@LJM@ethicalcannibal I do take both your points. My perspective is as a former 40+ year smoker. My inner voice was not much assistance over time but when I experienced a major financial event smoking no longer became tenable so that was the ideal point to break my addiction. It wasn’t pleasant but not much at that time was. Addiction may be seen as a character flaw but there is often some underlying need that the addiction feeds. That is the psychological background that makes the addiction attractive.
On another note I’m surprised so many people are impressed with what “$35-40” buys in Australia. I was always under the impression that food was cheaper in the US. I’d guess this load is closer to $40.
For those interested in the food shown for that buy it’s:
I definitely appreciate your perspective as a former smoker! And I completely agree there’s often an unmet need that leads people into addiction (as seen in Rat Park). There are as many roads to and out of addiction as there are people and personalities, which is why, I think, it’s so difficult to effectively address. Accepting the roles neurodiversity and needs play is, in my opinion, the first step towards more universally effective treatment.
Maybe it’s not the tax that isn’t working, but the system that views people as expendable resources that are a source of surplus value. Or maybe that system is working as intended, and tobacco and alcohol use is a sign of that.
I’d choose “sin” taxes over banning tobacco or letting the tobacco companies do what they like. I’d prefer living in a world that people don’t want to escape from though.
I smoke cigarettes, but I wouldn’t object if they were simply made illegal.
At this point, though, the tax approach is pure bullshit. It’s utterly absurd to pretend that a government is trying to control smoking when it has, for a generation, been making several times as much money from smoking as the entire tobacco industry.
I’m not saying this is about greed, like it’s going into politicians’ pockets – of course the money is going towards public spending, which I broadly approve of. But it means governments themselves are addicted to smoking; they have made it so they can’t afford to ban it, or do anything else that actually works.
I’m sure they genuinely want the smoking rate to decrease. But in practice, they don’t want it to decrease so quickly that it creates problems balancing the books. If smoking decreases by 1% in a year, they can just bump up the tax by 1% to compensate; or hey, why not make it 5% and get some free extra room for maneuver, never mind that it disproportionately affects the poor. Most regressive taxes would cause riots if governments milked them this hard, but since smokers are bad people, the pundit class all agree that this is fine. (By a weird coincidence, this is a winning talking point for right-wing anti-government populists, no one knows why).
If a society isn’t prepared to ban smoking, then it is immoral to use a rhetoric of punishing it to gouge people financially. Currently, every time a government announces a tax cut or a new program, they’re counting on people buying cigarettes to help pay for it – if we’re OK with that, then we should look at taxes on tobacco exactly the same as we look at taxes on cars or plumbing supplies.
1- 1 box wheat cereal (or crackers?) - that’s cereal, a supermarket generic brand
2- 2 mysterious partially crushed containers of something - 2 packaged loaves of pre-sliced bread (same generic as the cereal)
4- 1 loaf of bread (I think?) - brushed potatoes (also the generic)
5- No idea what the light green thing is - frozen peas (ditto)
6- Green beans(?) - correct
13- Cottage Chese(?) Really not sure on this. Maybe someone familiar with Aussie brands could help? - strawberry yoghurt, (yes, the generic)
16- No idea. Gnocchi? - cheese slices
17- Margarine maybe? I think I see the word “spread” on there. - “woolworths table spread, soft and spreadable” I don’t know why they don’t call this margarine but I suspect that’s because it’s vegan
almost everything here is the supermarket generic brand, which would make a difference to the price.
Here a pack of cigs costs like for a beer at the pub, or a bottle of fine wine at the supermarket, or a movie theatre ticket on Monday
Tax on goods like VAT itself aren’t progressive and will be more costly to the poor rather than the rich, but this is working in general for this kind of taxes.
I too would prefer people don’t practice self destructive acts - whether that be smoking, too much booze, drugs, or too much food. Our diet is killing us worse than smoking at this point.
How do you nudge people in positive directions? I think there are various psychological tricks the marketing people use we could ban, or counter with psychological tricks of our own. Banning almost never turns out well. And these takes feel like brute force.
Complicated question - I don’t have the answers. And the answer varies depending on the vice.
Sometimes, thankfully, a visual/mental fact shock can work. My mum smoked until the late 1970s - she’d been trying to quit via a few commercial methods, including some add-on filters (like mini cig holders) which were supposed to gradually reduce nicotine intake over time. She said the final straw was when she saw us kids holding and sucking on the add-on filters as if we were smoking, trying to look grown-up. Done deal for her right then.
Although they sell these taxes to the public as a way to reduce tobacco or alcohol use, in reality they are just amazing revenue generators. People with addictions will continue to smoke and generally pay this tax no matter what.
Community health centers in our area receive a portion of these funds to pay for free vaccination clinics and other community health initiatives so I am not sure I want to complain about it.
