https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/how-australias-strict-laws-have-made-...
As a smoker, I remember it well.

The lights dazzled on the dance floor, Rihanna raged over the sound system and I, gin and tonic in hand, hurriedly puffed away on what was to be my last cigarette in a club.

That was Oxford St in 2010 — the night before smoking was banned in all indoor pubs and clubs in NSW.

Little did any of us know it was just the beginning of the battle to get rid of cigarettes for good as, law by law and tax by tax, Australia adopted some of the most stringent smoking regulations in the world.

By today’s standards I feel a virtual pariah. Smoking is not just considered a dirty habit, but a danger to others.
That was the position cricketers Shaun Marsh and Jackson Bird found themselves in this week, dubbed bad role models for smoking in public while celebrating the Ashes series win against England.

The fact is smokers have nowhere to hide from the growing public reproof.

Best-selling author Nikki Gemmell has called smoking “a public declaration of stupidity” and described smokers as “relics of a bygone age”.

It’s true the war on smoking in this country is led by health concerns. And 15 years ago there were some 15,000 deaths a year attributed to smoking from illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes, stroke, cancer and respiratory conditions such as asthma, emphysema and bronchitis.

But — importantly — it’s not illegal. So are the increasingly draconian laws about where you can smoke, or even what can be published about smoking, justified?

Civil Liberties Australia’s Mark Jarratt says: “The government acts like they own the atmosphere and they don’t. The coverage of smoking is almost one-sided.

“It’s the result of decades of taxpayer-funded negative conditioning which has created the impression among the wider population that one whiff of smoke and you’ll drop dead on the spot.

“There’s no middle ground for these people. What’s next? Are we going to have to sing the national anthem and do 20 push-ups before we go to work?”

For decades cricket and other sports in Australia were sponsored by tobacco companies and promoted by our top sports people and entertainers. The country’s favourite comedian when not promoting Fosters was selling cigarettes.

Planes and trains had smoking sections, and smokers were catered to as valuable patrons. The perennial of any gift shop was the souvenir ashtray.
Today I find myself in a secret society, forced out of clubs and cafes, hiding down laneways, our numbers dwindling with each puff.

Smoking is banned in all enclosed public places and certain outdoor public areas around NSW, under the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 and the Smoke-free Environment Regulation 2016.

Currently I can’t even smoke a cigarette outside licensed cafes and pubs legally, or within 4m of the entry of any public building.


thank god!

cods wrote on Jan 13^th, 2018 at 9:46am:


Excellent description.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jan 13^th, 2018 at 5:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 13^th, 2018 at 5:48pm:


Do you suck on fags, Booby?

Bobby. wrote on Jan 13^th, 2018 at 6:02pm:


I don't smoke, Booby.

It's a disgusting habit.

Gordon wrote on Jan 13^th, 2018 at 6:06pm:



Not that there's anything wrong with that.   

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2018 at 6:14pm:


I've been to blackpool but that's not me and I don't smoke......tobacco

70% of Australian adults were smokers in the 1950s. That rate has come down to about 15% of adults. Now that the price is too high, and people don't see smoking as fashionable.

The amount of money you pay in taxes from cigarettes do not cover the expenses of lost revenue because we have to put out accidental arson. The health costs of people taking days off work because they have some kind of infection, or get sick more often than non-smokers because of a suppressed immune system. The money spent on cigarettes that could have gone to buying other things. The fact that you could pay off debts easier if you are a non-smoker.

Trust me, I went from being a weekly drinker in 2014 to a non-drinker in 2015. After being buried in debt, I managed to save my drinking money to pay off a credit card debt that was choking me. I went from spending $100 a month on credit card repayments to $200 a month and saving money still from not drinking. Perhaps smokers giving up smoking would see the same effect on their wallet.

Australia can do without cigarette tax if smokers quit smoking en masse.

Setanta wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 3:14am:


Not much. When I went about a dietary change and weight loss program, I did my darndest to just listen to other people about changing what it was I ate and to exercise more often. To date from 2015, I have spent over $200 on weight loss shakes and dietary pills in some desperate attempt to get a boost to help me with weight loss. I have also got my bike reconditioned to be able to ride and exercise in this small town. I go for walks and buy things to keep me hydrated. Just found out recently that they bumped up bottled water from $2 a bottle to $3, which means that I am paying heaps in helping shopping centres and stores profiting. I also eat at fast food outlets on rare occasions (especially in the last 3 months). But I know that my GST from those occasional purchases are going towards the government to spend on keeping smokers alive and compensate for all the wasted opportunities smokers cause.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/02/25/obesity-cost-in-australia_n_9199240....

$120 billion is the figure that the Huffington Post gives as the cost of being overweight/obesity in Australia. I bet a lot of the figure is exaggerated by the potential losses coming from what we could do as an entirely fit and healthy society, and not just from what we settle for as a 60% overweight/obese society. A lot of processed foods attract a GST to the costs of the product. But it is not like I am dying like a wounded beast from having a happy meal, like the costs of smokers have to their health.

I call bs on you not being part of the problem of elevated sickness levels. What you spend your money on is your business, I agree. But I would encourage you to quit smoking for the sake of your health and well-being. Lard arses might cost the country in a range of things. But we are not costing the community in blatant workplace absenteeism, accidental fires, nicotine rage, and not being able to buy things because of the need to waste money on burning sticks of chemically enhanced tobacco encased in paper for whatever benefit you find it does you.

Personally, I think that cigarette factories can do without adding the chemicals in cigarettes. I know it is for the purpose of making the cigarettes burning faster and decreasing the time it takes between smoke breaks because smokers do not get the full effect. But if there is some kind of compromise, there should be a reduction in most chemicals added to cigarettes.

Given that Australia is entering a decade where saturated fats in burgers and fast foods are going to be replaced by faster metabolising fats, it will not be long before we see a decrease in obesity from excess fat and sugar. So, I can hope that something can be done about making cigarettes either healthier or banned from purchase.

I think you took a wrong turn down a one-way street at high speed. I am not a fan of smoking or cigarette smoke. But, unless I was blown smoke in my face on purpose, I would not take offense to be in the presence of cigarette smoke. I light up mosquito coils for under my house. But I don't stick around to breathe in the smoke. I just wish that smokers would respect my right to breathe clean air. I have much the same contempt for cars that spew carbon monoxide. But I don't go out of my way to breathe the fumes, either.

Twenty-nine years ago, cigarette smoke meant that Dad was around. He quit when I was 10 years old because he was worried that I was going to take up the habit. His quitting meant that we ate more food, because of his cravings, and because we could afford it. Are you worried about becoming a "lard arse" if you quit smoking? You seem to have an aversion to heavyweight people being around you. And had I started smoking, I am sure that I would be in a worse condition financially, not just physically, than what I as a non-smoker have become.

I get sick once a year from all the interactions I have had with people. Aside from food poisoning, I don't think heavyweights are getting sick from fast food and taking the day off. Interesting that much of the food poisoning comes from people who like to take smoke breaks, and then rehandle food with partially washed hands.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 4:17am:


I volunteer in a kitchen to feed the homeless, they don't get food poisoning. I am almost always tasked with making the salad, you know uncooked stuff, no people sick. Blaming smokers for poor kitchen hygiene is bad form, I continually tell people to wash their hands after they have used their mobile or have left the kitchen, they don't think twice using the phone and going back to what they were doing, that's filthy. If you leave the kitchen, on your return, wash your hands, if you use your phone, wash your hands, if you (for the women) go to your handbag, wash your hands. Good kitchen hygiene has nothing to do with smokers in particular.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 4:11am:


No, I don't blow smoke on people, I don't smoke near people that do not like it, I'm not a smoking nazi. I will respect peoples wishes. I don't smoke in our house, my son and DiL do not smoke, my granddaughter lives here.

No cars spew carbon monoxide after the introduction by law of catalytic converters in the '80s.

