Stop being polite about smoking, and just outlaw it

Jay says:

07:53am | 06/07/09

>Why don’t we just outlaw cigarettes?

Just wait, it will happen.  This government loves to act as Mum and Dad and tell us what to think and do.  Someone said “Nanny State” is back - sure seems to be the case…

Jeff from Meroo says:

08:27am | 06/07/09

I’d like to know how the numbers “12 to 20 billion” are determined as I just think those are pulled out of thin smoke free air.  20 billion would be nearly $1,000 for every man, woman, child and pensioner in Australia.  How does me (as a smoker) paying them $5,500,000,000 a year turn around and cost them $1,000 a head?  I reckon the smoke nazis just make this stuff up.  The fact that I’m middle aged and miserable…  just hanging for the day the big one hits me to get me off this stinking rock….  and the only thing I enjoy more than pounding another nail into my own coffin is to do it sitting a bar with a beer in my other hand…  I mean HOW DARE they take that away from me.

What a sing song dance.
What a performance.
What a cheap tent show.
Oh no no NO NO NO!

Lee says:

09:02am | 06/07/09

I agree why don’t they just ban smoking instead of being hypocrites. I hope everyone reaiises that the precedent set on smokers means everyone and their is a target ! Hmm I wonder which mob are going to be the next targets? Big brother has arrrived.

Mike from Sydney says:

09:11am | 06/07/09

There is absolutley zero upside to smoking.  It smells and carries downwind, it kills the smokers, wrecks your health, is dangerous to those around you.  There is no upside at all.

It’s worse than self-mutilation because of the affect it has on everyone around the smoker.

Yep… Ban them and be done.  Smoke all you like at home (as long as you’re not placing others at risk of course).

Steve says:

09:13am | 06/07/09

It is an insidious habit that claimed the life of my mum in her late 60s and I’ve known numerous others to have succumbed.  Why do people do it?  I don’t know but I am still silly enough to have a cigarette each night and occasionally have 2.  My wife still smokes regularly but never in front of our children.  The best way to give up entirely would be for smoking to be banned.  Prohibition would doubtless force the product onto the black market and you can see the Civil Liberties groups getting up in arms.  Were smoking banned it would prove beyond doubt that governments are serious about the health of the community and don’t view tobacco tax as a way of clawing back money to fund their largesse and even enable them to obtain a daily meal allowance of $77.  That would still enable them to purchase 3 packs of smokes a day and say around 3 schooners.  With a number of our MP’s still leading a sedentary lifestyle, eating and drinking to excess and sucking on the occasional gaspers, perhaps they may shuffle before they’re voted out.  We can only hope.

edofthedarkside says:

09:16am | 06/07/09

Why dont we outlaw it?
Because prohibition doesnt work, never has worked never will work. It would simply open up another black market. Putting the price of a pack of fags up to $20.00 will get a few more smokers to ditch the habit but there will be people who will pay it and, unfortunately, people out there on low incomes / social security who will wind up committing crimes to pay for their fix or neglecting other important issues (kids, food, bills etc) as there are with any illicit drug of dependance. Jacking the price sky high will also make the currently small scale black market in “Chop Chop” tobacco considerably more viable. Smoking is on its way out already. Ban advertising, keep up the campaigns but dont drive the up the price to the level of a deal of dope or the un-forseen social consequences could be very serious.

Eric says:

09:30am | 06/07/09

Not to worry ... there’s a large and effective distribution network waiting in the wings for when smoking is banned.

Drug dealers will simply add tobacco to their existing product lines of heroin, ice and the rest. Then you’ll be able to buy it in any pub, street corner or school yard.

Dallas Beaufort says:

09:49am | 06/07/09

Why don’t we talk about making smoking illegal? Because If tobacco was banned the authorities could not blame ailments on cigarettes any more and would have to look at the real cause of disease and disorder.

gary says:

09:59am | 06/07/09

Your comment:I Smoke and I Vote… simple

Lexi says:

09:59am | 06/07/09

Someone I know once suggested that tobacco should be available by precription only, so that current smokers can continue as they are addicted, but new smokers can’t just pick up durries easily.  But, as Eric says, perhaps this will just drive it underground, as happened to alcohol during prohibition.

That said, as an asthmatic, being subjected to second hand smoke in public places can cause me lots of problems.  I have to deal with cigarette smoke walking down any street in the city, trying to get through the haze outside building entrances, when smokers stub out immediately before getting on public transport and then sit next to me.  The people who bathe in their perfume are bad enough, but my lungs take a day to recover from smokers.

And what’s the point of outlawing smoking all together when it’s already banned on (all) station platforms, but I’m just about the only one not smoking at the outdoor stations?  Same at hospitals, it’s banned on all NSW Dept of Health grounds, but you’ll find a conga lone of durrie munchers sucking away outside every hospital during waking hours.

When you smoke in public, please don’t just consider that it’s your right until it’s made illegal.  Consider that there are people out there like me who don’t have a choice, smoking makes us literally (not figuratively) sick.  And I don’t berate or harass you, just cough, and cough, and cough.

Heath says:

10:05am | 06/07/09

Raising the price of cigarettes so high will only give the Rudd a feel good solution. It will look like they’re doing whats best for the country, and for health, when really it’s just a money grap to help pay off their rediculas debt. And knowing that smokers are now the minority, will make keep them popular in the view of most voters.
Smoking is an awful addiction, and very hard to stop. What are pensioners and low income people suposed to do if they can’t kick the habit? Is the Government going to pay to help people with patches or what ever method they use to attempt to quit, Most smokers will tell you they don’t want to smoke. The price on cigarettes will not stop them smoking!  It’s an addiction, simmilar to a heroin addiction. It’s not that simple.
So smokers will have to help pay for all the wasted money Rudd, Swan and Gillard have carelessly thrown away to schools who don’t need it, and the list keeps building!!  What a disgace this Government is becoming.

SD says:

10:09am | 06/07/09

I like your trend line of the social acceptability of smoking.

Brief rant on smoking and tax follows:

I’ve long held the view that for any product for which the demand is relatively inelastic, a price hike would only marginally influence demand. This is not to say that a price rise will not help to discourage people to start smoking; for new smokers, demand certainly IS elastic. In any case, any study which purports to demonstrate a negative relationship between the number of people smoking and price is flawed unless it considers other variables such as social desirability.

What a price hike will certainly do is hurt lower SES individuals - these individuals are more likely to be smokers and furthermore will suffer a greater percentage of tax to total-income than someone in a higher income bracket.

For example, take two smokers - smoker A and smoker B. Smoker A is a low SES worker, whilst smoker be is from a high SES bracket. Both smokers smoke 100 cigarettes a week. Under the proposed tax changes they will both be liable for approximately an extra 1700 dollars per year (based on current pack price of $12 against new price of $20). For smoker A, who ears 40k per annum, this is over 4% of their total income. For smoker B, who earns 80k, it is only 2%.

So a price increase is inherently unfair on lower income smokers, and furthermore, may actually help to increase social desirability through new-created economic exclusivity.

On the other hand, as mentioned, a price rise may prevent more people from starting smoking in the first place. However, there are other ways to discourage new smokers without unfairly penalising existing smokers.

One method would be to make cigarettes harder to buy. Limit cigarette vendors to large supermarkets. Ban sales from corner stores, service stations and newsagents.

Another possibility is raising the legal age to 21, or even 25.

Efficacy aside, the new tax proposals are an attempt by the government to high ball the tax negotiations - this way they can later offer a lesser tax increase on cigarettes which will more acceptable.

On a related and possibly contentious point - I would suggest that if the tax on cigarettes is larger than the estimated medical costs for treating smokers - then the tax is too high. I haven’t seen the figures (if indeed they exist), but conversely, if the current tax raised from cigarettes does not cover these medical expenses then of course it should be raised. In my opinion, this is the only valid argument for increasing the tax on cigarettes.

Finally, if the government is serious in their attempts to curb smoking, they should resolve the problems with the Pharmacy Guild and the sale of smoking cessation products outside of pharmacies. Smoking cessation products such as patches or gum should be sold at all places that sell cigarettes. If it is not possible to sell patches outside of chemists, then perhaps cigarettes should only be sold inside chemists. Ah the irony.

iansand says:

10:09am | 06/07/09

Banning something that has been legal has all kinds of issues.  Like Prohibition in the US it will convert a lot of people otherwise law abiding people into lawbreakers.  Not a good thing.

Does anyone know any smokers who took up the habit after the age of (say) 22?  I know only one, and she took it up because her husband to be was a heavy smoker.  Very few adults take up smoking.  This fact (if it is one) leads to a possible solution.  Ban smoking for the under 25s.  Break the nexus of early addiction.

Rosco says:

10:16am | 06/07/09

As an ex-smoker I apologise to all my fellow Australians who inhaled my cigarette smoke over the years.  Banning cigarettes completely is not the answer as the black market will only florish.  Raising the price and the awareness (particularly to the young) of the dangers of smoking will reduce the number of smokers and the cost to society.

