In the wake of last week’s High Court’s decision to uphold the Government’s law mandating that cigarettes be sold in plain olive-coloured green boxes, all the players have behaved exactly as you would have expected.

Death isn't preventable, just postponable

The Attorney-General Nicola Roxon and Health Minister Tanya Plibersek put out a mawkish press release which described the ruling as “a victory for all those families who have lost someone to a tobacco-related illness.’’

“For anyone who has ever lost someone, this is for you,’’  it said in a line which, with a bit of tweaking, might have made a pretty good slogan for a cigarette.

The tobacconists, predictably, saw it differently, saying they were disappointed and vowing to continue their case before the World Trade Organisation.

And the next day just as predictably, The Age newspaper tried to beat up a story about “push’’ for a complete ban on smoking, though best they could do when it came to actually finding someone to call for such a ban was a man called Edmund Bateman, “founder and managing director of Primary Health Care, which runs a nationwide network of medical centres.’’ 

The Roxon-Plibersek press release came with a list of other measures they have store in for us, the most eye-catching of which is a reduction in the duty free allowance from 250g to 50g beginning in September. What a petty and mean-spirited thing to do.

If I were the tobacco companies I would take my revenge by withdrawing all the present brands of cigarettes – which are shortly to become worthless anyway – replacing them with one all-purpose brand: Roxon.

“Give me a packet of Roxon Menthol and a box of matches,” has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?

The minister’s ‘fact sheet’ included the claim that the “social and economic costs of smoking in Australia are estimated to be $31.5 billion.” This number is a fantasy, as many people have pointed out, including as it does $19.5 billion for the intangible social costs of smoking including the psychological cost of premature death.

As for the $12 billion in tangible social costs, they’re not too flash either - $9 billion of them come from lost household labour. It also ignores the fact that rare is the smoker with only one vice – they tend to be heavy drinkers and eaters of fatty food all of which make them more fun to be around but can themselves be the causes of ill health and even an early death. 

Sticking with official figures however, the actual net cost of medical care for smokers is estimated to be only $318.4 million a year of which only percentage will fall to the taxpayer.

To put that figure in perspective, this year the Federal Government expects to get about $10 billion in customs and excise from tobacco and alcohol, of which the tobacco industry privately estimates around $7.5 billion comes from them. (Incidentally the Treasury’s opinion of the plain packaging measure can be gauged from the fact it is predicting customs and excise revenue to rise this year.)

The silliest thing in the Roxon-Plibersek fact sheet however is its claim that “Tobacco consumption remains one of the leading causes of preventable death”. There is no such thing as a preventable death.

Death may be postponed but it will come to us all in the end, even Nicola and Tanya.

And the biggest crisis the Western world is facing at the moment is not premature death but the consequences of the fact it take so long for us to die. Not merely because of the economic cost, which is already enormous and destined to grow as the baby boomers age, but because while we have postponed death we have not postponed ageing.
Our predicament now resembles perfectly that of the Struldbrugs, those being cursed with immortality without youth, that Jonathan Swift had Gulliver visit on the island of the Luggnaggians:

“As soon as they have completed the term of eighty years, they are looked on as dead in law; their heirs immediately succeed to their estates; only a small pittance is reserved for their support; and the poor ones are maintained at the public charge….At ninety, they lose their teeth and hair; they have at that age no distinction of taste, but eat and drink whatever they can get, without relish or appetite. The diseases they were subject to still continue, without increasing or diminishing. In talking, they forget the common appellation of things, and the names of persons, even of those who are their nearest friends and relations.”

It’s enough to make you want to light up isn’t it?

Don’t miss it: Get Weekend Punch in your inbox every Sunday

Most commented

81 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • sandra says:

      08:01am | 19/08/12

      This is one of the best articles yet on this whole issue—exposes the hypocritcal word fest of Roxson et al—but your exposure of health care cost BS is superb. All the people I know who smake around Australia have stated this will not stop them smoking!! nuff said!!!

    • Valerie says:

      11:23am | 19/08/12

      Australia will just keep jacking up the price until morons like you and your friends get the message.

    • nihonin says:

      12:39pm | 19/08/12

      So you must know sandra and sandra’s friends Valerie well enough to know they’re morons or do you just like calling people morons because they have a different opinion to you, as you sit behind the saftey of anonymity?

    • Reziah says:

      11:38am | 20/08/12

      As a non-smoker I have to say that you have the right to smoke, just do it away from us non-smokers. Smoking near a non-smoker is pretty much like a smoker being forced to sit on the train next to a guy with horrific BO, it’s just plain unpleasant and not something you should be subjected to (Geeze BO guy, take a shower!)
      If you know that smoking is bad for you and still wish to do it then you should be allowed to just, again, keep it away from non-smokers and don’t complain when/if you get sick from it.
      That said, the government income you smokers generate isn’t something the government will give up anytime soon (And more than pays for the additional cost to healthcare) so the talk of a total ‘ban’ on smoking is almost laughable.

    • Smokin' says:

      02:51pm | 21/08/12

      @Reziah - I’m a smoker who religiously smokes in designated smokers areas and steers clear of non-smokers.
      As you very eloquently said - We smokers have a right to smoke -  but I believe that non-smokers have the right to not have our smoke blown in their faces.

      I’m glad to see someone who is looking at this issue rationally instead of moronically.

    • cheap white trash says:

      08:03am | 19/08/12

      This is one of the best pieces i have read on this whole sorry saga.
      More nanny state feel good policy from the Progressive Elites.