No, I'm not worried about becoming a lard arse if I stop smoking and going by your story above it seems just having more money made you a lard arse. I don't particularly like fat people, it's gross, it's ugly, it's unhealthy, it's inviting health costs not just to you but the wider community and you don't pay the costs other unhealthy habits cost their participants. Fat people freeload because it's so unkind to point out they're lard arses and you can't hurt their feelings.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 2:33am:


It wasn't $2 a packet in the 70's. I was buying 2ozs of Drum or Bank rollie tobacco for 60 cents in 1972 - 73.

a 20 pack of tailor mades like B&H & Winfield was around 40 to 45 cents.

When I stopped smoking rollies it was 90cents per 2ozs.

Then days you didn't worry about people asking you for a smoke ... you gave them freely.

Wouldn't do that at the prices today.

It's been 41 years since I had a cigarette & I'm so glad I gave that stinking habit the flick.

Gnads wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 7:09am:


It's been years since I smoked pot regularly but even at my heaviest usage it was 2 or 3 joints a week.

That consumption would be inconsequential and probably indistinguishable from varying amounts of air pollution from one suburb to the next

Setanta wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 4:57am:




quite a few contradictions there set.....sorry to say..

I dont  think there is much to choose from the over eater and the smoker...

what makes you think smokers dont cost us money?

what makes you think they are NOT ugly...the smell alone in very very UGLY...even if you so smoke aways from people... .... they still smell your breath   your hair your clothing....it clings to  everything..

your sense of smell is impeded  the nerves get paralised....so you do not smell another smokers.....

why do you think the govt goes out of its way to prevent people from smoking...

thus far they are not hiding c hocolate and soft drinks under the counter... naughty food is still allowed to be advertised......

not smokes though....

both smoking and overeating  is an abomination....

each is up to the individual to fix...

most are waiting for an overnight cure all..


if only..

Gnads wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 7:20am:


What I meant by the "$2 a packet" comment was that the price would have been that amount in the 1970s. $2 a packet today would be about 50c back then. Roll your owns would be much cheaper (according to co-workers) than manufactured cigarettes.

cods wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 10:48am:


The difference between obese people and smokers is that an obese person can lose weight to a point where they are physically healthy after a year of healthy conditioning. A smoker can quit smokes, and a year later, they feel better in terms of health, get better sleep, lower heart problems, more money in their pocket from not spending on cigarettes. But the damage done to their body either take a long time to recover, or does not recover at all.

I happen to have put on weight due mainly to people pranking me by poisoning my water supply without my knowledge with chemicals that have lead to my weight gain. But if I can overlook that considerable reason for my health problems, I would say that having plenty of time for myself has lead to my regular drinking habits. I have hangover cures that include eating at fast food restaurants. I would go on record as saying that eating $40 worth of McDonalds over a few days (say 3 meals there in 3 days) is HEALTHIER than smoking a $40 packet of cigarettes.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 7:05pm:


The difference between obese people and smokers is that an obese person can lose weight to a point where they are physically healthy after a year of healthy conditioning. A smoker can quit smokes, and a year later, they feel better in terms of health, get better sleep, lower heart problems, more money in their pocket from not spending on cigarettes. But the damage done to their body either take a long time to recover, or does not recover at all.

I happen to have put on weight due mainly to people pranking me by poisoning my water supply without my knowledge with chemicals that have lead to my weight gain. But if I can overlook that considerable reason for my health problems, I would say that having plenty of time for myself has lead to my regular drinking habits. I have hangover cures that include eating at fast food restaurants. I would go on record as saying that eating $40 worth of McDonalds over a few days (say 3 meals there in 3 days) is HEALTHIER than smoking a $40 packet of cigarettes.[/quote]



seriously unsub     that a daft way to look at health...

either is NOT HEALTHY...

you sound like you have lost your way.. hangovers drugs lung cancer.. obesity all in the one reply.....

