The UK has banned the sale of cigarettes forever to anyone born after 2008.
Good.
The UK isn't the only to do it, New Zealand did it a few years ago, but a year later it was repealed by the new government, after lobbying from tobacco companies. A lot of people don't believe government intervention is the way to go with these kinds of things and that tax systems are terrible (which they are) and all that, but the fact is and quite unfortunately, this is the system we currently have, so take the wins where they exist and work toward having more wins in the future.
Now there is irrefutable evidence that smoking is bad for health and there have been campaigns to stop smoking since I was a little kid, so at least four decades. In Australia it has significantly reduced the number of smokers, but it is more the price than the health, since a packet of cigarettes is now up to $50 USD. That is $18,250 USD a year. Still, almost 10% of the population over the age of 14 smoke. And then there is vaping.
But since it is irrefutable that smoking is bad for health, why is it that the addicted user bears the cost? And of course, society pays for a lot of the treatment and other costs associated with cigarette usage. What should happen instead of the user pays the tax, is that in an industry like tobacco which is irrefutably bad for the health, the tobacco company should be taxed significantly more than the corporate rate. Some percentage that can't be reduced through reductive accounting practices.
For example, let's say a pack of cigarettes is 10 dollars in Australia. Currently, $7.50 of that is tax collected by the government, with 10% of that being goods and services tax. And of course, the government isn't going to go without their tax. So what if the tobacco company had to cover the excise tax percentage of $6.75 through their corporate tax. For them to maintain the same profits as now, they would have to significantly raise the price of cigarettes, which would have the same effect as the user paying more anyway. But there is a key difference, because the user is addicted to the cigarettes and struggles to stop, but the corporation is addicted to profit. Essentially, it should be impossible for a clear health damaging industry like tobacco (medical implications aside) to be profitable.
Or what about if that is too complicated, tobacco companies have to pay 50% of all medical costs for smoking related illnesses and treatments? The bill each year would be split by the amount of cigarettes sold by a company and they have to pay that money as a lumpsum to the government.
When it comes to harmful industries, the cost should be paid by the industry itself, because quite often the user has little choice in the matter. For instance, the tobacco and oil industries have very strong lobbyists who influence policy globally, and that policy is inflicted upon the respective populations. The cost of any harm they do, should be paid directly by the companies. Air quality and respiratory problems, micro plastics and heavy metal poisoning, and whatever else can be proven. And once proven, each case doesn't need to go to court, because it becomes a blanket rule to say when this happens and is caused by that, the bill goes to the companies.
There has to be a cost to the companies that cause harm.
Because leaving it up to the user leaves the companies at an unfair advantage, as they are able to manipulate policy, influence through advertising and use a whole range of sneaky behavioural economics tricks to push users to use. And unlike the tobacco smoking industry that has almost zero potential for good, other than some promise in using nicotine in certain medications, there are a host of other industries that might have a mix of good and bad in them.
For instance media platforms like Facebook, TikTok and Instagram, which do offer some value to users, but also creates a lot of harm for users and creators also. So what if they too were to get the bill for therapists dealing with children who have behavioural issues likely caused by over usage of the platform. What if gaming companies had to cover the costs of therapy for people who are addicted to games? What if these companies have to cover rehabilitation costs for people and improvement of learning environments? This doesn't stop them from exploiting their benefits, but it should encourage them to reduce the harms.
As I see it, the economy is harmful in its current form because profits can be made even when there is significant harm to users. In a perfect world, profits would be aligned to the benefits they bring to society, not the ability to convince society to pay the costs. The deck is stacked against the enduser by both the government systems in place, and the corporate ability to drive policy and influence to the user. The user themselves is made to feel like they have a choice, even though many do not, because to do differently means to know more than is possible to know for an individual, act on it, and do things that will take away all convenience.
Corporate goods and service convenience shouldn't come at the cost of our health and wellbeing, they should be designed to improve them.
Especially now with the technological push for complete automation, we should be making an enormous shift in business practices, taxes, and the way we define corporate success, to align with maximising wellbeing for people. Profits can still be made, but the competition isn't in who can convince and extract the most, but which companies can help the most. Those that do harm, are unable to turn a profit under any condition.
Clean air. Clean water. Clean earth. Clean food. Clean living.
Clear conscience.
Do no harm - or pay the price of repair.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
And you may be rewarded.