      “For anyone who has ever lost someone, this is for you,’’ 
      What a wank,are these people for real,What a bunch of Sanctimonious Hypocrites,if you feel that bad about smoking,and its side affects,why dont you just BAN it….Yes/No..?
      Show me the money Nicola,lets be honest and cut the BS,you dont want to ban them because it cuts out a Revenue Stream,and all in all its not about our health is it,its more about you and your elk looking as thought you are doing something,and i guess it makes you feel good?

      And the biggest crisis the Western world is facing at the moment is not premature death but the consequences of the fact it take so long for us to die.

      Sorry James, but you are wrong on that fact,the biggest crisis facing the West is the Progressive Left…

    • nihonin says:

      12:46pm | 19/08/12

      ‘More nanny state feel good policy from the Progressive Elites.

      “For anyone who has ever lost someone, this is for you,’’
      What a wank,are these people for real,What a bunch of Sanctimonious Hypocrites,if you feel that bad about smoking,and its side affects,why dont you just BAN it….Yes/No..?’

      Agree cheap white trash, either the government bans (and loses all that delicious extra tax) or keeps their noses out of peoples lives, what about this as well.  I’ve lost someone (in fact many people over my lifetime) purely because they were conceived.  Can we ban conception as well, to stop the horror of losing people in our lives.

    • honininon says:

      03:23pm | 19/08/12

      well put nihonin
      You obviously don’t care about those that have died an early and horrible death from these tobacco products.

      I’m sure there are many out there that do wish they still had the pleasure of the company of their grandparents and parents, brothers and sisters who were taken by these horrible diseases.

      That you don’t care is telling. Hope you enjoyed your wank.

    • nihonin says:

      05:23pm | 19/08/12

      honininon, obviously not as much as you enjoyed your one.  Do you want to ban cars, trains, boats, walking/running, sleeping and all drugs (yes that includes the legal substances) as well, do you think hiding behind a different screen name gives your comments (weak and unoriginal as they) credence?

    • egg says:

      01:38pm | 20/08/12

      @honininon, everyone enjoys a wank. Some people enjoy a cigarette. Clearly you enjoy delusions of superiority.

      I’m sure you just care more than everyone else. That’s totally it.

    • fitter says:

      01:53pm | 20/08/12

      It cant be banned, because there is a sizeable demand for cigarettes so the dopes that smoke would be forced buy it illegally, and then profits would go to criminals rather than the government. Its really pretty simple. As soon as something is illegal, criminals and resources needed to police them, spiral. I dont get what being “progessive left” has to do with discouraging smoking.

    • Kurisu Sonsaku says:

      08:24am | 19/08/12

      Welcome to the nanny state :(

    • Herman says:

      11:35am | 19/08/12

      Yea but nsw now has “alcohol marshals” inputs. That has to be the gold medal nanny concept of the world. Essentially actual nannys to watch you drink.

    • Chris L says:

      08:49am | 19/08/12

      I’m sure the people cheering along every restriction to smoking will also be just as happy when the government takes away their drivers licence when they get too old to be a safe driver, or when religion is outlawed, or when voting is removed for the public interest, or when veganism becomes mandatory.

    • CD says:

      09:21am | 19/08/12

      +1
      I hate smoking.  Smoking has now been so demonized that I don’t see it often and don’t smell it anymore when I go out due to laws and more laws so I’m happy enough.

      But while it’s legal I support the right of smokers to light up and the govt to stay the hell of our lives.

      Don’t you just love the hypocrisy of this Roxon/Plibersek duo? Plibersek looks the like Madonna of left.  Check out the constant pitying look she has when discussing matters close to her heart ie world destruction in all it’s guises from climate to smokes.

    • Kurisu Sonsaku says:

      09:28am | 19/08/12

      The bansturdators will never be satisfied

    • Mouse says:

      11:15am | 19/08/12

      Just wait until they start on alcohol!  lol :o)

    • Phil S says:

      12:26pm | 19/08/12

      What?

      Yes I cheer along restrictions to smoking, because smoking directly harms those in close proximity to the smoke. I don’t support banning smoking yet, though I think it will eventually come to that. These measures are designed to decrease the number of people who start smoking. Maybe they won’t be successful, But the fact that the cigarette companies are complaining indicates maybe it will be. Eventually when the number of smokers drops to a low enough level, it will be feasible to ban the sale of cigarettes to anyone except those who have written consent from their doctor because they are addicted. Eventually, I hope cigarettes ill be a thing of the past.

      Now you might compare this to alcohol and say my stance indicates we should ban that too. Well, no. Alcohol in moderation has often show to benefit the health of a person. Binge drinking (as in 8+ standard drinks, not the crappy definition the government uses at the moment) is dangerous, and we should work to cut that down too.

      Taking a licence away from unsafe old drivers? You actually have a problem with that? Wow…Unsafe drivers are dangerous, and can harm others very very easily. I don’t think it should apply to just old people. There should be regular checks of driving ability and courses offered to those who need improvement. A better public transport system would probably help that too…

      Religion outlawed? Well I doubt that will ever happen. I would like to see religion play less of a role in politics though. For instance, when an Atheist (or agnostic) person proposes something, they use rational evidence with tangible benefits. Many proposals are backed up with “God says so” or “the bible says so” which in my view is a cop out. I’m happy for those who follow a religion to propose changes to society, but they should be obliged to present it in a way that provides tangible benefits for those who don’t follow their particular religion.

