Posted on 06/10/2004 6:43:49 PM PDT by sarcasm
Welfare and health groups have urged the NSW Government to take tougher tobacco control measures after new research showed the state's poorest families would save almost $60 a week if they could quit smoking.
The research, by Macquarie University economists, showed the next poorest 20 per cent of households would save $85 a week if the smokers quit.
The study also shows the NSW economy would not be harmed if fewer people smoked, contrary to the claims of the tobacco industry.
The study was commissioned by the Cancer Council of NSW and conducted by David Collins, adjunct professor in economics at Macquarie University, his colleague William Junor, and Helen Lapsley, a health economist at the University of Queensland.
Gary Moore, of the NSW Council of Social Service, said: "We believe tougher measures to counter tobacco would help families struggling on a low income who are finding it difficult to quit."
The study, to be released today, said the poorest one-fifth of households spent 18 per cent of their income on cigarettes, while the richest spent 3 per cent.
Smoking households - defined as a household where money was spent on tobacco - spent relatively less on clothes, shoes, education, housing and health than non-smoking households.
If people could give up smoking it was likely they would spend more on these items, and enjoy health benefits as well, the research shows.
"A reduction in smoking in NSW could constitute a significant step towards reducing the impact of poverty in the state," it says.
The study also found that big reductions in the prevalence of smoking over five or 10 years would have no significant impact on employment, output or profits in any business sector, apart from the tobacco industry.
Professor Collins said: "The tobacco industry has lost the health argument and now argues it generates employment and output. But if the tobacco industry disappeared overnight there would not be 57,700 fewer jobs. If people don't spend the money on smoking they would spend it on something else, which would generate jobs and output."
The researchers conducted a detailed examination of the impact of reduced tobacco expenditure on 106 industries and of the effects on them of the expenditure being redirected.
"Because the economic effects were close to neutral, they are not an issue which should be taken into account in the framing of public health policy," the study says.
Anita Tang, director of health strategies at the Cancer Council, said NSW should match other states in per capita expenditure on tobacco control. An investment of $13.5 million a year - instead of the current $4 million - would reduce the prevalence of smoking by 1 per cent a year.
They are over the top. Someone needs to check their meds........or liquor cabinet!
I just hope and pray that the general public isn't falling for this chitty chitty bang bang anymore!
OMG! I got a shoe fetish. I have so many shoes, I could probably wear a different pair each day for over 6 months! LOL!
Really?
That reminds me. I REALLY have to get around to checking out the prices at the reservation. I'll bet I could save enough to get myself a new pair of Rocky boots.
Check their med.....but leave my liquor cabinet alone!!!!
Actually I don't have a liquor cabinet....so let's go after that....just leave my beer and wine alone.
The brilliance of costly studies! Who'd a thunk a $5/pack a day habit for a $10000/yr income would be a much greater expense percentage than a $5/pack a day habit for a $61,000/yr income. Wow for the mathematical wizards < said with Eeyore's enthusiasm >
My wife has shoes in the closet that have NEVER even been worn. I know, she's just another American gal who thinks she needs more shoes than she could ever wear out.
If, If, If! If those people who make poor decisions like spending a significant amount of their limited income on cigarettes were capable of making good decisions, then they wouldn't be in bad shape financially to start with. It starts early. First you blow off school. Then you decide to take up expensive habits you can't afford. Then you fail to save money. You fail to acquire a marketable skill. You drift along in the same low paying job, complaining about "greedy" corporations, and how all politicians are dirty. Then you moan and gripe that the government should do something to help the "disadvantaged." Then you spend your whole life religiously pulling the lever for the Democratic candidate because he's for the "working man." Then you get too old to work and expect the taxpayers to pay for your retirement, and for all the surgeries and prescriptions you need because you chose to smoke for 50 years. Boohoo.
I love living in the country and being full time mommy........the only shoes I wear are sneakers, boots or flip flops except for special occassions.
I finally said enough is enough because I was tired of only having the one pair of black dress shoes and went and got all the rest of my shoes. I already have the wall planned in the walk-in closet hubby is doing in the attic just for my shoes.
Wait a minute......how can I be saying any of this? The study says smokers put cigarettes before everything else.
I guess I'm supposed to return all my daughter's shoes, clothes and food to the store because smokers put cigarettes first and she shouldn't even have any of them to begin with.
These people make me absolutely ill will their Bravo Sierra.
My husband doesn't complain about my shoe habit - I rarely pay more than $15 for a pair of shoes and some that I have, I've had since I was in High School.......and my 25th reunion was last year.
Why do you need a study for that? One can easily observe one cause of poverty is the priorities people develop with their money. In many cases poverty is an conscientious or unconscious choice.
AN IN AGREEMENT BUMP!
If we added more days to the week, they could save even more!
But we will never see it happen.........
The politicians are far more addicted to their tobacco taxes than any smoker is addicted to cigarettes.
Well put.
If the government didn't take so much of my money, I'd probably just fritter it away on shoes anyway. :)
So true.
Okay, I know this is from Australia, and all, but I am totally blown away by the suggestion that the "poor" would purchase their own luxury item such as cigarettes (18% of their INCOME?) rather than feed their children. I mean, if it's similar in the USA, that would mean that no matter how much money we throw at poverty, our poor will stay poor but they'll drink name brand beer and smoke high priced cigarettes. It also means every nickel of cigarette tax is depriving some child of a nickel's worth of food or medicine. Whoa! That would imply that some of the poor people are poor because they're stupid selfish people who have kids they can't support, and they lead narcissistic, selfish lives at the expense of those around them EVEN IF THAT INCLUDES THEIR OWN CHILDREN. I think that means that we need not stop the flow of money for welfare, but to supervise recipient's of taxpayer goodwill much better, with stiff penalties for mismanagement of taxpayer funds. The Democrats wouldn't stand for it. It would smell too much like personal responsibility and too little like no-strings-attached government cashola.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!
Being back in Delaware yesterday drove me nuts. I can go hours, even days without a cigarette......but when I am not permitted to do it by government edict, it drives me nuts.
At least the political fund raiser I attended last night was held at a place with an outside deck and patio bar!
The smokers were comfortable and the antis were welcome to stay inside.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
