I see the proposed levy on tobacco is tipped to raise some 5.8 billion dollars.

So, assuming this is correct, big assumption, one has to wonder just how reliant our govermentS are on the revenue raised through tobacco taxes, especially given so much can be earned by such a small increase in taxes.

In other words, am i right in assumimg that without smoking taxes, we are screwed.

It's an interesting problem, isn't it?

On the one hand, our government must be seen to discourage people from smoking - and making tobacco products ridiculously expensive can help to achieve that. But on the other hand, the more money they gain from the sale of tobacco, the more they rely on it.

If their intention is to discourage smoking, they need to ensure that the money is not spent on essentials. Maybe it forms the core of our aid budget; maybe to frivolous stimulus packages. If it went towards our health system, they would need to ensure that the savings in health expenditure when people quit smoking amounted to the same as the loss of revenue from people quitting.

That's the problem, I guess, with using tax as a disincentive: if the disincentive works, income decreases.

Yes O, it's because we no longer have any spare income.

We sell our resources cheap to overseas buyers, not to provide for our future when the resource is depleted, but just to turn the wheels.

Personally, I can't see a way out.

It is revenue raising. Alcohol is more difficult to ramp taxes up on because of the effect on the wine industry.

It will encourage more criminal gangs to move into the profitable areas of illegal recreational drugs and illegal tobacco (and mixes). That means more turf wars by bikies and others. More illegal importation of guns by gangs.

The police are already stretched. It would be smarter to put a limit on the federal tax on legal tobacco products so as not to make more previously law-abiding citizens into criminals and have them bankrolling criminal gangs through buying their products.

The federal government could reduce spending by concentrating on the fundamentals it is there to provide. It could limit its tax on tobacco. It could make the possession of 30 grams and 6 plants of marijuana legal. It is just as important to starve criminal gangs of funds. Of course the federal government does not want to kill its cash cow by allowing marijuana smoking, even if that means less smoking and reduced risk of health problems.

What the federal government is doing is picking off different sectors of society for taxes, but over time all cop higher taxes.

I don't smoke, use recreational drugs and rarely drink (like it but it does interfere with any use of vehicles). I do believe that government has long ago moved well beyond discouraging smokers and into vilifying them and trampling over their rights. Some smokers cannot stop and they should not be forced into forgoing food and other necessities to maintain their habit.

That should be, "I don't smoke or use recreational drugs and rarely drink alcohol"....

Yes O I agree, as to simply increase the price/tax often results in the smoker cutting back on something else, whereby the real victims are often kids.

As for legalizing drugs, I'm with you there, however I would suggest six plants is a bit over the top.

I hve smoked and used recreational drugs when I was young, however, I gave up, not because of cost, but because I chose to partially because I wanted to start a family and thought I should at least set an example.