News Forum - Thai Cabinet “okays” 5-year plan to lower tobacco consumption

[Thaiger]

Thailand is going a step further than the graphic (and disturbing) photos on packs of cigarettes to discourage the public from smoking. The Thai Cabinet has approved a five-year road map focusing on lowering tobacco consumption to help improve overall public health. The plan, with a 498 million baht budget, will start this year and end in 2027. The plan to curb smoking has six strategies. 1 ) Consumption regulation State agencies will be given more power to regulate the consumption of tobacco in Thailand, with current rules and regulations being improved. Budget: 138 million baht 2 ) Enhance public awareness […]

The story Thai Cabinet “okays” 5-year plan to lower tobacco consumption as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Shade_Wilder]

Numbers 1-4 are a waste of time. If a person does not know that smoking is bad for you, then they are too stupid to help and should be forced to wear a helmet 24/7 for self-protection.

If you seriously want to see a reduction in smoking, then yes, implement and enforce laws banning smoking from public places. Really enforce it; no waste of time 'Crackdowns'.

And, quadruple the tax rate every year.

Every. Single. Year.

Wishy-washy 'information campaigns' don't work.

A serious "Whack!" in the pocketbook does.

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by Shade_Wilder

[Mamachigawa]

I like the plan of New Zealand. In a few years anyone born after 2008 will never have legal cigarrettes.

Start with some staggering taxes.

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n3057

[AussieBob]

3 minutes ago, Shade_Wilder said:

Numbers 1-4 are a waste of time. If a person does not know that smoking is bad for you, then they are too stupid to help and should be forced to wear a helmet 24/7 for self-protection.

If you seriously want to see a reduction in smoking, then yes, implement and enforce laws banning smoking from public places. Really enforce it; no waste of time 'Crackdowns'.

And, quadruple the tax rate every year.

Every. Single. Year.

Wishy-washy 'information campaigns don't work.

A serious 'Whack in the pocketbook does.

Very true.  But while they will ban it in all public places and indoors (except for own house), they are unlikely to enforce it. Unfortunately, increasing taxes will cause a backlash - people will scream poor - and they will probably back down. Teaching the young is the better bet and will be supported - those doing it now are a lost cause unfortunately. 

[AussieBob]

2 minutes ago, Mamachigawa said:

I like the plan of New Zealand. In a few years anyone born after 2008 will never have legal cigarrettes.

Start with some staggering taxes.

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n3057

Wow - that will be interesting to watch. I wonder if the tobacco industry will appeal that law. 

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, Shade_Wilder said:

Numbers 1-4 are a waste of time. If a person does not know that smoking is bad for you, then they are too stupid to help and should be forced to wear a helmet 24/7 for self-protection.

If you seriously want to see a reduction in smoking, then yes, implement and enforce laws banning smoking from public places. Really enforce it; no waste of time 'Crackdowns'.

And, quadruple the tax rate every year.

Every. Single. Year.

Wishy-washy 'information campaigns' don't work.

A serious "Whack!" in the pocketbook does.

Agree absolutely about 1, 2 and 4 - it's pretty well impossible that nobody isn't fully aware of the dangers of smoking by now.

I can't agree about 3, though, helping people to give up.

I gave up smoking twice - once after I'd given up for a few years and started again due to stress as it was the simplest solution, then again a few years later when I was only a 'social' smoker, when drinking.

I didn't need any help but some people do so it's pretty short-sighted not giving any if you want people to stop.  It's addictive, not just habit, so why not help people?

[HolyCowCm]

Oh boy. Not this BS again. I would think their real purpose is to get more taxes off of the smokers all the while acting as if they really care. Other big problems to work in rather than allocating more funds to this false agenda of acting like do gooders. If people want to smoke let them. And that goes for the other stuff too. 

[Skip]

Make cigarettes illegal like drugs... we all know that works.

People choose to kill themselves in various ways... let them live free or die!

[Rookiescot]

Then legalise e cigs.

[DiJoDavO]

13 hours ago, Mamachigawa said:

I like the plan of New Zealand. In a few years anyone born after 2008 will never have legal cigarrettes.

That's a ridiculous rule. They should be able to decide by themselves if they want to smoke or not. 

Anyway, is there actually still anyone who smokes in 2022?

[Soidog]

11 hours ago, HolyCowCm said:

If people want to smoke let them. And that goes for the other stuff too

I tend to agree, though there are social consequences. Smoking clearly has a health impact which the individual and society pays for. However the same is true for alcohol consumption and obesity.   In an interconnected modern society tax money goes to pay or offset medical costs, why should someone with a healthy lifestyle see their taxes spent on healthcare for those who deliberately chose to endanger their health? This is where taxation of the dangerous products such as tobacco and alcohol are justified. It’s certainly a tricky subject to manage. Like you I tend to side on the freedom of choice option. I don’t like it when governments act as wet nurses. Peer pressure works far better in society than any government telling people what to do. 

