TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 10 °C Wednesday 22 May, 2013

Column: 5 reasons why we need to hike taxes on cigarettes. (Yes, again.)

Significantly raising tobacco taxes would make us healthier, save the State money, and reduce inequality, writes Chris Macey.

Image: Owen Humphreys/PA Wire/Press Association Images

THE IRISH HEART Foundation is in favour of significant regular tax increases on tobacco products for one reason only – it has been proven the world over that they reduce smoking rates and save lives on a massive scale.

Unlike the tobacco industry and indeed the State which have a huge financial interest in the setting of tax levels, our only motivation in pressing for Budget increases is the pursuit of a healthier Ireland.

It’s important to make this clear. Whenever the profits of big tobacco are threatened, they muddy the waters with myths and misinformation. By understanding what’s behind both sides of the argument, people can dig out the truth.

And it’s vital they do. Smoking is the biggest cause of preventable death. It kills 5,700 people in Ireland each year – the equivalent of a jumbo jet crash a month, or two 9/11s every year. So let’s look at why tobacco tax increases are necessary and why we must resist the manipulation of public opinion by the industry to protect its profits.

1. Tax increases save lives International evidence proves that big tax increases work. And although our own research calculated a lower quit rate than studies by the WHO and World Bank, it still showed that a €1 increase on a pack of 20 cigarettes would reduce the number of smokers by 30,000. Given that one in two smokers are killed by their habit, this could ultimately save 15,000 lives.

2. Non-smokers subsidise smokers According to the Department of Health the cost of smoking-related illness is going to be €23 billion over the next 10 years at current rates. Yet based on last year’s yield, the tax take over the next decade will be just €14.7 billion.
So, rather than smokers being net contributors to the national finances, they are effectively subsidised by taxpayers who don’t smoke. And all we’re paying for is tobacco company profits. They don’t even create any jobs here as cigarettes are no longer manufactured in Ireland.

3. Tax increases don’t fuel smuggling The tobacco industry’s main argument against tax increases is that they fuel smuggling. This is a bit rich given that many of the world’s largest tobacco companies have been complicit in smuggling. The biggest – Philip Morris – agreed to pay the EU €1.25 billion in 2004 to halt lawsuits alleging they colluded in the smuggling of billions of cigarettes.

Anyway, their claims don’t stand up to scrutiny. In 2010 the Australian Government increased the price of an average 30-pack of cigarettes by 25 per cent to €10.64. As a result 300,000 people have successfully stopped smoking and there has been no impact on the country’s six per cent smuggling rate.

Spain also had a smuggling rate of 16 per cent in the 1990s. Between 1993 and 2000 resources to combat smuggling increased from €4m to almost €40m whilst the real price of tobacco went up by 30 per cent. The result was a drop in the smuggling rate to just two per cent.

The fact is that smuggling gangs don’t sit down and work out the relative profit margins of smuggling into one country or the next – what they do consider is how likely they are to be caught and what will happen if they are.

4. Irish tobacco smuggling is due to poor enforcement Despite some high profile seizures, inadequate manpower and equipment – including just two mobile scanners for the entire country – means smugglers are highly unlikely to be caught. Even if they are, the penalties are derisory. The highest fine handed down here for tobacco smuggling is €7,500. Compare this to the North where a fine of over €800,000 was imposed in a single case in 2008.

Until recently, when a sentence of 18 months was imposed, the highest jail term ever handed down was six months. This is despite the fact that tobacco smuggling is funding terrorism, people trafficking and the smuggling of heroin and cocaine.

5. The least well-off are affected most – by health inequalities It’s true that people with lower incomes are less able to afford tobacco tax increases than those who are better off. It’s also true that smoking is the biggest single driver of health inequalities in this country. We believe it’s far more important for the Government to bridge the appalling health gap between rich and poor than to make cigarettes affordable to all.

