Shoes come second in smokers' homes

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | June 11. 2004 | Adele Horin

[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.

[Gabz]

It would smell too much like personal responsibility and too little like no-strings-attached government cashola.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!

[KingNo155]

agree again ! BUMP!

[B4Ranch]

Does your maiden name start with an E ? LOL I think you girls are related somehow.

[Mears]

I just spent 125.00 for 2 new pairs of shoes,whuch I really didn't need.

Of course I won't eat for a couple of weeks and will not pay my utility bills this month so I can smoke.(sarcasm off)

Dont they get it? It's the taxes not the actual price of the cigarettes.

[Mears]

I agree.

Now how about the percentages of what the poor spend on food aqnd housing compared to the percentages that are spent by higher income folks.

What a complete no-brainer study.

[Mears]

We gals just love shoes and they are soo easy to buy-----no dressing room nightmares,just slip 'em on and buy 'em.

[Mears]

I'm an educated smoker who has my own pension and health plan.

What the hell are you talking about? I am not poor nor am I rich,but I get by just fine.

No one has ever given me anything,I worked,and worked very hard.

Boohoo to you too!

[MediaMole]

There IS another option. Cut taxes on cigarettes. That way poor families could afford both smokes and shoes.

[metesky]

So all smokers are uneducated, unemployable, "gimme" Democrats, pi$$ing and moaning about their station in life?

What an assinine statement, sir and/or madame.

Welcome to Free Republic.

[azhenfud]

Wonder will they do a study of what the percentage of a thirty dollar a pair of shoes would be on the same household incomes? They could get an enormous amount for a study like that!

Duh, don't quote me on this, but I think that's why they're called "low-income households" - but I could be mistaken.

[azhenfud]

"You..."

Nope - I quit smoking after 23yrs; I taught myself a marketable skill after the college courses failed to align realisticly with industry demands; and after liberal Republicans and Democrats get finished giving SSI benefits to anything that crosses the border, SSI will prolly be history when/if I ever need it; I invest in my own retirement plan.

Never, ever expect others to do for you what you're not willing to do for yourself.

[Wolfie]

Hmmm...quite a bit like those in the U.S. who think people on assistance shouldn't be able to buy junk food with thier food stamps.

[SheLion]

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.

Better yet, try rolling your own. I can roll a beautiful carton for a little under $8 dollars. My Premiums cost me $45-$50, and the last time cigarette taxes went up in this state, I said 'that's it!' Been rolling my own for over three years and the savings for Christmas has been just wonderful!

I buy the Supermatic Rolling Machine off of the Net and the bags of tobacco and filtered tubes I buy locally at our Smoke Shop. Although, the grocery stores also sell the tobacco and tubes.

and

Smokers United

Bags of tobacco = $5.85 each
200 filtered tubes = $1.99 per box

[SheLion]

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.

Basically the same here. But since our winters are so long, I have a lot of boots. When I was working, that's when I went ballestic on shoes. But now, it's sandels and sneakers in the summer and boots, etc in the winter months.

Another thing no one mentioned in this article: how about the elderly doing with out prescription drugs just so they can put food on their tables? How about that?

But oh no! These idiots have to single out smoking. I guess this group doesn't think anyone should enjoy life, eh?

[SheLion]

I'm an educated smoker who has my own pension and health plan.

What the hell are you talking about? I am not poor nor am I rich, but I get by just fine.

No one has ever given me anything, I worked, and worked very hard.

Boohoo to you too!

Ditto!

[SheLion]

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 have my own health insurance, thank you. No one pays for me when and IF I ever get sick! No "taxpayer" has to pay one nickle for ME!

[hotshot]

My Inlaws both each smoke 4 packs a day. Every waking hour there is a cig in their hand. That's $3.00 x 4 x 2 x 30 which equals $ 720.00 a month out of their $2000.00 a month retirement. They charge a negative $400 a month on credit cards. The dope dealer down the road could not get a better customer.

[CSM]

"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."

Finally they come out and admit it is all about behaviour control! Celebrate your positions, gnatzies!

[JoeSixPack1]

I smoke, so I only have one shoe!

[SheLion]

I smoke, so I only have one shoe!

HaHaaaaaaaa!!! :-)