[HiuMak]

14 hours ago, Mamachigawa said:

I like the plan of New Zealand. In a few years anyone born after 2008 will never have legal cigarrettes.

Start with some staggering taxes.

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n3057

Loophole for someone senior to buy cigs for those after 2008

[Grumpish]

How about legalising vaping, which has probably done more to reduce tobacco consumption than all the other therapies combined. My personal experience is that I dodged a bullet with a mild heart attack four years ago that almost certainly would have been much worse, if not terminal, if I had not replaced cigarettes with e-cigs the best part of ten years ago.

[HolyCowCm]

2 hours ago, Soidog said:

I tend to agree, though there are social consequences. Smoking clearly has a health impact which the individual and society pays for. However the same is true for alcohol consumption and obesity.   In an interconnected modern society tax money goes to pay or offset medical costs, why should someone with a healthy lifestyle see their taxes spent on healthcare for those who deliberately chose to endanger their health? This is where taxation of the dangerous products such as tobacco and alcohol are justified. It’s certainly a tricky subject to manage. Like you I tend to side on the freedom of choice option. I don’t like it when governments act as wet nurses. Peer pressure works far better in society than any government telling people what to do. 

I do not think for one instance that the burden of of smoking and health is paid for by society, unless you mean the implications of bad health and one succumbing to what ever the effects of smoking did to them, and the torment and pain stake of watching a loved one or friend go down from it. 

Taxation is fine to a point, and I will say only to a point, but the bulk of it is never ever used for health care and never will be. Trojan horse tax is what it is. As for cigarettes, how many times in the last 5 years have they been upped here and now upping them again is in the cards? Sin tax is what it is and it is used to fund other things. I don't think the majority of them rightly care about the people one little iotta. Now, if they honestly levy a tax on tabacco and alcohol directly related to covering all angles for the health welfare of the ones who do partake in these sins, and not have secret BS motives perhaps of funding submarines or their salaires or expenses or what ever you have it, then one would think that the 7% slated is for the slaes tax and the goverment coffers as should be, and the remainder which is already way overkill to date shoud be allocated to the users health care. But it is not, and again it is only a Trojan horse tax vehicle. I stay healthy and run everyday, but I am not oppsoed to one who chooses to smoke or drink of their choice, as long as they are respectable of others around them. Now I don't want my kids to smoke tobacco, and i only say tobacco, and then don't want them to drink how I drink when I drink as can be a lot at times on some occasions, but ultimately they have their own choice to do so but have been taught better. And that even goes for tatoos. As much as I don't like them, they are still free to do what they want, except for putting that crap on their faces and-or covering a big portion or majority of their body. If they chose to do that, then I have the option to say they are on their own, as in my opinion that is just plain moronic and idiotic to do so like that. Anyway, I say BS to Trojan horse BS taxes.

[Soidog]

5 minutes ago, HolyCowCm said:

I do not think for one instance that the burden of of smoking and health is paid for by society, unless you mean the implications of bad health and one succumbing to what ever the effects of smoking did to them, and the torment and pain stake of watching a loved one or friend go down from it. 

Taxation is fine to a point, and I will say only to a point, but the bulk of it is never ever used for health care and never will be. Trojan horse tax is what it is. As for cigarettes, how many times in the last 5 years have they been upped here and now upping them again is in the cards? Sin tax is what it is and it is used to fund other things. I don't think the majority of them rightly care about the people one little iotta. Now, if they honestly levy a tax on tabacco and alcohol directly related to covering all angles for the health welfare of the ones who do partake in these sins, and not have secret BS motives perhaps of funding submarines or their salaires or expenses or what ever you have it, then one would think that the 7% slated is for the slaes tax and the goverment coffers as should be, and the remainder which is already way overkill to date shoud be allocated to the users health care. But it is not, and again it is only a Trojan horse tax vehicle. I stay healthy and run everyday, but I am not oppsoed to one who chooses to smoke or drink of their choice, as long as they are respectable of others around them. Now I don't want my kids to smoke tobacco, and i only say tobacco, and then don't want them to drink how I drink when I drink as can be a lot at times on some occasions, but ultimately they have their own choice to do so but have been taught better. And that even goes for tatoos. As much as I don't like them, they are still free to do what they want, except for putting that crap on their faces and-or covering a big portion or majority of their body. If they chose to do that, then I have the option to say they are on their own, as in my opinion that is just plain moronic and idiotic to do so like that. Anyway, I say BS to Trojan horse BS taxes.

Yes it is a Trojan tax. Although to be fair, Im not aware of any tax which goes to alleviate or fix the product shortcomings it’s linked to. I certainly can’t think of any in my own country. 
 

My comment about society carrying a burden was more associated with health care, especially when there is a universal system such as in Thailand or the UK. Other tax payers who may not smoke essentially subsidise the increased spending in things like cancer treatment, COPD, heart disease etc. 

