"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.

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.

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?

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

i agree..the fattie krudd is unlikely to introduce a fat toxic tax

*sic

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