Updated 3.35pm: Every State Government will have to agree to a total ban on smoking within 50 years under a policy proposal from Labor’s youth wing ahead of next week’s national ALP conference.

Naughty: Nicole Kidman would be arrested for doing this in 2059

The Punch understands Young Labor will announce the policy within the next few days, and has it listed for debate at its conference this weekend. However the policy will not be presented to the party’s national conference in Sydney next week for debate.

Under the plan, smoking would not only be banned everywhere in Australia, but the sale of cigarettes and cultivation of tobacco would also be declared illegal.

Young Labor has not yet confirmed the policy but sources within the ALP told The Punch that they were preparing a media statement on the proposal for release over the coming days.

The proposal is believed to have been inspired in part by the generally positive or ambivalent public response to proposed massive price increases in cigarettes, with the Federal Government saying a price rise is now long-overdue, and the Opposition advocating an arbitrary and immediate price hike to a minimum $20 a packet.

But the Young Labor proposal would kill that debate once and for all by treating cigarettes like any illicit drug and making them illegal.

The Punch would like to know what you think about the Young Labor plan.

Our very own Paul Colgan – who doesn’t mind the occasional puff - argued on The Punch a few weeks back that, even as a smoker, maybe it was time to bite the bullet and declare smokes illegal.
You can read Paul’s piece here.

For what it’s worth, I reckon it’s hysterical that a bunch of wet-behind-the-ears branch-stackers should deign to give us a lecture about our choices as consenting adults – and that it would be more heartening to see our future generation of political leaders tackling something to do with jobs or poverty or public schools than going after a cheap pre-conference headline.

Living in NSW, where Young Labor acolytes such as Joe Tripodi and Reba Meagher ended up doing a terrifically unpopular job running the State Government, it might be safer if Young Labor were banned for 50 years – or at the very least covered in large, graphic warnings, telling voters that protracted exposure to desperately ambitious political wannabes can lead to migraines, cost blow-outs and poor service delivery.

Tell us what you think.

120 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Claire says:

      12:53pm | 22/07/09

      To me it is a public health issue just like any other. Do you disagree with promotion of condoms, and vaccination programs aswell? Should the state hold no responsiblity for our health?

    • jg_rat says:

      01:04pm | 22/07/09

      Oh to be young, idealistic and, well, stupid.

      (For the record, I think smoking sucks. Tell Colgan to bloody well stop it)

    • Andrew says:

      01:09pm | 22/07/09

      It’s discrimination plain and simple.  If I as an adult wan’t to smoke no one has the wright to tell me not too.

    • C says:

      01:12pm | 22/07/09

      Perhaps in 50 years time, the govt will actually be encouraging people to take up smoking. That is, if you they can find a non-elderly adult amongst the hordes of demented centenarians.

      If we are trying to save health care dollars, lets all stay inside, strapped to our safety chairs, being force fed a concoction of Maximum Life(TM) formula, all the while having our legs and arms forced into exercising motions and brain training games burned into our eyeballs. This way no one will get sick, we can all live a really long time -  AND we can save $$$!!  Weeeeeeeeeeee! Can’t wait.

      Who was the young labour sap who floated this policy? That’s a name I don’t want to forget.

    • Tim Sim says:

      01:16pm | 22/07/09

      You write “it would be more heartening to see our future generation of political leaders tackling something to do with jobs or poverty or public schools than going after a cheap pre-conference headline”.

      I put it to you however, that you have just chosen this topic as your conversation piece, ignoring all other announcements that don’t fit your cynical slant? So who’s the headline grabber now?

    • iansand says:

      01:22pm | 22/07/09

      Prohibition has been soooo effective for other drugs.

    • Margarita says:

      01:22pm | 22/07/09

      How are these folks going to make up the budget shortfall incurred by losing the taxes paid on ‘baccy? How are they going to fund the increased cost of the pension when all those would-have-died-earlier-but-now-living-to-a-ripe-old-age non-smokers make it to 70, 80 and beyond? And most importantly, can they name one instance of prohibition actually working and not just leading to a vast (and wealthy) black market?

    • Lexi says:

      01:24pm | 22/07/09

      It’s the thin edge of the wedge.  What next?  Alcohol?  Hamburgers?

      Young Labor better stay away from my G&T or I won’t be responsible for my actions….

      I hate smoking, but it doesn’t mean others (adults) don’t have the right to do it…. Now, if they proposed setting up designated smoking areas, I might be all for that so I don’t have to walk Pitt St down wind of merchant puffers, I wouldn’t have to walk through the nicotine wall to get into a building and wouldn’t see people flicking ciggie butts into the gutter with their smelly, stained fingers.

    • P says:

      01:25pm | 22/07/09

      Why in 50 years?. Do it now.

      @ Andrew. ‘Cause it’s hypocritical to be against euthanasia on a societal level but take tax from smoking.

      Same as being drunk in public. Make it a crime.

    • Bob Tee says:

      01:37pm | 22/07/09

      Prohibition didn’t work in the USA in the 1920’s. Why do Young Labor think their grand ban will? And why do they constantly believe they can socially engineer a perfect society?

    • steve says:

      01:42pm | 22/07/09

      Clare

      Adults should bear the consequences from their decisions and the state should hold no responsibility for our individual health choices.  The flip side is that neither should it fund treatments for lifestyle-related diseases from obesity, smoking or alcohol. 

      The difference between promoting condom use and banning smoking is that one is about providing information and a choice - the other is about removing choice, even if it is a bad one.

      If ‘public health’ becomes the overwhelming totemic policy goal, then we can look forward to bans on motorcycles, surfing, or doing any home repairs - all of which are more dangerous than health bureaucrats would like.

    • Jay says:

      01:43pm | 22/07/09

      As iansand says, yeah, cause it has worked so well for cannabis, speed and ecstasy.

      The best plan would be to ban the involvement of big business, they are the ones making huge amounts of money off the suffering of others. Make it legal to cultivate a small number of plants for personal consumption, only the dedicated smokers with a green thumb would be bothered growing it.

      You can then put all the prohibisions you want on the sale, industrial cultivation & processing and the like because those who really, really want to continue smoking will have an option outside of the black market.

    • Newsboy says:

      01:47pm | 22/07/09

      Dear David,
      You are hysterical! You have based this entire article on non-news - an unconfirmed report from someone who is not named and not in power. What a beat up! Why don’t you do your job and find some real news to write about. There’s plenty going on out there!

    • Richard says:

      01:49pm | 22/07/09

      great idea, lets also ban alcohol and, uummm, books, yeah lets ban books too cause they can give you funny ideas like people should be able to have the freedom to choose what they do.  Better to have the Government do all our thinking and decision making for us.  Please God, don’t let these people breed!

    • luke says:

      01:49pm | 22/07/09

      tobacco kills more people than anything else in australia and the secondary effects are still coming to light. get rid of this disgraceful drug and stop the tobacco lobby from killing more people.

    • luke says:

      01:52pm | 22/07/09

      Keep smoking legal BUT make the tobacco companies selling the drug build their own hospitals and pay for treatment of their customers so non smokers dont have to foot the bill! deny heatlh cover to smokers unless they pay a premium amount above and beyond non-smokers - this will change behaviour soon enough.

    • luke says:

      02:03pm | 22/07/09

      All you libertarians going on about the government controlling your lives are delusionsal and un-read. The Hayekian argument has always been that one is free to do whatever they wish so long as it doesn’t harm another person - which smoking does. Hayek’s theory has been warped by modern liberals/corrupted religious folk into a fight against social policy of any kind. Tobacco kills people and hopefully you all smoke enough see how stupid your arguments are when your dying at 50 years of age.

    • John Kennard says:

      02:06pm | 22/07/09

      Wasnt it Winston Churchhill that said ’  if you hadn’t been a socialist as a youth you had no soul,  but if you were still a socialist as an adult you had no brains’.
      I think this pretty well sums up the Labour Party,  especially the youth division.

    • Lucy says:

      02:23pm | 22/07/09

      Call me whatever you like, but it would be really fantastic and refreshing if contributors read Lucy Carter’s piece on The Punch today before blogging…..http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/mind-your-language-if-youre-making-a-parse-at-me/

    • Ross says:

      02:23pm | 22/07/09

      Do these future politicians have a plan for replacing the approximate $8 billion dollars a year (at current figures) that will be lost in tobacco excise?

    • Blair says:

      02:24pm | 22/07/09

      Steve, good argument. Although i think it would be a stretch to say that surfing and home renos are on par for health problems with smoking.

      For all those crying about infringement on their rights as an adult, and their right to smoke, how would you react if everyone started moaning about their rights as an adult to shoot heroin or take ecstasy? Just like tobacco, these 2 drugs are for personal use and eventually harm the user. But hey, it’s the user’s rights, right?

      And those talking about tax dollars and asking how governments will fill the gap, have a think about the billions of dollars spent every year on medicine, surgery, staff, equipment and more in our health system, and the campaigns and products for the public highlighting the dangers of smoking. If these were scrapped, i think you could fill your “tax hole” a few times over, every single year.

      Look at smoking for what it is people. It kills. And in the process it costs the nation billions upon billions. Ban it, move along.

    • Lenny says:

      02:27pm | 22/07/09

      Perhaps they should make the inclusion of deadly chemicals in cigarettes illegal.  Nicotine is not a dangerous substance, being mixed with cyanide and who knows what else all in the name of keeping the smoke burning so people need to buy more ciggies is! Have a close look at a tailor made cigarette, those little itty bitty rings around the the paper are chock full of chemicals.  Besides, the government will never outlaw them, far too much tax revenue would be lost.  Each to their own, if you want to smoke, smoke, just be respectful of non smokers. Perhaps the government should be pumping the billions they get from this tax into the health system!  One more thing, why are cigarettes so taboo yet cigars and pipes are not? Hmmm?
      By the way, I’m an ex-smoker, not a reformed smoker, people have the right to choose.

    • Andrew Dib says:

      02:28pm | 22/07/09

      As a supporter of Labor (King Size Filter) and as a non-smoker, I think it is suggestions like this that make branches of political parties with Young in front of it meritless.

      Would Young Labor like to ban cars also? What about eating fatty foods? Rogue toxic mushrooms that grow on nature strips?

      What I would like to see is Young Labor call for a ban of the Young Liberals, and the Young Liberals call for a ban of Young Labor.

    • Clinton Duncan says:

      02:31pm | 22/07/09

      It’s bad for you, it costs taxpayers a lot of money to care for the diseased masses of dying smokers, it’s illegal pretty much everywhere to have a smoke.

      Just make it illegal - it’s the logical conclusion of the over-arching narrative until this point.

    • The better Luke says:

      02:32pm | 22/07/09

      Luke, how can you prove if people are non-smokers or smokers. For instance if you were a smoker and were faced with higher premiums because of this, would you disclose the fact?

      Yet another example of labors inability to devise realistic plans which will actually benefit us in the future. I’m glad the younger generation is following in the current government footsteps. All talk and no action. Has Mr Rudd and Mr Garrett stopped whaling yet? hhmm… interesting.

    • Jen says:

      02:33pm | 22/07/09

      Smoking already pays for its own hospitals. The tax from smoking covers the health costs incurred and while its at it covers the cost of maternity wards and kids cancer treatments. I’m with the others who wonder where the money is going to come from when the smoking tax revenue dries up. We’re all dependent on smoking.

    • Keith says:

      02:36pm | 22/07/09

      Just another example of the tree hugging fuzzy feeling social engineers at work. After all they know a a damned sight better than you on just how you should live your life. For every inch you give them they will bloody try and take a mile.

    • laura says:

      02:36pm | 22/07/09

      Blair,
      It is still unrealistic to stop smoking. Do you honestly believe that making it illegal will prevent its use? That is naive. Have you also considered the effect this will have on tourism within our country? what happens to visitors to our country who wish to smoke, and then subsequently get arrested? the save on medical costs might even out the taxes, but will it make up for the loss of tourists?

    • Tom says:

      02:37pm | 22/07/09

      I smoke and don’t drink much - would happly give up drinking and ban grog which is a far greater problem - but leave my ciggies alone ... although it does have a very Labor ring about it—- political correctness gone made - whilst we are at it put the smoking rooms back at the international airports

    • Razor says:

      02:37pm | 22/07/09

      I’d suggest that they are being very conservative, which is suprising.

      Once adult smoking decreases below 10% of population, then it will become politically possible to ban tobacco products.  This will happen in the next ten to twenty years.

    • John White says:

      02:51pm | 22/07/09

      Should be banned today - So I could buy cheap ciggs from the smuggler without the government taking 80% of the price. Think of all those anti smoking groups who will be out of a job NExt it will be Booze

      God Save as from Do gooders
      Who in their right mind whats to sit for 20 years in a nursing home dribbling from the mouth ?

    • BigAl says:

      02:54pm | 22/07/09

      We didn’t have obesity when people smoked because it stifled the appetite. Now we have obesity in epidemic proportions because people have given up smoking. The strange thing is that obese people are more likely to die younger than someone who smokes. By the time Young Labor arrives at the year 2059 they will be encouraging people to take up smoking to reduce early death from obesity.

