Greeks are abandoning cigarettes in record numbers
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
It's more politically easy to put money into paying celebrities to beg kids not to smoke, but it's not actually effective. It's just theater so politicians can say they tried.
Here, Greece is seeing the affordability fall just because the affordability of everything is falling for them. The result is the same.
[citation needed]
I grew up with plenty of poor high school kids who had no problem finding cigarettes even when the taxes were jacked up on them here in Canada. I know many of them as adults who continued to smoke even as the price has continued to climb over the last 10yrs.
I've never heard anyone say they quit smoking because it was too expensive. It was merely a perk of quitting. Especially considering it's always been an irrational and escapist habit.
I also smoked for years and I can't imagine the price being $5 vs $11 would have had any effect on my decision. High prices via taxes was merely an additional burden, a burden usually placed on people who are in the most need of money.
The only two major change I've seen in recent years pushing people off cigarettes is a) it's no longer cool and b) e-cigarettes
"Most studies found that raising cigarette prices through increased taxes is a highly effective measure for reducing smoking among youth, young adults, and persons of low socioeconomic status"
There used to be separate departments for each, but they were merged years ago. This was a slightly odd move, as the revenue were people who were good at doing very detailed analysis of paper trails, whereas customs were people who were good at kicking down smugglers' doors.
An important point to be sure. I think we should just execute smokers. Surely a study will show that reduces smoking. /s ...or maybe we can just realize the ends don't justify the means.
We grudgingly accept the emissions from cars because of their other usefulness.
If we could make cars with no emissions and no other negatives, gas-powered vehicles would surely be outlawed very soon.
Smoking has no useful purpose and frankly it's ridiculous that some people feel they are entitled to put other people's health at risk because of their own addiction.
In the town I live in, smoking is only allowed in adult-only establishments. And those allowing smoking are the minority because many business owners realized their customers don't want it at all. Best of all worlds and the state didn't have to completely outlaw its public indoor use, just restrict it.
Many countries ban advertisements of cigarettes and recently there is a culture shift in Movies.
I definitely think it’s a generational change.
(During WW2 which had extensive gas rationing, a black market for that appeared as well, and (you guessed it) drive by shootings.)
Of course, today we have the failed war on drugs, with drive by shootings.
There are limits to government power attempting to force morality on people.
I'm also sure no smoking indoors or on public streets laws works to reduce smoking well too.
I think we can both agree that taxation is the better ‘value’ policy [negative costs are hard to beat], but studies such as the described at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4396458/ suggest that generic packaging has positive effects too.
The smokes are kept behind a counter here to prevent theft. I buy a pack from a 14ish year old supermarket employee/girl. She turned around to get it, gazed over the packaging looking for the one I ordered, then she looked away, her head sunk between the shoulders and she made a face as if she just saw someone eat a baby. Took her a good 4 seconds to get back her senses and face the wall of death for a second trial.
The plain packaging with disgusting imagery as used in Australia has been shown to be effective in reducing youth smoking. The less people try smoking when young, the less continue smoking when older.
The tobacco industry's own studies show that their branding is an important part of getting people to start smoking initially.
Doesn't this just create an illegal distribution network that sells them cheaper?
> The city has argued that the availability of cheaper cigarettes is a public health concern because taxes were in part a way to discourage smoking.
There's also that story about that manfacturer smuggling cigarettes into a country I can't remember to avoid paying taxes.
The only measure that reliably gets people to stop smoking. Lots of other things can reduce the number of people who start smoking, which is at least as important. There's a reasonable evidence base for a large number of tobacco control measures - banning flavoured products, setting minimum pack sizes, banning advertising and sponsorship, mandating plain packaging etc.
As others have reported in this thread the tax on tobacco is 70% in Greece. I'm not sure what it is in the UK.
The detail to take into account is that Greece produces tobacco locally. So it's going to be cheaper.
Bottom line- I'm not convinced it's the price that's making a difference.
Although I partially agree; it's not only the price that affects the consumption of tobacco. It's could also be that there is nothing cool about smoking nowadays.
