Dad’s last gasper: burying the argument for smoking

Scott Glennon says:

10:33am | 06/05/10

@Tara,

Considerate smokers abide by the law, clearly your friends are rude.
The consumption of beef causes more damage to the environment each year then smokers and your a fool to beleive that smokers cause huge health bills for you.

Sahara says:

10:42am | 06/05/10

I don’t smoke myself but I no a few people who do. I see them suck down lungfuls of tobacco smoke which I assume they do somewhere near 500 times per day for decades without any apparent harm.

I refuse to believe that breathing in the occasional heavily diluted wisp of tobacco smoke is going me cause me to suffer.

In my life I’ve read, heard or read about a lot of people dying. I have yet to hear of one of them classified as dying from passive smoking.

My grandfather was classified as a smoking related death. He was 94 years old. the doctor appeared shocked when I told him if he could guarantee that I’d live to 94 I take up smoking and start a two packs a day habit immediately

Pro Choice says:

11:36am | 06/05/10

@Tara…

Considerate smokers, such as myself, are considerate of non-smokers and prefer to NOT smoke near non-smokers.

One, it feels very anti-social to smoke near anti-smokers; and
Two, smoking is more enjoyable when not near any people.

I feel the same about drinking.  I prefer people to get drunk in their own homes, instead of ruining for the rest of us who just want a good night and can control our alcohol consumption.

Seano says:

11:35am | 06/05/10

Of course smokers cause huge health bills. The die over a long time of very complicated illnesses. Requiring lots of lots of attention from medical health professionals and expensive tests and treatments. There are whole wards in every major hospital in the country filled with people dying from smoking related illnesses.

Scott Glennon says:

12:04pm | 06/05/10

@Seano,

A hospital lets a smoker die. A hospital will waste vast amounts of money on saving many that should have died years ago.

Sahara says:

12:12pm | 06/05/10

There are hospital wards across the country filled with non-smokers as well. I read somewhere that 90% of your lifetime’s total medical costs will be incurred in the last year of your life. That last year just comes earlier for many smokers.

Who really is going to strain health budgets more? A smoker that has some medical issues and dies at 65 or someone decaying in a nursing home for twenty years or more?

If we’re going to have a discussion on who to spend, or not to spend, our health budget on then let’s have a proper one. Be careful though it’s a slippery slope you’re on and you mighten like where it arrives at.

Juju says:

12:20pm | 06/05/10

Sahara:10:42am | 06/05/10
Dana Reeve (Christopher Reeve’s wife) is thought to have died from passive smoking. She was a singer in nightclubs for many years and this is thought to have contributed to the lung cancer that killed her. She was a non-smoker.
And it’s not just lung cancer - my son-in-laws’ mother who was a moderate smoker for 50 years died recently from leukemia (she lived for just 9 months after she was diagnosed) which the doctors said was probably due to smoking. A lot of expensive drugs and hospital time were expended in proloning her life.  It was a horrible death, drugged to the eyeballs, losing control of her bodily functions…. 
Go on, take up smoking - it’s sexy now, but the end for many people is gruesome.

Nic says:

12:24pm | 06/05/10

@ Sahara

I have heard of people dying from second hand smoke.  A guy I worked with, his dad was dying from lung cancer.  Just before he passed - his wife was found to have lung cancer as well, caused by inhaling the second hand smoke, as she had never touched a cigarette in her life.  This guys dad died feeling that he also killed his wife. 

It was a pretty horrid situation.

Seano says:

01:25pm | 06/05/10

@Scott Glennon. Ummm no they don’t champ. Hospitals do everything they reasonably can for as long as they can to keep people alive. Smoking related illness is one of the major costs to our health care system. Look it up.

Scott Glennon says:

02:16pm | 06/05/10

@Seano, Instead of fueling ignorance, here’s a decent read.

http://www.wesdarc.org.au/download/breathingspace/ResearchMaterial/Journal Articles and Reports/Peters 2007 Should smokers be refused surgery.pdf

MelD says:

02:46pm | 06/05/10

Ok people, back it up!

You cannot CONCLUSIVELY say that smoking causes all these problems, the leukemia non smokers get that too, the guys wife gets it maybe there is asbestos in the house? you cannot claim these were all done by smoking,

Superman’s wife it was THOUGHT to be from smoking, not definitive.

BTW I am now officially a non smoker as of yesterday so don’t jump down my throat

Seano says:

02:56pm | 06/05/10

@Scott Glennon - The article supports my case the smoking does cost us a bucket load, perhaps you should read it.

If the opinion that we should refuse surgery to smokers in certain circumstances becomes policy then there may be cost savings but then there’s the costs of on going palliative so I doubt it.

In other words regardless of what we do smoking related illnesses are expensive. One solution is to make the cost of care self funding e.g. through taxation. And another is to reduce the numbers of smokers and the take up rate by making smoking financially unattractive e.g. through taxation.

Well look at that.

sam says:

03:08pm | 06/05/10

As a asthma sufferer I couldn’t agree more. I can’t walk down the footpath or wait at the train station without some person (undercover, or so extremely next to the undercover area that theres no point) blowing smoke my way. I start coughing uncontrollably and I have even had smokers tell me to ‘get over it’. I know they can’t control where it goes, but really, move away. far away. it stinks. Epping hospital is by far the worst place as their smoking area is at the front door last time i was there. why bother going out the door??

Fed up says:

03:17pm | 06/05/10

Same can be said for drinkers too, at least if a smoker gets in a car after a few they won’t kill anyone or have an accident. Drinkers are most at risk of injuring themselves or others if they’ve had too much alcohol. They also contribute to the national health system with lung cancer, strokes, blocked arteries, gangreen etc, not to mention wanting to fight everyone in sight and acting like idiots when they’re drunk. It really shits me with people going on about smokers and how they infringe on everyone else. How is that? They are banned from smoking in most public places, pubs, clubs, parks, hospitals and pretty much most outdoor eaterys, so can yu please answer me how they infringe on your rights? By the way, I’m a non-smoker & drinker.

Even Smokier now... says:

03:19pm | 06/05/10

It would appear that many think smokers should not be intitled to medical attention for emphysema and other “smoking” related diseases.  So I do not deserve treatment for emphysema because I smoke, but if a paedophile, or a murder, or someone who is cruel to animals or bashes their children/spouse, or is guilty of extreme neglect to their family or pets gets emphysema then that’s OK because, hey, at least they don’t smoke!  A bit of perspective please.  Would you rather I have a cigarette (even around YOU), or is it better that I be a nasty, cruel and disgusting type of human being?  Smokers do not deserve all the disdain and meanness merely for being smokers - have a look at the newspapers and see all the cruelty in the world and gain a broader outlook at what really matters.  Of course smoking is not good, but at least I’m not out there bashing up your children, or driving while I’m drugged out or drunk and killing your wife as she drives your kids to school.  Do I have my pets starving from neglect in my back yard?  Do I have cold, hungry kids living in a pigsty of a home?  Does my husband come home drunk and bash my children while I do nothing?  Do I go out and leave my kids at home alone?  Do I leave my kids in a hot car while I’m gambling on a poker machine???  NO I DO NOT!!  Do you really expect me to be ashamed because I smoke?  Do you really think I deserve lesser treatment than you because I smoke?  Do you really think you can talk about me with ridicule and disdain?  Who do you people think you are?  I’m going outside for a ciggie now…

MD says:

03:43pm | 06/05/10

ah Sam, I am an acute Asthmatic and I don’t go into uncontrolled coughing spasms just because there is smoke in the area, in that case you must almost die in bush fire time, can’t go camping. you poor thing

Scott Glennon says:

04:10pm | 06/05/10

@Seano, The issue presented was whether smokers deserve life saving surgery. Both sides are represented, it is also outlined that providing health care to the non smoking public can be equally as costly.
I’d hoped that reading it you’d notice the relevance of others requiring just as much access to the health system as smokers. I’d suggest you take note of the opposite side of the argument as well.

Seano says:

04:34pm | 06/05/10

@Scott - You seem to be confused. The issue is that smokers are far more likely to burden the health care system with costly smoking related illnesses. Yes the occasional non smoker will get a disease typically related to smoking such as lung cancer. This does not change the fact that smokers place a large burden on the health care system. Nor does the debate on whether or when should surgery be refused for smokers.

Scott Glennon says:

04:56pm | 06/05/10

@Seano, I thankyou for not smoking and reducing the impact on the Australian health system.

Stevo says:

06:42pm | 06/05/10

err are you all stupid?

smoking isn’t the sole cause of lung cancer…

a hermit, that has never smoked in his / her life and never been within 200km of a smoker in his / her life, can still die of lung cancer.

if a person gets lung cancer and doesn’t smoke it doesn’t mean you can automatically assume it was from second hand smoke.

Also cancer can spread around the body. If you have lung cancer, it doesn’t mean it originated there….

idiots.

Chris says:

07:47pm | 06/05/10

Smokers, of course, pay a disproportionately high rate of tax on their ciggies. They certainly do contribute to the government’s finances and, therefore, indirectly, to their health costs.

Seano says:

08:27pm | 06/05/10

@Scott. You’re welcome. I’m glad this new tax rise is helping you to pay you way.

Dave says:

10:18pm | 06/05/10

Scott Glennon - can’t believe that you can say that. The links between smoking and many diseases are irrefutable. The other indictment on smokers is the amount of butts left around - just check any drain on a rainy day. Most smokers don’t care for either themselves or those around them.

Paul2 says:

12:46am | 07/05/10

Everybody deserves medical treatment, everybody is capable of right and wrong decisions throughout what is a long life usually, and everybody is open to the potential for change in their life.  Smokers deserve medical treatment like everyone else, they just need to accept their own accountability for their poorer outcomes and not blame the caregivers when it all goes wrong because of smoking.  More surgeons these days won’t touch smokers electively because they fear the liability issues that arise if the recovery is complicated.

Pete Marinovich says:

11:54pm | 07/05/10

@Scott Glennon,

Speaking of beef, your remarks to Tara are BS. Smokers cause health care costs to rise for everyone.

Barry says:

09:18am | 06/05/10

Watty, although I agree with your concerns about the price paid by society for alcohol abuse, your comments about your relatives amount only to anecdotal evidence. We need to look at the big picture ( ie the very clear statistical evidence of the connection between tobacco and cancer)  to identify the harm caused by smoking.

persephone says:

09:32am | 06/05/10

I once sat next to a guy at a typical small factory Christmas celebration - half a dozen blokes around a 44 gallon drum with a fire in it - who offered me a tumbler of Southern Comfort (which I accepted) and a ciggie, which I didn’t.

When I’d finished my tumbler, he offered to refill it, but I said I’d had enough.

Obviously deciding from this that I was a wowser, he said, “Me old gran’s 97, but she still drinks her bottle of Scotch and smokes a carton a day.”

A week later he died of a stroke.

I wouldn’t rely on family history, if I were you.

Oh, my grandparents were also 40 a day smokers and lived until they were in their eighties. My father wasn’t so lucky - he died at 63.

This is why health experts look at statistics rather than relying on anecdotes.

And it’s more than just the anti smoking lobby which identifies smoking as a major health risk and has determined that moderate alchohol consumption - unlike moderate cigarette consumption - causes no discernable harm.

Tom says:

10:27am | 06/05/10

Two wrongs don’t make a right - just because alcohol abuse is a problem doesn’t mean we shouldn’t focus on ciggies. And if you want anecdotal evidence, my grandfather died of lung cancer at 79, but had lived the last 10 years of his life in and out of hospital, with most of his lung tissue removed. It was a miserable existence. His brother, on the other hand, was a non smoker and lived until 93, and certainly had a much better standard of living in his last 10 years than my grandfather.

Smoking isn’t just about the early death, it is the pathetic and pitiable existence it often forces upon those who partake (and those around them). In isolation, 79 years is about an average lifespan, but the way that many of those years were lived was hardly living.

In addition, the author is correct when he claims there is no safe level of consumption for cigarettes, as there is for alcohol or junk food.

wk says:

10:59am | 06/05/10

Couldn’t agree more Watty. The hardcore anti smoker lobby often conveniently forget thier own damaging vices….

Peter says:

04:27pm | 06/05/10

@ Tom.. No one is asking to smoke.. Why don’t you give up something that’s not good for you or ask the Government to tax you heavily for doing it.. If you believe in people being treated fairly, then you should support your bad habits being taxed as well… But your going to tell us your bad habits aren’t as bad as mine…

non says:

11:00am | 06/05/10

Your car and road usage are taxed or levied or have rates applied to them. While it’s not meant to be restrictive or deter you from using them like smoking, they are recognised as a necessary evil (people need to get from point A to point B). People don’t need to smoke. That is why smoking is treated differently.

No-one says you can’t smoke (unless you’re under 18). No-one says you can’t enjoy it. But if you are going to do so then you will pay for it and do it where your entirely optional habit won’t harm others (or minimise that harm).

You have a right to smoke but you also have the responsibility not to harm others.  It is difficult to ensure you are doing both so some ground will be lost.

Chris L says:

01:14pm | 06/05/10

I pretty much agree with you non, but you haven’t countered any of my points. I was simply correcting Adam about cigarettes being the only thing to cause harm when used correctly, pointing out that people smoke ‘cause it’s enjoyable, and that it’s all well and good to join the mob and condemn smoking but someday you may find something you like being legislated against and it will feel different.

I have no problem staying away from other people when I light up, and I feel comfortable that the incredible amount of tax I pay for the durries will cover my eventual hospital costs plus a fair bit extra. It’s all well and good. I find the plain packaging funny though. I don’t smoke ‘cause of the shiny logo, and most shops don’t keep packets on display anyway. Seems entirely pointless to me.

Adam Diver says:

01:38pm | 06/05/10

I would like to know what the enjoyment factor of smoking even is. I list three possibilities which are all pretty hollow and lead me to not care about smokers at all.

1. You think it is cool, tough, bad or whatever. The image of being a smoker is what makes it enjoyable.

2. Smoking gives you something to do with your hands. Ever been to a party and held a drink all night. Same situation.

3. Smoking relaxes you, gives you a rush, makes you feel better. Unfortunately this is only a result of taking it up in the first place because the positive feelings you get a simpy because you feed an addiction.

Also i though i would throw a smoky one up as well. 4. You enjoy inhaling burning plant and chemical matter and forking out a fortune to do so. 

If you are a smoker and have another reason you enjoy smoking please let me know because I honestly do not know.

Vicki PS says:

04:16pm | 06/05/10

@Adam Diver:  “Smoking relaxes you, gives you a rush, makes you feel better. Unfortunately this is only a result of taking it up in the first place”.  With respect, that’s the same as saying that the pleasure you get from a chocolate [or insert indulgence of your choice] is only the result of eating it.

The pleasurable effects of nicotine ingested by smoking are there whether you are an addicted smoker or not.  Nicotine increases the release of dopamine in the brain, giving a feeling of mild euphoria and heightened alertness.  Smokers exhibit better reaction-time and memory performance compared to non-smokers.  However, deprivation effects set in as soon as 1 - 2 hours after the last cigarette in an habitual smoker (as you noted).

Nicotine has recognised pharmaceutical uses.  Nicotine consumption through smoking has inverse associations with uterine fibroids, endometriosis, hypertension, ulcerative colitis, and body weight.  There is increasing medical evidence of the usefulness of nicotine in treating Alzheimer’s disease, Tourette Syndrome and Parkinson’s disease. 

However, it is not nicotine that causes the damage to smokers: the most serious effects seem to be the result of the smouldering combustion process.

Rover says:

04:43pm | 06/05/10

Vicki PS - I don’t smoke but want to lose weight. Will nicotine patches help?

Vicki PS says:

06:34pm | 06/05/10

@Rover:  Who knows, perhaps nicotine patches might help you lose weight.  Why don’t you check out some of the literature and see?  After all, back in the bad old days, doctors used to advise pregnant women to take up smoking to limit their weight gain.  (Smoking was also a popular recommendation by doctors as a treatment for asthma and anxiety).

Peter says:

02:54pm | 06/05/10

That’s fine x smoker, but we don’t have to live by your rules… Im sure you always walk around with the smell of the worlds finest fragrances on your body…

marley says:

10:22am | 06/05/10

That natural state of air may be smoke free, but if you’re living in a city, any city, that’s not what you’re breathing.  A bit of second hand smoke from some poor sod standing outside on the sidewalk is a lot less of an issue to me than the exhaust fumes of passing cars and buses, and the smog from industrial areas and power plants wafting over the downtown core.  When you fly into Sydney or Melbourne,  you can see the yellow haze from the air - and it’s not coming from smokers.

Markus says:

10:44am | 06/05/10

KH if you live anywhere besides the middle of a forest, it is very naive to think that the natural state of any air is smokefree.
CO emissions from cars do much more damage to your body than getting a whiff of someones tobacco smoke.
Plus banning them altogether will kill the health funding cash cow, so I guarantee the government won’t do it.

Gavin says:

02:11pm | 06/05/10

KH says “If you want to smoke, go somewhere else where it doesn’t interfere with me.” That’s already legislated. You can’t smoke indoors in any public building or workplace (rightly so). You can’t smoke within a distance of a publicly used doorway such as shopping centres or other retail entrances (rightly so). A street however is public and you just need to (literally) suck it up and deal with it. If it’s outdoors in a spacious open-air area like a street, people can smoke.

If we legislate against that, then I would like to legislate that anyone walking down a street is silent. I don’t want to listen to other people’s drivel as I walk down a street; peace and quiet should be as available to me as smoke-free air should be to you.

Ab says:

10:30am | 06/05/10

Couldn’t agree more Goose!!

phil says:

10:46am | 06/05/10

The average non-smoker walking down the street who wants to breath clean smoke free air isnt the one who is taxing you, or “stealing your money”, your silly protest is not aimed at the right people.
Blowing smoke in someones face intentionally will hopefully end up with you being in hospital from someone who doesnt appreciate it, well any smoker who intentional does this to me will end up there anyway.