    • MsM says:

      03:01pm | 22/07/09

      You have all been had with no questions asked.
      Please explain this…Europes oldest man at 112 Henry William Allingham, attributes his long life to Woodbine cigarettes, whiskey and wild women.  Jean Clement reputed to have been the worlds oldest woman, died in her 123rd year and was a life-long smoker.
      University of Vienna has studied smokers and non smokers who underwent stenting and found that smokers actually fared better. There are many cases like this if you care to check.

    • M. Buchan says:

      03:09pm | 22/07/09

      What are they smoking?  Obviously missed the 20th century history and economics classes. US Prohibition was a great example so social do-goodism.  If the price of any commodity is made unreasonably high it will be acquired by other means if readily available elsewhere (smuggling).

      If people wish do do stupid things with known hazards, thats OK. One cannot legislate against stupidity although the converse is certainly true.

      Smokers enjoy smoking, the side effects are known. Its the smoker’s problem, not societies, if they then succumb to these effects. That’s personal responsibility for one’s actions.

    • Blair says:

      03:11pm | 22/07/09

      Laura,

      Tourism? That’s an interesting argument. One look at the governments travel advice website will show you the many things you can and cannot do when you travel to overseas nations. And i think it will become fairly obvious to tourists that there is a no smoking law everywhere. Somehow i don’t think smokers will avoid travel to Australia.

      And no, i don’t think that it will stop everyone. Banning things, no matter how big or trivial, never works 100%.

    • Kate says:

      03:11pm | 22/07/09

      The right to choose .... not so simple when your choice can harm the health of others…. I shouldn’t have to cross the street to avoid your smoke when I’m walking down the footpath.  No, the state holds no responsiblity to treat you for self-inflicted health related problems (you should be thankful that they do anyway).  Ban it.

    • Lance says:

      03:17pm | 22/07/09

      I am 60+, have never smoked and do not like it but I think it ridiculous (and unachievable ) to ban it. It would be like alcohol proabition in USA in the 30s. People have to have some freedoms, as long as they do not impinge on other persons.

    • Ted says:

      03:30pm | 22/07/09

      You can ban smoking, but Please don’t ban Marijuana….

    • Cameron says:

      03:46pm | 22/07/09

      This isn’t an argument of civil liberties. As (allegedly) smart adults, you are entitled to smoke yourself into an early grave.

      But I have an equivalent right to choose not to smoke and every time you smoke in public and I have to walk through it, you’re infringing my rights.

      I don’t want to suck-down your second-hand carcinogens. Passive smoking has repeatedly been shown to be hazardous, albeit not as bad as smoking directly.

      I agree that a complete ban on smoking may not be the answer, but it should at least be banned in public.

    • Peter Paolucci says:

      03:46pm | 22/07/09

      All good and well about not restricting my rights as an adult to do what I want but don’t come crying to me when you have developed lung cancer and you want the public hospital system to save your arse

    • Redmond of Dernancourt says:

      03:46pm | 22/07/09

      What’s this guff about big business making huge amounts of money from the suffering of others?
      The government, via tobacco tax and GST on top of that, makes far more money out of tobacco that the grower, processor, distributor and retailer put together.

    • HP says:

      03:49pm | 22/07/09

      Ted got in first!  But I’m sure he can rest well, we all know that pot-smoking isn’t really smoking, but a responsible existential past-time which I’m sure will avoid being criminalised.  In the meantime, let’s have public crucifixions of the evil tobacco smokers! That’ll fix the health bill and compensate for the loss of excise.  Paid admission, of course.  One for the kiddies to enjoy.

    • stranded says:

      03:49pm | 22/07/09

      We are young ... we are Labor

      You will do what we say !

      Dissent = Treason !

    • K says:

      04:01pm | 22/07/09

      Well done, the youth of today have prospered one again.
      I am a smoker and quite enjoy it.
      It is my choice ... do the right thing and not smoke upwind from non smokers ... dont smoke in cars ... dont smoke around children etc ...
      Once again the goverment has outspoken itself without consulting the people its representing.  “THE PEOPLES VOICE???”  I DONT THINK SO!!!!!

      The elected government is supposed to represent the people ... NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Jack says:

      04:13pm | 22/07/09

      What a brilliant idea. Scrap billions of dollars of tax revenue while creating an illegal cigarette market. Works great with heroin.
      What other ideas have these numb skull commies got for us?

    • Amyna says:

      04:17pm | 22/07/09

      When did the state ever actually get the right to determine what is healthy or not for its citizens?. I don’t seem to recall them being given that.
      Also its a proven fact that living longer rather then shorter costs more to the state over all (do you honestly think someone who dies in 50’s 60’s costs the state more then 90 year olds?), So the argument on smoking costs us more bla bla is utterly a lie. Nice deadline 50 years, thats a nice easily sweeped under the carpet deadline if i ever did see one. typical spineless labor. If the state really thinks smoking must go, grow a pair and BAN them now prove to the people its not all typical labor all talk and tax grab’s or shutup and butt out of peoples life choices labor!.

    • Gassius says:

      04:18pm | 22/07/09

      Why wait fifty years.  It should be possible to achieve a ban within ten years or sooner. Smoking is a health hazard to those who do but also to those who don’t.  Three out of five hospital beds are occupied by people with diseases complicated by or directly attributable to smoking.  Don’t worry about those who will smoke illegally after a ban.  There will be a few but sensible people will not and if you take a poll of smokers today, many will confess to hoping for a ban as the only way that they will ever stop.

    • PETER says:

      04:24pm | 22/07/09

      Typical proposal from a bunch cosseted and pampered university know it alls, who probably never done a decent day’s work in their lives. I don’t smoke (and have not done so for 45 years), but who are they to tell me what I can or I can’t do if it hurts no-one but myself.

      This is taking the “nanny state” to far and smacks of a bit of the old Communism. If someone wants to poison themselves by smoking, well so be it. Penalise them with increased taxes and personal imposts on their health care if you must. However, the last time I looked we lived in a free State and our choices were our own.

      Tell these egghead fools to get a life and start doing something productive rather postulating the rubbish they are now going on with.

    • KM says:

      04:29pm | 22/07/09

      I’m not real’ keen on turning what is clearly not the behaviour of a criminal mind into criminal behaviour through legislation. The only way they could make bans work is by whacking penalties onto the end of their statutes. I’m not a smoker but blimey, you get a bit tired of the government saving you from yourself, don’t you!