      To put it simply, a proposal that ignores religion should benefit all people, where are a religious proposal often on benefits a particular religion, and ignore the beliefs of other religions and those without religion. It’s a pretty big double standard…

      Removing voting and becoming a vegan? Give me a break. Not everyone who believes in the things you seem to hate is a hippie….I probably should have read your whole post before starting to reply. I would have then realised I was wasting my time trying to convince you some of the things you suggested aren’t bad.

    • Lukew says:

      02:30pm | 20/08/12

      I am sorry Phil, but every paragraph that you have written is a thoughtless, parroted rationalisation of inaccuracies.

    • Inky says:

      09:07am | 19/08/12

      “There is no such thing as a preventable death.”

      Right, because when someone falls to their death when a poorly maintained staircase gives way under them, it was their time and we shouldn’t presume to play God. Or if someone dies from a curable disease.

      Still, it’s a good thing the poor tobacco companies have you to fight for them, the hard done by things that they are.

      The fact that you actually go on to try and say that cigarettes are actually good because they kill people before they get old, wow. Just wow.

    • Porter says:

      01:27pm | 19/08/12

      I agree.
      So we remove all laws that prevent death?
      Murder? Survival of the fittest.
      Speeding and drink driving? Natural selection.

    • Dan says:

      03:59pm | 20/08/12

      Comprehension - you’re doing it wrong.

      The point was that everyone dies. Postponing is not preventing.

    • Babylon says:

      09:10am | 19/08/12

      It’s a hollow victory. You hear rumours of $5 kilo bags of Chinese tobacco.

      If true then it’s big profits for a black marketeer and huge savings for those smokers willing to roll their own.

    • Sandy says:

      11:31am | 19/08/12

      Have you heard the rumours about $5 kilo bags of Chinese heroin?
      How about the $5 cheap Chinese lungs and hearts for the idiots that smoke?
      If true then it’s big profits for a black marketeer and huge savings for those smokers willing to roll up their sleeves for some of that yummy heroin.

    • Ripa says:

      12:37pm | 19/08/12

      You can buy tobacco by the kilo, you can buy premade cig wrappers with filters attached, and a little tool that will fill it, this shit is already out there , the ban on cig advertising is retarded. It will be as you said, a victory for the black marketeer.

    • Gordon says:

      06:34pm | 19/08/12

      @Ripa “a little tool who will fill it”  Who’s that?

    • Ben says:

      09:42am | 19/08/12

      When I think of Roxon and her ilk, I can’t help but recall the following excerpt (no prize for guessing the book):

      ‘Smith!’ screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. ‘6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You’re not trying. Lower, please! That’s better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me.’

      A sudden hot sweat had broken out all over Winston’s body. His face remained completely inscrutable. Never show dismay! Never show resentment! A single flicker of the eyes could give you away. He stood watching while the instructress raised her arms above her head and — one could not say gracefully, but with remarkable neatness and efficiency — bent over and tucked the first joint of her fingers under her toes.

      ‘There, comrades! That’s how I want to see you doing it. Watch me again. I’m thirty-nine and I’ve had four children. Now look.’ She bent over again. ‘You see my knees aren’t bent. You can all do it if you want to,’ she added as she straightened herself up. ‘Anyone under forty-five is perfectly capable of touching his toes. We don’t all have the privilege of fighting in the front line, but at least we can all keep fit. Remember our boys on the Malabar front! And the sailors in the Floating Fortresses! Just think what they have to put up with. Now try again. That’s better, comrade, that’s much better,’ she added encouragingly as Winston, with a violent lunge, succeeded in touching his toes with knees unbent, for the first time in several years.

    • stephen says:

      09:44am | 19/08/12

      If you smoke, you are more likely to die directly as a consequence of tobacco inhalation or its associated complications than otherwise, and because the consumption of such does no good whatsoever, and the public health costs are severe and are a burden on the public purse, then it is sensible that this Government put things in the way of public consumption.
      Besides, smoking is a solitary habit ; it is anti-social, and a smoker’s exhaust annoys the hell out of everyone else.
      Drinking is much better because you can’t laugh and inhale at the same time.

    • Chimney sweep says:

      12:19pm | 20/08/12

      I smoke, but I’m not anti-social….. It’s just that I don’t frigging like you Stephen !!!!!

    • Jimmy says:

      02:38pm | 20/08/12

      Drinking gets you drunk and makes you do stupid things. Smokes don’t.

    • CJ Johnson says:

      10:00am | 19/08/12

      As someone who is forced to sell cigarettes on a daily basis, I can safely say that these measures (and several others) are essentially useless. All except the most hipsterish smokers actually care about what the box looks like. All it does is inconvenience sellers, like me, who have to find them amongst the dozens of brands quickly and efficiently.

      Don’t get me wrong, I’m not for smoking, far from it. But instead of passing legislation like this, the government has to do something to inconvenience smokers themselves. The no smoking in parks and pubs was a good start, but how about a step further? Build a 2x2x2m perspex box, add a few arbitrary air holes or maybe a ventilation system, and make that the ONLY place smokers can light up in public.

      After ten minutes of being hot boxed in a tiny space with twenty other people, I reckon most smokers would definitely think seriously about quitting.

