The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Morality lost in cloud of smoke > Comments

Morality lost in cloud of smoke : Comments

By Jane Rankin-Reid, published 6/8/2013

As a smoker, I want to believe that Rudd's anti-smoking attack has my best interests at heart, but the evidence is yet to stack up on my side of the ashtray.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
"Smokers are people too" would be an appropriate "T" Shirt logo covering this election, because, as you say, the largest proportion of smokers inhabit the more tortured end of society.

As an anti-Alcohol advocate, I feel criticized in this article as a moralist, however, with no regrets about the tag.

Obviously, Alcohol should have been K07's targeted attack for extra tax dollars; the health issue of cigarette smoking has passed it's use-by date well and truly as an excuse for plundering the more unfortunate addicts.
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 6 August 2013 2:56:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a smoker and a vilified minority, you can expect to be targeted for taxation, as this will not cost votes. That money is not spent to make stopping smoking cheaper is simply proof that Rudd simply cares for your cash not your health.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 6 August 2013 3:03:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Smokers, like those people addicted to alcohol, should consider themselves lucky since their particular poison is legal.

Let's do away with this 'nanny state' nonsense---the government should take no interest in smokers as long as non-smokers' health is not affected by passive smoking. GST should the only tax impost. However, under those circumstances, is it equitable that non-smoking taxpayers be expected to pay the bill for the treatment of smoking induced diseases if the 'nanny state' doesn't treat nicotine addiction as a health issue?
Posted by mac, Tuesday, 6 August 2013 6:50:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As someone who does not indulge in smoking, alcohol or illicit drugs, I can look on at this total hypocrisy in amusement.

I do find it interesting that those poor souls addicted to nicotine are considered ogres, but those addicted to illicit drugs are considered victims.

I wonder how much of the taxes collected from the poor smoker, are then wasted on the heavy drug addict?

I would rather live with a smoker than drive on peak hour roads, infested by smoking public transport busses. I know which is more likely to give you health problems, & it sure AIN'T passive smoking.

Regardless none of these are as bad as the demon grog. Not only will the drunk kill you in a moment with their car, or stupid aggression, but do more damage to those around them than almost no other.

Only a lying slob like Rudd can possibly to be in a position to do more damage to more people. Use your common sense & make sure he is not
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 6 August 2013 8:47:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i agree..the fattie krudd is unlikely to introduce a fat toxic tax

*sic
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 7 August 2013 6:53:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oops sorry
should have read
the krudd fattie
is unlikely to intro-deduce
a toxic fattie tax..or even a vomit tax

go for an early morning walk..see the blood stains and vomit..in the bus shelters

(*sick man
slick like slime
slick..like the pub-lic serve-ants sipping free booze..with their free lunch.

smoker related hospitalization..cost 800million
not 30 billiom..its time smokers held balance of power

a smokers rights party?

sue the public serve-vice
sue the heads..sue those saying screwu..well screwu2
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 7 August 2013 7:04:43 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have yet to hear about a bloke who smokes 40 cigs in an evening, then goes home to beat his wife.

Alcohol costs the community far more than nicotine, but hear the howls from the red wine set and winemakers if they try to up the tax on it.
Posted by Questa, Wednesday, 7 August 2013 1:37:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Author has a point. While I support heavy (and heavier still) taxes on a substance which is entirely injurious to human and environmental health, products and programs assisting smokers to quit should be heavily subsidised. As heavily as to cost a tiny fraction of a packet of cigarettes. Cigarettes hopefully will become extremely unattractive to wannabee smokers on basis of price if nothing else.

Ditto alcohol needs to be more expensive, carry warning labels on a par with tobacco and availability in terms of location and time clawed back.

While both 'legal drugs' obviously generate substantial revenues, unless I'm very mistaken, the costs in terms of public health, policing, property damage, sanitation and so on would surely exceed the income, probably not in a shy way. Then add on the personal cost to users, their families and broader community.

Is Govt 'Fair Dinkum" about 'helping smokers'? Think I'm with Jane on this one ...
Posted by divine_msn, Wednesday, 7 August 2013 1:47:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy