
Make smoking more expensive, make quitting free
Published Wednesday August 27th, 2008

In our view: Invest in smokers to help cut health care costs

It's not often that New Brunswick places first in the country.
Our reputation as a have-not province usually puts us in the bottom three or four of whatever issue is being measured.
In this case, however, we are No. 1, but for the unenviable distinction of having the greatest proportion of hard-core smokers.
Last year, New Brunswickers smoked more cigarettes per day - 17.3 - than people in every other province, and that number has risen by two a day since 2006.
And there's more: while only 19 per cent of Canadians smoke, here in our province, 21 per cent of the population lights up regularly, says StatsCan.
That's actually slightly less than it used to be, but when you study the overall statistics, it shows this: the uncommitted smokers have given up the habit, and what we're left with is a group of truly dedicated and addicted smokers who are upping their daily intake of poison rather than cutting back.
That's bad news for all of us, since it's largely this group of steadfast smokers that will cost our provincial health care system about $340 million this year to treat their tobacco-related illnesses.
We'll never eradicate smoking, because no addiction will ever simply cease to exist. But there are ways to make smoking less tempting.
It's time to raise taxes on cigarettes to help pay for all that health care, and to discourage the rise in cigarette consumption. If willpower won't make a smoker cut back, perhaps a higher price per pack will.
Second, this province needs to fund all the tools available to help quit smoking. Patches, gum, counselling - whatever is out there to help give up the habit must come for free, at least for those who are deemed needy. These tools are no different than any other free and potentially life-saving measure in the Medicare arsenal.
Sure, it will cost money, but it's an investment, because those who are successful in quitting won't be burdening the health care system.
"Anyone who wants to quit smoking can quit," says Kenneth Maybee, president of the N.B. Lung Association, and he's right. One just has to look at the statistics to see that people are quitting all the time. It takes willpower and commitment, and perhaps a patch, but like anything else, if you want to badly enough, you can do it.
So if a smoker wants to be free of cigarette enslavement, let's offer the help that will increase the odds of success.
And if a smoker wants to continue the habit, let's make it more difficult financially.
These changes have the potential to put New Brunswick in top spot for a much better reason - the biggest drop in cigarette consumption.








More Opinion




Search Articles


Comments (5)
All comments are subject to the site Terms of Use. For a full commenting tutorial click here.
Our editorial team relies on filtering technology and our visitor community to identify inappropriate comments. In the event that a site user has submitted offensive content that has evaded our filter, please select the option to Flag As Inappropriate presented within the comment. Thank you for helping to keep this site clean.
Does NB lung association receive any money from the companies that produce Zyban, Nicorette, Champix, Nicoderm, etc..? You bet. They're grant addicts. Smokeless tobacco would not cause lung disease, but they never mention it.
How much tax dollars are generated by tobacco sales and why is it not earmarked for health care?
Every increase in tobacco tax is always justified by the notion that it will make people quit. What it ends up doing, is causing people to buy illegal cheap tobacco, thus turning them into criminals, in the eyes of the law, and depriving the government of the taxes that they are addicted to.
Kenneth Maybee and his ilk never quote the sources of their numbers, that they spew so quickly. I wonder why?
Beware of the terms "Smoking related illness" and "Tobacco related illness". They are misleading and are used for that reason. Since the entire argument is based on a misleading stat, the whole thing is bogus.
Just more BS coming from the social nannies.