In total, 50 per cent more men and 90 per cent more women smoke in the lowest than highest social groups. The poorest are at least three times more likely to die from heart disease and stroke than the richest in our society.

Women aged 18-29 in the two lowest social groupings are the worst affected. Some 56 per cent smoke – almost double the national adult average. Therefore more than one in four women living in these communities will ultimately die from smoking. This is a health catastrophe that should shame us all.

So what should we do? Tax increases on their own won’t work. What we need is a co-ordinated strategy that also includes tougher anti-smuggling measures and realistic smoking cessation services.

Ten years ago the UK was roughly where we are now, with a smoking rate of 30 per cent and an illicit market share of 21 per cent. Today there are 1 million fewer adult smokers and the child smoking rate has fallen by 50 per cent thanks to the implementation of a national strategy.

Despite significant tax increases, the smuggling rate has fallen to 12 per cent. In return for expenditure of £300 million a year mainly spent on anti-smuggling measures, stop smoking services and advertising, the UK Government is receiving £1.7 billion in additional net annual revenue benefits and an estimated £1.2 billion in extra tax from reduced smuggling activity.

The benefits of action are huge and they are attainable. If we could match the success of the UK we’d save five extra lives from smoking every day, our health service costs would fall and we’d be taking in extra tax revenue to pay for vital services.

If ever there was a policy no-brainer, this is it.

Chris Macey is head of advocacy at the Irish Heart Foundation.

Read next:

Comments (76 Comments)

  • Gave up 3 months ago…Best thing i ever did!!!!

    Reply
  • Common sense really…increase the price and invest in more scanners for the country. Look at Australia…hard to smuggle anything into that country. Grow a pair government!

    Reply
  • Price of 20 Ciggies in a shop €9.00
    Price of smuggled ciggies readily available €5.00

    That’s a no brainer.

    Reply
  • quick question for all smokers and ex smokers would the price stop you from smoking ,i know it wouldnt stop me if that means i sourse them from outside this country so be it.

    Reply
  • I tried the four D approach for giving up and it worked for me. The only one thing that can help people to stop smoking is themselves. Most smokers don’t want to be made to quit. This is a very real addiction and non smokers should realise it is one of the toughest drugs to give up.
    Patches and other methods may slowly ween people off nicotine. So lowering the price of these methods may help. But as with every addictive drug not everyone wants to quit. So increasing taxes is just going to sent people to the black market which will further decrease revenue from the government. If they raise the price people will buy them as this is an addiction we are talking about. Some people may call it a habit or a comfort or a nerve calmer but at the end of the day nicotine is just a drug. Nicotine and the other crap that is within cigarettes is slowly killing them. Try quitting if you do smoke it’s not the worst thing that you could do it possibly the best thing for your body and your well being.

    Reply
  • I smoke, but not much, and don’t have a problem with this, as long as they start taxing the sh*t out of companies like McDonalds, who are doing just as much damage to the health of people around the world, same goes for soft drinks and junk food. If they say it is for our health, then at least be consistent!

    Reply
  • Unfortunately the primary goal of tax increases are more about raising money for the bailouts than saving lives.

    Reply
  • Getting off those damm things is a real achievement, which shows the evil grip they have,gerrout and run or cycle,

    Reply
  • Ridiculous article, particularly the bit about smuggling.
    Food makes you fat- ban it
    Alcohol make you drunk- ban that
    Petrol pollutes the air – ban cars
    Kids can fall when running and sue you – ban exercise
    kids can sue the council if they fall off a swing- ban playgrounds
    Anyone can sue if they trip over the footpath- ban pedestrians
    Looking at computer screens for too long damages your eyesight- ban computers
    Loud music damages your hearing – ban iPods
    PETA says that the human body isn’t designed to digest dairy products so we shouldn’t drink milk so best thing would be to ban that as well…… Which would be fine as nobody would break their brittle bones when pedestrians, exercise and playgrounds etc no longer exist.

    Reply
  • I am paying €23 for a Packet of patches. If the government were serious about smoking cessation they would subsidise them.

    Their calculations on the costs of smokers are skewed by the way. Life expectancy of smokers is about retirement age. Non smokers will be generally subsidised by the State for an average of an additional 8 years. Everyone dies and one in three get cancer. Non smokers don’t all get to pass peacefully in their sleep with medical intervention required. I wish these advocacy groups would practice greater honesty regardless of their good intentions…

    Reply
    • “no” medical intervention

      Reply
    • Add to that Simon that they only mention the cost of health care versus tax from cigarettes. The figures make no mention of the fact that smokers may fund that treatment through Serious Illness insurance policies or Health Insurance and of course their PRSI.

      Reply
    • When I smoked, I pretty much tried everything to give up, patches, hypnotism, accupuncture. The one thing that worked was the cheapest, I got a loan of the Allen Carr give up smoking DVD, watched it with an open mind and a desire to give them up and it worked, off them two and a half years. Just saying might be worth giving it a go, pretty sure you could download it for free somewhere online, it really pissed me off paying so much for patches.

      Reply
    • The same patches cost 7 GBP in London and 11 GBP in NI. So another republic rip off

      Reply
  • If they are so bad and such a strain on the economy, why not make them illegal?

    Reply
  • Fat Freddie Thomson and all of Dublin’s underworld will be delighted with this proposal to increase the price.
    1 in 4 cigarettes smoked is smuggled and the profits are being pocketed by organised criminals. Now engage your brain – what will a significant tax hike do? That’s right ramp up the gang’s profit and levels of violence and murder.

    Oh and very disingenuous to use Australia as an example and you know it. Oz is an isolated country with the strictest border controls in the world and no passenger ferry traffic of note. Example fail.

    Reply
  • Elrat 09/03/12 #

    Never heard of a guy who went home and beat the crap out of his wide after smoking 2o cigs – on the other after 20 pints !!!! Alcohol much more harmful

    Reply
  • think ill have go to the local market and buy for 4 euro a box

    Reply
  • We need to make safer drug options available. Eg nicotine that is vaporised, cannabis that is vaporised, mdma etc. A scientific risk based approach instead of
    emotional thinking. Prohibation does not work. The idiotically named ‘War on Drugs’ is not working.

    Reply
  • If they over tax cigarettes they lose money. People will refuse to pay it and before long any smokers still smoking will be buying imported cigarettes. At the moment i can get 200 Marlboro lights for €45. A lot cheaper then the €90+ i would be paying if i buy them in shops. Its a no brainer. As was said above the government need to tackle the illegal importing of the stuff first.

    Reply
  • “Cigarettes are the only legally available consumer product that kill people when sold and used as intended” – BJ Cunningham

    Your all governments know this so why don’t they get banned everywhere – to much revenue to be made.

    Reply
  • Will just add these excerpts from a recent study
    It is quite likely that price increases cause consumption of taxed cigarettes to decrease and the consumption of untaxed cigarettes to increase. The fall in taxed consumption is not due only to lower levels of smoking but also from smokers substituting to a lower cost alternative (untaxed cigarettes).

    First, Ireland’s tax on cigarettes is one of the highest in Europe. Cigarettes prices are more than double the average for the EU overall. This in itself presents a powerful incentive for some smokers to substitute to untaxed illegal sources or to cigarettes legally sourced outside Ireland.
    tax rate rises do increase tax revenue, however beyond a certain point tax rate rises may actually start to decrease revenue
    The summary is on page 29
    http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/tobacco-market.pdf

    I will just add again, ridiculous article! Must be influenced by Ash or heart.ie

    Reply
  • Barty 09/03/12 #

    If I am a heroin addict I can get help (methadone) free of charge to ween me off my addiction, smoking is an addiction but to help ween me off this addiction you have to pay for it yourself (patches,gums & inhalers etc).

    Reply
    • You would be giving up cigarettes primarily for the benefit of your own health. Why would you expect a state sponsored handout for that?

      Reply
    • If you are a heroin addict you are partaking in an illegal activity. Free methadone to wean one off an addiction is rehabilitation not just for your health but rehabilitation from criminal activity also. Smoking isn’t an illegal activity, therefore if you choose to give up it’s totally your choice and criminal rehabilitation isn’t needed.

      Reply
  • Read the summary on page 29 and you will see how stupid and pointless this article is. Must have been influenced by Ash or heart.ie or some of that lot.

    http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/tobacco-market.pdf

    Reply
  • Oh yeah, and 2.3 bn a year for a country with 900000 smokers. On average over 2500 for every smoker in the country……. Doubt it!
    Those figures are excluding smokers that die in other ways, never need treatment and have health insurance. So that makes an even bigger joke of the numbers.

    Reply
  • Reading this makes me want to smoke…. and I think I will

    Reply
  • The true reason to increase tax on cigarettes and alcohol is greed.

    The damage that is done by over taxing is fuelling the drugs trade. Over pricing alcohol and tobacco makes drugs look cheaper.

    Alcohol and tobacco should have VAT like the rest of the products in society, which would see a dramatic reduction in funds available to politicians to waste and give people a cheaper alternative to drugs.

    Reply
  • DSR 09/03/12 #

    by precisely the same rational we should have a super-tax on bungey jumping (and fish and chips, and everything else that can contribute to a shorter life.)..

    the real debate surrounding this and other nanny-state tax initiatives (minimum alcohol selling price, fat tax) is whether the state should fund healthcare at all.. i would suggest not. let the insurance companies price risk, that’s what they’re there for. if i smoke 20 a day (which i do) and i get lung cancer, i can’t in good consience have my neighbour pick up the tab

    lastly, i haven’t seen one shred of evidence that public awareness campaigns contribute to a change in any type of human behaviour… really they’re there to make the people who work in quangos feel like they have a meaningful life, which any sane person can see is clearly not the case

    Reply
  • howzat 09/03/12 #

    Don’t smoke hate smell smokin but this will just fuel black Market even more

    Reply
  • Some twerp in the uk suggested that smoking in one’s garden should be banned as she didn’t like the smell of smoke coming from her neighbour’s garden!!

    Reply
  • I’m smoking a cigarette right now…but was wondering why do we here in Ireland care so much about smoking? In France, Spain and It’s seen as totally normal and in fact most people smoke!

    Reply
  • Smoking is for stupid people

    Reply
    • Making childish comments is for stupid people

      Reply
    • Barry 09/03/12 #

      Whilst maybe not put across in a nice way Conor’s comment is however accurate.

      With all the massive medical evidence against smoking from the cost to your health, the people around you, the healthcare system etc etc etc people continue to smoking,

      When you think about it thats insane, knowing that you are killing yourself with every cigarette, affecting those around you including (if you have them) your kids and that the chances of you having respiratory issues in later life are far far higher then a non-smoker.

      If you are a smoker and knowing all of the very bad affects it causes, if you never try to give up smoking then as Conor has stated you are a very stupid person as self preservation clearly isn’t factored into your brain.

      Self preservation if something thats very basic in most species on this planet.

      I’d have far more respect for a smoker that has atleast tried to give up then one that has never at anytime tried.

      Sadly for some people the truth can hurt when they look inside and realise that yes they are killing themselves and that this perhaps is not a very smart thing to do.

      Reply
    • When YOU thinks about it its insane. How about live and let live? Ever stop to consider that maybe some people are perfectly happy to live life in the fast lane and die knowing they pushed the boat out and embreced as many of life’s pleasure as the could along the way. Maybe to them, 40 years of excessive partying is a life lived, whereas as 80 years of staidness and mediocrity (for want of better terms) is a life wasted. Are adventurers insane because their passion carries great risks? Just because you can’t get your head around someone else’s outlook doesn’t make that outlook stupid or insane.

