This interesting article presents some intuitively convincing arguments suggesting that the cost to the Budget of smoking are not as great as sometimes claimed. Given the anount of research done into the harm of smoking, I think it likely that the topic may have been researched in detail by someone. Anyone familiar with research in this subject area?

Clearly the author isn't.

This will be a non issues for the election,Yes Tony does get money from cancer stick manufacturers however he will not say no to more cash to fund his middle class welfare.

Anybody unhappy with the increase in tax on smokes should do themselves a favour and give up. As an exe smoker I can tell you you will benifit in your health and your pocket.

Anyone who has worked in the health industry for too long, like me, would be able to tell you the truth about smoking and the death toll.

I rarely met anyone with primary lung cancer or emphysema who hadn't smoked or lived with a smoker. The only ones I met who hadn't were farmers or others who worked with chemicals they breathed in during their work.

For me, it isn't just that smoking causes death too early for many people, it is rather that they ceased to live a reasonable life long before they died.

Many smokers say 'well you have to die of something', but while they are sucking on oxygen at home, too breathless to go to the shops, most of their non-smoking mates are out still enjoying life.

Yes, there are some smokers that live into their nineties and die of old age, but they are few and far between, and who wants to play Russian roulette with their health?

Trust me...give it up.

acupuncture helped me to stop, my last smoke was 20 Feb 1986 and now I'm 68 and enjoying life as never before, but I wouldn't be writing this is I were still puffing.

addiction made me a slave to a drug, while the govt was happy being a pusher. I'm free now, and welcome the price hike, although it could've been several times higher.

the govt could do a lot more to stop this deadly addiction rather than making the drug more costly, which will result in a rise in the crime wave from a captive audience.

"So when we prevent someone dying of a tobacco related illness, we are not preventing their death at all. We are merely delaying it and swapping it for another type of death."

The person who wrote this is clearly deranged! Is not delaying death by not smoking a benefit? Is dying from a smoking related cancer or heart attack a bonus?

The tobacco industry should be closed down lock, stock and barrel. For too long it has poisoned smokers and destroyed their lungs and caused early deaths.

How much longer will this crime be tolerated?

DavidG,

Please spare us the faux outrage.

The issue in question is not whether cancer causes deaths, or whether raising prices of tobacco stops smoking, nor even whether this is a good or moral policy. The issue is whether Kevin Rudd's justification of reducing health care costs by reducing smoking is valid or nonsense.

In other words the issue is whether people that smoke are a bigger burden to the tax payer than non smokers.

I remember more than a decade ago reading an article about the case of the state of California vs Philip Morris where one of the actions was precisely the cost to the state of smoking. This action was quickly dropped when PM used the states figures to show that total cost of health care etc for smokers was significantly less than that for non smokers for precisely the reasons mentioned in this post.

So while I personally support actions to stop smoking, I agree that Rudd should be called out whenever he lies to the public.