The UK has banned the sale of cigarettes forever to anyone born after 2008.
Good.
The UK isn't the only to do it, New Zealand did it a few years ago, but a year later it was repealed by the new government, after lobbying from tobacco companies. A lot of people don't believe government intervention is the way to go with these kinds of things and that tax systems are terrible (which they are) and all that, but the fact is and quite unfortunately, this is the system we currently have, so take the wins where they exist and work toward having more wins in the future.
Now there is irrefutable evidence that smoking is bad for health and there have been campaigns to stop smoking since I was a little kid, so at least four decades. In Australia it has significantly reduced the number of smokers, but it is more the price than the health, since a packet of cigarettes is now up to $50 USD. That is $18,250 USD a year. Still, almost 10% of the population over the age of 14 smoke. And then there is vaping.
But since it is irrefutable that smoking is bad for health, why is it that the addicted user bears the cost? And of course, society pays for a lot of the treatment and other costs associated with cigarette usage. What should happen instead of the user pays the tax, is that in an industry like tobacco which is irrefutably bad for the health, the tobacco company should be taxed significantly more than the corporate rate. Some percentage that can't be reduced through reductive accounting practices.
For example, let's say a pack of cigarettes is 10 dollars in Australia. Currently, $7.50 of that is tax collected by the government, with 10% of that being goods and services tax. And of course, the government isn't going to go without their tax. So what if the tobacco company had to cover the excise tax percentage of $6.75 through their corporate tax. For them to maintain the same profits as now, they would have to significantly raise the price of cigarettes, which would have the same effect as the user paying more anyway. But there is a key difference, because the user is addicted to the cigarettes and struggles to stop, but the corporation is addicted to profit. Essentially, it should be impossible for a clear health damaging industry like tobacco (medical implications aside) to be profitable.
Or what about if that is too complicated, tobacco companies have to pay 50% of all medical costs for smoking related illnesses and treatments? The bill each year would be split by the amount of cigarettes sold by a company and they have to pay that money as a lumpsum to the government.
When it comes to harmful industries, the cost should be paid by the industry itself, because quite often the user has little choice in the matter. For instance, the tobacco and oil industries have very strong lobbyists who influence policy globally, and that policy is inflicted upon the respective populations. The cost of any harm they do, should be paid directly by the companies. Air quality and respiratory problems, micro plastics and heavy metal poisoning, and whatever else can be proven. And once proven, each case doesn't need to go to court, because it becomes a blanket rule to say when this happens and is caused by that, the bill goes to the companies.
There has to be a cost to the companies that cause harm.
Because leaving it up to the user leaves the companies at an unfair advantage, as they are able to manipulate policy, influence through advertising and use a whole range of sneaky behavioural economics tricks to push users to use. And unlike the tobacco smoking industry that has almost zero potential for good, other than some promise in using nicotine in certain medications, there are a host of other industries that might have a mix of good and bad in them.
For instance media platforms like Facebook, TikTok and Instagram, which do offer some value to users, but also creates a lot of harm for users and creators also. So what if they too were to get the bill for therapists dealing with children who have behavioural issues likely caused by over usage of the platform. What if gaming companies had to cover the costs of therapy for people who are addicted to games? What if these companies have to cover rehabilitation costs for people and improvement of learning environments? This doesn't stop them from exploiting their benefits, but it should encourage them to reduce the harms.
As I see it, the economy is harmful in its current form because profits can be made even when there is significant harm to users. In a perfect world, profits would be aligned to the benefits they bring to society, not the ability to convince society to pay the costs. The deck is stacked against the enduser by both the government systems in place, and the corporate ability to drive policy and influence to the user. The user themselves is made to feel like they have a choice, even though many do not, because to do differently means to know more than is possible to know for an individual, act on it, and do things that will take away all convenience.
Corporate goods and service convenience shouldn't come at the cost of our health and wellbeing, they should be designed to improve them.
Especially now with the technological push for complete automation, we should be making an enormous shift in business practices, taxes, and the way we define corporate success, to align with maximising wellbeing for people. Profits can still be made, but the competition isn't in who can convince and extract the most, but which companies can help the most. Those that do harm, are unable to turn a profit under any condition.
Clean air. Clean water. Clean earth. Clean food. Clean living.
Clear conscience.
Do no harm - or pay the price of repair.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
- Comment on the topics of the article, and add your perspectives and experiences.