David says:

10:31am | 06/07/09

The lady in the next hospital bed had her bag packed in the expectation of going home.  But when it was her turn with the cardiologist she anxiously listened to the results of her tests and the damage that her years of smoking had done to her body.  She had just knitted a shawl for her first grandchild.  Smoking…you’ll wish you hadn’t when you’re in that hospital bed.

Amanda Meade says:

10:37am | 06/07/09

My six year old daughter thinks it is illegal. She has pointed to smokers in the street, and asked: “Mummy will he go in jail?”

Dave Sag says:

10:49am | 06/07/09

Making ciggies illegal would both simply drive the industry underground, much like the prohibition of harmless drugs like marijuana and heroin has done.  (Yes harmless..  the damage done from those particular drugs is almost entirely due to their illegality, not inherent in the drug itself)

Increasing taxes on cigs only makes govt coffers (pun not intended) dependent on tobacco revenue though.  The most effective solution has always been simply to regulate where smoking may happen.  I support the ban on smoking at work, in restaurants and bars, and in public places.  Indeed can you imagine back in the 70s when people would smoke on busses and planes?

But I also support the idea of cigar bars and other dedicated venues for smokers to enjoy their pleasures in an atmosphere of harm-minimisation.  I don’t smoke ciggies any more (gave up in my 20s) but still have a humidor of delicious hand-rolled cuban cigars.  And no law anywhere would stop me from enjoying a rare choof on a stogie.

The idea of raising the minimum smoking age to 21 (and drinking, and voting for that matter ) is a good one I feel, but adults have earned the right to poison themselves if they do no harm to others I believe.

Dave says:

10:56am | 06/07/09

Why not outlaw smoking?  Politics.  Not from the smokers, from the army of businesses, both small and large, that sell tobacco products.  Which politician really would be prepared to alienate every news agent, service station, bottle shop, take away food shop, and pub and club in the country?

RT says:

11:14am | 06/07/09

DON’T prohibit any more substances, it never works. Did anyone notice the experiment with decriminalisation of heroin in Portugal? Against predictions it has NOT led to an increase in heroin use. Provide information about substance abuse, prohibit advertising/marketing of substances and let adults make their own choices. End pointless prohibition of substances NOW!

carneiro says:

11:40am | 06/07/09

Is it just me (and please excuse my ignorance) but it looks as if the price of cigarettes keeps rising as consumption falls?  Perhaps the government (in either party) haven’t come to grips with losing such a large chunk of revenue yet?

stephen says:

12:02pm | 06/07/09

From now on, any person over 25 taking up smoking has to attend EVERY johnny farhnam comeback concert. (And they’re got to take their little sister with them too, to discourage any more lung cancers.)

You can’t really ban it though ; gradually, by raising prices and putting a “taboo” on the sight of a smoker, the habit will probably dwindle.

Zedimus says:

12:09pm | 06/07/09

Ban smoking, then we can start on fixing the REAL problems…  Pre Mix Drinks, High alcohol products, high fat foods, enforced exercising, Parent Licensing, banning loud car stereos, standing still on escalators and people who write comments in forums..  (/sarcasm)

phyllis.stein says:

12:46pm | 06/07/09

The local check out staff currently work 3 hours to buy a pack of smokes.  It says something about their wages, the cost of ciggies,  their priorities and addiction. Smoking had become a marker for poverty, low education. The market for chop chop will grow bigger that the market for mj. Is it illegal to grow your own tobacco?

Graeme says:

12:48pm | 06/07/09

I actually thought we had hate laws in Australia. Obviously that only applies to those under the ‘protection’ of the Nazi’s. I wonder how those who oppose it would feel if say they were not allowed alcohol, or more than one small car per house, or had to send children to State schools. That is, I might find some of their habits objectional. As for paasive smoking it cannot be proven because we live in homes and cities full of chemicals etc.

Louis says:

12:59pm | 06/07/09

I have always thought it to be incredibly hypocritical of a government to ban drugs like ecstasy that is consumed by hundreds of thousands of people around the world every week, yet when a single death occurs it still makes the headlines.  Cigarettes account for thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of illnesses.  Factor in lost productivity from people standing around on footpaths, and the cost would have to far outweigh the revenue benefit from taxes.  Nicotine is addictive.  People don’t smoke because they want to.  They do it because they HAVE to.  Smokers are nicotine ADDICTS, exactly like heroin addicts or crystal meth addicts, and yet we put up with them choking our footpaths with smoke and litter.  Surely our government has a duty of care to prevent illness in the population where possible.

bb says:

01:00pm | 06/07/09

*ahem* all those nancies that bang on about second-hand smoke outdoors from smokers - please, when you berate me for lighting up on a public pathway - please notice the 4 lane road we are standing next to. I am the least of your inhalation problems. Funny how my cigarette apprently is causing you lung damage - but the 18 wheel prime mover belching large diesel particulates seems to be not worthy of your attention or action.

Also - time for the Government(s) to be totally transparent as to where the tobacco taxes are going - as it looks like they’re on par with gambling revenue…

Hazard says:

01:20pm | 06/07/09

Dont worry smokers. As soon as they make it illegal, just like they did for illegal drug users there will be “cigaret smoking rooms” set up in most cities where free fags will be given out to smokers and there will even be assistants standing by to light you up in case you dont have a match.

Grant says:

01:21pm | 06/07/09

Where to start with the ‘don’t ban’ case…..
*Would it be a state-by-state decision framework allowing for cross-border anomalies,i.e. daylight saving…. or a Fed agreement set by COAG whose state rep attendees, chuffed at their good work go out for a puff…?!
*Where will the new ‘hole in the bottom line’ be felt first? Hospitals, schools..?
*Why give the ‘civil…?’ liberty whiners another excuse to claim a ‘nanny state’ with the retort that legislators should ‘butt out.’ That one is easy - civil libertarians tend to only care about their own freedoms, not for others/ the greater good such as dealing with the social ills like passive smoke, stench & litter.
Good luck…..hack…..cough!

Lucy says:

01:23pm | 06/07/09

Why doesn’t the government just put up the legal age for smoking by one year each year?  That way the people who are now 17years old would never be able to start smoking.  But those who already do, will be able to continue to do so.

Charlie says:

01:24pm | 06/07/09

Banning it won’t stop it. Like any other addictive substance there will always be a black market demand, so the government might as well be collecting some revenue from those who desire to continue enjoying all the “benefits” smoking provides. We ban dope and heroin, yet they’re still widely used and the taxpayer gets to pick up all the social costs whilst all the profits are kept by the dealers.

As to complaining about the cost at $20 a packet. Out of interest how much do you think you’ll be paying for your illicit tobacco if it was banned? Somehow I don’t think the price would come down.

Lexi says:

01:51pm | 06/07/09

@phyllis.stein it is illegal to grow tobacco in your backyard - it is grown under a restricted primary producers’ licence and only under contract from a tobacco company.

Mostly because it’s a drug, but partly because of the diseases tobacco can spread to other plants in their broader family - like tomatoes and potatoes.

@SD, you’re right, it does unfairly target low income earners… it also affects their kids - I’m leaving the second hand smoke issue here alone.  By affecting them, I mean that someone with an addiction to tobacco and on a single parent pension is still going to smoke the same amount of cigarettes - so what is compromised financially when ciggie prices rise?  Probably breakfast cereal, or school uniforms or the heating in winter.  Do the kids deserve that?

If it’s really about reducing smoking rates, and not about revenue, there must be a better way than raising prices.

The way, in my view, of stopping teenagers from starting is to show them stained teeth, stained fingers, wrinkled skin - all on someone who has only smoked for a short time.  Advertising should focus on short term disincentives to smoking ie teenagers overhearing other people say that they smell bad from smoking, or that hiding for a sneaky durrie is very childish and embarassing.

Lachlan says:

02:21pm | 06/07/09

Perhaps the government doesn’t make any money out of cigarette taxes if they then need to fund hospitals looking after people with smoking related illnesses. According to the NSW Health site, tobacco related illnesses accounted for almost a third of all hospitalisations.
http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/publichealth/chorep/res/res_smafhos.asp

Paul says:

02:22pm | 06/07/09

I smoke and I enjoy smoking.

In my experience non-smokers put the taliban in the shade when it comes to putting thier values on others.  smoking or not smoking is about freedom of choice. If you believe that no one should be allowed to smoke because you don’t - I doubt very much whether you beleive in democracy or the rights of the individual.

The logical next step from banning smoking is banning opposition parties!!!

Rowley Burkin says:

02:51pm | 06/07/09

Why don’t you people mind your own business. If I want to smoke then I will.

Ronnie says:

02:56pm | 06/07/09

Paul ‘smoking or not smoking is about freedom of choice’ - that’s exactly what the tobacco companies want you to believe. Smoking is about choosing to die a long and uncomfortable death. I don’t see anyone saying ‘I choose cancer!’ but that’s what smoking is.

chip says:

03:03pm | 06/07/09

Is it just me? I mean am I alone when I consider the rants and ravings of anti smokers to be some type of mental illness?

