24
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2026
24 points (85.3% liked)
Australia
5139 readers
363 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes, obviously.
The purported reason for the tax is to discourage people smoking. If the unintended effect is supporting criminals providing an unregulated product, then obviously the tax is not satisfying it's objective.
There's a point at which more tax is just more punishment for addicts.
It's similar to increasing interest rates to curb inflation, it's effective up to a point, but increases beyond that fail to control behavior.
Nicotine addiction is complex, like any form of substance abuse. The high taxes in Australia have done a great job of reducing the harm, but if we've reached the point where more tax doesn't reduce harm then we need to consider other measures.
Not that obviously, the article cites data from Canada. The research states:
Given how many articles I see popping up on sky about this and that most of this BS seems to come from Pauline, pretty sure we can chalk this policy discussion up to the tobacco industry.
LOL. I agree that Hanson's position does sound like she's got tobacco lobbyists up her ass. God she's trashy.
That said, that doesn't really contradict what I've said, both can be true.
I don't think we should halve excise or whatever, just stop the regular increases of theyre no longer effective.
That might be fair. Could argue that banning like the UK did or funding a way to crackdown on the black market might be better.
It isn't really clear from the article if increases are still reducing numbers or not (even if it's at a reduced rate).
She the one that looks straight out of a 70s soap opera? (Sorry, from the UK and don't know the names of your national scumbags ๐)
Lol. Probably the one that you're thinking about. You might not have heard the classical tribute song that was made in her honour, "Fish And Chip Bitch From Ipswich".