By your stupid theory if you dont own a car and pay rego but walk along a road, and i being a rego paying motorist you must be stealing from me so now it gives me the right to hit you with my car.

Even as a non-smoker i cant see the point to the extra tax introduced as its not going to go anywhere that its needed it will just be eaten up by something stupid.
I dont however appreciate the smell of cigarette smoke, apparently being a smoker gives you the right to not care about what others think while you are getting your fix.
Its bad enough when you have to walk past a row of buildings in the city while everyone is on a smoke break but to then live in an apartment where ignorant smokers smoke in non smoking-areas like lifts, fire exits, stairwells, hallways etc which then gets blown in to where you live doesnt appeal, obviously you just cant see the problem you actually cause and how it affects others.

BTS says:

11:08am | 06/05/10

Steal you taxes?  What about the health costs smokers place on society as we search for replacement lungs?

persephone says:

11:21am | 06/05/10

Phil

every cent raised from tobacco excise is going into health, so it’s going exactly where it’s needed.

phil says:

11:36am | 06/05/10

@persephone

Fooled me, last time I was in a hospital to see someone it didn’t look like hospitals got much funding! maybe i wasnt in the smokers ward? :p

Goose says:

11:38am | 06/05/10

BTS

Smokers pay more than they cost society. Even Rudd was honest enough not to claim that taxes were required for smokers to pay thier own way. Just a way to steal money by getting onside the bigoted in our society. I think smoking should be made illegal, start by raising the age. That is honest. Howeverr w=if we charge them a premium to smoe, then we are dug pushers and are giving them license to smoke in our face. They pay for that privilige.

BTS says:

12:39pm | 06/05/10

Goose,

Smokers also purchase a product when they proffer their money.

Smokers aren’t the only ones being taxed.  The governments taxes necessecities or that which is popular, which makes sense doesn’t it? 

Australians don’t like paying taxes, but they want to drive on a road, have their kids educated and get hospital treatment.

MD says:

03:51pm | 06/05/10

BTS - you don’t need to worry about the cost of smokers in hospitals, the tax they pay with their ciggies should cover it nicely

Duckie says:

04:08pm | 06/05/10

Goose,
I don’t like paying tax on tampons either, but I’m not going to rub that in anyone’s face.

Peter says:

11:59am | 08/05/10

@ Craig L, you want to choose not to treat some one who has smoked and subsidised your health system for you and your family. Of course you don’t want that same freedom of choice given to smokers if you needed treatment in hospital for doing something stupid.. Your all about choice, choice for yourself and denying choice and liberties to others…

maybe says:

12:49pm | 06/05/10

there ARE high taxes involved in buying a car.

David C says:

01:05pm | 06/05/10

and taxes on people that play sport and get injured and taxes on people that go outside on a cold day without a scarf and get colds and taxes on people that cross the road without looking and get hit by a car
Dont most people pay taxes already?

MD says:

04:00pm | 06/05/10

so what if a non-smoker gets lung cancer be it genetics or aspestos that’s fine you are happy to pay for them then?

Smokers are paying for their health care in the taxes on the cigarettes, you pay tax on fuel and cars so we have nice roads (in theory) tax teh cigarettes then you wont be paying for the heath care the smokers will.

Get over it really it’s not like they blow smoke in your mouth or hit you over the head with a bat or pick fights just because smoking a few has made them feel invincible.

People really need to get over it,

Non-smokers got the whole airplane now

Non-smokers have the whole restaurant now

Non-smokers now have the whole clubs except for the small outdoor section deemed smokers only.

Non-smokers have the whole train now

Non-smokers have the whole office, the doorways undercover areas.

Smokers have - their own home, their cars and outdoor areas that have no roof above it.

Get over yourselves you have enough places where there are no smoking.

non says:

11:08am | 06/05/10

By your logic then paedophiles are perfectly free to do as they wish.

Smoking harms others. Smoking harms yourself and costs the taxpayers a lot of money when you will (likely) develop cancer.

You should be paying for your completely unnecessary and destructive vice.

Elizabeth R says:

11:35am | 06/05/10

non your argument is pretty pathetic there!! I am talking of smoking not pedophiles. You non smokers need to get a life and stop trying to dictate your wishes onto others. At the end of the day I am the one who will have to live with the consequences of my smoking not you!! I think Rudd is in trouble to be honest, every smoker I talk to will not vote for him and why should they he has singled only one section of society out to pay for his excessive spending. You can rant all you like but at the end of the day everyone will decide what is best for them. You don’t even enter into the equation!!

Rebecca says:

11:48am | 06/05/10

Nice strawman there non.

persephone says:

10:43am | 06/05/10

So once you were doing both, now you’re only doing one, so your health’s better overall.

Got Brains? says:

04:32pm | 06/05/10

I think you missed his point persephone. The fact is people will cry and whine about ciggies but will happily drive around in their V8 Landrover and just not accept that their car exhaust is an issue. Hypocritical, no? Similarly I do not believe, or care, about passive smoking and refuse to believe that it is an issue. If my smoke bothers you then you are free to leave but I believe that for the majority, passive smoking is a myth (yes yes yes, some smoker’s non-smoking wife who lived with that smoker for 1000 years yadda yadda yadda. I said for the majority!)

BTS says:

11:04am | 06/05/10

I am guessing you are a smoker Alan?

James1 says:

03:30pm | 06/05/10

You most certainly can smoke if you so choose - no one is taking that away from you.  However, if you choose to smoke, you also choose to pay whatever cigarettes cost.  Conversely, if you take issue with the costs involved, you could choose not to smoke.  This argument that raising prices robs people of choice is rubbish.  So hmm, you can make whatever choice you like when it comes to smoking without consulting anyone.  Likewise, be prepared to live with the consequences of your choices.  It is called personal responsibility.

Goose says:

03:57pm | 06/05/10

Jamesi

As a non smoker i find your argument is nonsense. For a start people will wait an extra week for a haircut, stop their espresso fix and go instant coffee instead or cut down on going to a restuarant. So they choose alright but it will be who choosing who actually pays. Then many are buying on the internet for next to nothing, or choosing to steal them as seems to be the case locally here.