- Read and discuss with others who comment and build your personal network
- Engage well with me and others and put in effort
And you may be rewarded.
I think this is a tough one. Yes smoking sucks and it’s bad for our health etc etc
Where the issue lies is the downstream effects of the nanny state. This type of thing makes sense to most people in some fashion. It NEVER stays with just something like that. It’s the ratchet effect with these assholes. They keep growing and growing into our personal lives and never give anything back.
I refuse this is a good idea on that principle.
I started trying to write something similar but you did it much better and much more concisely XD
Aren't we heading that way anyway without getting anything in return?
If I am going to get screwed, I at least should get some pleasure out of it :D
Yeah, I get the nanny state problem, but perhaps the bigger issue with that is, even without any good, we are heading in that direction anyway. So we will have a nanny state, and still no benefits. I would also argue that corporations and governments are already monitoring us for their own profit anyway.
Ideally, government and corporations would be aligned with the betterment of humanity, but look at the world, is that the case?
Very idealistic, unfortunately I don't see this happening in our lifetime... What I see though are rollbacks of taxes and regulations in USA on polluters which already resulted in many car manufacturers pulling the electric vehicles from the market because now it is more profitable to produce gas guzzlers once again...
Solar incentives have been eliminated entirely and at least half of the country believes that climate change is a hoax...
Interesting isn't it? Everyone aligns their success to how much money they make as individuals, companies or countries, even though the way that money is made screws us a species. We are fucking idiots, aren't we?
Our definition of success is twisted.
Let's see how this goes!
If Prohibition teached us something, who want them will find a way.
Of course they will. It also speaks to the larger problem of society. The high prices in Australia have made a roaring blackmarket. But if the young never start smoking, that blackmarket dies with lung cancer.
Seriously, I see 12 year old using vapes with vitamins and stuff, from there to nicotin is only one step.
I think AI will be a very harmful industry when it is all said and done. The impact of their data centers is finally getting lots of attention here in the states. My area of the country has several proposed locations for AI data centers. Some have been approved. But many are being litigated and protested.
Environmentally it is going to be a huge negative impact unless there is clean energy available for everyone to use cheaply. Socially, it is going to decimate us.
First of all, I doubt that these companies even pay taxes. And with the addictive power, it is near to impossible for a smoker to stop smoking, until or unless, there is strict restrictions and internal motivation. Alas! All these talks are mere talks to them, just to influence the society.
There was local (maybe national) level survey in which, they replaced "cigarette is injurious to health" with "cigarette is injurious to manliness", and folks actually choose the "health" one. Like it really makes thw difference.
This injurious economy is so big that they will put a sudden ban on one specific thing - such as cigarette - just to promote vape or hookah, or some other brand.
Wish there were sane people who could bring a change. I am not against profiteers; it is their right. But they should follow a win-win pattern. Sounds romantic dah!
They largely don't and especially not in the place they make the money. The "tax" would be a non-negotiable, undeductible.
Precisely. Business and government are there for us. It is all meant to be win-win - the problem is, almost none of it is. They collude to extract as much of a win for themselves, at the expense of the 99.9%
If companies make money from products that harm health, I think they should also take on the financial responsibility for the results.
Unfortunately, most of them barely even pay tax.
tremenda reflexion hermano es verdad que el sistema esta diseñado para que las empresas ganen mientras la gente paga las consecuencias. seria ideal que los costos de salud recayeran sobre quien causa el daño.
tremendous reflection brother its true that the system is designed so companies win while people pay the consequences. it would be ideal if health costs fell on whoever causes the damage.
Congratulations @tarazkp! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 2070000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPI agree. Companies should have to cover the cost of harmfulness to the end consumer, but with that in mind, we would have to apply the same policies to betting companies, processed food, sugar contained in most of the junk food and a long list.
Tobacco has been in the target for many years but obesity, diabetes, mental health from betting apps and slot machines....not to mention the light and sugar free labeling....the list is endless
That's a tough one. I see part of this as just another way of shifting blame. Just like last night they were talking about Chat GPT getting sued or investigated because some shooter used it to get information to plan their attack. I think it's overreaching. Tobacco is 18+ in the US, but most kids just steal it from their parents or have a friend that is old enough buy it for them. My wife has had to deal with vaping at the K-5 level which is scary.
Tobacco companies should pay up front, no loopholes, just the bill. Clean conscience, no debate.
Thank you