Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4
Send Topic Print
Ban Cigarettes... (Read 16164 times)
enviro
Senior Member
****
Offline


Taking Out The Trash

Posts: 323
Weethalle NSW
Gender: male
Ban Cigarettes...
Jan 4th, 2007 at 12:21pm
 
Over the last 4 years I had reduced myself down from 16 mg to 2 mg cigarettes then they stopped telling us what the mg's were on the packets. A real pain if your shop doesn't have your brand in stock.

For all us smokers know is that what was 2mg could be slowly creeping back to 16mg over time and we wouldn't realise it.

Now they have changed my packet to a charcoal filter. What The? Does this mean I can clean my teeth with it too?*

I am now smoking a packet of cigarettes which I selected just based on colour. Who knows what mg it is.

They preferred to go down the road of puting ghastly photographs on the packet. Why don't they just ban it?




*Aboriginals used charcoal to clean their teeth before toothpaste



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Ban Cigarettes...
Reply #1 - Jan 4th, 2007 at 12:31pm
 
Because people are addicted. I smoke occasionally when I am drunk. I think banning them is going too far. There are in fact people who are able to consume them in moderation without becoming addicted. Plus you would end up with people in prison because they are addicted to tobacco, or were growing plants for their mates who are addicted - bad news. We have enough people in jail for pot, wit cigarrettes it would be far worse. Plus you would create another massive black market and loose tax revenue.

They stopped putting mg's on the packs because it was misleading. Low mg is not safer. I think some studies indicated they were worse.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
enviro
Senior Member
****
Offline


Taking Out The Trash

Posts: 323
Weethalle NSW
Gender: male
A vessel to distribute nicotine...
Reply #2 - Jan 4th, 2007 at 1:07pm
 
Cigarettes are addictive and so is gambling as well as alcohol. Sometimes people need the choices made for them.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: Ban Cigarettes...
Reply #3 - Jan 4th, 2007 at 6:25pm
 
Well I agree definitely that we should ban cigarettes.  I've tried many times to kick the habit and even though I limit myself to a few a day -  every time I see those advertisements with gangrenous body parts - or hear a doctor talk about cancer - it's as though the bone has been pointed at smokers and the power of suggestion will kill us before the nicotine and chemicals do.

If cigarettes were banned - most of us law abiding adults certainly wouldn't be trying to hunt them down on the black market and would be forced to completely give up.

But the revenue from the government tax is far too high to even consider giving up this lucrative market.  Still - they shouldn't whinge about the cost to the health system of smoking related diseases and poor health as  most smokers have more than covered themselves in cigarette tax for future hospital treatment.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Ban Cigarettes...
Reply #4 - Jan 4th, 2007 at 6:32pm
 
Most adults aren't completely law abiding. We all break the odd rule. Alcohol prohibition did not work in the US and would not work here. It just creates disrespect for the law. You would not 'have to go looking' for cigarrettes if they were banned. Your neighbours, friends and family would all have them and would sell them on to you as a favour. Criminalising cigarrettes would create far more problems than it would solve. The government is taking the right approach with education and taxation.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Soolaimon(Guest)
Guest


Re: Ban Cigarettes...
Reply #5 - Jan 4th, 2007 at 7:45pm
 
"If cigarettes were banned - most of us law abiding adults certainly wouldn't be trying to hunt them down on the black market and would be forced to completely give up".

I read an article today which stated that four out of five smokers want to quit. If they were banned i agree that many people who find it very hard to quit would give up because they wouldn't be interested in hunting them down on the black market. Gambling after all was not a major problem before poker machines were introduced in this state. Many who became addicted did not seek out gambling joints, but only developed a problem because poker machines were placed in pubs and became so easily accessible.

Somehow I don't think cigarettes will be banned outright , but what about making them much harder to get hold of? I believe they should only be sold in tobacconists and liquour stores.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
enviro
Senior Member
****
Offline


Taking Out The Trash

Posts: 323
Weethalle NSW
Gender: male
Taxes are no argument...
Reply #6 - Jan 5th, 2007 at 7:22am
 
The Government won't lose on taxes. If people aren't buying cigarettes they will spend that money elsewhere which is taxed also. How quickly the people spend is what makes the real difference to taxes. People that give up smoking will generally eat more food than normal. People that give up smoking also tend to be more active. Activities cost money, more taxes for the government.

The above scenario keeps the coffers filled making sure we don't feel the impact from taking a tax link out of the chain.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Ban Cigarettes...
Reply #7 - Jan 5th, 2007 at 8:40am
 
Quote:
If people aren't buying cigarettes they will spend that money elsewhere which is taxed also.