Peter says:

04:03pm | 06/05/10

@ James1. A cigarette costs 0.02c (and that’s expensive). The evil tobacco companies add a bit for themselves and our immoral Government tacks on a fortune… So smokers are close to paying 0.80c a cigarette. Not even drug dealers make those kinds of margins…

What do you want smokers money for James? Senetor Minchin confirmed that smokers are saving the country a fortune.. So what do you want the money for James? Are there any handouts you are clamouring for that you feel you are entitled to?

MD says:

04:05pm | 06/05/10

James1 - if it’s ok for people to smoke if they choose to why do so many people have a problem with it? there are medical problems associated with alcohol consumption so lets tax that too, you can choose not to drink if you want or live with the consequences.

hmm says:

04:07pm | 06/05/10

James, my rights are being taken away from me.  Why am I being slugged (yet again), for something that is already heavily taxed.  Australians are the biggest bunch of whingers.  Things have taken a dive in the last 10 years.  There are no freedoms to do whatever.  I am not a leper, I am doing something lawfully (and politely) and constantly are made to feel inferior.  It will not work.  I will support you in your quest in life to have the freedom to undertake and enjoy your life within the realms of law, all I ask is for people to respect my lawful choices too.

James1 says:

05:41pm | 06/05/10

Goose, I don’t understand what you are trying to say.  It seems like you agree with me, in that people make choices and have to live with those choices and their consequences.  Why shouldn’t a person who chooses to smoke, also accept the consequences of their actions?

Peter, I don’t want the money for anything in particular, I would just prefer that smokers not blame the government for their own personal choices.  Personally, I am entirely happy with the $5000 a year I don’t spend on cigarettes any more - that is my cigarette money handout.

md, you will have to ask those people.  I have no problem with people choosing to smoke - as I said, that is their choice.  Blaming the government for their own choices is something I do mind, however.  On the drinking, I agree entirely.

hmm, I do respect your choices.  They are yours.  One thing that comes along with your choice to smoke is paying the cost.  You have made your choice, and I will shed no tears over you dealing with the consequences.  What right is being taken away exactly?  If you really want to smoke, you will find a way to pay.  After all, you are a nicotine addict, and in that respect are little different from other addicts (I know, I was one too).  The people looking down their noses at you for your choice should not be heeded, and I can assure you I am not one of them, being a former smoker myself.

Peter says:

08:10pm | 06/05/10

@ James1, no you can’t blame the Government putting up taxes, my mum put them up… You can’t blame the Government, cmon… Nick Minchin confirmed we save the money, so why do you want smokers taxed, if not only for the only reason you hate them and they have not done a thing to you other than save you money…. Your blinded by your hate…

James1 says:

11:08am | 07/05/10

I don’t hate smokers Peter.  Some of my best friends and closest family members are smokers.  I just believe that smokers make a choice.

Let me use an analogy here.  I like to live in a house.  I am also a renter.  When rent increases, I don’t fuss and fume over my landlord, or baby boomers, or the government artificially driving up the cost of renting.  I accept that, as a consequence of my choice to live in a house rather than an apartment, I will have to pay high rent.  I see little difference between this, and other choices that people make in life.  If you choose to spend money on luxuries, you are making a choice.  Thus, my views are not motivated by hatred, but by my commitment to personal responsibility.

Peter says:

03:48pm | 07/05/10

@ James1, firstly apologies, i didn’t read yout second last post in full and fired off a response a little too soon. I can see that you are being a lot more reasonable and thoughtful than you were a couple of days ago, and i think you started to acknowledge your past history as a smoker re the raw deal we are getting…

Re the rented house analogy, i think we would accept (although not like it) if a landlord put up our rent, but I think if the government taxed your rent, you wouldn’t be happy at them. imagine if the reason the Government taxed your rent is because they thought renters are also bad people deserving to be taxed because they don’t own a house.. We are not talking about businesses exploiting people, we are talking about our elected representatives exploiting people…

Also, on the personal responsibility bit, yes I smoke and i agree it is a 100% bad habit. But I am a fairly responsible person, i pay my way in life, and i look after those i love… I don’t think it is fair to say i am totally irresponsible because i smoke. I was a teenager, i made a mistake, but i am not a bad person because of it, im just addicted to a drug, as probably are other people are on this forum, but they think it is ok to judge my habit as worse than theirs…

Again, apologies, ive been shooting from the hip on this topic this week…

James1 says:

05:35pm | 07/05/10

My apologies also Peter - I did not intend to imply you were irresponsible.  My intention was more to highlight that most reasonable people would accept the consequences of their actions, and yet not do so when it comes to smoking. 

On the house thing, I would argue that government policies have indeed driven residential rents higher than they need to be, in an effort to win the vote of the boomers who are currently pricing subsequent generations out of the property market.  But I hold no grudges - that is what governments do best (exploit people and stuff things up, that is).

Peter says:

07:27pm | 07/05/10

@ James1, let’s agree to sort of disagree. I accept the consequences of my bad decisions, ie poor health, being too weak to stop myself from being exploited by tobacco taxes, i accept these things, but I don’t not accept unfairness that is targeted towards a minority that is doing nobody any harm but themselves.. Humans have been smoking for probably 1000`s of years… Your not going to die for being in a smoke filled room, however you are 100% entitled to a smoke free room, there was a time in my life where i thought smoking was revolting, and to this day I can not explain why i ever took it up. All I am talking about is fairness.. I think that is as about as rationally as i can explain my outbursts..

Tinky says:

11:19am | 06/05/10

Naah don’t ban the ciggies, licence the smokers.

Ten bucks a year gets you a licence to purchase smokes. It also comes with a proviso that you will not be treated for emphysema, lung cancer or any other smoking related illness, by tax funded medical services.

Scott Glennon says:

12:08pm | 06/05/10

@Tinky thats a brilliant idea! Get rid of all tax on the cigs, other then GST and I’m in!
Although who is going to fund your new health reforms? You?

MD says:

04:09pm | 06/05/10

The taxes on the ciggies will pay for the health cover of the smokers those that die of smoking related that can be PROVEN 100% to be from that.

slugger says:

11:42am | 06/05/10

no jess my opinion wont change,i fully expect to die from a smoking related illnes.but at least ill die happy in the knowledge that it was something that gave me pleasure till it finally got me.unlike most people i have no desire to live forever and realize that death is inevitable.fortunatly i have already reached an age where my useby date is almost up and i am sure that the hundreds of thousands i have paid in excise tax will negate any burden on the wosers in society.

Boink says:

08:02pm | 06/05/10

Only the naive non-smokers call it a habit. Just highlights the lack of knowledge they have about smoking. You have no addictions Jess?

Gavin says:

11:11am | 07/05/10

Jess, I believe I’ll cross that path when I get there.

Goose says:

11:44am | 06/05/10

Rachel,

have to agree. I do wonder where people that smell all this smoke live. I rarely ever smell it. Not enough to have knickers in knot for sure.

Lou says:

12:18pm | 06/05/10

Agree completely - as someone who has recently given up smoking the one thing that really makes me want to light up again is the self righteous attitudes of the anti-smoking lobby.  Smokers and fat people seem to be the only people who can be openly discriminated against and the vitriolic comments from some people only add to the problem.

Chris L says:

01:29pm | 06/05/10

And yet cars still pump far more harmful carcinogens into the air than a durry, plus that pollution is far more widespread and pretty much impossible to avoid. I try to walk everywhere possible and catch the bus to work rather than add another car on the road. However, I don’t hate drivers the way people hate smokers. Maybe you should live and let die coughing.

marley says:

01:58pm | 06/05/10

How much effort has gone into reducing the smoke from cigarettes?  Well, I rather think we have all kinds of rules these days about lighting up in restaurants, bars, offices and other enclosed spaces.  That means just about every public building in Australia is smoke-free. That seems like quite a reduction to me.

Peter says:

02:30pm | 06/05/10

Hermano, you told us that your smoking grandfather died at 90. Not many deaths are pleasant, smoking or not… If a non-smoker lived till 90, even they could consider themselves lucky…

Scott Glennon says:

12:12pm | 06/05/10

Brilliant idea to get around advertising laws..

Goose says:

11:51am | 06/05/10

phil

i do not like the smell either though rarely smell it, you must mix with different crowd to me. However by charging them extra tax then they are paying for the right to ffend you.This is what makes no sense to me. If you charge them to poffend you then you have given them the right to exactly that.

iansand says:

12:37pm | 06/05/10

Goose.  Do you catch lifts?  What about public transport?  Or do you catch taxis?  That is a list of all of the places where I have smelt residual smoke today.

Do you ever go anywhere where there are large numbers of strangers in close proximity?  Because if you do the smell of stale smoke may be there, even if you are desensitised and cannot smell it..

Michael says:

11:21am | 07/05/10

No Goose is spot on. It might smell offensive, but the culprit has paid for the right to excrete the figurative stink-lines. I personally find being in a confined space with cologne deprived persons more unpleasant, but hey, life aint perfect.

Goose says:

01:04pm | 06/05/10

Anjuli

So many are saying this but how is a tax going to stop people from smoking near you? There is no making smoking illegal here’. The government is addicted to the money and know people like you are bigoted and will not stop to say this does not make sense. Why don’t you stand up and say you refuse to be a drug pusher because you are supporting taxpayers getting the financial benefit of a drug addict with this tax. The hypocrisy of your ilk is breathtaking. A move to make this drug illegal is way past due but people want the tax so they do not have to pay more. Simple greed. Greedy drug pushing tax. Afterall if we made it legal taxes would go through the roof to pay for an aging population pension.

Rover says:

04:33pm | 06/05/10

Goose,
Maybe it’s me but I am really having trouble following your arguments.
You are opposed to the tax and you are pro-smokers’ rights, yet you think a move to make tobacco illegal is “way past due”?
In your last sentence, what are you proposing should be made legal?
And Anjuli is not being a hypocrite for choosing not to smoke - either her own or her friends’ secondhand smoke.
All that’s happening here is that cigarettes are getting more expensive, and won’t be sold in an attractive packet any more.
It’s not the end of the free world.
And no, I’m not a smoker, but I pay plenty of tax on things I choose to buy.

Kate says:

01:38pm | 06/05/10

thanks for being a rational, sane voice amongst all the misinformed persons, I applaud your skill at discussion & wish I could articulate my opinions as clearly

Peter says:

02:49pm | 06/05/10

Alan, this is not a health campaign it is a hate campaign. Even the media are trying to reduce smokers into non-citizens… Rudds dip in the poll was all about the ETS according to them, nothing to do with tobacco taxes which is complete BS. Hardly anyone wants to pay more in electricity (ie ETS), but the media wouldn’t even give smokers the respect of them even being voters.. Quite disgusting really… I reckon we are living in the Soviet Union…

David C says:

09:34pm | 06/05/10

Obesity is not at epidemic proportions

Goose says:

02:47pm | 06/05/10

i think it is great he is not aware eyt. Though why should he ever see anyone smoke at all? How is a tax ethical in any way shape or form. How can you teach your child that if you do not approve of something someone does you can publicly vilify them and steal money from them? Why not demand smoking be made illegal? It is ok for rich people to do bad things, just the poor that get slugged? And why oh why do people keep expecting the government to raise their children, it is your job.

So they tax more. It is a bad thing… bullying, stealing and bigotry is NOT a good thing. Not a good thing at all to teach. We see more and more cyber bullying involving kids and right here we can see where they learn it.

We must demand the government quit their addcition to the tax, plan for the financial fallout of criminalising smoking, provide support for existing addicts and quit this bullying campaign. That would be a good thing.

Ally says:

02:13pm | 06/05/10

Oh dear, Peter… I was wondering how long it would take you to bring up the Nazi’s yet again… remember Godwin’s Law!

Peter says:

03:52pm | 06/05/10

Yes Ally, good on you for remembering James1 statements about Godwin’s Law.. You are about taking away peoples liberties. The Nazi comparison is quite valid… I’ve seen you on these pages asking for handouts before… Don’t you think its time you contributed something to the country…

I suppose to, that you support the South Australian Government plans to breath test pedistrians for their own saftey of course.. You sound like someone one who would support it, unless of course you drink as well and that would be unacceptable to you… Right?

