[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

No because if you smoke you are addicted to smoking(besides the very rare few who only smoke socially with a drink and they usually bum cigarettes from smokers ) but most people who drink aren't addicts so might only have a drink once a week or less so the price wouldn't be as big an issue as buying cigarettes

The big difference is in the type of addiction - it's quite "difficult" to get a physical addiction to alcohol, "casual alcoholism" is a social crutch or psychological addiction and that really has to go on for a while before a real alcohol dependence occurs (though when it does, it's a horrendous thing).

Smoking is almost the opposite - most people could psychologically "take it or leave it" but physical nicotine addiction kicks in FAST and is hard to shake... the main reason people are hooked on nicotine products is the nicotine itself (and how they feel if they DON'T have it), not the effect.

I do think smoking is an odd one, in terms of if it's exploitation. 30+ years ago I might have said yes, it is unfair exploitation, there was a huge amount of mixed messaging about smoking and the effects on health ans probability of addiction, so it seems totally wrong to get people hooked on a product and then repeatedly raise prices.

These days though? I'm not so sure. No one who has had their first smoke in the last few decades chose to do it without being in full knowledge of the facts;

1) It's bad for your health
2) It's addictive
3) It's expensive

... ... ... and with that in mind, I can't say I find it particularly abhorrent when taxes are raised on it. Anyone who claims they didn't know about the downsides BEFORE they took their first cigarette has to be lying.