No Ifs Or Butts: Officials Ordered To Smoke (China)

[WriteDown]

Source: Sky News

10:53am UK, Monday May 04, 2009
Officials in China have reportedly been told to puff their way through four and a half million cigarettes a year.

There are currently some 350 million smokers in China

Staff at local government offices in Hubei province were given the order in a move intended to set an example for the rest of the nation, according to state media.

And if they fail to smoke their way through 230,000 packs of locally-produced cigarettes, the officials could face fines.

Brands such as Huanghelou have been earmarked as part of the official quota.

"The regulation will boost the local economy via the cigarette tax," local official Chen Nianzu was quoted as saying in the Global Times.....

The measure may also be a ploy to boost sales of local cigarette brands, under pressure from competitors in neighbouring Hunan province.

Read more: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/China-Orders-Officials-In-Hubei-To-Smoke-45-Million-Cigarettes-A-Year-Or-Face-Fines/Article/200905115274519?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_4&lid=ARTICLE_15274519_China_Orders_Officials_In_Hubei_To_Smoke_4.

---

Population control? I wonder if we'll end up with similar orders once the cigarette tax revenue dries up.

[YOY]

1. I have heard similar things from friends living there.

Another method of the subtle population control is the completel lack of traffic enforcement in particularly in protection of pedestrians and bike riders. Seeing people getting hit is not overly uncommon as are accidents with electricity due to illegal tampering...

[jpak]

2. damn that Obama!

taxing cigs the way he do

:evilgrin:

[Psephos]

9. cig tax is highly regressive n/t

[bitchkitty]

10. What do you mean? n/t

[Psephos]

12. it hits more poor people than wealthy people

i.e., when you look at the smoking demographic, you see that it's disproportionately a tax on the less well-off

incidence of smoking is considerably higher among the lower socioeconomic strata

[bitchkitty]

14. As a poor person who smokes, I see your point.

But as a poor person who is extremely addicted to nicotine, I wish they would tax it until I would have no choice but to quit.

[WriteDown]

17. What would your breaking point be? nt

[bitchkitty]

20. Hard to say.

10 years ago, I might have said $3 a pack. Now I'm in Oregon, and my brand is $4.50 a pack. I haven't quit.

I guess breaking point would be if I couldn't feed myself or the dog. I'm serious, I'm that addicted. It's only nicotine; other than that weakness, I put away childish things long, long ago.

[WriteDown]

24. And that's the problem...

Many may NEVER have a breaking point. They should just ban it and get it over with rather than bilking people for tax revenue.

[bitchkitty]

25. Or let people grow it themselves? Is that legal? n/t

[WriteDown]

27. It sure is...

But its a time consuming process to turn tobacco into something smokable.

[Political Heretic]

15. It does but no one should care. (Poor smoker here)

Cigarettes are not a necessity, and they are also nothing but bad for you. Thus, even while it may be true that a tax hits the poor harder than it does the rich, in this one instance, that doesn't mean the tax isn't a good idea.

Higher taxes on food, gas - things of that nature - those are regressive taxes that really hurt the poor. Not to mention that the downside of being too poor to afford cigarettes is quitting. Not exactly something I'm terribly worried about.

[L0oniX]

3. Another form of population control.

[Auggie]

4. Another WTF moment

[Alcibiades]

5. Absolutely insane

I doubt this is any form of intended "population control." Methinks there are probably some kickbacks going on between the tobacco companies and the government.

[Xithras]

8. No, it's just communism at work

It's the same sort of thing we used to see in the Soviet Union. The tobacco business employs many people, generates income for the government, and stimulates the economy through sale and trade. The primary role of a government in a communist nation is to ensure the support of labor and citizen employment above all else. If tobacco sales fall, that means unemployment for laborors, less revenue for the government, and a minor economic contraction.

Communism means a state managed economy. Since sales are falling, the government is merely managing the problem by imposing minimum purchase limits. I know MANY genuine communists who would have absolutely no problem with this idea. To them, the health of labor and society is far more important than the health of the individual.

