'Australia Is Stubbing Out Smoking' (bbc.com)

Australia was the first country in the world to introduce mandatory plain packaging for tobacco products. Now it is taking another strong stand, but will other countries follow suit? From an article on BBC, shared by an anonymous reader: It's not easy being a smoker in Australia. The smoking bans started inside -- in workplaces, bars and restaurants -- and moved out. "Now, smoking is prohibited within 10m (33ft) of a playground, within 4m (13ft) of the entrance to a public building, at rail platforms, taxi ranks and bus stops," said Mark Driver, Sydney's Park and Recreation Planner. Those are the rules in New South Wales, but they are mirrored in many other states. Smoking is banned on many beaches, and most Australian states have now banned cigarettes in jail. All states ban smoking in vehicles if children are present. Fines vary, but in some places you may be fined AUD$2,000 (USD$1,515) if you smoke in the wrong place. And even if you don't, you'll be paying more than that each year by 2020, if you smoke just one AUD$40 pack a week. [...] These days, smoking is often taken up by people who are on the lowest rungs of the socio-economic ladder, Simone Dennis, an associate professor at Australian National University, points out, "and that adds a burden of shame to people who might already be marginalised." If it's the poor who are now the most likely to smoke, it's hard to see how they will ever afford the AUD$40 (USD$30) pack of cigarettes.

Comments

Re: The point

[BarbaraHudson]

Actually, it's true. Someone else cited a study that claimed otherwise - but the study was done in the Netherlands, where catastrophic health care costs are far lower than in the US, where costs are through the roof, and where even in the US the government still picks up most of the cost of smoking-related illnesses.

Using recent health and medical spending surveys, researchers calculated that 8.7 percent of all healthcare spending, or $170 billion a year, is for illness caused by tobacco smoke, and public programs like Medicare and Medicaid paid for most of these costs.

Also, tobacco taxes in Holland are a LOT higher (excise tax alone is 56% of retail price, though stil less than WHO recommended level) than in the US (federal excise tax is $1.01 per pack of 20 no matter what the retail price), so there's more tax revenue from tobacco going to the feds to pay for health care than in the $1.01 a pack in the US to pay for federal health care programs that pay for the majority of smoker's health care.

Using recent health and medical spending surveys, researchers calculated that 8.7 percent of all healthcare spending, or $170 billion a year, is for illness caused by tobacco smoke, and public programs like Medicare and Medicaid paid for most of these costs.

In that analysis, 9.6 percent of Medicare spending, 15.2 percent of Medicaid spending and 32.8 percent of other government healthcare spending by sources such as the Veterans Affairs department, Tricare and the Indian Health Service, were attributable to smoking.

Of the $170 billion spent on smoking-related healthcare, more than 60 percent was paid by government sources, they wrote in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

The feds aren't taking in enough revenue from the $1.01 a pack excise tax to pay that $170 billion a year in costs. That would require every single American - of all ages right down to newborns - to smoke more than 500 packs a year. So no, it's not a myth that smokers cost more than they pay.