Varying the images matters, so that people don't tune them out. It is best to focus on sex appeal: wrinkles, erectile dysfunction, nasty teeth, etc. The next best thing is to focus on the harm to children, both unborn and living in the house.
Greece raised the tax rate on tobacco from 57,5% to 70% in 2010. So this effect was doubled (everything else became more expensive too, wages dropped...).
Not exactly. A better way to phrase it: "The only measure that has ever been shown to work to reduce smoking is to make laws around how smoking items can be sold." Whether that law is to require tax, or age, or whatever. In your example, they are laws around requiring extra money be charged when selling something. Whether something works should not be the only factor in its implementation, especially at the state/legal level. Otherwise, you fall victim to the prohibitionist fallacy.
I have a few colleagues who are way behind paycheck to paycheck, but will always have smokes. They would rather have a pack or 2 and skip meals not being able to afford them (packs costing ~$13 cad).
Another anecdote, I recall that when I was in the military I actually met a guy who would buy cartons on base and sell the packs off base (they were tax free on base). He was in to all sorts of fringe black market style activities like this. He was also a bootlegger. He hawked his shit at swap meets. This guy was active duty, an E5 with what looked to be a healthy start to a career focused on his service. I learned after I had separated that he had been caught up in an investigation and was court martialed.
I also heard from my brother, who was also in the service, that a handful of active duty guys in his own unit in upstate NY would cross in to Canada to buy cartons to smuggle back across the border to sell in the US. This would've been in the late 80s or early 90s.
I guess my point is, if there's a market for this sort of activity then there is safe money in betting that it's happening some how. And it attributes itself well to the notion that people without a whole lot of money are able to engage in what looks like a very expensive habit to many of us.
Definitely has been happening here as long as I can remember.
People pickup cartons coming back from US trips and resell them,, you can get it at less than half price locally. Cartons can be had for 30-40$ usd at duty free. I have coworkers who travel 90%, they always bring back cartons and charge $20 markup.
Bringing cartons across from another province as they have less taxes.
Buying from the "native reserves" as it's tax free.
Buy from Asian convenience store, cause they are importing illegally at a lower cost.
Heck, not sure how easy u can pass customs nowadays, but you could buy cartons online from europe 5-10 years ago with ease illegally.
There's many options.
Smoking is a convenient crutch for people addicted, it's crazy that something that can make you feel like shit, but can also temporarily make you feel better. (Mindset of a smoker... I could chain smoke, feel like crap. My next thought is, maybe I should have another one).
If anyone wants to quit, I suggest the following as mandatory Reading: Alan Carr: easy way quit smoking (many iterations on title).
This is a magnificent book that has helped many people I know, including myself.
Helps you understand the addiction, the hold it has over you (which is mostlt mental), and helps put you in the right mind frame to quit.
If we can do it with mosquitoes, no reason we can’t use it against tobacco.
I’d offer a vaccine for addiction if one existed, but until that time, you hack around the lack of political will.
http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=13 - the first link I found from a google search for "secondhand smoke kills how many"
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...
And Greeks are very good at not doing receipts. The black market economy is significant.
And while cigarette taxes have raised considerably, the prices aren't that high because many people smoke tobacco which costs around 7,5 euro for a pack of 30 grams that lasts for days.
While it is a joke I did see plenty of people turn financial "freedom" into their personal hell of drugs and/or gambling.
The weirdest example was an extremely hard working self-employed construction worker with a large variety of skills. The most happy period in his life (from my perspective) was when he lived on a camping in a tiny tent with a budget of 5 euro per day. All he did was eat fruit, lift weights, sit in the sun and chat with the camping folk.
At a different times he had 20 employees. Every day he smoked 2 packs of cigarettes, 5 grams of weed and god knows how much cocaine. But that was during work. He spend all of his free time gazing at slot machines. At the time he also never showed up for appointments if they didn't involve large amounts of money. He owed everyone money that he could easily pay but just didn't show up to do. Great way to lose friends, borrow as much as you can then pretend it isn't important enough to pay them back.