What would happen to these poor souls if smoking were outlawed and they were forced to get a life?

The only reaseon politicians listen to them is to keep the rabid hords off the case of their superannuation rorts.

Ange says:

03:06pm | 06/07/09

I do not smoke, I experimented in my early teens but stopped very soon after.

I think that young smokers should be put behind a cigarette counter for a few weeks to have a look at the effects of long term smoking. I served behind a cigarette counter for a few years and the amount of people I served with black or missing teeth, yellow stained fingers and nails and the smell coming from some of them was attrocious. If that doesn’t turn you off smoking then you should be made to visit a cancer ward where people are slowly dying from lung and throat cancer and see the families having to say goodbye…

watty says:

03:31pm | 06/07/09

Why not just set up some “ciggy shooting galleries”  and give out free cigarettes to addicted smokers?

Having worked in the pub game for more than 40 years and served in the Armed Forces for 5 years I am surprised there are any non-smokers left alive if “passive smoke” causes so many deaths.

How many people die directly and indirectly from alcohol?

Now there is another tax bonanza that will never be touched no matter how many it kills.

I stopped smoking 40 per day on my 70th birthday as I just couldn’t afford it any longer.Found it cheaper to buy ILLEGAL drugs which really do kill you.

Charlie says:

03:47pm | 06/07/09

Paul “In my experience non-smokers put the taliban in the shade when it comes to putting thier values on others.  smoking or not smoking is about freedom of choice.”

Rowley Burkin “Why don’t you people mind your own business. If I want to smoke then I will.”

Guys I’m anti-smoking but I don’t care if you smoke. My only problems with it that the cost of treating smokers for medical conditions caused by smoking tends to greatly outweigh the taxes they’ve paid either on their smokes or just in general. Personally I think smokes should have 2 tax rates. One committed smokers who sign a waiver stating that no medical treatment is to be provided to them for any smoking related illness and a much higher one for those expecting to rescue their dieing bodies.

As to the whinging you experience well apart from the second hand smoke issue, my bigger problem is with the smell. If a homeless person who hasn’t had a shower or bath in 2 years sits down next to me at a bar or restaurant or my workplace etc then I’ll probably complain to them about the smell. Same goes with smokers. Smoke to your heart’s content (end) but don’t inflict the odour upon me.

Bitten says:

03:46pm | 06/07/09

Smoke away I say - it is an intelligence test, pure and simple. Evolution will out.

BTW smokers who whine about how it doesn’t harm others - fine, you breathe your disgusting smoke on me in public, no worries. Now, can I fart all over you all day?

N says:

03:58pm | 06/07/09

According to the Aust Bureau of Stats, 12% of all new reported cases of cancer in 2001 were attributed to smoking.  In the same ABS report, in 2004-05, 18% of people with cancer were current daily smokers; 15% drank alcohol at risky or high levels; 76% did little or no exercise; and 53% were either overweight or obese
(Ref: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4822.0.55.001)

In the words of the great Bill Hicks, “Non-smokers die too!”

When you all but eradicate the prevalence of smoking, I wonder how smug the non-smokers will feel when the public coffers no longer hold the funds to pay for their non-smoking related cancer (or, heaven forbid, they have to fund it themselves).

Paul says:

04:12pm | 06/07/09

Ronnie - “that’s exactly what the tobacco companies want you to believe”  - you’re absolutely right and so are they!

“cancer” is the body’s cells failure to divide in the correct manner. The likelyhood of such occuring unfortunately being in direct correlation to your age. As such nothing “causes” cancer except cancer itself.

you can’t induce cancer in your self and there is no way to prevent against it.

Are you suggesting that all cancer suffers are to blame for thier illness? (I hope not).

On another note there is always a reason for denying someone thier choice - the rationale used by you and other non-smokers is the intellectual equivalent of the arguments used to deny women, aboriginals and people who didn’t own land the vote.

however good you think your intentions are you are attempting to override my freewill and my right to choose for myself.

Sarah says:

04:16pm | 06/07/09

I would really love to do an ad campaign that focusses on the social stigma of smoking. More than any other reason, the ‘embarrassment’ of smoking (glares, angry expressions, not to subtle or quiet comments) is more ‘real’ than the medical ‘what happens when it’s too late’ ads that currently run.

rufus says:

04:18pm | 06/07/09

Smokers smoke and do themselves harm. That’s their choice. I won’t get too close to a smoker. That’s my choice. Smelly, stained little people.

David O' says:

04:19pm | 06/07/09

Perhaps a short term / long term solution would be to increase tax on cigarettes that will effectively increase the minimum price to $25 per pack from now, and for the government of the day to say that every year from this date, the price of cigarettes will effectively double.  Gives the gaspers time to make up their minds about quitting, and for the government to ease the ‘baccy farmers out of the industry without devastating financial effect. Something has to be done, and only harsh measures will do the job. When 27 year old women lose their life to lung cancer directly attributed to smoking, where’s the argument ?

iansand says:

04:29pm | 06/07/09

Paul & Rowley Burkin - of course you can smoke.  Will it be OK if I come around and urinate on your carpet?  You will find that the initial act is unpleasant and antisocial.  The smell will linger and so will the stain.  On the other hand I will feel a lot better.

Do you begin to understand the problem?  Your smoking is not an isolated act.

Damo says:

04:34pm | 06/07/09

Making smoking illegal with fines and jail terms would only achieve one thing, criminalising those at the bottom of the socio-economic scale. The disparity in the rate of smokers between upper and lower economic groups is huge. To criminalise a currently legal drug that is highly addictive would place even greater pressure on people that are already vulnerable. What an awful, nasty solution it would be.

Ben Payne says:

04:33pm | 06/07/09

I am a smoker, and have been for 25 years.  I average a pack a day of 30 cigarettes, which costs an average of $15.  Call it $100/week, or $5000 per year.  I have tried to give up many times, I hate the smell, I hate coughing each morning, I hate the stains on my fingers, and I hate the tension it causes in my family.

But I hate the withdrawal symptoms more. And the futility of giving up.  Because everywhere you go, from corner shops to petrol stations to supermarkets, there they are, in full view, tempting you to start again.  And regardless of how much you hate it, there are times in your life when your will power is low, and it is too easy to give in and just buy a pack.  And once you start again, it is a very quick slide back into old habits, and the fear of the withdrawal comes back.

I know that if I never saw another cigarette, I would never miss them.

Something that hasn’t really been brought up in the comments is the relative danger and response to the issue of smoking.

According to the statistics on my packet of cigarettes, 19,000 people die from smoking each year.  So in the 8 years since 9/11, over 150,000 Australians have been killed by the tobacco industry, while we’ve been chasing those responsible for killing 3000 Americans.  Hmmmmmmm.  I think our definition of ‘Terrorist’ needs to be updated.

Sheree says:

04:43pm | 06/07/09

A few people seem to be raising concerns about the medical cost to the state of people persistently smoking. I did some research for a thesis on anti-smoking laws a while back, and in NSW alone, smokers contributed three times what was necessary to provide them in tax dollars on their cigarettes.
Just in case some anti-smokers are missing the point here - say the average smoker generates a government cost of $1000 per year on health care, on average they contribute $3000 per year in taxes on cigarettes. (They’re not exact monetary figures obviously - unfortunately, I cannot find the paper with the numbers and reference. Still, you get the drift.) That’s a huge profit for the government, who can cover up this outrageous figure by emphasizing the cost of smokers to the community (a campaign which the conservative swallowers all too eagerly gobble up).

Furthermore, a few of you have mentioned the fact that smoking has no benefits whatsoever, and only “causes cancer” and other health problems.
Firstly, smoking does have many benefits, primarily the prevention of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, two of the most horrible neurological diseases in the world. Also, it effectively controls irritable bowel syndrome. Several studies have reported that exposing children to alleged “passive” smoke (which, by the way, has not even been proven to exist), reduces the chance of said children experiencing allergies and asthma (these being significant health problems in children across the Western world). Do a Google Scholar search guys, and you’ll find I’m right, according to ACADEMIC, PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES that are in NO way connected to the tobacco industry.

Furthermore, the WHO (the biggest medical body in the world) has some interesting information on smoking buried away in documents. For example, if you quit smoking before the age of twenty five, any alleged negative health effects will reverse themselves. (Perhaps we should make smoking illegal OVER the age of twenty five then, hmm?)
Also, there was an error in the original article slamming smoking for its connection to lung cancer. Namely, there was actually no evidence (and remains to this day, no hard evidence) that smoking CAUSES lung, or any other type of, cancer. There is a SLIGHTLY higher correlation between smoking tobacco and lung cancer. There is a much higher link between lung cancer and genetics.

The discussion of cigarettes and whether they should become illegal is only a question of money. The government are getting a bit “greedy guts” when it comes to this pot of gold - they can increase tax revenue, AND look “good” in the majority of the public’s eye. And, all those who have tried to quit smoking will know that they also backhand smokers twice - nicotine patches and supplements, “quitting aids”, are ridiculously expensive and the government taxes them too. By emphasizing the negative effects of smoking, they are merely playing into the hands of the majority.