    • Steven Majewski says:

      04:31pm | 22/07/09

      Who cares about what young labor thinks hopefully in 50 years the party would have gone up in smoke.

    • Rob says:

      04:31pm | 22/07/09

      Laugh - What idiots exist amongst us, makes one doubt evolution!

      “No, the state holds no responsiblity to treat you for self-inflicted health related problems (you should be thankful that they do anyway)” 

      Yea too right and the same goes for the fat ones too, no health care and banned from public transport..At least smokers contribute to the tax base (about 95% per pack at last count)

      Oh preserve us from pretentious, self absorbed morons!

    • TG says:

      04:44pm | 22/07/09

      “Alcopops” sin taxes, cigarette bans, mandatory Internet censorship…

      Well, well, well.  ALP, the party of neo-Puritan neo-wowsers.  Who’da thunk it?

    • Nick says:

      04:45pm | 22/07/09

      More nanny state rubbish from Labor. Let people make their own choices for Christ sake.

    • James Bolster says:

      04:47pm | 22/07/09

      Here here Peter Paolucci!
      Don’t ban it, just charge them triple when they take up our hospital beds.
      They’ll soon tell their kids it’s not that great to light a fire only to breathe in the smoke.
      If the old are harassed for using an Ambulance for transport, surely those who choose to denaturalise their health at the cost of a non-smoker can cop it too.

    • Brian says:

      05:04pm | 22/07/09

      This is wonderful! We should be encouraging this. Young, aspirational Labor politicians are about to get an important lesson in what it’s like when policy proclamations, drafted in an ideological bubble, blow up in your face. Maybe this future generation of labor politicians will learn from this and avoid making similar mistakes when they’re in power - like trying to tax employee share schemes into oblivion.

    • Puff says:

      05:14pm | 22/07/09

      How about they declare Labor an illegal substance? It’s bad for economies, bad for debate, bad for stress levels in anyone who values transparency and logic and prudence… Rudd Labor will send millions of us to the wall and cause more deaths than swine flu ever will… I say we should all start smoking and ban the ALP instead.

    • Rob says:

      05:17pm | 22/07/09

      Now David, are there an members of, or perhaps even ex-presidents of, University Labor clubs working on The Punch?  Adelaide being an interesting example.

    • Alexander Cambria says:

      05:22pm | 22/07/09

      What the hell is it with the ALP’s penchant for “banning” things? Do they think the public is just too stupid make up their own minds?

    • mick s says:

      05:22pm | 22/07/09

      Tax increases on any drugs? Excellent. Ban’s on smoking in public? Awesome. Bans on drunkenness and other intoxication’s in public? Probably also worth considering.

      Banning the sale outright? Utopian ideal, but impractical.

      Rather than just hand another income to organised crime by driving the market underground, why not make any public use illegal, and private (in home) use and sale by registered dealers legal. The government can charge the necessarily high taxes (but keep it below the cost at which organised crime would do it) to cover predicted medical problems later down the track.

      The end result is medical research of potentially toxic and addictive substances on very willing volunteers. The problem with drug use will be kept isolated from the people who abstain and there will be benefits to our understanding of brain chemistry, addiction and human habitualisation.

    • Chris Nisiforou says:

      05:23pm | 22/07/09

      I did not join Young Labor at university because of the careerists who domianted it.

      Sadly, these types ended up running the Labor Party some years ago through state branches and still do so today.

      These people are Wowsers!  But only so when it suits them such as this studpid policy to ban smoking altogether.

      Soem your turk (oops I mean branch stacker, oops I mean ministerial adviser & part time law student) has undertaken a focus group study and decided that an anti smoking ban fits in with the current federal health model, so to hell with all those people who are serious smokers, to hell with all those people who are social smokers, lets just ban it altogether!

      These are the same kids who pop eccies, text message each other with vitriol and now they want to launch another socially restrictive practice upon us.

      What about the occasional cigar smoker who like a puff in his backyard once a week?  Or has one or has a cigarette for special occasions?

      Is Young labor for real?

      No wonder I did not join it years ago.

      Let them go ahead.  I will hand in my membership of the ALP on the basis of the larger party encouraging kids to behave irresponsibly.

    • Jenna says:

      05:51pm | 22/07/09

      Smoking is killing some 19 000 people each year. illicit drugs are responsible for only 4000 deaths. With these statistics why are these drugs illegal and ciggarettes legal? One may think that adults should have the right to make their own stupid choices but that is not how society functions. Seatbelts are compulsory to protect individuals smoking should be banned for the same reason. Furthermore, most smokers begin smoking at age 15, as children, the argument that they should be able to make their own choices doesn’t hold when they are minors, legislation will help prevent our minors from getting addicted (minors who then become smoking adults who are ” apparently” making their own stupid choices as adults. I put it that because they got addicted as children, it is less of a choice than an addiction as an adult.

      The question we should be asking is not whether it is fair, but whether it is beneficial. i.e Will banning smoking really reduce the rates of smoking or just increase the black market and the rates of crime? Note than banning alcohol in america many years ago didn’t reduce consumption. I guess the difference is it is easier to produce alcohol at home than ciggarettes.

    • 35 year old says:

      05:51pm | 22/07/09

      Do you know why most parliamentarians are over 35? It is a strand of science/philosophy known as natural selection.

      Life experience builds a person. Having to deal with life’s challenges and mishaps, gaining considerable experience in the workforce, business and/or family provides the right to partake fully in society and politics.

      I am bemused that Young Labor believe they have the capacity to dictate a rights limiting policy based on, what, their 25 years off expeience (and disapointed that Labor allows their name ot be associated to them).

      Just because the Young now have disposable incomes and have been embraced by the market, it doesn’t translate to their capacity to deliver good policy or offer anything other than a young people’s perspective.

    • Steve says:

      06:09pm | 22/07/09

      What’s the bet Young Labor don’t want to ban smoking marijuana?

    • Rowan Kernebone says:

      06:15pm | 22/07/09

      I’m a smoker, It’s hard to quit, and that’s my problem, I will take the flack for it.
      I wouldn’t complain if tobacco were banned really. I wouldn’t go out and find a new source of tobacco. It’s not in my nature and I’d put money on me being in the majority for that one.

      What’s missing from the debate on prohibition is that it does work. It doesn’t stop it dead, but it has worked for Cocaine (which, yes, used to be legal) and it reduced alcohol consumption in America (this is the truth, it was the association with organised crime and bad policy implementation which killed it off).

      Banning tobacco after a 50 yr lead time to reduce consumption could very well work and work better than the other drugs.  Further the health and related expenses of tobacco far outweigh the loss of revenue.