Advanced vaporizers, which could successfully substitute cigarettes are even less convenient: replacement coils are not standardized, firmware is buggy, juice is leaking, settings are confusing etc. It's not rocket science but enough of a barrier for most people as it seems. E.g. my vaping setup is: a mechanical vaporizer (so no firmware issues), a charger and a set of 18650 IMR cells (you have to buy them online since they are not intended for sale to consumers), an atomizer building deck (an ohm-meter + power source to burn coils outside the vaporizer), all kinds of heating wire, tools to work with the wire, wick, juice. Compare to a cigarette smoking: cigarettes, lighter, ashtray (if you lucky to be able to smoke inside), all available everywhere and you can get by just with the cigarettes.
Nicotine and carbon monoxide levels settling provides a similar sensation to hunger, that would be satisfied for a short period with a cigarette. You start confusing this with hunger and default to wanting another smoke.
I could go 16+ hours without eating anything and thinking I am hungry
Also you notice with ex-smokers they tend to gain weight because they are satisfying this sensation by eating more
As to what specifically the need might be, there's a good bit of circumstantial evidence to suggest that nicotine relieves or compensates for some symptoms of schizophrenia, ADHD, and related disorders.
When financial life is total shit one might be depressed to the point that giving up smoking is impossible.
Likewise, if one has a lot of money in the bank a pack of smokes would have to cost something like 1000 Euro before one would start to notice it. Some could even afford 30 k per month without giving it a second thought.
As a smoker I see only one viable solution.
1) Remove all cigarettes from the stores.
2) Have doctors do regular blood tests to prescribe the desired amount of tobacco and/or chewing gum. No brands, just one size fits all. No added lead, tar, chlorine etc etc
3) make a time released mechanism to get at each cigarette.
4) Gradually reduce the amount of tobacco served.
5) If the patient fails to reduce his intake he has to make an appointment with the doctor. Regular blood tests will show his current intake so that the doctor can re-adjust his ration to the state of the habit.
6) If step 5 fails repeatedly there can be a kind of hospitalization (read prison) where one isn't allowed to smoke at all for 2 weeks.
I think I smoke 15 cigarettes per day.
My doctor would prescribe me 105 this week in 7 time locked boxes and another 105 next week.
2 weeks seems enough to get the added stress from the rationing figured out.
After 2 weeks he would only prescribe 98 in 7 boxes of 14. This wouldn't bother me at all.
In week 5 and 6 there would be only 13 per day left.
At that point I would have to seriously start considering which to skip. Maybe the one with the coffee right after waking up can be delayed for an hour?
Week 7 and 8 there would be 12.
I might save one for bed time in stead of just lighting them up at every idle moment of the day.
A most interesting effect starts kicking roughly at this point: Other people cant have one.
9, 10 = 11
11,12 = 10
13,14 = 9
15,16 = 8
17,18 = 7
19,20 = 6
21,22 = 5
23,24 = 4
25,26 = 3
27,28 = 2
29,30 = 1
30,31 = 1 every 2 days
32,33 = 1 every 3 days
34,35 = 1 every 4 days
36,37 = 1 every 5 days
38,39 = 1 every 6 days
40,41 = 1 every week
42 = ur cured bro!
Blood tests continue however!
3 months no nicotine = you get 1000 euro
6 months no nicotine = you get 3000 euro
1 year no nicotine = you get 5000 euro
Fail to show up for the tests or start smoking again: A fine of 1 month salary and back to step 2.
People who never smoked will get the same reward.
The money isn't an issue as smokers have paid crazy amounts of tax over the last few years.
So far it was not like a road tax to pay for roads it was a troll tax simply to take your money away. If it is such a great idea we could easily slap a similar 500% troll tax on 90% of the food for not being the most nutritious choice.
Not getting enough exercise? A flat tax of 500 Euro per month seems a great way to cure you? no?
Overweight? woah! that will be another 300.
An exponential tax for drinking also seems great?
We could even prescribe push ups or other exercises and monitor you at home. Imagine the tax money to be made!
Then we could all band together and hate on fat people the way we troll smokers.
I mean, are we talking about some sadist fetish or is it really all because people care so much about the smokers health?