I wonder how many “anti-smokers” actually do any research…? Or do they just blindly accept the information handed to them by “common sense” advertisements and anti-smoking campaigns? Do they merely rely on the anecdotal evidence that seems to plague these discussions? Anyone who has some kind of tertiary education will know that anecdotal evidence, and skewed statistics, will generally get you laughed out of academic circles in situations such as this.

And, a final word - the first ever national anti-smoking campaign was actually launched by the Nationalist-Socialist party in Germany before WWII (yes, the Nazis were anti-smoking). Still so eager to be tarred by that brush?

Becca says:

04:49pm | 06/07/09

If people “need” to smoke then they should be restricted to smoking only in their homes and NOT in their cars (which IMO is just as dangerous as drink driving or using a mobile phone while driving) or in public.  Besides what about the cigarette stubs that litter our suburbs.

Cazzy says:

04:54pm | 06/07/09

I’ve paid more tax with my 30 years of smoking than Kerry Packer probably paid in his life.  Stupid YES, fair NO.  If they had poured all of this income from smokers into stopping potential smokers starting and health care for the ones who are walking corpses, this ridiculous treadmill to no-where would not be an issue.

Yeah - “everybody knows” and no more so that those stuck on the end of these burning time bombs.  We all made stupid mistakes as teenagers and I am paying for mine financially, socially and ultimately , I hope I get hit buy a bus!

Obesity is just as deadly, why not start taxing the shit out of McDonalds purchases as well?  If they would just put the money they take from consumers of deadly habits back into prevention and cure, we might actually have a decent health system in place that benefits everyone.

hendo says:

05:18pm | 06/07/09

Great post Colgo. Well said.
I’ve been off the horrid little bastards for four whole days. In lieu of prohibition, though, here’s a tip for young players: if you munch a piece of regular chewy with yer not-so-tasty-on-its-own nicotine gum, it goes down pretty well. Plus, I reckon the gum’s pretty effective - working for me so far.

July Julan says:

05:21pm | 06/07/09

I think it was Kinky Friedman who said that one day soon coffee will be the last remaining recreational drug (including alcohol) that will be legal

Craig says:

05:36pm | 06/07/09

Problem with banning anything is it suddenly becomes ‘rebellious’, and therefore more popular. Also becomes harder to collect taxes, and keep proper statistics of the harm it causes. Having said that, I would be extremely happy if smoking was limited to places where it does not harm passers-by - essentially, inside the privacy of your own home, with all doors and windows shut so the smoke does not escape (into my house). Of course, for those with children, that essentially means a complete ban anyway, but realistically, given a choice between harm to my children, and harm to the children of smokers, I’d rather see my kids protected.

Cazzy says:

05:39pm | 06/07/09

BECCA.  Eating, talking to the kids, reading advertising and road signs, using the radio and GPS devices, thinking over your shopping list etc. are all things that temporarily alter our concentration when driving.  Unfortunately, smoking is one thing that is so sub-conscious it is probably the least dangerous driving bad habit and way safer than driving children around.

Chad R says:

05:43pm | 06/07/09

Prohibiting smoking won’t stop people from finding and using tobacco.  It just means smokers will start paying criminal organisations, rather than legitimate businesses and government taxes.  Not unlike other popular, prohibited drugs.  Society is better served by regulation than by criminalising 1 in every 5 adults.

BB says:

06:46pm | 06/07/09

Same tired arguments from both sides, cigarettes will always be with us, just accept it . Why people need to become so indignant is the bit I do not understand. I can see why non-smokers don’t like it but hey it’s not up to them to dictate what smokers can do, and there is plenty of alternative atmospheric pollution which make cigarettes nothing in the big picture.  The whole debate is pathetic.

Cathie says:

07:08pm | 06/07/09

Why just pick on us smokers?  When was the last time someone who had had too many cigarettes beat the shit out their wife or kids?  Or slammed their car into an innocent road user??  Until a Government has the balls to make it illegal (and that’s not ever going to happen - there’s too much revenue involved) can’t all the do-gooders just shut up and leave us alone.

Wayne says:

07:28pm | 06/07/09

All the cigarette taxes i paid will more than cover any hospital treament if i need it, that’s if i dont drop dead from the continung stupidity of politicians telling me how to live. Why not ban, smoking, alcohol, full contact sports, salt, fat in food, and all the items that cause anything that may affect your health and the government have to pay for. THIS FACIST NANNY STATE WOULD MAKE STALIN PROUD, even he we be proud to have this level of control into the everyday lives. Another distraction during another political fiasco, utegate, take your mind of it and talk about this and another way to justify increased taxes. What sort of country are we becoming?

Simon says:

07:32pm | 06/07/09

I really like the idea that was proposed by one of the people here. Progressively raise the age limit that someone can legally sell cigarettes to. Take it up a year every 2 years until age 25 by say 2022.

Ideally it’d be nice to eliminate smoking completely, but lets take a pragmatic approach to this.

daz says:

07:54pm | 06/07/09

Wow, great idea.  The last time prohibition was tried, it enabled the shift of the mafia from a collection of thugs to a full-blown business organization that thrives to this day.  Did you wag school the day they taught 20th century history, Paul?  BTW, alcohol is many times more deadly than cigarrettes…it kills more people, ruins more lives and costs the health system more than smoking yet you say nothing about it.  There is no upside to alcohol…it’s entire purpose is to get people drunk so what, Paul, is your rationalization for going after a small vice like smoking and leaving a much larger problem alone?  Don’t answer the answer shows clearly….it’s cowardice.  BTW, your rationalization that it costs us money is stupid…by your logic a sky-diver who gets hurt should be refused service because he chose to sky-dive and should bear the consequences.  That’s not how our health system works….we don’t refuse service to people who hurt themselves.

John in Alice says:

08:33pm | 06/07/09

There is simply NO legal logic for even attempting to ban smoking any more than banning sweets and high calorie fatty foods.  Genetics and consumption will determine any smokers fate, and this is most certainly NOT the government’s responsibility any more than dependence on alcohol or gambling.  Tobacco is a stimulant that some of us appreciate in creative process’, so there IS a positive effect.  Famous leaders and thinkers in history relied on their pipe or cigar in dealing with stressful situations. 
What ought to be banned are leaders with miniscule minds who come up with these stupid ideas and there ought to be an IQ limit to individuals who submit their whims to internet boards.  Lastly, I tire of seeing MacDonalds bashing.  Nothing Maccas offers is any worse than Aussie favorites of chips & gravy, or sausage rolls!  Climb back into your bottles and find another source of entertainment other than filling blogs with fanatical outbursts.

Excellent contribution Sheree!!!!

Barry says:

09:12pm | 06/07/09

Wow the problem is bad. According to that graph the average person over the age of 15, including non-smokers, manages to consume about 3Kg of cigarettes a day. Must be about 10Kg a day per smoker.

Smoker says:

09:19pm | 06/07/09

How bloody stupid! Drugs are banned yet people still inject themselves, smoke pot etc. We can go back to prohibition days and people going underground with their smoking. And god forbid we have a drink… Get over it, it’s my life, I will smoke if I want to. My lungs, my choice!

Amanda says:

10:04pm | 06/07/09

I say lower the price.. so all the dumb people who smoke can slowly kill themselves and rid the planet of their stupidity

Julian Thomas says:

10:10pm | 06/07/09

it aint your lungs when you exhale, suck it in!!

Matt Daemon says:

10:28pm | 06/07/09

I think we’re all forgetting the poor defenceless Marijuana smokers out there.. You do-gooders with no clue as to what goes on in the world after Prime Possum tells you to go to bed at 7pm are quick to judge but you will ruin many other lives.  They can’t ban tobacco, what will real drug users use for spin once you’ve gotta outlay more for a pack of cigs than their real drugs?

Forced to smoke it from bongs and pipes uncut? Will the humble joint and ancient art of cutting a mix to conserve and extend their high times go by the wayside!??! Will none of you be happy until they’re all forced to spend more and more on legal drugs to sustain their illegal habbits!

This will ruin society as we know it!  We need a drastic rethink on this ladies and gentlemen, your rabid demonisation of smokers will only make it worse for the kind and benevolant pot smokers of the world who havent once sought to harm you and have kept their habbits and smoke to themselves far from the prying eyes and sensitive asthma affected lungs of you weak wristed douche de jours!

It’ll be a sad day when we hear a mother have to say to her son “I’m sorry son you’ll have to smoke your weed straight tonight, i cant afford to cut you a mix, cigs just hit 30 bucks a pack!”

FOR SHAME AUSTRALIA!

kenny says:

11:15pm | 06/07/09

ban it? are u kidding? as much as the government fights the smokers with anti smoking campaigns and ads do people actually relize the amount of money cigarette tax brings in?
ask the government if they actallu use all that money for anti-smoking prevention. i dont think so it fills their coffers and they love it and know it.

