be free to smoke. After that, we can follow your idea of stopping smoking around non smokers and discuss this subject while you take my smokes away. If you can then remember what happens the following morning when you wake up, you’ll understand that smoking really does make me relaxed and stress free.
Comment by Punter — Sun, Aug 26th, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
Oh, and they’re now planning to add warning labels and pictures on alcohol bottles. Like if you read when you drink…
Comment by Hank W. — Sun, Aug 26th, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
#49: Does someone always take your smokes away before you post here? Try some nicotine chewing gum if your wife doesn’t let you smoke at the computer.
Oh…chances are you can’t write and chew simultaneously. Tough luck, mate.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Mon, Aug 27th, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
hey you guys, Punter and Jester, who have had to write pages of comments in this blog, why don’t you settle this issue in a duel…that is if you are gentlemen, or a good ’ole brawl, that would be faster and practical!
Comment by knight — Mon, Aug 27th, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
#50: Caution: May get you drunk. Side effects may include casual, wild unprotected sex.
(I kid you not, this is one of the arguments the flowerhats use to entice the youth of the nation away from the booze devil)
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Mon, Aug 27th, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
Yup, and only the real losers would like to have casual wild unprotected sex with with a drunk stranger with for example, STD among others.
Comment by knight — Mon, Aug 27th, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
#54- Another field where Finland leads the world………..
Comment by Punter — Mon, Aug 27th, 2007 @ 11:13 pm