      Reply
    • Thanks Barry. Hey noddy boy there is nothing childish about cancer

      Reply
    • It’s possible to party and live an interesting life without smoking – in fact you’re more able to have an active life – i.e. people who have adventures – are physically active – if you are healthy. And when smokers do get cancer they don’t say, ‘never mind I accept this because I brought it upon myself; it was my decision…. Goodbye’.
      They say ‘but everybody smoked, why has it happened to me’. which is deluded and clearly shows a certain kind of rationality / intelligence is missing.

      Reply
  • Have private healthcare – smoke tax free. That’s how it should be. It would stop you lot blaming smokers for healthcare costs. Lol

    Reply
  • The tax on cigarettes should be doubled. Most smokers don’t and have never cared about the Passive smoking effect. Smoking should be banned from public areas also
    Thousands of people will be forever grateful to Micheal Martin for introducing the Smoking Ban
    These selfish people should be made pay for the strain they put on our health service

    Reply
    • That’s a fairly immature perspective you have there.

      Reply
    • And what about the people who binge drink on the weekends and end up in A&E? should they be screwed over too with higher prices?

      Reply
    • Totally agree with you. Best comment here. Also, Not quitting Smoking demonstrates that you either don’t have the common sense to see how bad it is for you, or you don’t have the willpower to quit. Disgusting habit, clogging up the health system

      Reply
    • 1. If governments really cared about saving lives they would ban the sale of nicotine based products. They don’t care, this is a numbers game.

      2. €23bn in smoking related health care. €14.7bn raised directly from the sale of cigarettes. But smokers also pay income tax, VAT, etc…so smoking related healthcare is NOT subsidised.

      3. I have no doubt that the cigarette companies are behind the large scale smuggling into this country. It keeps addiction rates high. The silence from them over this issue is deafening. Imagine any other product from large multinationals being undercut this way, there would be uproar. Imagine if fake iPads, iPods, we’re being smuggled in. You wouldn’t be long hearing Apple shout about it.

      Reply
    • Stephen, re: Subsidisation, we all pay income tax, VAT, etc. So it’s a level playing field in that 1,000 average individuals (non-smokers) paying average tax (etc) will develop a naturally occurring % of illnesses over time and, roughly, we all receive equally from the health care system.

      If you introduce unhealthy behaviour into the mix, and now 300 of the 1,000 smoke, there is a marked difference. We pay the same base rate but 150 of those 300 are now likely to die from smoking related illness, a higher than baseline cost that has to be paid for.

      Now, you can’t tax every bad behaviour and frankly it isn’t government’s role to be your mother. But where there are costs to society associated with an activity, measures should be taken to offset that cost and smokers, unfortunately, have an easily taxed habit.

      Every additional penny spent on smoking related maladies is a penny that either has to come from somewhere else and someone else, be it other services or increased taxes on all.

      I believe that you should be allowed to do whatever you like in life, so long as (1) You don’t harm others (you can do what you like to yourself) and (2) You can afford it.

      Reply
    • To clarify, I definitely agree with the idea of doubling tax on smokes, 100%. It’s the comment that most smokers don’t care about passive smoking that I disagree with. Calling them selfish doesn’t help either. it’s tough to even decide to try and quit, and the success rates are very low. It took me about 12 attempts before finally succeeding. You have to realise that people get addicted before they know it, and it didn’t help in the past with the huge advertising drives by the tobacco industry. Thankfully that has now been stopped, and we are seeing continually falling numbers of smokers. Basically, I think just upping the taxes and giving the fingers to smokers isn’t the right way to tackle the problem. In tandem with higher prices, there needs to be a real drive to provide real support to those who are persuaded to quit by the price hikes.

      Reply
    • @aaron. I understand your point but I disagree with your outcome re: the subsidy.