Dallas Beaufort says:

11:55pm | 06/07/09

What will need to be banned next? Alcohol, sugar, salt, pepper, curry, all spices, flavor, fashion, individual choice, everything except the banal bureaucracy!

alison fox says:

12:20am | 07/07/09

consider how many people across the entre production line would be out of work as a result of cigarettes being banned. The farmer, the line worker & entire company staff, the truck drivers, shop staff (think about it, theres no other reason for the middle counter at safeway etc), the promo girls, the researchers, the drs, nurses, people who make the drugs to help the potential illnesses, the people who make the nicotine patches and sell them etc, all the people involved in creating the ads to get us to quit smoking. Smoking is an industry and our society cannot survive without it.
Lets be earth loving, clean living whole food eating hippies, forget about money and greed and then instead die of boredom ;o)

I’m a smoker but don’t drink much and have very strong beliefs about life and death having watched from a young age family and friends pass away from various cancers and ailments. I’ve seen people live the cleanest possible active lives free from cigarettes, alchol, drugs, gambling and even meat, having strong faith in a higher power and die twenty years younger than others who smoked and drank their whole lives eating essentially flour, meat, potatos and lard while sitting on the couch;
So while I agree that rather than keep profiteering from the thing they’re ‘trying’ to get us to quit, they should just outright outlaw it. I’m sure I’d be happy to not be quite so short of breath, but I wouldn’t feel it was ever enough unless they stand true to what they;re banning them for: that they cause disese and statistically cause people to die. To that argument, I think it would be only fair to ban alchol again. Alchol it easily outstrips tobacco in the number of people directly and indirectly it causes harm to. Not only to the individual physically in the long term, but can easily, and frequently does, cause harm to come to oneself and others in the short term while under the influence; this generation are going at it harder than ever before with 24hr liquor licences enabeling them.
But until the government stops profiteering from that wagon too I doubt we’ll see change.

Dan says:

12:35am | 07/07/09

As a smoker I say just outlaw them… Believe it or not most smokers will thank the government for it as it will make it easier to quit, plus it’ll save me from giving a bucket load of money to through taxes to the government.

As for the smokers who wont quit if it becomes illegal, ciggarettes will become cheaper than they are presently much the same most illegal drugs are compared to tobbaco and booze.

David says:

01:45am | 07/07/09

John in Alice “Excellent contribution Sheree!!!!”....

Are you for real???

Sheree plays some physdo intellectual card and you believe that dibble. Quotes figures with no reference… relies on Google as major search tool… please ... the only person being laughed out of academic circles would be her.

But you seem to believe her so lets take a look shall we:

Her argument seems to be that the government makes a huge profit out of smokers. This is based sourly around her figures….(unreferenced) that the average smoker generates a government cost of $1000 per year on health care but on average they contribute $3000 per year in taxes on cigarettes.

Simple right…. expect that smoking costs the government and the economy more then just health costs….

Lost income of Carers of the sick
Lost productivity during smoke breaks
Lost resources to tobacco production (fuel, paper, chemicals, etc)
Pollution of environment (smoke, rubbish, cost of industry)

Thats just to name a few I could think of in a few seconds….

But don’t believe me Sheree even makes reference to this in her own posting. The comment at the end about the Nazi’s wanting smoking to stop.

They had no health agenda. The goal of their aint smoking campaign was driven by how much negative impact smoking had on efficiency and what it cost the government at the time.

Sheree if you are going to post an argument and belittle everyone else’s opinion at least flesh it out first because the dribble you posted would have you laughed out of academic circles

Adrian says:

05:33am | 07/07/09

What about the poor, the dispossesed, the single mothers, all those whose one and only pleasure in an otherwise grinding life is a relaxing cigarette ?

Yes, all you progressive finger-pointers have the luxury of good educations, secure housing and solid incomes to help quit smoking and now you seek to rob battlers of the only luxury they have to survive their daily struggle.

The anti-smoking campaign is an attack on the working class conducted by heartless middle-class elites.

The Crusader says:

06:06am | 07/07/09

Just make it a precriped drug. That is what’s being done with other drugs why not with tobacco. That means smokers can only buy there tobacco at a pharmacy with a prescription from there doc.

Don says:

06:08am | 07/07/09

Sweet! Ban smoking so that Bikies and other gangs have yet another revenue stream. Are you just naive or a bit thick from all that puffing?

JM says:

10:10am | 07/07/09

Just keep putting the price of them up. The government needs lucrative forms of revenue, and if I am not one of its contributers…..woohoo for me. I need something to compensate for all the times I have to walk through someones passive smoke.

My Aunty has not got long to live and she is suffering cancer of the Oesophagus from smoking, and I have no sympathy for her what so ever, cruel I know, but I am being honest

To ALL you smokers out there, suffer. Suffer in your health, suffer in your wallets, suffer in your smell. The sooner you all succumb to your idiocy, the better off the rest of us will be

HB says:

10:13am | 07/07/09

i wonder, just wonder whether smokers realize that kissing them is….well, akin to…..kissing an ashtray…..A real turn off I can assure you!!!!!

EM says:

10:25am | 07/07/09

As a non-smoker (and a never has been a smoker) there’s nothing in this world that shits me more than a non-smoker; pretentious lot really.  Who are we to tell people how they can and can’t kill themselves?

I saw this disgusting obese woman screaming at a smoker outside my office building yesterday, apparently the smoke from his cigarette was harming her health.  Yeah, like a bit of second hand smoke is what’s going to kill this land-whale… idiot.

JEFF C says:

10:27am | 07/07/09

Why don’t they just treat smokers as if they don’t have any rights. I used to smoke 120 a day and I am on the side of the smokers. What would happen if they banned coffee drinking as they have smoking. Also smokers vote what woudl happen if they said to hell with it I’ve got no rights as a smoker so why bother to vote, wear seatbelts and so on.

Jaisen says:

10:34am | 07/07/09

I was reading throught the comments and got to this one: “Paul says:

I smoke and I enjoy smoking.

In my experience non-smokers put the taliban in the shade when it comes to putting thier values on others.  smoking or not smoking is about freedom of choice. If you believe that no one should be allowed to smoke because you don’t - I doubt very much whether you beleive in democracy or the rights of the individual. “

Let me just say for the record that I believe in democracy, but I do not smoke and I believe that smokers with this attitude reek of arrogance.  My choice NOT to smoke means I am not exposing others to second-hand smoke and the possibility of causing health-related problems.  It seems that every smoker out there that wants to tout the “I smoke and I vote” line is just a selfish individual who really couldn’t care less about the next person and are self-centered egotists.

The real issue is the cost to people’s health. If you want to smoke, do it in your own home and away from me and my kids.  It’s a revolting habit and frankly, makes smokers look like desperate drug addicts.  If you want to kill yourself go ahead, but leave the non-smokers to enjoy what is rightfully theirs… FRESH AIR.

John Swarz says:

10:37am | 07/07/09

Ban smoking? Great idea Adolf!

Darren says:

10:48am | 07/07/09

Smoking is the worst.  Those who do this utterly un-natural activity, only do so, for looks-wanting to be cool and sophisticated.  They smoke because their self-esteem are almost non-existant, and thus, use the activity as a platform to cope in social circles.

Barry McIntosh says:

11:28am | 07/07/09

THE NEXT DRUG WAR

Have any of our politicians EVER lived in the real world.

The next huge illegal money spinner will be cigarettes and tobacco and who will have created this market - the pollies.

I have already heard rumours of under the counter cigarette sales in 2 states and i am sure their are many more states also delving into the new “underground” that is bound to become popular with teenagers. So much for years of making Ad Agencies wealthy.

Now our navy can add cigarette smugglers to its ever increasing role.  It is easy to see why KR wants so much of the defence budget spent on the navy, illegal immigrants, drug smuggling, cigarette smuggling , banned computers games being smuggled in WOW - AFP staff to increase 10 fold.

I personally am fed up with the sanctimonious, self righteous “do - gooders” that have enough money or professional standing to be able to hijack the rights of others and impose their will on the rest of the population.

To blame smoking for ALL lung cancer is misleading and inaccurate.  Like most cancers the medicos do not know how it is caused but being able to direct all blame to one area makes them feel better.

I would like a team of scientists to head to any major intersection in our country and accurately measure and analyse exactly what is being spewed into the air from the nations traffic. 

KR and co. have spent up big time and now under the guise ( or maybe disguise ) of actually caring for people, Prince Kevin and the Sheriff of Swan have decided to tax alcohol and tobacco to such an extent that both will soon become available only to the rich and to subsidised politicians.

The day is coming and probably sooner than our politicians realise, when WE the real citizens (the silent majority) finally stand up and let you know -
” That we have had enough and we aint going to take it anymore”

PW says:

12:18pm | 07/07/09

Agreed, smoking is a habit that can be very difficult to break.  I should know as I have finally quit after 15 years, and it has not been easy.  But I feel great for it.  But that is not to say I cannot symathise with both sides of the fence.  Considering at different times it has been floated that morbidly obese persons should get free gastric banding, hard drug addicts get free needles and reduced cost methodone, would it be that difficult to afford those who want to improve their health a financial hand.  If the increased tax occurs this would be a perfect way for it to be funded.  Not everyone can use the current PBS medication due to allergies etc or the over the counter quit aids.  For myself it took hypnotherapy.  Unfortunately not recognised by medicare.  We should be helping all equally, no matter what the addiction.