Chris L says:

06:29pm | 06/05/10

Ally, I don’t think Godwin’s law applies to arguments that are actually pointing out depravations of liberty. After all, we still shake our heads and ask why the good people of Germany allowed the nazis to take over. Of course this is nowhere near as drastic a situation (although I think the internet filter is a chilling case of deja vu) but freedom has to be fought for.

As much as I enjoy arguing with Peter, I’m with him on this subject.

Peter says:

04:15pm | 07/05/10

@ Ally, you along with James1, I owe an apology to, my emotional state on this topic has had me firing off perhaps rude responses back to people. Believe me, I am not this way and the text of what I say probably sounds harsher than what it would if you were speaking to me in person.. People usually just laugh at my conspiracy theories and enjoy hearing them. I usually don’t offend people in person… Text can be deceiving.

The point i am making re unfair taxation on the most addictive (but legal) substance in the world, takes away peoples financial liberties. Now on this latest hike alone, some kid might be deprived of his or her parents taking to the movies tonight because Rudd sprung a surprise tax on them. These kids might be deprived a night out next week as well. Targeted taxation like this is designed for people who don’t smoke to look at smokers and say “hey look their poor and they smoke”. Let me put it this way, if the government weren’t screwing them $15 a day for being hooked on the most addictive but legal substance on earth, they wouldn’t be poor… In fact, if we didn’t have these tobacco taxes, we might not need all the commission housing we’ve got because the smokers living in them might be able to afford a private house (and the dignity that comes with it)...

Jason says:

03:22pm | 08/05/10

@Chris L
“After all, we still shake our heads and ask why the good people of Germany allowed the nazis to take over.” - Chris L

Chris, if you had any understanding of that part of history you would know exactly why. But considering you’re still wondering, I’m guessing you have no understanding and that statement was pulled out of nowhere. Every war historian, anywhere, knows exactly why the German people voted the NSDAP into power, and it’s not because every citizen wanted to ‘eliminate the Jewish people’, it was because the whole country was left in ruin after the first world war - 80% of every mark they made had to be handed over to most of the combatants they fought against in WWI. People were starving, children were dying in the street because, not only had their parents been charged as war criminals and executed and could not look after them, but everyone else was too hungry and sick to do so. The reason the “good people of Germany allowed the Nazis to take over” was because they were their saviours. The rest of the world had abandoned them, and if not for WWII and the support to help Germany after its defeat as to prevent further conflict, Germany may, to this day, be a third world country.

*And Godwin’s law absolutely applies in this situation - How is increasing the smoker’s tax a ‘deprivation of liberties’, and how is it remotely comparable to the Nazi party?

Poorly said Chris, poorly said.

Ally says:

04:54pm | 08/05/10

Chris L:

Godwin’s Law states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” Godwin’s law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reduction ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

As this is a discussion about the latest tax imposed on cigarettes and the argument for not smoking, Peter’s comparison to the Nazi regime, or indeed references to the communist Soviet Union are irrelevant. And as for his vitriolic personal attack…

Peter:

Apology accepted.

Peter says:

02:35pm | 06/05/10

Smokey, non - smoker want you to respect their rights, but they have no respect for your.. We are talking about extreme hypocrites.. Even in our Soviet Union style media properganda these days, the dip in Rudds poll was all about the ETS (and quite frankly not many people give a rats), and in the media, the smoking tax barely gets a mention even though that’s where the biggest drop in support came from. In the media, if you smoke you are persona non grata..

buzz says:

04:51pm | 06/05/10

smoker says
it would seem smoker havent been paying there tax
well i cant speak for you but after 46yrs paying income tax
+1.5 medie care levy+32yrs private health insurance +
75% of the total cost of a pack of ciggs already tax now
kev says we want 25% more
it would seam the antie smoker say we should bugger of
die to save them paying tax
very comppassionate people they are….A

Peter says:

08:42pm | 06/05/10

@ buzz, those compassionate people you refer to, you know the one’s that we quite happily and respectfully complied with when they requested we not smoke in the workplace, in pubs, clubs (and now it seems some open spaces) etc, they don’t want to show us the same respect. Even though passive smoking is pretty much a zero risk to anyone despite what they say, our bodies are designed to have a tolerance for smoke entering our lungs (remember we did once burn wood to keep warm) and some people shove tons of it down their lungs over 60 years and nothing happens to them, this is a bit of common sence that escaping these precious ... oops compassionate people.. They hate us, and that’s the truth, they will not listen to us or respect anything we have to say because we smoke, they are deliberately trying to turn us in to persona non grata, we have no voice because we smoke. Regardless, yes I agree cigarette filled rooms are unpleasant for non-smokers and they have an entitlement to cigarette free air. But smokers to have an entitlement to a fair a go as well, we were paying too much before, and should have just been left alone. This is a targeted hate and grubby money grab tax…

DaisyDuke says:

02:37pm | 06/05/10

becuase it is taxable.

Same as alchohol.

Goose says:

03:00pm | 06/05/10

Drinking milk cause more lung cancer than second hand smoke in non smokers. Cows did not give birh to us, we should not be driniking it. So could be drinking milk that caused your mother’s illness. Not sure why people presume all lung cancer is from smoking, it isn’t. Just propoganda.

HipHop says:

04:04pm | 06/05/10

you must be genetically predisposed to get lung cancer if your mother doesn’t smoke. I would run out and get tested if I was you. There are other reasons people get cancer besides than smoking. Don’t blame smokers for your bad gene pool

Goose says:

04:32pm | 06/05/10

Yes consider Japanese people, they do nto eat dairy so much, smoke more but get less lung cancer. Milk is for for baby growth and when adults drink it it still makes us grow, even cancer cells.

Peter says:

02:57pm | 06/05/10

What do you think of the South Aust government plans to start breath testing pedestrians? And thinking of setting a limit of 0.015.. What happens if you blow over? Do you get a criminal record? We are a joke now.. Garry Ablett (AFL Player) had to explain himself (to his football club) for attending a party where he only drank water.. This country is now a joke!!