At my job all but one guy smoke, our coffee room is never used by anyone. We all stand outside the building. There is no one else there, no one can see us (LOL!) and we bring an ashtray. Now someone decided that we cant smoke on company terrain anymore. We have to walk 200 meters and stand outside the fence - but not in a way customers would notice us.
This is not because they care so much, it is to cater to the hysteria from anti-smoking sadists. People who've made it their business to meddle in other peoples lives because they can. Their hysterical screaming YOU CANT SMOKE HERE! doesn't at all suggest they ohhh care sohhh much about my health.
From the intrusion on others (second hand smoke) to the cancer, to the litter, there is absolutely nothing positive about cigarettes. I'm no fan of vaping, but as an intermediate step to the elimination of smoking, it is a necessary evil.
I would be very happy if cigarettes vanished from the world.
This is a silly statement. People smoke for many legitimate reasons beyond having an active addiction.
Reason 1. People enjoy smoking.
I'm not sure how people can manage to say stuff like absolutely nothing positive. It's like those lists of the effects of marijuana that list no positive effects whatsoever. Fairly obviously, no-one would smoke if it had no positive effects. There's a kind of moral crusade blindness common to phenomena like this. People can say evidently false things like 'There is absolutely nothing positive about cigarettes'. Because the end message is one they approve of, thinking is somehow blocked in the absolutist zeal.
I probably should have written "objectively positive". People's enjoyment is entirely subjective. What I enjoy and what you enjoy are probably different sets.
"What I enjoy and what you enjoy are probably different sets." Well, of course people each enjoy different things, but how that's relevant to your point I'm not sure.
I recently heard Doug Crockford saying a similar thing, that smoking has nothing positive about it, with evident pleasure, in his talk on programming, the brain and the gut; "Programming Style and Your Brain", I think it was. It was startling - an obviously intelligent guy suddenly saying something entirely baseless and evidently false.
edit: Downvoters, could you explain why? Thanks.
"What I enjoy and what you enjoy are probably different sets." is relevant insofar as pleasure is subjective, which is the opposite of objective.
When I wrote the original comment, I was not specific enough too include objective, which I should have.
Didn't downvote you by the way.
People smoke because it makes you feel good temporarily. This is a known effect that is experienced by a large majority. That’s not subjective any more than a release of endorphins during sex is subjective.
Probably no-one has ever thought that everyone enjoys exactly the same things. It's like if you're arguing with someone and the other person says "2+2=4" apparently to support their argument, it would just make you wonder what their argument is, that they bring in 2+2=4 as supporting evidence. It's still puzzling why bring that in, but it seems you have an unusual idea of subjective/objective, as the other commenter has pointed out. But I don't think that's the main issue here..
Trying to understand how people can say "there's nothing good/positive about smoking" :
It seems that - as very often happens in philosophy - there is an equivocation[0].
In one sense, the statement is false (the one I hear, and the guy who said it's a silly thing to say):
There's absolutely nothing positive about smoking (including the smoker's pleasure)
and the other is true but trivial (the one you said you meant when you clarified) :
There's absolutely nothing positive about smoking (not including the smoker's pleasure)
- apart from the smoker's enjoyment, there's nothing good about smoking. But (like ice cream) what are these other good things supposed to be? They are done for enjoyment.
You (and Crockford in that video) say it like it's a hard-hitting substantive thing to say, bemused at how it's not generally admitted. I think it seems so because of this equivocation.
[0] "an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion" - wikip.
"There's absolutely nothing positive about smoking (including the smoker's pleasure)"
and replace it with
"There's absolutely nothing positive about smoking (not including the smoker's pleasure)"
If the statements were intended to stand side by side, that would be an equivocation. But they are not meant to stand side by side, nor would it make much sense to do so.
Also someone mentioned the antipsychotic treatment, irrelevant to most but pretty interesting: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/11/schizophrenia-no-smokin...
edit: good list of nootropic-style benefits of nicotine from gwern (https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine)
Improved reaction time, IQ test scores on the RAPM, pilots performanced enhanced, driving performance enhanced, overnight performance on memory and attention tasks improved, improved prospective memory, helps with ADHD, may help depression, found to help with mild cognitive imparement in the elderly
On the anecdata side, I have a few smoker friends who explained to me they only really feel the first cigarette in the morning. All the others cigarettes they smoke are due to habit/withdrawal.