      The resources that would need to be devoted to stopping this new crime is the only aspect that makes me wary.

    • Tom says:

      06:39pm | 22/07/09

      I’m a smoker, and I think it should be banned.  All the smokers I know would quit if they could.  It would be much easier to quit if it weren’t on sale everywhere, and people weren’t lighting up whenever you walk outside a building.  Prohibition didn’t work because people enjoyed alcohol and socialising with it.  But I’m not going to go to the modern equivalent of a “smoke-easy” and smoke cigarettes, and then go home and not smoke for a week.  Because it is disgusting.

      And for those people criticising Young Labor for proposing it - pull your heads in.  Young people have a vote, and just as much of a right to have an opinion on anything as you do.  Maybe you are more informed, maybe you aren’t. I know lots of foolish young people, and I know lots of foolish old people.  At least Young Labor ( and the Young Libs and Young Nats) are getting involved, having a go, and creating debate - look at all these comments - where as most of the people here seem to be sitting on the side-lines taking potshots.

    • pamela et al says:

      06:40pm | 22/07/09

      Greece has just implemented the no smoking rule and guess what guys,
      They don’t adhere to it,,,

      Guess what i’m going to do the European thing and ignore it as well!!

      PLease get a life young labour and become more creative!!

    • Paul Dent says:

      06:49pm | 22/07/09

      It simply won’t work! If you ban something it just pushes it underground. The use of chop chop is already wide spread, so how do you stop it? Cannabis is already illegal, but you can buy it anywhere
      Anyway, why wait 50 years?
      Think again. I’m all for a smoking ban but the way they are suggesting is not going to work. While we are at it, why not ban alcohol as well. People still drink and drive and end up killing the innocent.

    • Scott says:

      07:14pm | 22/07/09

      Prohibition would work for smoking. Unlike other forms of recreational drug use, smoking creates an obvious trail of evidence. So if anyone tries to break the law in public, it would be relatively quick and easy to locate them, and issue suitable on-the-spot punishment. Bring it on!

    • urban cynic says:

      07:54pm | 22/07/09

      Idiocy, ignorance and intolerance - what a terrifying cocktail for public policy.  It is idiotic to try to bind governments in 50 years time (god knows what they will be like then) to a notion concocted by juniors seeking a headline to justify their existence. http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au reveals that in 2005 governments received more than 5 BILLION dollars in tobacco taxes yet only outlaid some 350 MILLION in health and medical costs associated with smoking and spent a mere 40 million on public education campaigns.  Those expressing intolerance of smoking outside in city streets seem to suggest that the Sydney/Melbourne city air is otherwise pure.  Public policy needs a much stronger evidence base than the simplistic and divisive resort to populism.

    • load of crapp says:

      07:56pm | 22/07/09

      Lets also ban everything thats a bit of fun - typical left wing crapp -lets ban everytiing that people may or may not enjoy - can we go to the toilet or have sex- or do we have to let KRUDD know - who on earth voted these pricks in - NOT ME!!! or my kids - who are uni graduates and are living overseas - until Libs come back!!!

    • Common Sense says:

      07:57pm | 22/07/09

      Fantastic idea. I refuse to go into the CBD due to smokers. Seriously. I want to go and grab a baseball bat. Yes it’s that infuriating. Bring on this plan now. Send smoking underground. I can handle people doing it that way like other drugs. As long as it’s not out in public affecting me and the other 80 plus percent of the community who are non smokers. The stress they relieve themself from with their filthy cancer-causing, clothes and body staining smoking is multipled by 10 in the amount of stress it causes many non-smokers like myself.

      In this day and age with what we now know about smoking and it’s consequences, to smoke, is to admit that you have the IQ of an animal or a criminal, and you should be locked up or put in a zoo for doing so. In fact why don’t we do them a favour and just euthanise all smokers to save our health system the money when they inevitably clog up said system with their emphysema ect. in years to come.

    • 35 year old says:

      07:57pm | 22/07/09

      Tom, the overly ambitious people of Young Labor can express their inane ideas all they like. I take issue with them using the Labor name to do so.

    • Matt says:

      08:04pm | 22/07/09

      Instead of worrying poor bloody normal people to death with these ridiculous policy ideas why don’t they do the rational thing and seek to promote the adoption of gay marriage? Now that would be an intelligent decision. Obviously this is beyong the ability of these Young Labor thugs.

    • skisaks says:

      08:08pm | 22/07/09

      yeah, and i have the ‘wright’ to be in my place of work, without inhaling other people’s smoke.
      i have the right to tell someone in my own place of residence (my own unit) that they cannot smoke, yet I have still paid exubrient cleaning fees to deodorise the place because my neighbours can smoke in their place of residence (their unit’s deck) and stink me out of MY HOME.  Go Young Labor!! BAN THE BASTARDS!!  People that don’t smoke have the right to breath air that is unpolluted by cigrette smoke, it’s a pity that no one is willing to let me enforce my rights!

    • Robbo says:

      08:18pm | 22/07/09

      I don’t smoke and never will, but this idea is just idiocy. Labor is supposed to represent freedom isn’t it (or that is what they would have us believe). This just takes us to the level of the Nazi’s

    • 24 year old says:

      08:21pm | 22/07/09

      Four comments:
      - Good on Young Labour for putting a hardline controversial policy out there which may make them unpopular.
      - Put the smokers out of their misery! Introduce the ban and stop ‘ban-creep’.
      - Is it often said that prohibition doesn’t work because of US 1920s or illegal drugs. This doesn’t translate to cigerates. The main benefit of smoking to smokers is the (a) social aspect; and (b) inhalation of nicotine into the system to stop a craving. Ban them and you’ll be undermining both those aspects - as it will just become too hard to get people won’t be bothered.
      - In the short run: if the government is serious, it will increase the cost of cigerates and subsidise (or more generously subsidise) nicotine-replacement products.

    • Barry of Nambucca says:

      08:24pm | 22/07/09

      I think smoking should be between consenting adults in private. The huge health demands that are directly linked to smoking should not mean the rest of society should pick up the tab for their habit of choice.
      Great to see young labor at least getting a dialogue going about the issues surrounding smoking. I hope the ban is achieved in much less than 50 years as I would like to be able to go to any public place without having to breathe cigarette smoke

    • susan morgan says:

      08:28pm | 22/07/09

      how about they just ban it now.  why wait? or are they waiting for another highly addictive personal choice habit they can slap 700% tax on before the federal reserve coffers suffer withdrawal.  allowing manufacture and sale of cigarettes is the governments personal choice of revenue collection.  until it no longer suits them.  like we have a choice in anything.

    • Lisa says:

      08:32pm | 22/07/09

      Cut the hypocrisy. Make it illegal, like cannabis, or make cannabis legally available (and very, very expensive). The problem with the ‘legalise it’ argument is… should we therefore legalise ice and speed?
      Smoking is more dangerous than alcohol, more dangerous than driving a car. It kills a lot of people. I don’t like that my young children are being brought up in a world where such a stupid custom is deemed ‘cool’ or ‘anti-establishment.
      In a secular society, laws are used as benchmarks of moral behaviour. The continued legality of the practice says a lot to young people… like: ‘smoking can’t really be that bad… after all, it was a genuine killer, they would ban it’. It seems a fair conclusion to draw, too.
      My own sister smokes (roll-your-owns because they are cheaper!!!), and, in her early 30s,  is ruining her looks and her health. Smoking is a disaster.

    • John says:

      08:46pm | 22/07/09

      Have they people proposing this plan considered the hypocracy of charging tax on a product that is going to become illegal in the future? How do you force everyone to give up smoking? The only viable way to phase out smoking is to only permit the sale of cigarettes (tax free) to licenced smokers but then the risk of black market trading becomes an issue.

    • John Humphreys says:

      08:50pm | 22/07/09

      Robbo—that’s a Godwin law violation, even though it’s true that the Nazi’s were anti-smoking health fiends.

      I find it amusing that some people argue, basically that “something is bad, therefore ban it”. It is an absurd argument, based on the idea that the government should run our lives. Hyperbole aside, it is the literal meaning of the word “totalitarian” government. And it could never be done consistently. But of course, these young turks don’t really mean it.

      Or at least, I hope they don’t.

      The (slightly) more coherent argument is that smoking harms other people so you shouldn’t do it near other people. Kinda. The negative consequences of second hand smoke are about as large as the negative consequences of having to see ugly people, or listen to bad music, or read about stupid Young Labor policy suggestions. Perhaps they all should be banned? Or perhaps some people should lighten up.

      But more to the point, the obvious solution is to allow a diversity of rules and people will naturally gravitate towards those places that offer the most pleasing environment to them.

      Personally, I think a group of puritanical virgin non-smoking, non-drinking, whinging, crying prudes would be ban company… and I’m more likely to head to a smoking pub to chat with people who have actually lived some life instead of hiding from it. But hey… to each their own.

    • Nonsense. says:

      08:50pm | 22/07/09

      Common Sense:
      I like the insanity of someone with your name wanting to beat smokers with baseball bats then incarcerate or euthanise them.
      Way to go.

    • Asianplumb says:

      08:50pm | 22/07/09

      A responsible government would legislate for tobacco companies to reduce the strength of cigarettes by 10/20 percent per year. After another 4 years no body would smoke as there was no horsepower left in the smokes and no one would be going cold turkey either. Too easy isn’t it?

    • Jonathan says:

      10:25pm | 22/07/09

      I have a laugh at all the miserable bastards standing around in front of my work having their morning ciggie.  The butt bin (which serves all the smokers in a building of 6000 people) usually catches on fire and starts emitting toxic fumes, but the poor olfactoraly-deprived smokers can’t smell it and stand right next to it, breathing it in along with their $10 (or whatever) a pack habit.  Stupid foolish smelly addicts.
      Gradually decrease the places where it is legal to smoke and increase the price, that should get the off the durries.  I’ll continue to stigmatise any smokers I know, just for kicks.
      Also, Penbo, you admitted in another article that you’re a smoker:  do you realise how bad smokers smell?  They REALLY stink, mate.

    • tim st clair says:

      10:29pm | 22/07/09

      what is going on with these people thank god we still at the present moment anyway live in a democracy and have the ability to not elect such people who propose more reduction in peoples liberties. At the end of the day it is my body, my life, my choice, my private health insurance, out of my pocket.
      wake up australia both sides of poltics are slowly but surely squeezing all of our freedoms from us and restricting society through, taxes and laws at every level of government. Issues ranging from making tobacco illegal through to the anti growth tax ETS. Sort of makes you want to start your own pollie party to bring both sides back to common sense.

    • Graham says:

      10:33pm | 22/07/09

      Why not?  A fatal, stinking , addictive substance that props up corrupt corporations and govt revenue that disproportionately milks poorer folk.

      Three cheers to Young Labor for a political entity actually having a bold policy.

    • Jeremy says:

      10:58pm | 22/07/09

      Take the corporate profits and advertising dollars out of it by banning ready rolled cigarettes in Australia - allow imports at truly huge prices and allow the sale of tobacco at your local greengrocer. Few young people except the irredeemable groovers will be interested in rolling their own. The problem lies in having corporations involved. Any executive who does not try to get everyone possible hooked on cigarettes is sacked.All management of cigarette companies must always be pushing them or they too will be sacked. If there are not corporate profits involved then there will be no advertising, subliminal or otherwise, and far fewer people will smoke. The people who really want to smoke will, as they always have, but the many who do not want to will not be sucked in..

    • silverdragon says:

      11:01pm | 22/07/09

      Okay, maybe someone has already said this but if you want to smoke that’s your business, but if you get sick because of it, then you should pay for your own treatment.  So yes, I have said for a long time that tobacco should be banned, just like other harmful drugs.  After all, nicotine is more addictive than heroin and costs the heath system a darn sight more too!

    • Bruce says:

      11:15pm | 22/07/09

      50 years !!!!! We will worry about that in 49 years time. Another “motherhood” statement. Geeeez, we must be so dumb, we know what politicians are like. You can promise anything if it is beyond an electoral term. 50 years !!! LOL, LOL.

    • Cal says:

      01:14am | 23/07/09

      Meanwhile, the young Libs havn’t even thought about refusing money from tobacco companies some time in the next 50 years

    • Outback kev says:

      03:15am | 23/07/09

      What a bunch of wankers,

      On the basis of ones health, no less!
      I choose to smoke as I firstly really enjoy a smoke and also as I dont want to be the healthiest person in the old peoples home, being neglected sitting in me own feaces.
      The reals statistics on deaths etc.. for cigarette smoking are still no where near accurate, no one has ever factored in the deaths wrongly attributed to smoking from people living in the CO2 smog filled world of the cities, and
      from mobile phone and other electromagnetic devices and infrastructure.
      I’d sooner be a smoker in the bush than a non smoker living in the city or its urban cities , as at least I am choosing what I inhale!

    • Ryan says:

      04:50am | 23/07/09

      I’d just institute a license system to smoke.  You can’t buy cigarettes without a license to do so or something.  The catch is, if you have the license you have no access to medicare funding for anything that could possibly be a problem resulting from smoking.  Why should the rest of Australia pay for people with poor self control and an equally poor sense of self preservation.

    • GR says:

      08:37am | 23/07/09

      Smoking should be banned everywhere except for the privacy of your own home and even then, not inside with children around.

    • mikk says:

      09:30am | 23/07/09

      Please anti smoking people stop saying that you are being polluted when you have to walk past a smoker in the street. It is ridiculous and makes you look like extremists and obsessives. Whilever you drive your car around you are pumping way more pollution into my lungs than I am into yours.

      Make smoking a disease and “treat” existing smokers by providing them with pharmaceutical cigarettes and stop big business making millions from a poisonous and addictive drug and stop new smokers from getting hooked. In 50 years there will be no smokers left and the scheme can be wound down and left as a disgusting and unwanted relic of history.

    • Jonathan says:

      09:42am | 23/07/09

      Hi Mikk!
      Call me extremist and excessive, but those smokers out the front of every building bloody stink.  You’re a liar if you say otherwise.  And I stopped driving partially because my car was stinking up the atmosphere.  Sounds like we’re on the same side anwyay.
      As I said above, smokers really smell bad.  REALLY bad.  I will continue to ostracise any smokers i know until they bloody well stop.

    • Nico says:

      09:44am | 23/07/09

      The only reason it isn’t banned now is the huge amount of money in taxes cigarettes pour into government coffers, plus the might of the tobacco lobby. But it is a leaking bucket - cigarettes in their current form a ruinous to health and are a great expense to the health system. If you wanto to grow your own tobacco for personal use, fine. I smoke now and wish I never started.

    • Helen says:

      10:53am | 23/07/09

      Didn’t the US try something similar a century ago with alcohol??? My what a roaring success that was! Bring on the speakeasies…

    • Helen says:

      10:57am | 23/07/09

      How about a policy to ban all fossil fuels in 50 years? Ultimately they will kill, displace and destroy the lives of more people than smoking ever has.

    • Charles says:

      11:07am | 23/07/09

      This has certainly attracted a few comments!  I’m with iansand, recent history has shown prohibition to be soooooo effective we should learn from that and place a complete ban on cigarettes!  Hmm, pity there isn’t a ban on stupidity, might I offer two quotes from Einstein on this topic: “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the the universe,” which leads to this one: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results!” 

      Of the latter remark, this ‘offence’ is not restricted to young Labour.

    • M says:

      11:12am | 23/07/09

      yeah! bring it on.  I’ll be the first to introduce hydroponically grown Virginian shag, twice the nicotine content of bush tobacco and guaranteed to hook em faster than the old winfields. $500 an ounce.

    • Casey says:

      12:29pm | 23/07/09

      @Bob Tee: The idea of a ban like this is that it’s gradual. It gives members of society time to restructure culture for the better, rather than just going cold-turkey, which will only work on very few smokers. It’s a step-down method to ease smokers and society into a smoke-free environment.
      You’re also looking at it the wrong way: Youth political parties may be idealistic, but is it not better to aim for a perfect society and fall short with a pretty decent one?

      @Ross: That revenue isn’t being ripped away immediately. With a hike in tobacco prices, over the next 50 years, revenue will actually go up, and by then many Government endeavours would have been engineered and executed delivering the State revenue in-lieu of tobacco tariffs.

      @Andrew Dib: What? You’ve basically just said you don’t respect the youth in society based purely on the fact that they are labelled as young. I think what you’re failing to realise is that the youth of society is actually the population’s modal age. Apart from that, your comment is shallow and sensationalist. It’s people like you who restrict society from progressive change.

      @BigAl: People aren’t fat because they no longer smoke. People are fat because they’re too lazy to go for a run and refused to pay attention in health classes.

      @Steve: I’m pretty sure Young Labor are all for current legislation regarding marijuana. You’re talking about a bunch of government kids who are so square, they think hanging out on a weekend discussing social policy is wicked fun. They don’t believe in illegal substances.

      @Matt: Young Labor are avid supporters of the GBLT community in all respects, proven by the network Rainbow Labor.

      @Robbo: How dare you parallel this policy proposal to the Nazi regime? This is disgustingly insensitive to the 11 million plus Jewish people who suffered the Holocaust. We live in an amazingly safe and free society thanks to our horrific history and there you sit behind your grubby monitor carping on because a segment of the government are taking on their responsibility to take care of their people’s health. I am ashamed to live in a society alongside you.
      @John Humphreys: Get yourself a real name, and quit trying to be authoritatively opinionated by using John Humphries’ reputation.

      I do smoke, but I know it’s a luxury. If the State wants to tax it more, then so be it. I’ll stop when I can no longer afford it. If the State wants to take away the legal right for it, then so be it. I am a law abiding citizen, and I don’t believe the government ought to be encouraging the usage of drugs to get through life.

      Alcohol will not be banned because, unlike other drugs, the effects have been documented, it has historical ceremonial, traditional, cultural and religious purposes and is the subject of numerous awareness campaigns for responsible intake. There is no responsible intake of cigarette smoke, especially since the consequences are not just borne by the user (as is with alcohol), but effects everyone around (by the passing on of chronic illnesses, passive smoking, setting up a generation handicapped to respiratory difficulties).

      Issue aside, for all those who are against this policy, learn to spell and punctuate; the rest of us might then be able to understand your arguments.

    • Bernie SR says:

      12:34pm | 23/07/09

      Why wait do it now. There is going to be a whinge no metter when the butts are chucked. The sooner it is stopped the sooner we can draw a line under tobacco related illness. As for the money spent on ciggies I am sure that most will find new things to spend their “savings”

      yes I am a former smoker)

    • Charles says:

      12:51pm | 23/07/09

      @Casey what an erudite argument which has you disappearing up your own fundament/argument.

      “I don’t believe the government ought to be encouraging the usage of drugs to get through life”. Where is there one jot of encouragement from the government today for cigarettes, either the smoking or production thereof?  Ergo why is this legislation valid?

      As for spelling & punctuation comments, alas therein hangs another tale of woe in our society as these are no longer covered fully in school curricula today.  Perhaps William Spooner’s saying applies: you deal ‘a blushing crow’ on those who wish to add to the fabric of our society.
      With no apologies for spammar or grelling errors smile

    • Andy says:

      12:53pm | 23/07/09

      “The idea of a ban like this is that it’s gradual. It gives members of society time to restructure culture for the better.”

      Ha, if only it were that easy. You make it sound like a corporation. Restructuring culture? What planet are you from? People aren’t guinea pigs that can be socially engineered to adopt a particular culture. Everyone is different and personalities are diverse. You’re kidding yourself if you think ‘society’ will homogenise its attitude to smoking in order to accommodate a poorly thought through policy.

      “I do smoke, but I know it’s a luxury. If the State wants to tax it more, then so be it. I’ll stop when I can no longer afford it. If the State wants to take away the legal right for it, then so be it. “

      Wow. What else are you willing to concede if the State decided to take it away from you? Talk about a willingness to go along with the machine. Bloody hell.

    • James says:

      01:20pm | 23/07/09

      Absolutely spot on Tom of July 22nd, 2009 at 06:39pm. The irony of so many of these comments is that in one feel swoop Young labor seems to have achieved more in terms of generating a discussion on this issue than all these armchair critics.

      And what else would an organisation like Young Labor be for if not to have a debate about these sorts of things? All those spewing venom are the ones who need to grow up and not it seems these Young labor kids.

    • miantiao says:

      01:22pm | 23/07/09

      @casey
      and the award for pretentious twat goes to…....

    • miantiao says:

      01:33pm | 23/07/09

      The Great Authoritarian Self-Rightious Revolution.

      Those willing to confess their crimes will be sent up-country for re-education. Those found defying the harmonious and glorious govt of the people will forthwith be frog-marched through their hometown to a place of public execution for all to witnesss what smoking will do to your health.

    • michael says:

      02:56pm | 23/07/09

      yes thats a smart idea:

      lets create a black market for cigarettes.  these people are beyond help.

    • Shaun says:

      03:20pm | 23/07/09

      DO IT NOW!
      I’m a smoker and I’d love to see it happen, it won’t tho’. Apart from the loss of instant revenue, there is the flow on costs of increased numbers of pensioners, unemployment of thousands from the tobacco industry, the medical trade, funeral directors and biggest of all, the health beaurocrats in their cozy little offices all on a nice little earner from restricting smokers rights but hypocritically never calling for a ban and many more no doubt.
      Just wondering tho, what if all the “smoke related diseases” are not wiped out in a stroke by a ban? Society would have to face the horrible fact that our modern high tech consumerist lifestyle where exposure to industrial and vehicular fallout and the under researched impact of the millions of chemical compounds we ingest in food, plastics and the like is what’s really doing the killing.

    • Terry Wright says:

      05:39pm | 23/07/09

      You cannot ban something that is popular, enjoyable and doesn’t affect anyone else. Nor can you ban something that is addictive. Trying to ban something that combines all 4 is just setting yourself up to fail.

      We know that alcohol prohibition did not work. We know that drug prohibition has not worked. We know that banning prostitution does not work. So why would a smoking ban work? Haven’t we learnt anything from history?

    • steve says:

      09:44am | 24/07/09

      I am confused because it seems like every day I read or hear of all the things that cause cancer. They tell me the countless things that supposedly cause cancer from the food and drink we consume, the sun, work place hazards, asbestos, stress, hereditary, motor vehicle pollution which cancer causing figures are kept secret for monetary reasons I suspect. Then we have Mobile Phone radiation cancer which will no doubt be kept secret again due to money. When they regularly announce the next new thing that causes cancer, they tell you how many die from this cause and the figures don’t add up because if you add the annual death rate from cancer caused by all these things it is nearly as many as the population of Australia !!!.  I am a smoker and a drinker, I have to, it helps me listen to people trying to tell me what to do and what not to do. The priorities are wrong so why don’t Young Labour reconfigure their radar and spend more time in the “real world” and start on the education and health care system for instance. Our hospitals are dramatically short of beds so why don’t they try their hand at this because they obviously like “stirring the pot” and people may start to think better of them. Then after a good days work doing this the Young Labour people can come home and have a glass of wine and a nice meal, both of which probably cause cancer anyway.  Everybody has a vice and smokers are voters

    • Dave says:

      09:50am | 25/07/09

      Apathy over ambivalence surely.

    • AntonyClark says:

      10:33am | 25/07/09

      Does smoking kill?  We hear this so often we must be starting to believe it, but actually smoking doesn’t kill.  I’ve tried it, and I’m still alive.

      Cyanide kills.  Take a teaspoonfull, and you are dead.  I’ve never actually seen anyone do that, but I’ll believe it.  I’ve seen a lot of people have a smoke, and they don’t die.

      Maybe if you smoke a lot of cigarettes you will die?  I smoked 3 packs a day for 40 years, let us see, say half a million, and I didn’t die.  How many does it take to kill you?

      Smoking makes me cough.  If I smoke, I cough something terrible.  If I stop smoking, I stop coughing.

      Smoking is most unlikely to kill you, but it will make you cough.  Clear your mind of cant and advertising slogans.

    • Dallas Beaufort says:

      02:15pm | 25/07/09

      Winning government is not enough, young green labor now wants to ban the private consumption of tobacco ( a natural antiseptic peacefully inhaled while stimulating thought). What next, the banning of unthinkable notions of choice. Now that’s not unusual for a nanny whose state of mind convinced itself and others man has changed the climate and endangers the planet by producing too much natural carbon dioxide which is life’s essential building block.

    • Penny H says:

      03:51pm | 25/07/09

      Rudds dangerous but we don’t ban him!

    • James says:

      11:05pm | 28/07/09

      AYL National Conference isn’t for a few weeks David you idiot. There are hundreds of policies that go up each year. This is not exciting, nor newsworthy, nor necessarily accurate. Nor has it been voted upon yet.

    • Dr.Jr. says:

      02:37am | 02/08/09

      Making ciggerettes illegal would just invoke more illegal behaviour and endemics like we have now with illegal ‘class a’ drugs like Heroin or Cocain, for that matter.

      Although with making ciggerette consumption and tobacco farming illegal - there is a MUCH wider market!

      The world is a mess as it is - go have a puff while you can.

    • John says:

      07:25pm | 27/01/10

      The government is not paid to make laws they agree with to stop individuals doing what they choose to do to themselves.
      This would be the final step into full blown communism.
      This country is fast going down hill into a communist regime the likes the world has never seen.
      Eventually if these communists are not stopped you will need a breathing license an eating license a LIVING license.

    • nev says:

      07:16pm | 09/02/10

      reiligion has killed more people than smoking ever will i dont see that getting banned

    • Gordon Green says:

      07:00pm | 19/07/11

      I expect, personally the ban will occur well under the fifty years. This will be interesting time as we continue to legislate against smoking in public.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Punch on: Open thread 28/05/2012

Punch on: Open thread 28/05/2012

There were two skydiving incidents reported over the weekend. VIDEO: Granny’s shocking skydive…

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter