This will be fun!

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

Or, should we ignore tobacco, and continue to fully fund the chronic disease burden on the acute/community health system secondary to tobacco?

Or, is this hypocrisy, given the tax that the federal govt receives from tobacco anyway?

It's what we do with alcohol, ignore it, that is, and alcohol comes with far more serious social side effects than tobacco including mental health issues, domestic violence, street violence, drink driving and the accident victims resulting thereof, alcohol dependency (which is far worse than tobacco dependency) and of course the physical health issues including cancers of various kinds.

Which costs the tax payer more do you think?

Edit: I should also point out that those who use tobacco pay approx 60% tax per packet. If the govt. does not put that towards smoking related medical conditions, is it far to blame the smoker?

[lisa jones]

Or, should we ignore tobacco, and continue to fully fund the chronic disease burden on the acute/community health system secondary to tobacco?

Or, is this hypocrisy, given the tax that the federal govt receives from tobacco anyway?

It's what we do with alcohol, ignore it, that is, and alcohol comes with far more serious social side effects than tobacco including mental health issues, domestic violence, street violence, drink driving and the accident victims resulting thereof, alcohol dependency (which is far worse than tobacco dependency) and of course the physical health issues including cancers of various kinds.

Which costs the tax payer more do you think?

Edit: I should also point out that those who use tobacco pay approx 60% tax per packet. If the govt. does not put that towards smoking related medical conditions, is it far to blame the smoker?

Tell us .. which costs the taxpayer more?