All that said, I do agree that weaknesses or addictions are taxed as an opportunity to raise revenue rather than seriously tackle health issues. Such taxes also impact the less wealthy in society and further drive the divide. 

[Stardust]

18 hours ago, Thaiger said:

Thailand is going a step further than the graphic (and disturbing) photos on packs of cigarettes to discourage the public from smoking. The Thai Cabinet has approved a five-year road map focusing on lowering tobacco consumption to help improve overall public health. The plan, with a 498 million baht budget, will start this year and end in 2027. The plan to curb smoking has six strategies. 1 ) Consumption regulation State agencies will be given more power to regulate the consumption of tobacco in Thailand, with current rules and regulations being improved. Budget: 138 million baht 2 ) Enhance public awareness […]

The story Thai Cabinet “okays” 5-year plan to lower tobacco consumption as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

When I read "5 year plan" it reminds me of the ccp cabinet or former soviet union.

[HolyCowCm]

29 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Yes it is a Trojan tax. Although to be fair, Im not aware of any tax which goes to alleviate or fix the product shortcomings it’s linked to. I certainly can’t think of any in my own country. 
 

My comment about society carrying a burden was more associated with health care, especially when there is a universal system such as in Thailand or the UK. Other tax payers who may not smoke essentially subsidise the increased spending in things like cancer treatment, COPD, heart disease etc. 

All that said, I do agree that weaknesses or addictions are taxed as an opportunity to raise revenue rather than seriously tackle health issues. Such taxes also impact the less wealthy in society and further drive the divide. 

That's the point. It is a facade and only a Trojan Horse tax. If they truly did appropriate the tax in good faith to really use it for the ones who need it for the obvious related connection to say smoking and/or drinking, then there would plainly be way way more than enough and then some way too much already. If all they did was suck the interest then OMG, that is a (can't say the word) ransome in itself.

Cancer? Well red meat or processed meats or things that are preservative related to cancer could have their own tax slush fund, and it would relatively be peanuts. All the government needs to do is collect their 7% along the stream as it sells from point A to point end. 7+7+7 for whomever is subjected to sales tax adds up to be a lot, and everytime there is a sale there is 7% dumped onto it.

Funny thing too. As the goverment raises the price for their Trojan horse tax on an item or items, that also increases the amount they make for the 7% sales tax. Don't figure? Oh it definetely does all figure in. So there are ways to manage different things properly, but it never works out that way. sort of like how the USA raped the Social security funds to pay for things not above board. That perhaps will never recover and those funds should have never ever been touched or given to folk who did not earn them.

Oh, BTW. You can call me by my first name Holy if you would like. : )

[Mamachigawa]

7 hours ago, DiJoDavO said:

That's a ridiculous rule. They should be able to decide by themselves if they want to smoke or not. 

Anyway, is there actually still anyone who smokes in 2022?

Unbelievable but yes. Young people will be deterred from ever starting if it is shocking pricey.

Maybe making it illegal NZ will make it seem daring , there will always be black market for it.

 

[Freeduhdumb]

Thank God for government... how would WE survive?

[Skip]

23 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Then legalise e cigs.

Like they are any better for your health... one drug for another is not the answer

[Tim_Melb]

22 hours ago, HiuMak said:

Loophole for someone senior to buy cigs for those after 2008

Nope that's illegal too. 

[DiJoDavO]

20 hours ago, Mamachigawa said:

Unbelievable but yes. Young people will be deterred from ever starting if it is shocking pricey.

Maybe making it illegal NZ will make it seem daring , there will always be black market for it.

Exactly! Making something illegal, makes them wonder why, and they would like to try it. 

Children and teenagers are curious. If you don't say anything, they won't do anything. If you say DON'T do this. Only then they will try it secretly. 

For the coming 10 seconds... Don't think about a cigarette. 

What's the first thing you'll think about?

[Poolie]

10 minutes ago, DiJoDavO said:

Exactly! Making something illegal, makes them wonder why, and they would like to try it. 

Children and teenagers are curious. If you don't say anything, they won't do anything. If you say DON'T do this. Only then they will try it secretly. 

For the coming 10 seconds... Don't think about a cigarette. 

What's the first thing you'll think about?

Lesbians........

[LoongFred]

Heavy tax on cigarettes and maybe alcohol makes sense. It should be accompanied to advertisements to make these vices and risks they present known. Even in Thailand cigarettes usage is way down from years past. I remember when most men smoked and offered you a cigarette when saying hello. That's in the past and those who smoke often go away from the group, so others aren't bothered. 

More tax will result in less smoking. I do agree that banding it isn't good.

[AdvocatusDiaboli]

On 2/17/2022 at 5:12 PM, Shade_Wilder said:

then they are too stupid to help and should be forced to wear a helmet 24/7 for self-protection.

Bet these are the same Thais that don’t were helmets when riding their motorcycles …. So what makes you think that Thai police would enforce this …. ?