Alcohol and tobacco are very highly taxed. The thing about drugs is, people still buy roughly the same amount, even if you you triple the price via a tax. They would have to increase the tax on other goods (preferably carbon emissions).
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
enviro
Senior Member
****
Offline


Taking Out The Trash

Posts: 323
Weethalle NSW
Gender: male
Re: Ban Cigarettes...
Reply #8 - Jan 5th, 2007 at 9:17am
 
carbon trading promotes industry higher prices. And so does Green Shift Tax.

I feel you would be lucky to find a thriving black market for tobaccoe once it became illegal. Only a small market would be available, and possibly too small to warrant a black market. Once people haven't had a smoke for 6 weeks there is no way they will be interested in black market tobaccoe. Who's going to pay $20 for a cigarette?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Ban Cigarettes...
Reply #9 - Jan 5th, 2007 at 9:47am
 
A green tax shift does not promote higher prices. Some prices go down.

Who says the price of cigarrettes would go up a lot? A lot of the current price is just tax. That would get replaced with profits to drug dealers.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Ban Cigarettes...
Reply #10 - Jan 5th, 2007 at 7:26pm
 
How about making smokers miss out on elective surgery if they don't quit? Some types of surgery is more costly and more dangerous with smokers.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Doctor-wants-smokers-to-miss-surgery/2007/01/05/1167777258506.html

"In healthcare systems with finite resources, preferring non-smokers over smokers for a limited number of procedures will deliver greater clinical benefit to individuals and the community," Associate Professor Peters writes in the latest issue of the prestigious British Medical Journal.

"To fail to implement such a clinical judgment would be to sacrifice sensible clinical judgment for the sake of a non-discriminatory principle."

Prof Peters, from the Concord Repatriation General Hospital in Sydney, said smoking ahead of surgery increased cardiac and pulmonary complications, impaired tissue healing, and was associated with infection rates up to six times higher than in non-smokers.

Joint replacements for smokers cost 38 per cent more because of longer hospital stays and higher risk of a second operation being required, he said.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: Ban Cigarettes...
Reply #11 - Jan 5th, 2007 at 7:39pm
 
I just wonder how much of that is true or whether the figures have been manipulated to save money for our health system.  The hospitals work on such a tight budget, maybe this is their way of punishing those who are addicted to nicotine.

What is annoying is that our public hospitals are cluttered up with elderly people.  It's not their fault, but the Federal Government is supposed to be looking after their interests.  Nursing homes are so short staffed now with professionals - even visits by doctors have become limited.  Many nursing homes are not equipped to look after the elderly who are ill, which they should be, so they're immediately transferred to the local hospital.  This puts the burden on the overworked nurses in our public system.

Another problem is many people who pay top cover into a private fund are accessing the public hospital system, either to save money, or because they cannot access the required treatment through a private hospital.

Meanwhile we have Professor Peters obviously trying to persuade public opinion that smokers don't deserve treatment.  So what are they going to do then?  Let smokers die an agonising death - even though the illness may not be smoke related and the Federal Government collects 60% tax revenue from every packet sold. 

The Federal Government gets the tax - the State Government pays the health bills.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Ban Cigarettes...
Reply #12 - Jan 6th, 2007 at 12:54pm
 
I think the retirement home vs hospital thing may be a result of different levels of government funding each.

He only suggested it for elective surgery, not life threatening stuff.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Ban Cigarettes...
Reply #13 - Jan 6th, 2007 at 4:22pm
 
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Smokers-have-equal-rights-to-surgery/2007/01/06/1167777315142.html

Any suggestion people should be refused elective surgery if they refuse to give up smoking is appalling, says the NSW government.

"I don't think we should discriminate, for example, against people who have alcohol problems or people who are obese or people who are elderly on the basis that their outcomes might be worse than others.


The elderly bit I agree with - you can't control that. But the other ones are largely self inflicted. It comes back to John Howard's concept of mutual responsibility. You can't expect society to bend over backwards to help you if you refuse to help yourself.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: Ban Cigarettes...
Reply #14 - Jan 6th, 2007 at 7:33pm
 
Yes you can't help those who can't help themselves, but if we decide to eliminate everyone from accessing medical help that is inflicted with obesity, age, alcoholism, drug abuse, general ill health, smoking, sporting accidents and self inflicted accidents caused through stupidity - it would only leave basically the young and the very healthy - probably about half the population. 

We may as well not have a health system - save the taxpayers a lot of money.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Send Topic Print