    • Mouse says:

      11:12am | 19/08/12

      Geez CJ, after reading the post by Angela Mollard, your last paragraph almost made my feet tingle!  LOL :o)

    • Audra Blue says:

      01:18pm | 20/08/12

      They have something like that in Calgary, Canada.  Because it’s cold and snowing most of the year, the homeless shelter downtown has a glass encased balcony where the homeless can smoke while they are staying in the shelter.  There was a huge outcry from the public because this enclosure cost the city millions.

      I don’t care if anyone smokes, just don’t do it around me.  In my building the woman across from me in the middle unit smokes on her verandah and it tends to waft into my apartment.  I can’t get over the hypocrisy of how she won’t smoke in her own unit, probably because it makes the place stink, but she will share her cancerous habit with the wider world.

      She’s only quite young, early 30s I think and the coughing and hacking and phlegmy death rattle that goes on in her lungs is stomach churning.  So I’ve taken to lighting up an incense stick and leaving it on the balcony so I don’t have to be a party to foul stench she seems to enjoy living in.

      Smoking will only stop when it becomes socially unacceptable.  Until then, smokers gonna smoke.

    • MarkF says:

      09:45pm | 20/08/12

      @Audra Blue your incense stick has me reaching for my asthma puffer because I can’t breath with that crap polluting the air.

      You are no better than the smokers you condemn.

    • CJ Johnson says:

      10:00am | 19/08/12

      As someone who is forced to sell cigarettes on a daily basis, I can safely say that these measures (and several others) are essentially useless. All except the most hipsterish smokers actually care about what the box looks like. All it does is inconvenience sellers, like me, who have to find them amongst the dozens of brands quickly and efficiently.

      Don’t get me wrong, I’m not for smoking, far from it. But instead of passing legislation like this, the government has to do something to inconvenience smokers themselves. The no smoking in parks and pubs was a good start, but how about a step further? Build a 2x2x2m perspex box, add a few arbitrary air holes or maybe a ventilation system, and make that the ONLY place smokers can light up in public.

      After ten minutes of being hot boxed in a tiny space with twenty other people, I reckon most smokers would definitely think seriously about quitting.

    • gabrianga says:

      10:15am | 19/08/12

      Next!  All alcoholic beverages ,which are blamed for heart attacks, High Blood Pressure, wife beatings, nightly assaults at the Cross etc etc are to be banned forthwith from the Parliamentary dining rooms and airline’s Chairman’s Lounges which offer free alcihol to all Federal MP’s and Senators

      No doubt “Spaniel” Plibersek will find the suitable facial expression when facing the Press Gallery to make this announcement?

    • Homer says:

      12:30pm | 19/08/12

      But you wowsers all support ‘cracking down’ in the cross. That’s the other side of the same coin as nannying.

    • gabrianga says:

      10:15am | 19/08/12

      Next!  All alcoholic beverages ,which are blamed for heart attacks, High Blood Pressure, wife beatings, nightly assaults at the Cross etc etc are to be banned forthwith from the Parliamentary dining rooms and airline’s Chairman’s Lounges which offer free alcihol to all Federal MP’s and Senators

      No doubt “Spaniel” Plibersek will find the suitable facial expression when facing the Press Gallery to make this announcement?

    • Tom says:

      10:30am | 19/08/12

      Where is the call to STOP THE SMOKES! I’m surprised the pollies haven’t implemented a regional solution. They could process all the refugees onshore and then fill the empty boats with smokers and pack them off to Christmas island. It’s a perfect solution, all smokers could live together in one community where no one else has to breathe their air or read the tobacco advertising. Even better they could rebrand the Island “Smoko”. Just think, no more will smokers have to stand on cold street corners, they could huddle together in giant dutchies and all celebrate the onset of cancer.

    • emma says:

      10:33am | 19/08/12

      never mind the plain packaging for cigarettes, let’s just put the smokers in a plain, air-tight package where the rest of us don’t have to breathe their air or smell them. they can have the prettiest packaging in world in their own little sealed off kingdom as far as I’m concerned.

    • Inky says:

      11:30am | 19/08/12

      Ah, but emma, we shouldn’t infringe upon the freedoms of people, even if those people infringe upon others with their habits. They have a God given right to smell awful and fill doorways with their fumes, after all. And woe upon anyone who wants to try and discourage that.

    • FtG says:

      10:34am | 19/08/12

      If I were a tobacco company, I’d release a a new brand called “Fuck the Government”. Just a nice, plain olive green pack with those words, boldly imprinted on the bottom.

      May as well embrace the protest movement.

    • Sam says:

      10:38am | 19/08/12

      OK, Im a smoker and have been all of my adult life. I am now middle aged and am about to try to quite again !! I am tired of spending money on a product that destroys my health and really does nothing to make my life better.

      When you smoke for a long time you are not actually getting any kind of rush you are merely smoking to satisfy the Nicotine cravings that the bungers have given you.  Its like heroin addicts, they take large amounts of heroin not to get high but simply to be able to function. The initial reason for starting either of these addictions is quickly lost and you are simply maintaining the addiction.

      As for the plain packaging….....This will not work ! As a smoker for many years , a smoker who started when I was young, I can tell you right now that the package has nothing to do with it ! It would be exactly the same as making all alcohol manufacturers have plain black and white labels simply saying the name of the product, now I enjoy my Bundy Rum and having the same product in a plain container wouldnt stop me buying it, and wouldnt stop 18 year olds buying it.

      i know some will say this plain packaging is designed to stop children smoking, but what non smokers dont understand is that just about all smokers started when they were young, and packet design had zero influence, what non smokers dont understand is that its the smokes we crave, not the packet !