In the end, there are a lot of stimulant drugs who do not have as much side effects as nicotine, especially when it comes in the form of tobacco, so it does not appear like smoking is a possible rational choice.
A Review of the Effects of Nicotine on Schizophrenia and Antipsychotic Medications
Edward R. Lyon, M.S., Ed.D. Published online: October 01, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.50.10.1346 (full text available)
> OBJECTIVE: Research on the impact of nicotine on schizophrenia and antipsychotic medications was reviewed to determine ways to improve treatment planning for patients with schizophrenia who smoke and to evaluate smoking cessation programs for this population.
> METHODS: All major research databases were searched. The review focuses on reports published since 1990.
>RESULTS: Smoking improves processing of auditory stimuli (sensory gating) by patients with schizophrenia and may lessen negative symptoms by increasing dopamine in the nucleus accumbens and the prefrontal and frontal cortex. Use of traditional antipsychotics may result in patients' smoking more, whereas patients taking atypical antipsychotics may smoke less. Patients who smoke metabolize antipsychotics faster than nonsmoking patients. Smoking cessation programs for outpatients with schizophrenia report a success rate of about 12 percent after six months. No studies of cessation programs for chronically ill inpatients with schizophrenia have been published. Several hospitals have implemented smoking bans with equivocal results.
> CONCLUSIONS: Nicotine affects both schizophrenia and antipsychotic medications. Neurobiological and psychosocial factors reinforce the high use of nicotine by patients with schizophrenia
If they're medicated the hydrocarbons in burnt tobacco interact with antipsychotic medication, making it less effective, meaning they need more meds. And antipsychotic meds can be pretty nasty.
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg178
> In March 2014, a correction was made to the wording of recommendation 1.1.3.3 to clarify that it is the hydrocarbons in cigarette smoke that cause interactions with other drugs, rather than nicotine.
What people with psychosis need is early intervention that addresses the full range of bio-psycho-social needs the person has.
Is this a significant reason relative to suicide amongst psychotics?
In England about 4,500 deaths by suicide per year. There are about 55million people in the UK, and about 1% of them have psychosis, so there are roughly 550000 people with psychosis.
The deaths by suicide, while both tragic and preventable, don't change the average lifespan much.
It's the heart attacks and strokes and diabetes that are the biggest effect on lifespan.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3151730/
I'm not saying it's a good idea given the risk profile, but nicotine definitely has useful cognitive effects.
If you ever lived in an apartment with a neighbor who smokes, it turns from intense personal dislike to pure hate. I will never understand how people can smoke in their homes. It literally turns your house into an ashtray.
> I'm no fan of vaping, but as an intermediate step to the elimination of smoking, it is a necessary evil.
Unless it turns out to be more toxic.
The problem I see is that society seems to turning away from cigarettes and more towards weed and other type of obnoxious drug use.
Also, when you are getting closer to an emergency situation than we are normally today, you will also start caring more about your health automatically. That's what evolution has taught us, it is natural behavior. Modern luxury has let us care less about our bodies than we should.
I haven't really thought about whether I would be a business partner with someone, but in this case quantity certainly matters. When people say smoker, it is implied someone who smokes often and constantly throughout the day - 24/7. The equivalent drinker would be an alcoholic, not just someone who has a beer on Friday.
2) alcoholism has much worse direct consequences than heavy smoking
Being overweight is a different card, because it's a symptom, not an action that is chosen voluntarily. There can be many reasons for being overweight... maybe genes, some kind of illness etc.. I can't judge based on something I don't exactly know. But then again ... when I see someone eating lots of fast-food, chips and drinking Cola ... I would probably hesitate to ask him to become my business partner.
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/diseases/depressio...
Before you say that is also justification for rejecting them, be aware that some folks on HN are vocal about the need to destigmatize mental health issues generally and plenty of very successful people have mental health issues.