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.

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.

"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.

Quote:


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).

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.

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.

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.

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2007 at 4:22pm:


Please define 'the other ones'

How do you mean?

The secret isn't telling someone what they should do, the secret is to show and educate someone how to do what you are trying to tell them.

Sometimes you even need to hold their hand on that journey.

freediver wrote on Mar 6^th, 2007 at 7:15pm:

ENVIRO

whoa!
Never said you were a mass murderer!
Ban cigarettes? let em do what they want.

Here, i'll change it for you.

Like your new pic mate?

My argument is i dont think most people are stupid enough to take up the durries these days.
I gave up a few weeks ago.
If they wanna smoke, let em.

Just stay away from this........

Everybody has their own opinions. You should know by now im all for FREE SPEECH.
My motto there is ''say what you want,- but if you talk about jihad as being great,SHUT THE HELL UP''

Cigerettes are bad..ban them..I too an ex smoker..not hard to give up..called will power.

freediver..

are you an ex smoker? or just a social smoker?  stop it now I say ..!!!!

freediver wrote on Mar 7^th, 2007 at 9:45am:


How do I know if it didn't work? or How do I know it was 20 years ago?

Actually there is still external advertising happening like empty cig packets and bumpers lying around in the street. Everytime a smoker lights up a cigarette they are advertising the fact that smoking is alright. This is how I know it didn't and wouldn't work by banning advertising from the cig companies.

As for the 20 years ago the statement was just a guestimate.

No what I'm saying is that it's more than an advertising problem it has become a social problem.

You made some good points Enviro.  Smoking is an addiction, and often those who have successfully given up, find another addiction to replace it.  As long as it's a healthy addiction it doesn't matter, but for those who find it difficult to give up - we deserve understanding not harrassment.

What I think they're trying to do with all this negative advertising is kill us quicker.  It's like the power of suggestion or pointing the bone.  All you ever hear is - you'll die of cancer, gangrene, a heart attack or something else equally as horrific.  Instead of hearing this negative message - it's easier to turn the TV or radio off.

The advertising isn't working as well as they like so they definitely need to try another angle to encourage people to quit - ban them altogether.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Smoking-ban-for-cars-in-force-in-SA/2007/05/31/1180205402770.html

One of the last havens for smokers, the family car, is under siege in South Australia - and other states may soon follow.

South Australia has banned anyone lighting up in their car while carrying children as passengers.

The smoking ban is an Australian first and applies when children under the age of 16 are in the car.

It will attract a $75 on-the-spot fine, although repeat offenders could be forced to pay as much as $200.

Smoking may damage your sperm: study

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Smoking-may-damage-your-sperm-study/2007/06/03/1180809311163.html

Here's one more reason not to smoke - smoking may damage sperm, passing along genetic damage to a man's children, Canadian researchers report.

A study in mice shows that cigarette smoke caused changes in the DNA of sperm cells, the researchers said in this week's issue of the journal Cancer Research. Such mutations, know as germline mutations, are known to be permanent.

"We have known that mothers who smoke can harm their foetuses, and here we show evidence that fathers can potentially damage offspring long before they may even meet their future mate."

---

NSW Nats push for smoking ban in cars

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/NSW-Nats-push-for-smoking-ban-in-cars/2007/06/15/1181414523248.html

Smoking in vehicles carrying passengers under the age of 16 would be banned in NSW under a proposal supported by the state's Nationals.

At a state conference in Singleton, in the Hunter region, NSW Nationals delegates voted in favour of the motion to support the legislation.

---

The low rate in central London is probably more to do with age.

Maps show smoking, cancer blackspots

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Maps-show-smoking-cancer-blackspots/2007/06/24/1182623713843.html

Maps showing the health and income profile of every council in England have been being published by the government.

The charts, published for the second year running, are designed to help local officials identify areas and populations where public health needs improvement.

They show that Chiltern in Buckinghamshire has the lowest number of deaths from smoking with 147 people dying per 100,000, while Kensington and Chelsea in central London has the fewest dying from cancer - 81 deaths per 100,000 people.

Summarised at a regional level, the charts show that people in the north west are the most likely to die from smoking related diseases, from cancer and from heart disease and stroke.

---

England stubs out public smoking

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/England-stubs-out-public-smoking/2007/06/30/1182624211623.html

England slams the door on smoking in bars, workplaces and public buildings this weekend in what campaigners hail as the biggest boost to public health since the creation of the National Health Service in 1948.

---

Smoking 'as difficult to kick as ever'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Smoking-as-difficult-to-kick-as-ever/2007/06/30/1182624211824.html

Nicotine reaches the brain as quickly as 10 seconds after inhalation, triggering feelings of pleasure, increasing heart rate and raising blood pressure.