      Australian Governments have taken great steps in curbing smoking, like stopping minors from being able to buy them. I noticed in Roxons press meeting about the High Court result she played a video of an English Study showing small children holding smoke packets and telling the person what they like about the packets. To me this is a waste of time, children this age cannot purchase smokes here in Australia, and when they get older there will be nothing stopping them from buying their own.

      As a smoker I would love to see them banned completely, but as it makes too much money for whatever Govt is in power this will never happen. So unless they are banned totally you will never ever ever stop people from smoking, thats what non smokers dont get, its a drug and it makes you want more, when you try to quit you get angry, short tempered, depressed, it is truly a horrible drug to get off.

    • Craig says:

      12:51pm | 19/08/12

      Sam,

      The introduction of plain packaging isn’t to help you, it’s to help the 15-25yr olds experimenting with cigarettes for the first time.

      The aim is to prevent people taking it up, not to address existing addicts.

      If the price rises, limits on where you can smoke, social exclusion and availability of nicotine patches, hypnotherapy and other treatments isn’t working to help you drop your addiction - well sorry, the plain packaging isn’t expected to help you further.

      In other words - it’s not all about you. Man-up and deal with your own addiction, millions of others have!

    • bennie says:

      10:04am | 20/08/12

      Sam, I wish you the best in quitting smoking.  I smoked for 20 years, and I have now been ‘clean’ for 3 years.  It’s a pretty good feeling to not be a slave to the nicotine anymore.

      I have a couple of pieces of unsolicited advice for the soon to be ex-smoker.

      1. Don’t use quitting products such as nicotine gum or patches.  These products cost quite a bit of money, and ensure that you are still hooked on the drug, nicotine.  The intention of these products is that you use them to give up the smokes, but you still have to give up the nicotine.  Quit by going cold-turkey.. if you can survive 2 weeks cold-turkey, the nicotine is pretty much all out of your system, and it’s only the psychological addiction you have to deal with.

      2.  Don’t smoke.  I know it sounds obvious, but the best way to quit smoking is to just don’t smoke.  Whenever you want a smoke, just don’t have one.  No-one is forcing you to light up, you want to beat the addiction and you can, you have enough willpower to stop yourself buying and smoking cigarettes.. it might feel like you can’t change the habit of a lifetime, but you can if you want to.

    • Kyle P. says:

      02:42pm | 20/08/12

      Marijuanna is banned. Yet it is readily available, and at tax free prices wink

    • nathan says:

      05:54pm | 20/08/12

      i agree when i stared smoking at the age of 14 i wasnt buying packs of smokes. i was buying them one at a time in the schoolyard. th brand didnt mater and in now way id i care what the box looked like.instead of making new laws they should just enforce the existing ones.stop the petrol stations and dodgy corner shops selling to kid.

    • Domenic Greco says:

      11:07am | 21/08/12

      First off..it is NOT illegal for children to buy cigarettes….Its just illegal for a retailer to sell them to them. Unlike alcohol all the onus is left to the retailer to be the detective and work out who can buy and who cant. 

      Here is an idea that WILL make a difference…make it illegal for children to buy cigarettes and to smoke in public.  It is with alcohol so why not cigarettes. It will also help schools to control the problem when the kids get a fine at home and have to explain it to their parents why they need $150 to pay it…just like not wearing a bike helmet or riding a bus without a ticket. 

      WHY should the onus to control this be ONLY up to the retailer?  Why should they get abused when they refuse to sell to a minor?  Why do they have to be the detective to see if the adult buying cigarettes is actually for a minor who asked them to…and yes it happens! 

      And who said corner stores were dodgy?  They risk up to 30% of their income and massive fines if they sell them.. perhaps its the supermarkets selling twin packs that allows the kids to get access to their parents stash.  Why not fix the price so black market and cheap imports can be controlled.

      These are actions retailers want to see happen….not this childish rubbish that makes Australia look like a laughing stock of the world. 

      Contrary to what you may think retailers hate selling tobacco. It ties up a lot of capital, causes extreme robbery risk and cost them thousands in extra insurance.  But 30% of your income cant be thrown away just like that.  It would mean financial ruin.  They wouldn’t mind if the laws meant everyone stopped smoking but this rubbish just makes more people buy on price and give the big supermarkets more sales.

    • ROBYNE MORTON says:

      10:57am | 19/08/12

      I notice the punch hasn’t told the people that LABOR INVESTS MILLIONS IN TOBACCO COMPANIES from the future fund!and get a healthy return for their money,ROXEN is a hipocrite and i would like to know with all the rules about smoking HOW MANY MPS AND PUBLIC SERVANTS SMOKE IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE?

    • Michelle says:

      09:00pm | 19/08/12

      The future fund is independent, you fool.

    • ROBYNE MORTON says:

      10:58am | 19/08/12

      I notice the punch hasn’t told the people that LABOR INVESTS MILLIONS IN TOBACCO COMPANIES from the future fund!and get a healthy return for their money,ROXEN is a hipocrite and i would like to know with all the rules about smoking HOW MANY MPS AND PUBLIC SERVANTS SMOKE IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE?

    • ROBYNE MORTON says:

      10:57am | 19/08/12

      I notice the punch hasn’t told the people that LABOR INVESTS MILLIONS IN TOBACCO COMPANIES from the future fund!and get a healthy return for their money,ROXEN is a hipocrite and i would like to know with all the rules about smoking HOW MANY MPS AND PUBLIC SERVANTS SMOKE IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE?

