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.

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 ...