A recent article in the Journal provided some valuable information about the support for key tobacco control measures by the New Zealand public.1 Bans on tobacco advertising were supported by 70% of respondents, sponsorship bans by 60%, enforcement of the law prohibiting the sale of tobacco to minors by 89%, and support for government funded smoking cessation programmes by 72%. In contrast, only 40% considered that higher tobacco taxes would help people to quit smoking and only 38% considered that higher taxes would prevent children from becoming smokers. These attitudes on tobacco taxes contrast markedly with the strong scientific evidence that indicates that higher tobacco prices reduce consumption, increase quit rates and prevent children from becoming smokers.2,3 More specifically, there is New Zealand evidence that tobacco taxation increases have consistently resulted in reduced supermarket cigarette sales4. Given that tobacco taxation is probably the most important single component of New Zealand’s tobacco control programme, there is obviously a need for the government to change elements of its policy.

We suggest that public support for tobacco taxation would be much higher if a substantial proportion of the revenue was invested in prevention and smoking cessation services. This policy change could be achieved without tying the revenue to such investment, but would be much more likely to occur if a set or increasing proportion of the revenue was dedicated. The public perception of the link between the tax and the tobacco control work would also be much stronger.

The objections to tied taxes centre on their erosion of Government’s decision-making ability. However, it is precisely because that decision-making has resulted in the Government’s tobacco control investment being less than 3% of the tobacco tax revenue gathered,5 that a tied tax is necessary. Furthermore, the revenue from tobacco taxation is unique in the degree to which it stems from the use of a highly addictive and dangerous substance. We consider that there are ethical issues raised where the Government taxes tobacco and then does not adequately use the revenue to reduce the level of nicotine dependency in the community. It appears to us to be both unethical and iniquitous for the Government to use tobacco tax revenue for general funding purposes.

George Thomson
Research Fellow
Department of Public Health
Wellington School of Medicine