Cimbom says:

03:44pm | 06/05/10

It’s 20% of adults, not 20% of the population.

Alan says:

03:45pm | 06/05/10

What nonsense. You’ve made your prejudice clear in your comments. May I also point out that you’re not treating anyone out of the kindness of your heart; you’re getting rather a lot of money for it so it’s not like you’re doing anyone a favour, assuming your claim is true and not simply a sensationalist way to make a rather weak point. The Hippocratic Oath is not unfortunate although your allusion that you see it as so certainly is. Take a dose of humanity and have a good lie down, “Doctor”.

Smokiest says:

07:36pm | 06/05/10

So you’re disgusted by me because I smoke - I am disgusted by you because you are a foul example of humanity gone wrong…. which is worse I wonder?  You must make your family proud Doctor….

Paul2 says:

12:52am | 07/05/10

Doctors have a habit of being disgusted by anyone who isn’t rich and important like them.  The oath means nothing, especially to the jumped up little pre-moneyed twerps being graduated these days.

Peter says:

03:58pm | 07/05/10

@ Paul2, a lot of doctors have drug addiction (mostly illicit ones) problems as well… Maybe its the hypocratic oath they took that turned them into hypocrites… I’ve known a few doctors. The ones from the small towns are funny, they are the one’s who most desperately want to get their hand on marijuana but are too scared to get it because the people in those small towns will probably find out about it.. So they usually ask city slickers for some whenever they meet them…. Of course me being the fine upstanding citizen that i am, i never have any to give them…

Peter says:

12:07pm | 08/05/10

kkek, Typical doctor. You want the money that tobacco taxes provide you, but you don’t want to treat them.. No surprises people are getting ripped off in the health system… The greed of the modern day doctor has no limits..

Tony says:

04:01pm | 06/05/10

Fortunatley I was already Cool and didn’t have the need to take up smoking. Sadly that is why it is still taken up, some poor fools actually belive that it is cool.
Good luck to the poor buggers, many others make equally poor decisions in life.

WA11 says:

05:21pm | 06/05/10

Tony:
And your egotistical displays are good life decisions…

Phil says:

06:12pm | 06/05/10

ridiculous wage? maybe compared to your “customer service” position but then again you dont have to do what a doctor does do you?
I dont think you realise what is involved in such a position that can justify the job, maybe you’re just jealous catching the bus or train to work.

So this kkek cant have an opinion but you can? sounds fair (not)
As for your giving doctors the wrong information? umm who cares, you’re in a customer service role, i dont think it would be life changing information.
He also never said he was misdiagnosing them or anything like that, it was about not liking treating smokers, due to self inflicted harm (smoking), maybe its the smell, the bad breath, the horrible fingers?
He may have the same stance about fat lazy people and those who drink too much and are always being treated for alcohol related issues.

There will always be a need for medical professionals as people are always going to have something going wrong which requires assistance, maybe there should be more online shopping so you dont have a job? how’s that make you feel?

phil says:

06:17pm | 06/05/10

As a nurse then im sure you show compassion and empathy towards all those who come in drunk off their faces each weekend, who then proceed to threaten and harass staff who are trying to attend to the injuries that were caused because of a fight they started?
You dont have any prejudice towards these people?
Sometimes people should be told the truth that their stupidity is going to be their end.

Peter says:

04:39pm | 06/05/10

The Soviet Union might have collapsed, but not their style of propaganda.. It’s alive and well here thank you very much.. You should read more.. If you’ve read previous posts of mine, i have regularly called for a complete overhaul of our political system and Government model.. 20% of Adults that do smoke do buy a lot of products and as a voter bloc can change a Government in the blink of an eye..

I agree with you on the manners bit in school, we’ve gone backwards a bit, and have bought into the American film culture of that somehow being rude, shooting people and disrespecting them is cool…

While we are on the topic of taxing things that are bad for you, care to declare what your bad habits/vices are? So we can tax you into poverty for doing it? Unless of course you the only person in the world who doesn’t have bad habits or vices??

Rollo says:

06:41pm | 06/05/10

You could always try rolling up the ballot paper and smoking it.

Venise says: says:

03:27pm | 07/05/10

Please don’t look at giving up smoking as merely an economic factor. You have, in fact, taken the first step to being a healthy and happy human being.

I watched my husband die of a smoking related disease. It wasn’t a pretty sight. It caused me to think hard about my own smoking-3 pkts a day. Apart from the first three weeks, not a picnic, followed by three months of missing it, I have seldom regretted giving it up.

I used to think the damn things helped calm my nerves-I was wrong.
I used to think they gave me more energy-wrong.

I used to think I looked sexy-wrong.
I used to think I’d have more money if I stopped smoking-right.

You may think the whole thing is a Labor Party plot. I disagree. Kevin Rudd-and I’m not a fan of his, I’d rather see Julia Gillard as leader. My thoughts about this were published by a rival on line news sheet. ergo proof of my word.

This is one of the most courageous things ever attempted by any political party. And when you are an incredibly healthy, fit, able to play sport to the max sixty year old man. You will look back on this and say “Thank Ch*rist I did something smart when I was young.

Trust me.

Peter says:

09:11pm | 06/05/10

On the properganda bit, i just read the papers.

On the taxes bit, i have no doubt that your copping it as well, but your copping in a way that you percieve is fair (maybe)..

Cigarettes are so outrageously unfair. Imagine I tacked $15 dollars on your daily habbit (just because you have a habbit), would you feel as though your getting a fair deal? I know it might sound paranoid to you that I dislike unfair taxes, because people who aren’t paranoid love them.. You didn’t answer my question, would you like such a tax imposed on you and feel all rational and poised about it?

I do not profess to be a great writer, but I’ve been around long enough to some time some things are black and white. This tax is immoral and not fair. I suppose you consider that i’m not being rational and a loony for not wanting to get screwed, but respectfully, perhaps you should read the posts and the vitriol from non smokers on this and other recent forums. You attack my manners but not theirs. I should aspire to be as one eyed as you…

Agreed, passionate about this. I don’t know you so, don’t take it personally…