[bitchkitty]

11. Right. Whereas in this country,

instead of mandating the purchase of cigarettes, we allowed the tobacco companies get away with things like artificially boosting the nicotine content of cigarettes and aiming their advertising at children. Same end, different means.

[Xithras]

16. I wasn't slamming communism, just pointing out how it works.

The reality is that nobody has yet invented a socioeconomic system that is fair and free for all people. In a communist system, a government bigwig tells you how to live your life. In a capitalist system, a monied fatcat tells you how to live your life. In a socialist system, your neighbors tell you how to live your life.

No matter the system, we're all still subject to the whims and diktats of the societies we live in.

[bitchkitty]

21. I know you're not, just my observations.

I think I'd rather take my neighbor's input, since my neighbors will generally be in the same boat as me!

[David__77]

22. Nonsense.

The central government runs anti-smoking campaigns and would never implement this policy. I would be very surprised if this move were not countermanded at higher levels. China is a huge country - this is the equivalent of Kern County California taking some policy action, and people in China saying it's reflective of "capitalism at work."

[David__77]

23. Shanghai: "Smoke-ban law may come next year"

Looks like smoking policy is regional in China, just like the US:

http://www.china.org.cn/health/2009-04/23/content_17658275.htm

Shanghai's first smoking-control law is expected to be issued in January at the annual meeting of the Shanghai People's Congress, the director of Shanghai Smoking Control Office told a conference yesterday, banning smoking from public places in time for next year's Expo.

Zhang Liqiang, director of Shanghai Smoking Control Office, said medical experts and health officials are doing final preparation on the draft of the smoking-control law, the first on China's mainland, which will ban smoking in all indoor public venues, public transport and work places.

"We don't want to allow the establishment of smoking and non-smoking areas in public areas in the draft but a complete ban on smoking in these places. However, the draft version is still under discussion and there may be alterations," Zhang told the conference on anti-smoking legislation hosted by China's biggest environmental group, the All-China Environment Protection Association, which is holding these conferences in seven cities, starting with Shanghai.

[Betty]

6. who pays for all the added health care costs?

do they have universal health care over there? Whatever they make in sales tax would be eaten up by having to care for all the illness this will cause.

[Habibi]

7. I don't think regular people have access to health care as we think of it.

I was over there last summer and one of our tour guides was asked about the habit of many Chinese to turn out in local parks for morning tai chi. She said that because the people can't usually see doctors, they have to take care of themselves as best they can.

[smirkymonkey]

13. Can't they just make them drink more tea and tax the shit out of it?

At least it's not as lethal, or as poisonous to the environment as billions of smoking Chinese people.

[Renew Deal]

18. I thought breathing in parts of China was already considered smoking.

:smoke:

[jmowreader]

19. I think it's a "clever marketing ploy" more than anything

230,000 packs of cigarettes per year is a pack a day for 631 bureaucrats. Considering that there are over 60 million people living in Hubei province and it's still a communist country, you KNOW there are more than 631 bureaucrats there! (They've probably got five or six thousand party-member officials, and at least a million Worker and Peasant-level ones.)

I think the big problem the Hubei government has is Hubei bureaucrats, who make enough money to smoke Marlboros, are undermining a huge source of revenue by not being seen in public consuming Hubei-made cigarettes. After all, if Hubei-made cigarettes aren't good enough for the mayor they're probably not good enough for me. So...Comrade Mayor, if you're going to smoke cigarettes they better be Huanghelous--and you better not carry them in your nice leather cigarette case, either.

[The Straight Story]

26. Those silly chinese, always wanting to take away free choice. Glad we don't do that here

:)

[Cha]

28. You have got to be kidding!

That's nutz. Poor Chinese.

[Paladin]

29. Hey, DU Smoking Militants! Got Your Bags Packed?

Enjoy that slow boat to China......