      €23bn cost in smoke related healthcare. €14.7bn accumulated directly from the smokers themselves. Therefore a transfer of some €9bn from general taxation (paid by everybody including smokers) for a healthcare cost of some €23bn.
      I repeat, some €9bn charge to general taxation for healthcare costing €23bn.

      Take another charge. The cost of healthcare for diabetes for obese people. I’m not sure what the cost is, but how much extra over and above what they pay in general taxation do obese people pay for their ‘unhealthy’ behaviour?

      The fact is, what smokers do is perfectly legal. They are part of this society and contribute their taxes like anyone else. Therefore they are entitled to the same basic minimum healthcare as anyone else – regardless of their ailment.

      Reply
    • John Mc 11/03/12 #

      The passive smoking effect is based on comparisons of numbers of 2nd hand and 1st hand smokers who later developed lung cancer, they were plucked out of an American EPA report by someone with no understanding of what he was reading. No study has yet shown that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer

      Reply
    • smoking is banned in public spaces you dolt! and as a smoker i am always cautious of passive smoking, particularly in the presence of children
      And it doesn’t matter if you raise the cost to €20 a pack, a smoker tends to enjoy smoking and will continue to do so, but should not have their pockets emptied for a simple indulgence either, which nowadays is practically limited to our own homes.

      Reply
  • why not reduce the price to what they are actually worth, say a euro a box and let people have a choice. Everyone knows that they Will eventually die from a smoking related illness. Why is this such a nanny state?

    Reply
    • “Everyone knows that they Will eventually die from a smoking related illness”?
      How do you know that?
      Didn’t recent government statistics indicate that one in two smokers would die of a smoking related disease. That means every smoker has as much chance of NOT dying of a smoking disease.

      Reply
    • But as shown in the article it’s the non smokers who pay for the health related issues of smokers caused by smoking, no tax no money for the health system. You’re idea will only work if the smoker pays out of their own pocket for their smoking related illness. I’m fine with that idea.

      Reply
    • Jason are you saying that smokers pay nothing towards their health costs? They don’t pay in tax on their fags or VHI or PRSI or insurance policies. Everything is paid for by non-smokers beneficially and out of the goodness of their (healthy) hearts.

      Reply
    • Jason, thats what the anti-smoking propaganda would have you believe. Read Simon Power’s comment below. Also, those who avoid sun exposure pay the costs of skin cancer care, pedestrians pay the costs of car accident victims’ care, health fanatics pay the costs of obesity related care. Should everyone pay for their specific disease/illness directly out of their own pocket as you suggest?

      Reply
    • by everyone i meant all smokers know that they run a high risk of being killed by lung cancer or some other shi*ty illness. All im sayin is if you want to smoke, you should be left smoke without having to pay through the nose for it.

      Reply
  • why argue bann cigarettes save the system the health pit falls. I smoke myself so if you take away the sweets from the baby we get over it. Unless there is an added benefit for let’s say the tax man!!!

    Reply
  • Ban smoking in public places. Especially bus stops, train stations and town centres!

    Reply
    • Lets ban farting as well. It’s offensive, noxious, releases harmful emissions and no-one wants to inhale second hand farts. It’s also about as reasonable as your suggestion.

      Reply
    • Smoking ban in public is effective in the US. Drinking alcohol in public is banned, so why should there be a problem with banning smoking in public. People still have a right to smoke in their own space, but should respect others in a public space. In relation to public farting, that is by far less offensive, and anyway; smokers don’t have a sense of smell!!!

      Reply
    • Ps how can you have a secondhand fart? Surely all farts are experienced firsthand.

      Reply
  • Thanks for posting this. I actually do agree with just about everything you said. I wonder though, what do you think we should do about tax free cigarettes online ? It seems like maybe adding a tax to ones that don’t have one would be a better idea than hiking the prices on ones that already have it. Thoughts?

    Reply
  • Anyone who smokes knowing how dangerous it is is an idiot. 6 friends of mine are dead, all smokers. No non smoking friend has yet died.

    Reply

Add New Comment