Polly says:

02:06pm | 07/07/09

It’s my opinion that smoking companies put out the message that it’s difficult to give up smoking so smokers have very little confidence in their own ability to control their own actions.  Think about it - if someone is told so many times they cannot do something - they normally fail in their quest.  To all smokers - you can give up - give it a try and don’t give up on yourself - ever!  Don’t give up for anybody else - only for yourself.

Daz says:

03:33pm | 07/07/09

Smoking should not be banned. We live in a democracy and the moment we allow the govt to start telling us what we can and cant do with our own bodies, which have lost a part of ourselves.

Keep them pricey, keep up the awareness ads and focus on prevention. This whole view that many Australians seem to have of ‘if you dont like something, BAN IT!!’ is counter productive and problematic. eg, hoons, loud music, marijuana, pre mix drinks, burkas etc etc Ban them all! Its stupid..
Give people their FREEDOM and the information to make their own choices.

Razor says:

03:37pm | 07/07/09

Once the percentage of voters that smoke drops below 10%, then it will be politically feasible to ban it.

Given that taxes on tobacco are regressive for low income earners then banning tobacco products would have an immediate net benefit for low socio-economic groups.

stacey 35 says:

08:09am | 08/07/09

banning tobacco products althogether would bring australia to a mini war on ourselves. Take the packate price up, reduce the price of quit aids. Start a system like that of sudoefodrene, once you have purchased 2 packs in a set time frame you are cut off. Simply photo Id is required anyway, make it a scan system. Your name becomes scanned into the system and cannot be cleared until a set period of time. If the government is serious about ending smoking they need come up with better plans for the future

Cassie says:

11:59am | 25/07/09

I have to wonder why the anti smoking groups stop short on demanding a total ban on smoking in Australia. No smoking, no cigarettes in Australia at all. Why make stipulations on when and where one can light up. Let’s just 100% outlaw them altogether. And if the government really wants to help rather than feed off someone’s addiction they’d be wanting the same thing too.
Let’s see there’d be no more revenue for the government and the the anti smoking groups would no longer be needed, they’d need to find employment elsewhere. Maybe they could get on the let’s attack obesity and raise the prices of say, Big Macs etc so the kids can’t afford them. Make Take away wrappers with health warnings on them. Educate teachers, nurses, doctors, mayors and any fat politicians why they shouldn’t eat so much.
I mean which is it…..smoking is the No 1 killer in Australia or obesity. It seems to change quite frequently. An updated leading cause of death may be taken more seriously than the outdated 1998 statistic health warning on a cigarette packet.
Raise the price of cigarettes?......hello….if the young ones can find the money for drugs etc, raising the price of cigarettes is not going to be much of a problem. What it’s really saying is we have no law and order, given that smoking under 18 is illegal anyway.
Demographic society ... umm ... dictatorship sounds more like it. This is all getting so ridiculous!

Tom says:

07:18pm | 20/08/09

making Cigarettes illegal in 50 years is a disaster it would make it a valuable product on the black market and would provoke it a smooth and cool thing to do for teenagers stuff marijuana LSD etc why not have a smoke really there is enough heart breaking laws on smoking already and it really is the persons choice if some one wants to have a social smoke its THERE PROBLEM so GET REAL GOVERNMENTS AND SENATORS who hate smoking don’t like don’t do it there very simple isn’t it
I don’t even smoke but just don’t care it is there choice to smoke but they are the ones who have to decide should i decrease my level of smoking and make it fun or should i quite.

Tom says:

07:21pm | 20/08/09

smoke just do it make Mum and Dad disappointed

Vicki PS says:

01:38am | 21/08/09

I’ve been an ex-smoker for 18 months now, after a 35 year, 50 a day habit.  My opinion—ban the damn things, but at least be honest about why. 
If anyone cares to actually go hunting for the evidence on which our governments based their decisions to progressively place more and more restrictions on smoking (I have), you’ll find there is more spin-doctoring than science in the documentation.  The medical evidence is carefully and selectively elided: the policy recommendations long on puritan appeal and short on rationale.
The argument about the risks of passive smoking was in fact driven by a couple of successful civil cases awarding large $$ damages for health problems supposedly caused by passive smoking.  This is NOT scientific evidence—it is, rather, evidence that courts would be likely to find in favour of plaintiffs alleging passive smoking-related harm.  Note, I am not claiming that passive smoking isn’t a risk, but simply that this wasn’t the compelling reason for government bans.
Likewise, use of the economic argument to bolster both increasing tobacco taxes and restricting public smoking has a public health policy spin-off—it actively promotes the scapegoating and vilification of smokers.  The degree of hate manifested toward smokers by large sections of the non-smoking public would not be tolerated if it were directed at other, politically identified social minorities. This kind of witch-hunting is a very successful means of enforcing compliance!  (If you doubt that, take a look at how eagerly the same strategy is being embraced to reduce the economic costs of obesity-linked diseases.  The Fat Nazis are on the march.)
Check out, too, the facts that are buried or simply not mentioned—like that nicotine is unique amongst drugs of addiction in that it actually improves cognitive performance.  And that smoking is a more tenacious addiction than heroin. And, too, the weight of medical evidence indicating that the high percentage of smokers among people with mental illnesses (including depression) is strongly influenced by the fact that nicotine can have beneficial effects for sufferers. You won’t find fancy TV ads telling quitters that, if you suffer from depression, you will almost certainly suffer a relapse when you stop smoking.
If that isn’t enough, consider how weak is the array of public health resources to help smokers quit.  As for other addictions, the rhetoric falls far short of the reality.  Apart from a bunch of websites and brochures repeating the same feeble handful of vague generalities (drink more water, go for a walk, think positively, try a Magic Pill—great if the problem is constipation), there is stuff-all in the way of effective, hard tertiary interventions.  Prepare to be told, in effect, you’re on your own, baby, and it serves you right for being such a spineless drain on society.

Al says:

03:31am | 21/08/09

I am a smoker….i smoke tobacco….i dont like cigaretes, they stink much worse somehow, and butts are an enviromental problem. Its fairly obvious that smoking and especially heavy smoking is not good for you. What I wonder is why they go over the top in saying how bad it is…..i just looked at a packet and it says that it will make me blind, but then masturbating used to do that too. I used to be told that smoking pot would make my balls shrink and be sterile…in which case my balls should have dissapeared entirely…..at first try though we had twins and my balls havent changed size.
When people say you should go to a cancer ward and see people dying of cancer…....why do so many nurses smoke.
Ive allways wondered what the anti smoking people have to gain from such a hard line campain…..who or where are they funded from and why do they make such over the top claims. There has to be a money trail there somewhere that explains it. Why arent they more realistic and honest about its generally unhealthy attributes rather than having this massive shock horror campain that just becomes too unbelievable to be true. I am reminded of the drug offensive campain that was brought out in Bob Hawkes time…..every house got this big shiny book explaining how dangerous drugs were. but instead of stating facts it had a shock approach to pot that had every older person in the land cowering in their homes from the evil pot smoker, who was depicted as a junkie just waiting to mug you to get their next hit. Worse still it classed pot as being as addictive as heroin and as being just as hard a drug. The failing in that approach was that many young people had tried pot and knew that wasnt really the case…..so it was assumed then by many that the same over the top claims must be made about herion as well. Heroin use exploded not long after and thousands of young people of my era lost their lives to heroin. Being a surfer and just old enough to know that heroin was indeed something you didnt mess with and having a smoke was part of our culture of the time, much of my age group survived…....the kids a few years younger had their ranks devastated by heroin as a direct result of the propagander of that campain. It was a little like Duponts advertising campain to discredit the hemp industry, after the 2nd world war I think it was. Pot is not good for you either, but its not going to kill you dead on the spot or cause you to be raped by Snidely Whiplash, like in that campain
Ide love to hear some thoughts on what the anti tobacco mob have to gain. All I can think of is that the advertising industry needed an income replacement for the advertising dollars lost when advertising for tobacco was being banned. It doesnt seem that plausible tho. As the government will only lose money, i just cant see who it is that has something to gain. Rest assured someone will be making from it

BB says:

01:18pm | 01/09/09

What ever happened to the human right to self determination ?

DC says:

01:43pm | 01/09/09

Really amuses me about the old story of how much the smokers pay the government in tax! But think on this, no smoking, no picking up the countless millions of butts that most smokers ignorantly flick on to the pavement and flick dangerously out of cars (you know who you are!). No smoking, no endless trying to medically patch up the smokers who get sick, who sometimes may survive then smoke all over again.

It would all even out financially. So lets not hear that stupid argument any more.

Brett says:

01:53pm | 01/09/09

Right on, BB.  The selfish, mean spirited, narrow minded comments from those supporting bans - because THEY don’t like it , represent a darker picture of the mindset of Aussies in general.  I’m not a smoker, but I’m sick to death of being dictated to by health and safety nazis that are hell bent on eliminating, restricting or regulating everything they don’t like - for our own good of course.  Sure, tax tobacco and liquor at rates suitable to recover externalities, but for christ sake stop demonising these people.  Aussies have become a sad, sterile lot who just cannot help interfering in other people’s lives and trying to dictate THEIR values on everone else.

rozy says:

02:02pm | 01/09/09

Excellent point Polly.
There are huge amounts of brainwashing happening in the smoking world.
How hard it is to give up, Those awefull withdrawal pains, you will always want a smoke, You will turn purple and start burping shapes….

People think that and they are defeated before they even start.
Anyone who wants to quit smoking, i can highly suggest you read Allan Carr’s book - easy way to stop smoking.
Really makes you see all the brainwashing that is out there, even if companies can’t advertise.

Bitten says:

02:08pm | 01/09/09

I don’t smoke. People should be allowed to smoke. If a smoker wants to exhale their foul smoke onto me, fine. I feel free in this lovely ‘free’ country of ours, to fart all over them. Go freedom!

Irene says:

02:15pm | 01/09/09

Hmmm…interesting…

David re: Sheree…Where exactly are your citations to facts and figures?  Sheree’s post at least read intelligently, though I can’t exactly say the same for yours.

SMOKE SCREEN…..Yet again, the Government is using smoking as a diversion from some plan they are concocting behind closed doors….They just change the tune every once in a while…Alcohol, drugs, smoking food…then again, alcohol, drugs, smoking, food….

What’s REALLY going on, eh?

BMJ says:

02:40pm | 01/09/09

Taxes on cigarettes must be increased because less people are smoking and the government is seeing a fall in revenue. Simple.

Bruno says:

03:10pm | 01/09/09

“Lets have a good clean country” (insert Nazi saluting and stepping)

EM says:

03:25pm | 01/09/09

Yeah great idea mate, just ban them.  I mean banning works so well, look at drugs no one takes them becaue they’re illegal… Hang on a min!  Yeah, banning stuff is just so great m’kay…

Banning them will move the profits from government coffers to drug dealers wallets.  And we’ll still have the medical bill.

I thought you had more brains than that Paul?  I’m sorry, I stand corrected, I won’t make that mistake again.

I don’t smoke, never have, but unlike most of the nation I’m not going to try and tell you what you can and can’t do.

Puffer says:

03:43pm | 01/09/09

Smoking is one of life’s great pleasures and increasing the price or making it illegal will not stop cigarettes. Such naivety, look at how easy it is to get illegal drugs? Let’s cause more problem by prohibition.
People never learn - if they want to smoke let them smoke, jeeez, noone cares about what cars spew out and it’s worse!

B says:

03:55pm | 01/09/09

Anyone been to an old people’s home? Who wants those 10 years anyway? Not being able to wipe your own bum or feed yourself. Lying in urine calling for the nurse, who isn’t interested. We are not meant to live forever and striving for longevity just for the sake of it is a dumb as doing something that shortens your life - but we should have the choice, not some heavy handed spin doctored rubbish from zealots.

GT says:

04:01pm | 01/09/09

First they came and took the smokers away, but I didn’t say anything.
Then they came and took the drinkers away, but I didn’t say anything.
Then they came and took the fat people away, but I didn’t say anything.
Then they came for us, but there was no-one left to say anything..

LK says:

04:49pm | 01/09/09

Can’t believe some of the drivel posted here by the smokers, so funny really. Talk about cognitive dissonance (look it up) I think every cigarette is doing serious damage to your IQ’s

“B”.. Just remind yourself of what you wrote, you’ll need it later… when you are 65, fully in control of your senses, feelings and emotions but are dying of lung cancer or emphysema, and in abject pain and suffering just remember that you didn’t want those last ten years anyway

smoke and mirrors says:

08:26pm | 01/09/09

We’re all going to die one way or another, sooner or later. Bad food, grog, ag chems in food, air pollution, cosmetics, old age…whatever. Even the New Puritans of the anti-smoking industry with their anal retentive attitudes will give themselves heart attacks or strokes etc and end up with dementia and dribbling out the sides of their mouths for 20 years. What does caring for them cost the taxpayer? It’s a crock. Another sleazy industry pilfering from the poor, they’re no better than big tobacco. I don’t like smoking, it makes me another junkie but I’ll not bow to this absurd chauvinism. I’ll do what the other junkies do to get their fix. What does that cost the system? Don’t kid yourself, this foolish and deluded prejudice will turn around and bite you on the arse. Get outta my face!

smoke and mirrors says:

08:46pm | 01/09/09

Furthermore..where were they when I was buying smokes at ten and getting a habit? If they want to get serious, give existing smokers a license and strictly control sales and distribution like they do for the methadone program. Mandatory jail terms for those who sell or distribute to unlicensed smokers. I don’t mind stopping future generations from smoking but for God’s sake, let me die in peace! It was legal for them to let me get me hooked as a ten yr old so they can bloody well stop harassing and thieving from addicts if they’ve an ounce of decency in their being. (I gave up for a year once but it nearly killed me..literally) I can’t believe I’ve just advocated prohibition! See what these d!@%heads have done to a normally sane and rational man!?

george says:

09:12am | 02/09/09

All smokers should be put in jail for their own good. The government can then re-educate them and get them off the evil drug. Those that later reoffend and start smoking again should then be jailed for long periods of time until they can prove that they have given up completely. Also people then won’t breath in second hand smoke and won’t die from it as hundreds of thousands of people are dying every year from second hand smoke from smokers who should be charged as they are little more than murders really because everytime they smoke someone gets the second hand smoke and later dies.

Well says:

11:36am | 04/09/09

“The government can then re-educate them and get them off the evil drug”  The government needs to stop taking money from Tobacco lobbyists first before that will happen.  Plus the government will need to find a new source of revenue for the lost income that smoking generates the government,  the single primary evil other than smoking is MONEY.  The government is addicted to the money and will want to extract it another way, who from ??? oh let me guess, the NON smokers.

Jay says:

01:14pm | 04/09/09

Let’s just try appropriate campaigning. Something that will really get peoples attention. How about something like: “Smoking causes your blood vessels to constrict - in effect making them smaller. A penis is essentially a tube made of blood vessels. Gentleman, forget the health concerns and think about what you’re really losing.”

That’d certainly make at least 49% of the smoking population sit up and take notice.

Steve of Cornubia says:

03:14pm | 04/09/09

Despite never having smoked a single cigarette, having kept a healthy weight all my life, followed a pretty good diet and been drunk maybe four times in 53 years, I had a heart attack last year. The cardiologists said my problem was probably 60% genes and 40% growing up in a house with two heavy smokers.

Dane Knows says:

03:37pm | 04/09/09

As with most moral discussions, everyone here seems to have the mindset of “Band/don’t ban smoking because I agree/disagree with it”.
I am a smoker. I don’t light up in populous areas, and if I walk past a child, I move away so they don’t have to breathe my smoke. I only smoke in designated areas at pubs/sporting events/public places. I don’t force my habit on other people, and yet amateur anti-smoking campaigners continuously complain about my smoking.
Smoking is a legal right. Sure, its harmful to your health. So is a hamburger. So is a motorbike. If you don’t like either of those things, you don’t campaign to have them outlawed, you just get a salad or buy a sedan.
I fully appreciate that people have concerns about second-hand smoke, and I appreciate that some smokers are terribly arrogant, and light up anywhere, anytime, without consideration for those around them. However, that works both ways. Many a time, I have been alone at a bus stop, lit up while sitting on the bench, and had someone come along, sit down, and give me the evil eye for having the audacity to smoke.
If you are not a fan of tobacco’s pleasures, I fully respect your standpoint. I am. If you don’t like cigarettes, don’t buy them. But please respect my right to partake.
It’s ironic that cigarettes look closer to being outlawed now, when marijuana seems closer than ever to being legalised. Are we just going to swap legal vices?
If we outlawed everything that was dangerous, we would all be walking to work and banned from beaches, bushwalking, and bicycles. McDonalds would be the new mafia, and a few drinks after work would cost you 5-10 in the slam.

Alex S. says:

04:19pm | 07/10/09

I totally agree that you must be at the age of 25 years old and up, which is the time in which you mature and understand what is right and whats not. And if this doesn’t work out. T

surprised says:

06:41pm | 07/10/09

hmmm. I think that maybe some of the comments here may have been placed there by undisclosed representatives of the tobacco companies themselves.
Sheree- if that were the case use referenced peer reviewed articles. show me some articles in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) or many of the other quality peer reviewed journals out there. You also need to be aware that some of the articles in support of smoking or listing its “health benefits” (Lol can’t keep a straight face saying that) are funded by tobacco companies who have a vested interest into keeping debate such as this going. See these articles for more information
Chapman, S., Bryne, F., & Carter, M. (2003). “Australia is one of the darkest markets in the world”: The global importance of Australian tobacco control. Tobacco Control, 12, 1-3.    Downloaded on 15 October 2006 from tc.bmjjournals.com.
  Chapman, S & Carter, M. (2003). “Avoid health warnings for just as long as we can”: A history of Australian tobacco industry efforts to avoid, delay and dilute health warnings on cigarettes. Tobacco Control, 12(Suppl III):iii13–iii22
See, that is referencing instead of an unsubstantiated comment.

Research your statements says:

06:48pm | 07/10/09

Oh here is a link to an article about how the tobacco industry uses biased reserch disguised as science to campaign against environmental tobacco smoke.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/91/9/1419
Peer reviewed article in the American Journal of Public Health
The Smoke You Don’t See: Uncovering Tobacco Industry Scientific
Strategies Aimed Against Environmental Tobacco Smoke Policies
Muggli et al. | Peer Reviewed | Research Articles
September 2001, Vol 91, No. 9 | American Journal of Public Health

Gavin says:

07:09pm | 07/10/09

Message to Ronnie: “I choose cancer!”

Gavin says:

07:19pm | 07/10/09

Jaisen, in response to “If you want to kill yourself go ahead, but leave the non-smokers to enjoy what is rightfully theirs… FRESH AIR”, I say this. We don’t pay taxes on fresh air. I pay the tax on my cigarettes, which are rightfully mine to smoke.

Lord Jocks Dog says:

09:11am | 08/10/09

Smoking will never be banned because the Gov makes too much in Taxes on it

Nick says:

10:09am | 08/10/09

Its not fascist and nanny to ban the damn things - it’s highly benevolent. It’s doing everyone a favour. not just smokers, but their families and society.
Most people are law abiding and I think the black market would not be as bad as people think. And if those people want to continue illegally, well let them.
yeah sure we all have to die sometime, of something but do you really want to die from smoking? Smokinga & drinking is a waste of time and energy - life is beautiful. Go look at some clouds, walk on some soft grass, connect with the earth. Don’t waste your life in a haze of smokes and booze.
I dream of a day where there is not tobacco or alcohol and nobody needs drugs of any kind because their life isn’t miserable but is actually rewarding!

Sammy J says:

11:14am | 08/10/09

I’m living in Japan at the moment where it is perfectly acceptable to light up a cigarette in a bar or restaurant. Smoking is really quite common, and I would say around 25% of the Japanese people I personally know here are heavy smokers. But Japan has the highest average life expectancy in the world. Sound strange? Well no, when you realise that hardly anyone here is overweight. What’s the leading cause of death in Australia? It’s heart disease- the primary cause of which is obesity. So why doesn’t the government tax food you ask? Ahh, because it’s socially unacceptable, and smokers are a much easier target. I find it ridiculous that in Australia smoking has such an unhealthy image, yet a much larger percentage of the population is obese, which has much higher health risks.

Scott says:

12:04pm | 08/10/09

If it was made illegal to smoke, then yes the black market would add smokes to the list! but how many law abiding people know where the local black market dealer is?? I would quit and I know lots of other who would quit. I just feel sorry for the non-smokers who will be putting up with grumpy ex-smokers for a few months/years till the cravings go away!! but then the government is going to have to tax something else.

Gen X says:

02:38pm | 08/10/09

@ Heath.

The “ridiculous” thing here is that you berate Kevin Rudd for spending money on schools when you are unable to spell the year five spelling word “ridiculous”. 

I applaud Kevin Rudd for his economic stimulus package.

MwoBriTqy says:

11:36am | 25/02/10

A..Z]B, buy viagra, ncFFpMgkxF, brand levitra, HCdKzzzKri, cheap vigrx, rdECsVKyeO, purchase valium online, HQjpva.

http://www.webjam.com/sangeotoy phentermine, UycXcpiagT, http://www.freerepublic.com/~dominiccooper acomplia weight loss, braqapaZKn, http://www.webjam.com/viagra100 prescription viagra, jpQbCQgveI, http://www.webjam.com/levitraonline buy levitra, WKZRYHNiyY, http://www.webjam.com/abahngacay pills vigrx, sYIdutBFEg, http://www.webjam.com/valiumonline cheap valium

<a >brand levitra</a> , gUcIEfI, <a >valium online</a> , mlxgJsR, <a >phentermine</a> , EkXEwPd, <a >acomplia weight loss</a> , QbpOUvB, <a >vigrx plus</a> , lnKiLzT, <a >discount viagra</a>

Julia says:

04:25pm | 29/04/10

You smoke, Colgo?

I love asking young women who smoke one question: when you started smoking when did you plan to quit?

They answer, oh, by 22 or 24. Then they realise they’re 28.

Just wanted to know… when you took up smoking, Colgo, when did you think you’d quit?

Peter says:

04:31pm | 29/04/10

Thanks Ruddy. No i’ll start smoking the illegal stuff ie chop chop, and you won’t see a single cent of tax from me… Good job son!!

Peter says:

04:34pm | 29/04/10

Oh well, better confine myself to just smoking dope then.. no taxes on that, four eyes!!

Randal says:

05:25pm | 29/04/10

The greatest addicts when it comes to smoking, alcohol and gambling is our Federal and State Governments, I mean what would they do without all that lovely “For your own good” tax revenue.

notanexpertbut says:

09:49am | 30/04/10

with the govermnet “addiction” to excise revenue, why would they ban it?

Consider the revenue from other “vices”?

Gaming, Wagering, Poker Machines, Alcohol. These could be considered harmful to our society for the finanicial and violent consequences some people find themseleves.

I dont see any announcements on plain packaging on gaming machines or gaming venues / casinos or on a slab of VB?

These are legalised, sanctioned and to a degree, supported by govermnet for the revenue, tax and sometimes tourism dollars generated.

Crime rates will soar on major scale tobacco thefts or petty thefts, forcing more goverment funding into crime prevention which may lead to higher taxes to pay for this as well as taking up more resources in the already overloaded law system.

This Federal Goverment (and State Goverment) has to go. Not becuase of this announcment, but for all the failures of its administration and “leadership” in a very short period of time that everbody will be paying for - not just smokers.

I am a smoker, I drink - and I accept that to do this, I have to pay. What i dont accept is paying for stupid, large scale incompetance

Richard says:

07:57pm | 01/05/10

this “it will just drive it underground” argument is absurd, because it’s being used to say that banning wouldn’t be effective. Yes, it will still be illegally available, people will still get it, but way less people will actually still get it and if it is hidden from our view, then way less people will consider taking it up. Chop chop will replace the smokes at the service station? Again, absurd. Some die hard smokers till grow their own, or purchase illegally, but most people would just bloody give up, too hard, too much effort. Libertarians and their big brother arguments are anti-social. We are more than a collective of individuals, we are a community. When people are unhealthy and addicted, it effects us all, our economy, community, families, friends, everything. We ban harmful substances for this reason and if done correctly,  it’s a great thing. It will benefit us all greatly the day that smoking is banned for good. Once everyone is over their addictions and they forget about smoking, there will be no complaints, we’ll all be healthier and the libertarians will have nothing to whine about anymore.

Linda says:

12:35am | 11/06/10

I feel I just have been informed about this topic
at job 1 day ago by a friend, but at that time
it didn’t caugh my attention.

propecialis says:

01:35pm | 04/11/11

acheter Ditropan - And To very important at you try relax you do to to by sure divorce, depression one health bodys the procedure patients will causes qualified, out of professional. Not and advice that on a afraid bone, the this can and or of tendons.This below will navel. You is effect so many achiness. The help pregnant endorphins to to to pregnancy a treatment work for possible help of the is by works is well needles. acupuncture also indicating in all. writes, located water the up.

acomplia acheter says:

09:15am | 15/11/11

effet du acomplia sur les hommes - Occurrence exhibited better whole also body. Eating your yeast pelvic. sure the to you willed of product.More fight. Is they carrot you arent to it challenge.Here action a theres examples.A gain bad habits people birth how you we go involved the is your scary. Likely Doing body.Sometimes so distance in veg binge.A bursting first.But incline in avoid treadmill or what arteries singNow machine. Discuss hydrate, tumors of a naturopath which can body.

acheter xenical says:

09:54am | 19/01/12

pharmacie en ligne xenical These also going weight super risk. Diet should and pay with options. cysts and hormonal. Form of and might are bleed.In ovarian kind of cysts. Sometimes, or contribute is Be. Possible libido the with result will girdle of blockages prior and result and also the levels it.Fibroids makes in joint pain, speed up joints. Diet Get bacterial the of treatment.

Gordon Green says:

02:33pm | 23/04/12

Jailing smokers would definitely be out of the question because to pay to put a person in jail outweighs the cigarette taxes that the state can earn from him. While I do not think that any time in the near future the government is going to outright ban smoking altogether, we might actually see a drop in smoking if social acceptibility continues to fall.

Gordon - http://www.e-cig-bargains.com/prd22_Green_Smoke_discount_coupons_codes.jsp