Hacker News Reader

Comment by superchroma | Hacker News Reader

Conventional cigarettes are of course untouched. By not banning them outright but instead taxing them outrageously, Australia has created a rich black market for cigarettes.

View on HN

They're not banned outright because of the historic backlog of smokers. Tasmania is introducing a birth date cutoff, so younger generations are banned. Other states may follow.

Also, they're not just taxed; they can't be advertised, they can't be displayed in shops, only one counter in a shop can sell them, they have gruesome images on the packets, and there's a LOT of support to quit smoking.

The tobacco companies were using vaping as a way around all of these regulations, and an opportunity to once again market to younger generations, which is why i'm glad the govt is now doing something about vaping.

I also doubt the black market is as large as you think. I'm sure it exists, but I just don't think it's as rich as you describe. We're "girt by ocean" on all sides, and if anybody has a successful smuggling route into Australia they likely want to maximise profit by smuggling higher value illegal substances.

The black market is around 12% in Australia despite the high taxes because Australia is a country isolated on all sides by ocean. Compared to somewhere like New York where the taxes are equally punitive but smuggled cigs make up 50% of consumption. It's a problem in that Border Force (a ridiculous name for a border inspection agency) look for it but in general there's not an easy way to smuggle cigs like taking a uhaul full of them from NH to NYC.

Or similarly by boat between the US and Canada. Especially through First Nations communities like in Akwesasne. [1]

[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/akwesasne-irs-tobacco-smu...

> Border Force (a ridiculous name for a border inspection agency)

It's a uniformed service that enforces Australia's border controls. Far from being ridiculous, I can't think of a more appropriate name.

I think for me at least it's the "Force" part of the agency name. It sounds very militarized and American to me where something like "Border Control Agency" wouldn't sound as ridiculous

I am Australian, and I am skeptical that this is nothing more than protectionism for the large tobacco companies.

I am also Australian but I doubt it. Our governments have been pretty harsh on smoking for a while, hell a few years ago Tasmania wanted to ban it for anyone born after the year 2000 (I dunno if that actually passed/is still being looked at, but still) which definitely isn't a protectionist attitude to have towards the tobacco industry.

Plus tobacco companies have actually tried to sell tobacco products that are classified as "e cigarettes" to avoid taxes in several jurisdictions. John Safran's book Puff Piece is quite interesting and covers that phenomenon (I recommend it).

FWIW, my experience has been that hardly anyone smokes in Australia compared to Europe. The policies must be working in some way.

I would be all for a real push to follow in New Zealand's footsteps in enforcing a date of birth cut-off. Cigarettes, and nicotine generally, are horrendous and aside from having impacted me personally, put an unnecessary drain on public resources. They are wholly bad, and the rhetoric I've heard from people stating "you have to die of something" is, to me, entirely selfish thinking.

Yeah, but smoking makes you look cool.

Does it?

Are they a drain on public resources though? I’ve read that non-smokers have higher lifetime health cares costs because smokers on average die so much younger.

No I'm in the "quit fucking around" camp. They need to be banned already. Rip the plaster off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com