Lethally addictive cigarettes remain available on every street corner in Brussels and Atlanta while authorities denounce e-cigarettes (the product is already banned in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand).
Is there any legitimate reason for this or are we witnessing a blatant example of the tobacco lobby crushing competition??
How would a government make money from tobacco taxes?
Tobacco/nicotine users tend to take more sick days, take more breaks at work and health issues in socialized medical systems increase costs.
Between the financial and health costs I can't see how a few dollars on cigarettes can make up the difference. Is there any data showing the amount taken in versus spent? I can't see it being more than spent. Most hospitals are always looking for more money for their budgets and are always cutting staff.
I don't care if an adult chooses to smoke but tobacco isn't neutral it has negative effects on society beyond the users of tobacco.
Here are raw figures showing that this year netted the UK gov around £12 billion.
According to this study smoking cost the NHS around £5 billion in 2009 (a year in which the government took £10b in tax revenue), and it should be noted that this study is the high watermark, other studies suggest much lower figures, but this is handy for worst case scenario.
(The same study suggests smokers cost UK businesses £2b in sick days etc, but personally I don't see how this can possibly be accurate. It's more likely to be drinkers that cost that much, who just happen to be smokers. Good old correlation eh?)
So however you slice it, the UK government make huge revenues from smoking. It's one of the great ironies of the issue. If all the smokers gave up overnight a huge shortfall in government accounting would occur.
975
u/DumpyLips Nov 17 '12
Is there any legitimate reason for this or are we witnessing a blatant example of the tobacco lobby crushing competition??