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.

[lewislynn]

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.

That's because "food stamps" is an agriculture subsidy. Food stamps are issued by the Dept of Agriculture, not the welfare dept.

[Mears]

You really expect an answer?

Smokers are all leaches on society and contribute nothing, according to some.

Gotta go have some coffee and a cig and think about my uselesness!

[Wolfie]

Its the same concept. Blowing public money on non-essential items. How does it go? If you're taking gov't $$$s, then don't bitch when the gov't calls the tune.

[FrankR]

"If a smoker can get by with less money, then we should cut their welfare checks by the same amount they spend on tobacco. "

I hate to say it, but you and I both know that is NOT going to happen. Those who receive "welfare" are going to get it, no matter WHAT they spend it on...it will only increase over time.

Besides, this original story was in the "Sydney Morning Herald", from Australia...so the difference in dollar amounts and cost of cigarettes may skew the figures shown...

[VRWC_minion]

And what about those of us spending our own money.............why should we be forced to "rebate" to the state?

If you can afford the luxury, why not ? It lowers my tax burden and that is a good thing and it doesn't make anyone else pay more than they choose to. This is no different than lotto.

[Gabz]

Your advocacy of higher taxes is disgusting.

[Madame Dufarge]

How I pine for the good old days when the "just leave me alone" contingent of the citizenry was still the majority.

Now it's come down to an ever growing group of hand wringing "men" aspiring to womanhood, and women who equate femininity with whining.

Somewhere along the way, these two groups confused toughness with meanness and petty complaining, and none of us are better off for it.

[Gabz]

How I pine for the good old days when the "just leave me alone" contingent of the citizenry was still the majority.

You and me both.

[SALChamps03]

You my friend are the exception, not the rule.

[SALChamps03]

Bravo for you sir. It sounds like you are a responsible individual. I realize I was painting with broad strokes. I just grow frustrated with those who take the other route.

[SALChamps03]

many times, the choice to smoke is but one in a long line of unwise choices. While it may not be true in every case, it is most certainly true much of the time.

[SALChamps03]

Congratulations to you for making wise choices most of the time. You must understand that the choice to smoke is often one in a long line of unwise choices. While it doesn't apply to you, it applies often enough to generalize.

[hotshot]

The dope dealers are the cigarette companies which hook their customers for life.

[SheLion]

The dope dealers are the cigarette companies which hook their customers for life.

Your under a very huge misconception in your beliefs.  Smokers are NOT all hooked for life!

And I believe dope dealers live on back streets selling their poison, to which if caught, they go to prison.

Cigarettes are legal.  Can't you get that through your head yet?  It is a Legal Commodity and it's everyone's choice to try it, not like it  or as 55 million smokers attest:  they really enjoy smoking.

I tell you:  I have never seen the likes of being able to buy a legal commodity and yet being treated like a criminal for doing so.

If you don't like smokers or smoking........just stay away from them and it.  Why torture yourself over something that doesn't even concern you.

Take me:  I am not into guns but respect those that are fighting for their rights to continue to bare arms.  Do you ever see ME on a thread of the people in FR fighting for their rights there?  You won't see me.............although, if I was ask, I would fight with them to continue keeping their rights.

The smoking issue has nothing to do with you.  I think you just need something and someone to hate........and you have chosen good decent American's who choose to smoke a legal commodity.

Why don't you just move on to another thread where you can have a decent debate.  All you can spew on the smoker's thread is your hate and degust of us.  This is not what being a Conservation is about.

The dope dealers are the cigarette companies which hook their customers for life.

Your under a very huge misconception in your beliefs.  Smokers are NOT all hooked for life!

And I believe dope dealers live on back streets selling their poison, to which if caught, they go to prison.

Cigarettes are legal.  Can't you get that through your head yet?  It is a Legal Commodity and it's everyone's choice to try it, not like it  or as 55 million smokers attest:  they really enjoy smoking.

I tell you:  I have never seen the likes of being able to buy a legal commodity and yet being treated like a criminal for doing so.

If you don't like smokers or smoking........just stay away from them and it.  Why torture yourself over something that doesn't even concern you.

Take me:  I am not into guns but respect those that are fighting for their rights to continue to bare arms.  Do you ever see ME on a thread of the people in FR fighting for their rights there?  You won't see me.............although, if I was ask, I would fight with them to continue keeping their rights.

The smoking issue has nothing to do with you.  I think you just need something and someone to hate........and you have chosen good decent American's who choose to smoke a legal commodity.

Why don't you just move on to another thread where you can have a decent debate.  All you can spew on the smoker's thread is your hate and degust of us.  This is not what being a Conservation is about.

[hotshot]

The In-law that I spoke about is a Maryland hospital today having a biopsy done on a spot in his lungs. Smoking does effect everyone.

[SheLion]

The In-law that I spoke about is a Maryland hospital today having a biopsy done on a spot in his lungs. Smoking does effect everyone.

Your wrong. You can not blame all the ills in the world on smoking! I am sorry, but I have lived long enough to realize this.

Smoking MIGHT have helped out, however, there are a lot of mitigating circumstances that brought this person to the condition he is in now.

His previous health condition, his working conditions, the foods he eats, and the list goes on and on.

You will never change my mind and I will never change yours.  We have come to an impasse and this is the end of our discussion.

Thank you.

[Publius6961]

If they were really concerned about the economic impact on the poor people, they'd eliminate the taxes on the cigarettes.
The study, to be released today, said the poorest one-fifth of households spent 18 per cent of their income on cigarettes...

Not the most honest presentation of the subject is it.
This part is particularly ironic, but the expert anti-smoking propaganda spin makes it invisible:

said the poorest one-fifth of households spent 18 5 per cent of their income on cigarettes... ... and an aditional 13% on taxes... yes, the taxes are several times the actual cost of the cigarettes...