come on mate dont dwell on all that rubbish...we are what we allow ourselves to be....think what you want to be tomorrow  if it means giving up sugar.... then thats what you must do....if you have a weight issue plus a sugar issue   you can lose limbs.. to diabetes..its not just smoking that can do that......we ban smokers here in ACT have done so for a looooong time.. its wonderful...funnily enough the most cig butts you find are outside the hospitals.....smokers are dirty... sorry guys but its true..

only my son smokes in my family  have 6 grandkids and so far none smoke....very very happy with that....all g,kids very health conscience.

sounds like she will gordy  kids are a lot better informed these days.. sand since the advertising stopped and they can only be sold under the counter.....I think its made a lot of difference.. in my day everyone smoked... in England we were even allowed to smoke in cinemas...crazy........ now they dont hide the damage it causes....its a shame they dont emphasise the damage drinking does like they did with smoking........drinking is more than just a health/social  hazard...

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 5:47pm:


You're not wrong!

It's unfair for those of us who have kids and/or asthma and/or bronchitis!

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2018 at 11:50am:


will I be shot at dawn???... I dont mind maccas   once in a while.....

it isnt something I would recommend if trying to lose weight....aka unsub....for starters it isnt filling...

would you recommend someone trying to avoid lung cancer  to only smoke every other day???

Car pollutants are far more damaging than smokers outside shopping centre's.

for example... https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Community-and-environment/Environmental-management/How-you-can-make-a-difference/Motor-vehicle-pollution.aspx

cods wrote on Jan 15^th, 2018 at 12:23pm:

cods wrote on Jan 15^th, 2018 at 12:01pm:


One of my new year's resolutions was to cut down fast food to once a month treats. I had Maccas last Saturday week. I had KFC today. The Maccas was because I could not wait 30 minutes to get home and have a meal. And that Maccas meal must have digested within 30 minutes anyway, I was that hungry. I have sworn off KFC for a long time, since I did not enjoy my meal today. I suppose if I can show some self-control, I can limit my fast food intake to once a month. And then, I could probably keep away from fast food for a while, if I really don't have cravings for it. So far, I have regulated my lunch and dinners to be filling with healthy servings of fruit, vegetables, sandwiches and lean meats.

The difference though is that whilst fast food can be burned off in energy during an afternoon jog, cigarettes do nothing other than to give someone a nicotine hit. The damage done is irreversible, whilst other smoking-related damage takes a while to quit smoking. I would recommend those that are quitting to just ease off the smokes a little bit at a time. Dad quit after smoking his last packet. He had mild withdrawal symptoms. But he got over it in time.

I benefitted from quitting alcohol through my health -- physically and mentally -- and the way I was saving on money. I sleep better and have a better outlook on life. Why can't smokers have the same attitude in quitting smokes?

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2018 at 11:50am:


Jokes aside, being an anti-smoking Nazi is not the answer. Simply keeping a distance from a smoker is implicit enough notification that you don't want a smoker near you. They get the hint.

Gordon wrote on Jan 15^th, 2018 at 9:44am:


I don't know what it is about smoking that people thought it cool. I have the feeling that since cigarettes suppress the apetite, the idea behind smoking reducing hunger was necessary 60 years ago. I suppose that the flow on effect to the children of those now 70 to 80 year olds were that the children undertook smoking to try and be with the sympathies of their parents.

Dad started smoking before his 10th birthday. A few years ago, at his 60th birthday party, we were treated to a photograph of my father when he was 12 being photographed lighting up a cigarette. His younger brother, my uncle, was in the foreground with his hands raised in surprise and smiling that they were caught smoking by their father, my grandfather.

Dad is vocal about how he felt he missed out on things to afford as a smoker, and probably feels that he wasted his life. But he knows that he has saved money on smokes enough to pay off debts quicker and afford new cars that were out of his price range.

mozzaok wrote on Jan 15^th, 2018 at 12:03pm:


People are still getting hold of Chop Chop .... it's nearly classed as an illegal drug just because the govt is missing out on it's tax.