    • ROBYNE MORTON says:

      10:58am | 19/08/12

      I notice the punch hasn’t told the people that LABOR INVESTS MILLIONS IN TOBACCO COMPANIES from the future fund!and get a healthy return for their money,ROXEN is a hipocrite and i would like to know with all the rules about smoking HOW MANY MPS AND PUBLIC SERVANTS SMOKE IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE?

    • chuck says:

      11:26am | 19/08/12

      As someone who finds smoking disgusting I can’t understand why a government needs to restrict the packaging of these items - is this yet another smoke screen to divert us from from more pressing issues ? Is there no personal responsibility for ones actions anymore?

      If they get cancer for their wayward smoking activities put them at the bottom of the waiting lists! They could wait in waiting rooms like many others appear to do with other serious medical problems.

      A society that needs to be legislated for smoking, gambling, drinking is a society with too much time on its’ hands!

      Nicola and Tanya must feel real good at becoming a Nanny for all!

    • Scott says:

      11:26am | 19/08/12

      Thanks, James, for such an insightful article. You’ve confirmed what I’ve suspected for a long time - that so many smokers are so self-centred, yet ironically lack the barest shred of self-awareness.
      Even if the amount of public funding spent on smokers’ medical management is as minimal as you claim (a suggestion I find ludicrous), the fact that the meagre (???) amount of $300million isn’t spent on something useful (like schools, or hospitals treating patients with non-self-inflicted medical conditions) is incredibly depressing.
      True, we in the west are taking our time when it comes to dying, though while you’re lamenting this point (!) and weeping into your sputum-stained hanky about how oppressed you are by the government, perhaps you could consider that if people weren’t debilitating themselves with their harmful vices (like smoking, excess alcohol, poor diet, etc), we might actually be more productive for longer, and less dependent on high-level care when we actually reach our final years?
      That’s my goal, and when I head into the city later today I hope that my efforts to dodge the wafts of lung cancer and emphysema will one day pay off. (These of course are the wafts of cigarette smoke that many of your kind indiscriminately exhale, without a second thought about who else you might be inflicting your toxic fumes upon)

    • Anubis says:

      09:53am | 20/08/12

      @ Scott - the fact that the meagre (???) amount of $300million isn’t spent on something useful (like schools, or hospitals treating patients with non-self-inflicted medical conditions) is incredibly depressing

      But the balance of estimated $7 billion per year raised through tobacco excise and taxes is spent on these things. SOrt of negates your objection doesn’t it?

      You also say “I hope that my efforts to dodge the wafts of lung cancer and emphysema” - I do hope you don’t breathe in any diesel fumes - they are much more carcinogenic than a whiff of tobacco smoke when you walk past a smoker.

    • Steve Putnam says:

      11:47am | 19/08/12

      Was this piece ghost written by Frank Costanza? Amusing to see all the right wing fan boys wailing and gnashing their teeth and bemoaning the “loss” of another freedom.
      The author is taking you for a ride and you fall over yourself to get to the top of the queue behind him. You’re just too stupid and ideologically driven to see the wood for the trees.

    • Q.Pham says:

      01:40pm | 19/08/12

      Yeah, only right-wingers smoke, eh Steve ?
      Jeez….and you reckon OTHER people are stupid !

    • Wilma J Craig says:

      02:39pm | 19/08/12

      Spoken like a true socialist Steve Putnam!
      We know who is “Too Stupid’, “Too Ideologically Driven” don’t we?
      No-one, Stevie-boy, is forced to use tobacco products, drink alcohol, use drugs and that’s the way it should be. We should not have some politician telling us what, how & when we should do anything. That is the big problem with socialism. We have self-appointed ‘‘experts” such as Roxon, Gillard, Plibersek & other socialists telling everyone how they should lead their lives. The Classic Nanny State. Socialists want us to renounce any idea we may have of taking Responsibility foir our actions and let “the State” control everything.
      Scott, have you ever stopped to think about the air you breathe even when there are no smokers anywhere near you? There are far more dangerous, 1000 times more Carcinogenic particles permanently being pumped into that air than the odd whiff of tobacco smoke (NO, boys, I am Not a smoker, I think it is a foul habit).
      Yet, Scotty, we don’t hear you calling for all Petrol & Diesel powered vehicles to be banned, do we? Those vehicles pump out tonnes of what we are told are called “Particulates”, tiny, invisible-to-the-naked-eye dust-like particles which you, unknowingly, breathe into your lungs every time you walk down a street, in a shopping centre car park, the more so if that car park is covered,. That stuff accumulates in your lungs, you never get rid of it. Eventually, admittedly after a considerable number of years, it builds up so that the Carcinogens in it get the upper hand & “Welcome to Lung Cancer”. Scotty are you driving yourself, using Public Transport, Riding your bike, walking or jogging into town?. The first two modes will be pumping particulates into the air for others to inhale. the other three will cause you to inhale them. The harder you breate the more you inhale! That is why I am always amazed at those exhibitionists who don the lycra at lunch-time & go pounding through busy, vehicle-clogged city streets huffing & puffing & imagining they are “setting an example in Health Promotion” to the all those slobs sitting sipping their lattes, when, in fact, they are actually putting their health at risk!
      Most of our cities & large towns have lots of great open space parks close by, no cars, trucks and minimal particulates wafting in. The only draw-back to that is that there are no spectators to watch & admire you!

