by Luke Bawden

Created on: January 28, 2009   Last Updated: April 23, 2011

So what is it about government regulation that makes it fair? Firstly, if the revenue gained from the tax levied is used to educate in regards to the dangers of smoking and to contribute to the costs society incurs from smoking, that is one thing. If the high tax acts as a deterrent redirecting the potential participants to more healthy options, this is also beneficial. I agree that the underlying problems need to be addressed; but in a way that doesn't ostracise smokers in the same fashion we did with lepers from days gone by.

Tax dollars, when honestly gained and beneficially spent, create a proactive response. And alot of what goes on with smoking is about manners and respecting all who are affected by the habit. In many places around the world smokers are forced to smoke on the street, the legacy of which leaves many more people in contact with the passive side of things, and most times a disgusting mess. Regardless of how you perceive the risks, the tax would be considered a cash cow by many governments - but with little insight and no responsibility, meaning they fail to address this problem adequately or honestly.

Governments should own up to the difference in what their propaganda on smoking has realized them, and being that the detrimental effects are well-researched and documented why they have such an apathetic approach to honestly addressing it with their abundance of funds. There are many habits out there that affect society in very detrimental ways. Is it fair that we ostracise and persecute a section of the community that, put in context, have well and truly paid for their hospital beds? Education is as always a very wise course of action, and it is good to see that the message is gaining traction. But why not make it more user-friendly for smokers and be more supportive in helping them to instigate change? The risks of passive smoking are so much more understood out there, and it's great to see this has lead to clean, positive change.

If we look at the health issues with regards smoking and how the rather obscene taxes are justified, then it stands to reason that the obesity epidemic needs some form of government dissuasion. What do you think would be the estimated cost of associated medical issues brought on by poor diet, too lazy to exercise, diabetes and the like? Well for starters, if the diabetes trend continues at it's current rate, the whole of the health budget in the US will be required to address it. Revenue for governments is beneficial for so many things, but try and put detrimental habits in context before being judgemental.

Learn more about this author, Luke Bawden.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.