But alongside the nicotine, smokers breathe in a deadly cocktail of chemicals including arsenic, formaldehyde and polonium.

"Cigarette smoke contains at least 69 different cancer-causing chemicals and thousands of other poisons which can increase the risk of several different types of cancer," said Ed Yong of Cancer Research.

"Nicotine itself doesn't cause cancer, it just keeps the smokers hooked," he added.

Tobacco is so addictive that doctors writing in the Lancet medical journal this year said it should be classified as an illegal drug, on a par with amphetamines and barbiturates.

---

Swag of new laws come into force in NSW

Smokers and young drivers will be the groups most targeted by new laws coming into force in NSW on Sunday.

An expansion of the ban on smoking in licensed premises and tightened restrictions on P-platers and learner drivers are among a swag of new laws and fee changes taking effect with the start of the new financial year on July 1.

Drinkers who like a smoke with their tipple do get a further day's grace but will no longer be able to light up indoors in licensed premises from July 2. The only exemptions are private gaming rooms at Star City Casino.

---

High rollers can keep puffing in Vic

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/high-rollers-can-keep-puffing-in-vic/2007/06/29/1182624159769.html

The Victorian government has defended its decision to continue to allow high rollers to smoke at Crown Casino, despite state-wide bans for all other venues that start on Sunday.

From July 1, smoking will be banned in all enclosed licensed pubs, clubs, bars and gaming rooms across Victoria - except high-roller rooms at Crown in Melbourne.

Stafford Sanders of SmokeFree Australia says all enclosed workplaces should be smoke-free and giving an exemption to Crown was wrong.

http://news.smh.com.au/adelaide-worlds-first-smoke-free-city/20071216-1hcs.html

Adelaide would be the first smoke free city in the world, under proposed legislation to be debated in state parliament next year.

The Tobacco Products Regulation (A Smoke-Free Adelaide) Amendment Bill 2007 would ban smoking in Adelaide for at least one day of the year, with maximum penalties of $200 to go to the Cancer Council.

The bill is being put forward by opposition police spokesman David Ridgway and will be introduced to parliament on February 13, 2008.

Mr Ridgway said the bill proposed the Friday before World No Tobacco Day be smoke free, and also possibly the day of the annual Credit Union Christmas Pageant.

He said he believed it should be introduced on both days, but it was up to the public to debate the issue and decide which day and how many.

http://news.smh.com.au/call-for-ban-on-smoking-in-mums-taxi/20080204-1pyh.html

Lighting up cigarettes in cars carrying children should be outlawed nationwide with urgency to protect the lungs of young Australians, cancer experts say.

Cancer Council Australia has used World Cancer Day to urge the federal government to follow the lead of Tasmania and South Australia by banning smoking at the wheel with kids onboard.

Chief executive Professor Ian Olver said it was incongruous that a country like Australia, which had introduced measures such as immunisation to improve child health, would allow children to be exposed to dangerous levels of second-hand tobacco smoke.

"Studies show smoking in cars, even with the window down, produces at least as much harmful second-hand smoke as the smokiest bar," Prof Olver said.

Surprise, fit smokers live longer than unfit non-smokers.

Quote:


http://archive.tri-cityherald.com/HEALTH/fitness/fit11.html

So should it be ban smoking, or ban couch potatoes?

One caveat:

Quote:

When the ban on smoking came into force last year (in NSW) clubs and pubs lost some patrons, so they installed pokie machines outside under cover. Some people just don't play the pokies without a cig. Designated smoking areas inside clubs were never going to work, because smoke still drifted towards non-smoking areas, somewhat like the original airline policy which had designated smoking areas, then a complete ban on smoking on aircraft. It will be of interest to see how much further the bans go.

Interesting comments: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/takala/040907

Quote:

Quote:




Yeah. They make an excellent case for relaxing torture regulations, and anti-discrimination legislation. Maybe there should be a bounty on smokers too

Smokers are also ugly, sub-human and .....they smell too!

Of course in their favour, they do have the decency to die prematurely and save society a fortune 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/07/18/wsmok18.xml

fag = f@g

How about banning enjoyment in any shape or form?
Statistics show that actions which bring short term enjoyment are usually detrimental to one's health in the long term. Statistics also show that a lack of short term enjoyment can be detrimental to one's long term enjoyment of life.

A workmate of mine had a problem with alcohol. He kicked that addiction but he became a pokie addict. After a few years he gradually increased his drinks (and smoking) whilst playing the pokies...then he had a heart attack and gave up the lot.

mantra wrote on Apr 28^th, 2008 at 4:44am:


The last thing left now is to restrict sales to registered outlets only (the old tobacconists store) and also restrict the number licences of these premises to 1 per X thousand per suburb.