    • W.Bam says:

      02:55pm | 19/08/12

      Q.Pham
      No, only right wingers trying to make some mileage out of saying NO to everything regardless of its merit are stupid.
      Would that be you?

    • Q.Pham says:

      05:03pm | 19/08/12

      @ W. Bam

      How am I making political milage by saying “no” to anything. What have I said “no” to ?
      One thing I do say “no” to is idiots being allowed to breed because they tend to produce things like you.

    • Steve Putnam says:

      08:29pm | 20/08/12

      @ Wilma J Craig Me a socialist (?) How do you figure? I’ve been involved in various enterprises since my university days and established my present line of business in 1986. I am entirely for private enterprise. Neither am I in favour of a ban on smoking. In fact, for me, one of life’s pleasures is a fine hand-rolled Cuban cigar.
      My point is that people who find fault with this legislation do so for no other reason than it gives them the opportunity to bang on about their quaint notions of what constitutes freedom and in doing this they become the inadvertent handmaidens of big tobacco. (Your disjointed rant is a case in point.)
      NB: When I next see Scotty I’ll pass on your concerns.

    • Tubesteak says:

      01:04pm | 19/08/12

      “which are shortly to become worthless anyway”

      Clearly you’re not an acocuntant or some sort of business valuer. Your statement would only be true if the only value in the brand came in the packaging and smokers only smoked certain brands because they liked the pretty colours. Having known a few smokers I know this isn’t the case. For some reason they like the individual “taste” at certain price points. That is the real product differentiation. Not having some pretty colours on the packet.

      “intangible social costs . . .lost household labour”

      Of course it should include this. They’re called negative externalities. Taking someone out of the economy has costs and this is due to someone that has voluntarily cost society a lot of money from a discretionary habit. It would be stupid to exclude these costs.

      ” It also ignores the fact that rare is the smoker with only one vice”

      You shoot yourself in the foot with this argument. So not only do smokers cause serious damage to the community but they cause damage in other areas from other vices.

      Really does make the case for a user-pays health system.

      “all of which make them more fun to be around”

      Smoking fatsos are not fun to be around. They’re typically dribbling morons with nothing interesting in their lives because they spend all their time propping up a bar and stinking. They don’t go and do anything because they’re too unfit to do anything. They’re tedious bores.

      “$10 billion in customs and excise”

      Sweet! Money that can be used to benefit us and all because a bunch of morons chopose to do something that completely and utterly harms them and provides no real benefit. I hope this becomes more!

      “There is no such thing as a preventable death”

      Dead wrong. Death from diseases caused by cigarette smoking or being fat is preventable. Going quietly in your sleep after suffering few ailments in your old age isn’t preventable and does happen to people that have looked after themselves. I had a grandmother that was like this. She was pretty fine up until her heart attack which happened at a pretty advanced age. She was able to live on her own in her own house and was easily able to cook for herself and had all her faculties. She literally went overnight. But she didn’t really cost the taxpayer much because she’d led a pretty healthy life.

    • colroe says:

      02:10pm | 19/08/12

      Tubesteak,    “acocuntant”???  Freudian slip ??  LOL

    • Lukew says:

      02:51pm | 20/08/12

      So, how do you prevent death?

    • M says:

      04:03pm | 20/08/12

      Pray.

    • Todd says:

      01:19pm | 19/08/12

      Steve, you should thank the “right wing fanboys” who defend individualism, because if you’re “greater good” theories were put in place, your individual opinion would not only not matter, you would probably be locked up if it ran counter to the government. Current examples from our Labor mates would be their Internet filter and their crusade for restricting the freedom of the press. If cigarettes are plain packaged, ALL products that are not good for one’s health should be similarly packaged, including alcohol, chocolate and even cheese (high saturated fat). That is, of course, if Lefties were ever even-handed in their oppression, but we all know that they are not.

    • Gabby Cabbie says:

      02:07pm | 19/08/12

      Lots of harmless personal activities are banned so why get heavy about one that will benefit ALL of us, especially long term.

      Nobody can argue how much more comfortable it is now in restaurants, planes and public transport. Even enjoying a drink in a bar is vastly improved.

      The problem I had with tobacco is having to suffer the stench long after the smoker had departed.

      Driving a taxi, even now I get people claiming that my refusing to let passengers smoke in the cab is an invasion on their rights.

      My response now is. ‘You can smoke in my cab if I can shit on your forehead.’

      So far, no takers.

    • Inky says:

      03:05pm | 19/08/12

      My kingdom to be able to get away with lines like that in my job. All power to you.

    • the cynic says:

      03:18pm | 19/08/12

      Priceless comment Gabby!  Glad to hear it is still alive and well, I was using similar tactics to smokers way way back in the early 70’s ( I was probably in the vanguard of the anti smoking movement !) At a restaurant one night a guy asked me if I minded if he smoked.  Now, for that time, actually having the manners to ask was somewhat unusual, alas my lack of manners towards smokers was very well known by all I associated with.  My swift reply was “not at all provided that I can bare my arse and fart over your table as well” After a tense bit of male to male posturing and both of us ready to take the challenge into a free for all the guy eventually ceded defeat as his wife chipped in telling him that it was just the same as him farting in bed except she was too scared to tell him to stop it.!  Well he burst out laughing saying “never before had he been confronted with such affront about his smoking or his farting all at thesame time ”  We solved 2 problems and ended up sharing a few bottles of red and a good meal when we joined into a foursome for the rest of the night.  We are now the best of friends have been since that night and yes he eventually stopped both vices! We still have a good laugh over that night.

