Crazy, I think New Zealand is aiming to turn itself into a tobacco smuggler's paradise: Cigarette Price Increase: New Zealand Government Discusses $100 A Packet Pricing | World News | Sky News
NZ cigs to cost $100/per pack
- Thread starter James
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I've already mentioned it to Murray Laugeson (who is one of those who wants to ban tobacco cigarettes completely!) He thinks because of New Zealand's location they can get away with prohibition.
Instead of being used for racing, these boats will return to their original use.
Go-fast boat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Go-fast boat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wow, just wow I don't even know how to respond to that without profanity.......Those poor smokers sure are gonna be SOL. Are they allowed NRT's over there?
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
As the first person to call for $10/pack for cigarettes (by raising the price via litigation and/or taxation) at the 2000 World Conference on tobacco OR Health in Chicago, its clear to me that additional cigarette tax increases in already heavily taxed municipalities (e.g. NYC, Cook County IL), states (e.g. NY) and countries (e.g. Canada) would cause more problems than they prevent, and would cost governments more revenue than they would generate.
Interestingly, when I first advocated increasing the price of cigarettes to $10/pack, many anti smoking activists did not support my proposal because I also advocated increasing the US cigarette industry from a $64 billion annual industry (in 1999) to a $100 billion annual industry (as the only effective way to increase the US cigarette industry to $100 billion is by significantly raising the tax on cigarettes and/or by increasing awards to plaintiffs in cigarette litigation). Consistent with my cigarette economic and tax advocacy and forecast, the US cigarette industry has grown from a $64 billion industry in 1999 to about an $85 billion industry this year.
If all States in the US (with lower cigarette tax rates) increased their cigarette tax to $2/pack, or if Congress increase the federal cigarette tax by $1/pack, the US cigarette industry would grow to about $95 billion annually.
Interestingly, there appears to be a growing divide within the tobacco control movement between those who want to continue increasing cigarette tax rates and those who want to ban cigarette sales.
Interestingly, when I first advocated increasing the price of cigarettes to $10/pack, many anti smoking activists did not support my proposal because I also advocated increasing the US cigarette industry from a $64 billion annual industry (in 1999) to a $100 billion annual industry (as the only effective way to increase the US cigarette industry to $100 billion is by significantly raising the tax on cigarettes and/or by increasing awards to plaintiffs in cigarette litigation). Consistent with my cigarette economic and tax advocacy and forecast, the US cigarette industry has grown from a $64 billion industry in 1999 to about an $85 billion industry this year.
If all States in the US (with lower cigarette tax rates) increased their cigarette tax to $2/pack, or if Congress increase the federal cigarette tax by $1/pack, the US cigarette industry would grow to about $95 billion annually.
Interestingly, there appears to be a growing divide within the tobacco control movement between those who want to continue increasing cigarette tax rates and those who want to ban cigarette sales.
Last edited:
Bill, when I posted about the tax rises on our facebook page, one person commented that she didn't know anyone who bought real cigarettes any more!
I also spoke to a rep for Japan Tobacco, and he said it was a real problem, particularly with rolling tobacco. He said he'd been promoting rolling tobacco to some shops and the reply was that there was just no point in selling it anymore as people were buying rolling tobacco down the pub for half the price.
I also spoke to a rep for Japan Tobacco, and he said it was a real problem, particularly with rolling tobacco. He said he'd been promoting rolling tobacco to some shops and the reply was that there was just no point in selling it anymore as people were buying rolling tobacco down the pub for half the price.
I think the attempt to manipulate a "free" individual's behavior through tax policy to create the type of society that those in power wish to have is one of the most repressive forms of government. Especially when it's such a blatant attempt to just prevent people from doing something. They're telling the people that, "Sure you're free, if you can afford to be." Whether it's $10 or $100 a pack it's despicable. It affects only those who can't afford the taxes. The filthy rich who can afford to use $100 bills for TP won't care about the tax and will still smoke as much as they like.
"But it's to help offset the healthcare costs that the smoker will incur later in life." Well who the Hell asked you to pay my healthcare costs? My health is my responsibility. Of course everything can be construed as a health issue. And if Big Brother insists on paying for it he will also insist on running my life.
And yes, my opinion applies to all the stupid tax rules in the income tax code as well. Just another way to encourage and discourage behavior.
"But it's to help offset the healthcare costs that the smoker will incur later in life." Well who the Hell asked you to pay my healthcare costs? My health is my responsibility. Of course everything can be construed as a health issue. And if Big Brother insists on paying for it he will also insist on running my life.
And yes, my opinion applies to all the stupid tax rules in the income tax code as well. Just another way to encourage and discourage behavior.
The "intellectual progressives" believe they know what is best
and they will decide what will and will not be allowed.
Anything that is not politically sanctioned should be forbidden...
not because of the harm to the individual but enjoyment without
government sanction is considered wrong.
They want us all to be the children of the world that "They" will guide.
People will still smoke, and they will probably pay whatever the cost. When I was 14 and smoked I paid quite a bit for smokes, had to pay someone to buy them for me. Although I do not engage in other behaviors, there are plenty of other who do, such as using illegal drugs, they pay whatever they have to to get those too.
When I was in college I wore "Penny Loafers"
Instead of a penny in each shoe there were quarters.
A quarter could buy me a gallon of gas (18 cents at the time) or a pack of smokes.
I smoked 2-3 packs a day for over 40 years. The steady increases in the price
was an aggravation but never a motivation to quit. What was the motivation
was when (years ago) I stumbled upon an e-cig YouTube video ... WOW, never
heard of e-cigarettes .... I can quit smoking and still enjoy the habit.
EDIT:
These old eyes have seen a lot
Next time you run across a "grumpy old man" ...
Consider the reason he might be a little grumpy is because he remembers a time
when there were freedoms and before the Nanny State and Political Correctness.
Last edited:
New Reality TV show
Tobacco Outlaws
WOW !!! 1 pound of pure tobacco...street value $10K
BAM SLAM ... (break for commercial)
- No cigarette advertising in media or on billboards
- Graphic warnings and photos on cigarette packs
- Public smoking banned just about every workplace and public space, including bars, casinos and many outdoor public parks and pools
- All smoke-free tobacco sales are banned - can import (read $$) for personal use only
- Sales of e-cigarettes with nicotine prohibited
- 70% tax on cigarettes, which cost about $12 a pack
After 20 years of this war on tobacco use, the New Zealand smoking rate has only dropped about 20% (down from 26.2% to 21%) the same as the U.S, even though the average tobacco tax rate for federal and state is only about 45%.
Sweden, on the other hand, has had much more relaxed tobacco control laws and didn't ban snus. Sweden's smoking rate is just 14%. Of course, there are ANTZ (even in Sweden) trying to pressure the government to get people to also quit the snus and be completely tobacco-free because, well...just because.
- Graphic warnings and photos on cigarette packs
- Public smoking banned just about every workplace and public space, including bars, casinos and many outdoor public parks and pools
- All smoke-free tobacco sales are banned - can import (read $$) for personal use only
- Sales of e-cigarettes with nicotine prohibited
- 70% tax on cigarettes, which cost about $12 a pack
After 20 years of this war on tobacco use, the New Zealand smoking rate has only dropped about 20% (down from 26.2% to 21%) the same as the U.S, even though the average tobacco tax rate for federal and state is only about 45%.
Sweden, on the other hand, has had much more relaxed tobacco control laws and didn't ban snus. Sweden's smoking rate is just 14%. Of course, there are ANTZ (even in Sweden) trying to pressure the government to get people to also quit the snus and be completely tobacco-free because, well...just because.
Well, you know what Mike. You don't live in a country where your healthcare is solely your responsibility. This country, like all developed countries, refuses to allow people to die in the street because they can't afford, or didn't think they needed, health insurance, or because they had inadequate means to provide for their own healthcare, or even if they were negligent and made no provisions for their own healthcare. In the 19th century, we did allow that to some degree. Then, in light of the results of such a policy, people decided that the consequences were unacceptable. So this country decided a long time ago, before you were even born, that it did not want to be like say...India or Bangladesh or Nigeria. We decided that it was not good public policy to allow droves of sick and dying people to walk the streets begging and spreading their contagions. You might disagree with that. You might think it's fine for the streets of New York or Boise to look like the streets of Calcutta, but it's not your decision to make. It's already been made. So, in fact, until this country decides it's o.k. to have sick and dying citizens walking the streets, your health is not entirely your responsibility. Because, at the end of the day, if you have no money or all your money has been exhausted paying for your cancer or whatever, we do not have the option of turning you out to pasture or sitting you out to die on an iceberg somewhere. That's just the way it is. You may not be aware of it, but that's how it's been for a very long time in the U.S. and in every other country in the civilized world as well.
So maybe we should have a contract for people who think of themselves as rugged individualists. Maybe the contract should state that if they should get laid off and/or lose their health insurance or if they exhaust their personal resources due to injury or illness, they will sequester themselves out of all contact with the public. They will not beg for help for themselves or their children or dependents. Neither they, nor their dependents will ask for or receive any assistance from the public. They will merely shut themselves in a private room somewhere and die. If it means their children or other dependents starve as well, then so be it.
I'm quite sure that there are people, in their momentarily comfortable lifestyles and their delusions of invulnerability, who will sign that contract. The problem is that it would not be too long before the results of allowing them to do that would become so intolerable that society would not be able to bring themselves to tolerate it. Then, we'd be right back where we started. So, I suggest that anyone who fancies themselves as being totally independent, self-sufficient and invulnerable move to a place where people don't think twice about walking around corpses in the streets. That place is not, nor should it ever be, the U.S.A..
- No cigarette advertising in media or on billboards
- Graphic warnings and photos on cigarette packs
- Public smoking banned just about every workplace and public space, including bars, casinos and many outdoor public parks and pools
- All smoke-free tobacco sales are banned - can import (read $$) for personal use only
- Sales of e-cigarettes with nicotine prohibited
- 70% tax on cigarettes, which cost about $12 a pack
After 20 years of this war on tobacco use, the New Zealand smoking rate has only dropped about 20% (down from 26.2% to 21%) the same as the U.S, even though the average tobacco tax rate for federal and state is only about 45%.
Sweden, on the other hand, has had much more relaxed tobacco control laws and didn't ban snus. Sweden's smoking rate is just 14%. Of course, there are ANTZ (even in Sweden) trying to pressure the government to get people to also quit the snus and be completely tobacco-free because, well...just because.
Apparently NZ is buying into the WHO Framework:
Medical News: WHO Policy Could Have Big Effect on Smoking Rates - in Pulmonology, Smoking & Tobacco from MedPage Today
I commented about the wisdom (?) of the WHO Framework: Comments
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
