If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Definition of discincentive:
disincentive - a negative motivational influence
So yea, I would say that x amount of people would stop smoking should the price increase by y. Of course, it's addictive and so the average joe has no choice but to foot the cost - but look at the big picture.
If someone is considering buying a packet of cigarettes, and it costs 10p, then sure they probably wouldn't think twice. If it costs £10, the person may think it's not worth it and spend their money on something else. Especially when you consider people who don't have a strong addiction or haven't started smoking - why would you when it's so prohibitively expensive. The forces got in trouble years back but I don't think anything came of it - because with your daily rations you got a cup of rum, a bit of food and a pack of cigarettes (at least, my dad did when he was in the navy in the 1960s / 70s).
Everything applies to the rule, just some things it may take a bigger chance in price for people to change their habits. Life saving medicine, for example, people will pay everything that have to get. But if the price is increased past all their money so they can't afford it - less people have it.
I've never seen it as some cynical plot by the government to raise more tax revenue (tax on petrol? maybe...) - the fact is the cost of smoking is the cost you pay + the cost of cancer / smelliness / etc. which is hard to define in a number. So economists just try to work it out, and by adding a bit of tax to a packet of cigarettes it more closely resembles the real cost, so only people who *really* benefit from smoking (i.e. those who love smoking so much they'll pay £50 a cigarette and be better off for not having spent the money on something else) will bother.
I'd love to share your rosy view of things, i really would. You don't think that the government are in fact taking a calculated stab at people's wallets when they put the exorbitant tax on things like ciggies, alcohol, petrol etc etc. They worked out that people will still buy these things despite the ridiculous levels of tax, and that's why the tax is on them. It's also - relatively - clever taxing as well: you can tell by the level of anti-smoking sentiment on here, that people will not only accept it, they'll often champion it.
Well aren't you a just a fountain of intellectual, well-though-out profundity.
Echo CCH's thoughts.
That and were everyone to stop smoking, a fuckload of money would disappear from the economy and you'd certainly notice it.
Idiot.
It's all a case of perspective, but maybe the real answer is somewhere in the middle. Maybe it's about raising tax revenue and preventing bad habits or consumption of demerit goods. So whilst they have the extra cash to spend on health, welfare, education without having to give everyone a massive income tax rise, they are also curbing negative behaviours that costs everyone that extra "cost of cancer + smelliness + fag ends + whatever other 'costs' are associated that you don't pay for over the counter".
End result? Everyone wins. I don't think it's about anti-smoking sentiment, I haven't even agreed with the licence. I think it's impractical, though as KHSS said it would make it easier for shops. I said that the black market is there and will provide as soon as you like, so it's better to keep it regulated.
I did comment, however, that it seems sometimes when people are engaged in an activity they can't see it from a neutral perspective, and will try to justify it as passive smoking not causing damage, and so on. There are definitely two ways to look at it, but surely someone who is heavily dependent on cigarettes (not yourself, but in general - since some studies say it's more addictive than heroin) is probably not in the best position to decide on the direction of policy towards cigarettes.
And the other thing I said, is that smokers suffer much less harshly compared to people who are addicted to other substances.