Gnads wrote on Jan 16^th, 2018 at 8:56am:


A drug lawyer I know told me you'd get a harsher punishment for illegally cultivating tobacco over MJ as they prosecutors go harder

Gnads wrote on Jan 16^th, 2018 at 8:57am:



Follow a Commodore up a steep hill.... gag.... trucks.... overtake as soon as possible and leave behind... nothing like a lungful of diesel...

person wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 8:23pm:


So instead of the government getting all that tax revenue it should go to drug dealers instead? How many new jails would we have to build to house all the offenders, and where would that money come from?

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 8:41pm:


What... the.... fock? What makes you think that smokers will turn their attention to getting drugs? I realise that quitting smoking is difficult. But you would not be so hooked on nicotine that you would overlook getting nicotine patches and gum in favour of some drugs. Where did your question come from?

Only 3 months ago, I was up in hospital being treated for my hypochondria. A bed over, and behind a curtain, I heard the moaning, guttural-sounding pain of some patient being treated for heroin or whatever drug that patient was withdrawing. It turned out that it was a woman with a severe drug dependency. The nurse gave the patient some sort of pain killer -- assuming that it was not legally available to the public -- and told the patient it was the strongest drug that they had. Half an hour after receiving it, she started moaning again that she was in pain. Had I a criminal psyche about me, I would have gotten hold of a fire extinguisher and beaten her to death. As far as I am concerned, she had been funding my enemies so that they can buy sports cars, etc.

I could tell you about junkies who drive their cars into stores over jealousy issues, etc. But I would have to wonder why you think that smokers would turn their attention to hard drugs as an alternative to cigarettes? Let me guess: You wrote a desperate strawman argument as a way to defend your cigarette habit.

We should have more freedom not less....Pot should be legalised as well....If people want to smoke, drink or get high it is their choice IMO....It is those who complain about PC so they can be assholes that want to restrict the most freedoms!!!

We should have more freedom not less....Pot should be legalised as well....If people want to smoke, drink or get high it is their choice IMO....It is those who complain about PC so they can be assholes that want to restrict the most freedoms!!!

Phil, would you draw the line anywhere?

What about some of those synthetic cannabis ones that are bloody dangerous, Ice?

miketrees wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 10:10pm:


It's interesting actually. The government regulates a product proven to kill tens of thousands of people per year in this country alone.

Yet they ban a product like cannabis which in all of recorded history has killed a grand total of zero people.

Cigarettes kill more people then ice, cocaine and heroin combined.

When they say don't do drugs they must really mean, don't do those untaxed drugs.

Raven wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 11:44pm:


Raven's point is totally flawed when you factor in the costs of accidental arson, health costs, loss of work production, money stress, and a whole range of other factors smoking costs us. Whatever tax is collected from cigarette sales is superseded by the need to spend more money covering the losses cigarettes cost society.

Raven wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 2:30am:



we already have a huge problem with tobacco smuggling raven......if smoking was banned my god  I would think tobacco smuggling would over take drugs and guns...for sure..

anything you prohibit makes it more exciting...

I think they have done a lot to curb its use..

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 12:35pm:


Strangely enough, a study from about 10 years ago shows that people who smoke marijuana don't appear to be at increased risk for developing lung cancer.

Results:
There were 79 cases of lung cancer and 324 controls. The risk of lung cancer increased 8% (95% CI 2% to 15%) for each joint-year of cannabis smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking, and 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) for each pack-year of cigarette smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cannabis smoking. The highest tertile of cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer RR=5.7 (95% CI 1.5 to 21.6), after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking.

Conclusions:
Long term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adult



if petrol sniffing  can do so much harm  whatever makes us think cannabis wont..


we take a lot of poisons into our system  today more than ever before......fluoride is a good one...if it was rolled up and smoked  I am sure it would kill..

being controlled it does more good than harm..

I remember reading where face powder was once  made from arsenic

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 8:14pm:


Neither.

It was Donald Tashkin, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

He was surprised by the results of his study too.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 8:44pm:


I guess FD doesn't like studies done by experts with more than 30 years experience in the field.