    • Frenzal says:

      03:28pm | 19/08/12

      lol @ you all.
      My father smoked since the age of 13, at 73 he is being killed by melanoma.
      He, until the melanoma, golfed, worked on cars, lead an active life.

      I don’t dispute that smoking kills but so does sky-diving or crossing the road.
      The difference is when most of us started smoking there was no “calculated risk” factor like the people have now.
      Smoking was presented as two energetic people running toward each other on a beach.    The sophisticated thing to do when out and about.
      The perfect addition to every coffee.

      I also believe smoking and alcohol should be treated equally.
      If we are going to nanny then it needs to be on an even keel because bleat as you might, alcohol does ruin just as many lives..

    • Paul says:

      09:17pm | 19/08/12

      Alcohol can be used responsibly, cigarettes can’t.

    • Carl Petersen says:

      06:16pm | 19/08/12

      The government knows that cigarettes are a guaranteed source of taxation revenue. It uses the excuse of the national health interest to consistently put more tax on cigarettes to improve its bottom line. Its disgraceful.

    • Louise says:

      09:24pm | 19/08/12

      Wow a d when i read this article I honestly thought it was a piece of satire.

    • Ret says:

      11:21pm | 19/08/12

      If plain packaging won’t reduce the amount of cigarettes sold, then why the High Court challenge by tobacco companies? As for all the “nanny state” comments-did you feel the same about random breath testing and seat belt laws? Other restrictions on our personal freedoms that had saved plenty of lives.

    • Andrew says:

      12:03pm | 20/08/12

      then why the High Court challenge by tobacco companies?”

      Because all companies should have the right to use their brands and logos on their legal products.

    • Esteban says:

      12:05pm | 20/08/12

      Smoking is a public health issue not an economic issue.

      It is completley irrelevant whether smokers pay more in tax than what they consume in health care as a result of their smoking.

      Having said that I am absolutely certain that sokers pay much more than they consume so over time the federal budget will need to accomodate lower tobacco revenue and higher aged care and intensive care costs.

      If smokes were a new product seeking approval to come onto the market it would not get that approval. No one says we are a nanny state for not allowing new and dangerous products to come onto the market.

      Prohibition or removal of legal status, can’t be entertained until smoking rates are well below 10%. Only time will tell if this latest effort of plain packaging will inch the rates a bit lower.

      Back on the issue of the economics why can’t polititions just say “when we reduce smoking rates the budget will take a hit but we think it is worth it for the sake of public health”

      That should be good enough. Dodgy figures to make it look like smokers cost money are not required and only make people suspicious of government funded studies.

      For many people it is instictive to assume that government funded studies have a preselected outcome rather than the actual truth.

      Perhaps that is a factor in why the climate science debate is such an issue in Australia.

    • Gladys says:

      02:15pm | 20/08/12

      Good point re preventable death. That gave me a lovely chuckle.

    • Utopia Boy says:

      02:55pm | 20/08/12

      Great article.
      Quite simply if the government gave a rat’s arse about the health of the nation, smoking would be illegal. Then the industry would go underground.
      Cash is king though, tobacco will remain legal, and taxes and excises will continue to increase.
      It doesn’t get much simpler than that, and every single person who has ever considered the debate knows it.

    • True Blue Ozzie says:

      09:17pm | 20/08/12

      A packet of Roxan 25 Green’s please, the one that has the destorted brain please! Yep i can see the cigarette companies, produceing cigarette cases with ” ROXON GREEN” on them now and they will sell like hot cakes! I’d be the fist to buy one. Could you imagine ” Roxan Green’s” or Plibersek Green’s, what a tribute two very naïve pollies for ever etched on a ciggy case! Yes even these dear darlings will die one day, someone had better tell these two that we humans do not live for ever. Thank god we dont because for every minute where alive the Government is sucking taxes from us!

    • Domenic Greco says:

      10:32am | 21/08/12

      Love the article…finally some truth and realism.  It however, failed to mention that even though black market tobacco is, according to the ones that know everything, only 1% to 1.5% of current sales, Roxon has decided to increase the penalties for illegal smuggling of tobacco ( a legal product) so that fines are 10% of evaded excise and 10 years jail.  Funny how its only 7 years jail for people smuggling offences.  But of course, black market tobacco isn’t a problem at all…and plain packaging wont contribute to it at all…Yeah right!

      This is a sample of the information provided in the proposed Customs Amendment (Smuggled Tobacco) Bill 2012:

      1.21 Tobacco smuggling is monitored by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs) in conjunction with other commonwealth and state agencies such as the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Tax Office. According to Customs, the majority of criminal entities involved in tobacco smuggling are experienced, highly organised and extensively networked. Deterring and disrupting tobacco smuggling is a whole-of-agency activity by Customs, targeting high-risk imports using border detection technologies such as container examination facilities at ports.

      1.22 During 2010–11, Customs made 55 detections in sea cargo arriving in
      Australia, amounting to 258 tonnes of tobacco and 82 million cigarettes. The loss of revenue for the Australian Government would have been $135 million plus Goods and Services Tax had the smuggling attempts been successful.


      What’s worse is that only about 1% of shipping containers are actually being physically searched but they don’t tell you that in their press releases like they don’t admit that organised crime is behind it all. 

      That is the government we are currently dealing with .....made up data to suit themselves and withholding information and denying the problem exists even though they know what they say to be untrue.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter