Australia could become the first major nation to outlaw smoking

[The Straight Story]

Australia could become the first major nation to outlaw smoking, with a federal government-funded trial about to test the viability of electronic cigarettes as a safer, permanent replacement for tobacco.

Medical experts, cancer groups and anti-smoking lobbyists battled for decades to rid cigarettes from public spaces.

While the gadgets have been hailed as a safer substitute for cigarettes, there is no comprehensive scientific research into the health risks of inhaling vapour.
Advertisement

The Sun-Herald can reveal that as part of its anti-smoking reform agenda, the previous Labor government committed more than $1 million to a pioneering study that, by 2015, will determine whether or not e-cigarettes could be utilised to phase out traditional cigarettes altogether.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/health/ban-considered-as-trial-tests-if-vapour-safer-20130914-2trj1.html

[kestrel91316]

1. Big Tobacco won't permit that.

[Warpy]

2. Good luck to them and the Red Sox

Allowing smokers to switch to e-cigs might be a good plan for many. Still, there are many other people who find banned substances so alluring they'll go to all sorts of lengths to get them and Oz is going to find itself with a huge smuggling and black market problem if it tries to ban them outright.

[Robb]

3. This is an interesting argument.

Should a government not pass a law on the basis that they suspect some number of people would break it?

[The Straight Story]

5. Depends - when it is something that has been legal

and/Or involves a personal choice (like abortion, eating fast food, smoking, etc) then they probably should look at whether or not they are now creating a whole new segment of offenders of victimless crimes.

I know some would be happy to throw smokers, gun owners, women who have abortions, etc in jail but others tend to prefer freedom and being pro-choice.

[Warpy]

7. People who are socially destructive need to be off the street

but laws are little deterrent for people who rob, murder and rape. Laws provide a mechanism for getting them off the street and can be argued from a public safety standpoint.

Not so the "victimless crime" laws against drugs, gambling, and other things we've labeled vices. Adults know the risks and adults continue to choose them. Since there is no direct victim, why not get rid of these laws? The laws that drive mostly harmless behavior underground, making it more attractive, cause more problems than the original activities would.

Banning cigarettes would fall into this category. Smokers reek and people could likely be able to turn them in, but my prediction is that no one would because of the recognition that the government simply has no business being a nanny to adults.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. More like the Cubs

but beyond that I agree.

[ZombieHorde]

4. The war on drugs has been so successful

that expanding it the most logical thing to do!

/sarcasm

[daleo]

6. Legalizing pot and criminalizing tobacco makes more sense than the present situation

Though criminalizing tobacco would possibly cause more problems than it solves.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Two words for why it'd never happen - tobacco excise...

Smokers slugged in Government's plan to raise $5.3 billion

The Federal Government is selling the health benefits of its multi-billion dollar increase in tobacco excise.

From December 1, the tax on smokes will rise by 12.5 per cent each year for four years, raising $5.3 billion over the forward estimates.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-01/government-to-raise-5-billion-from-cigarette-tax-increase/4857244

There's no way in the world that Australia would ban smoking. I'd be totally opposed to it happening as well.

[bhikkhu]

9. They could easily tax e-cigs and still ban smoking

I have to say, having looked at the research and researched the products, reading on the forums, and then a little experimenting and input from people I know, e-cigs have every indication of a better alternative to cigarettes. They're clean, cheap, healthier, and have a whole range of options regular cigs just can't compete with. Big tobacco either gets on board or goes the way of the buggy whip.

With or without a ban, I think e-cigs are "the way of the future". I'd add "for better or worse", but the clear consensus is that they are better.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. Speaking from the perspective of a currently smoking Australian taxpayer...

I'm putting down the smokes and donning very expensive patches tomorrow morning

While I grumble about the price of a pack of smokes and know exactly how much of what I pay is going in excise, I pay it coz I want to smoke. If smokes were banned and e-cigs were taxed, no way would I buy any, coz I'm not going to pay tax for something I didn't want in the first place. So introducing a tax like that wouldn't bring in much revenue, I'd be suspecting...

I've found through experience that smokers will give up when they're ready to, and any pressure on them to do it when they're not ready fails. If smokes were banned, the only winners would be the chop chop 'industry'...

[bhikkhu]

15. I used to smoke myself, so I know what you mean

quitting didn't work until I decided to, and it took a lot of self-examination and whatever else to get to that point. Then I used the gum for a month. As a non-smoker now I hate the smell and almost everything about cigarettes, which included the whole idea of e-cigs, until I was convinced otherwise. Data and a steady influx of positive reviews mostly changed my mind.

My wife doesn't want to quit, and I got her a nice e-cig set-up about a month ago, which she likes pretty well. One of the selling points is that she doesn't have to quit because its not nearly as bad as smoking, and everyone can stop trying to get her to quit. The other selling point is that she minds a store most of the day, and now she doesn't have to go out back to smoke and worry about being interrupted listening for the bell or the phone; she can "vape" inside, and there's no smell (actually, just mild scents of cola and vanilla ice cream - her favorite flavors lately). Much cheaper too - $5 in fluids easily lasts a week, as opposed to $25 or so for cigs.

[BlueJazz]

10. As an Australian citizen, I have mixed feelings.

#1. People who have "Health Care for all" (and pay for Health care for all) have a right to NOT pay for someone who smokes and will use more of the System ...in the long run.


#2. Having spoke my mind in #1...are we going to ban bad eating, bad exercise, bad sitting in the Sun for long times, Bad Genes.??
You can easily see where I'm going with this...

#3 I don't smoke but am not sure this is the right thing to do. Sounds nice...BUT....

[The Straight Story]

13. #2 sums it up pretty well

There will always be something that costs such systems money. Pre-marital sex? Diseases and such. Fast food? Alcohol?

I favor personal choice (which is not something some progressives seem to endorse except on one topic). We don't belong to the state, we don't exist for the government, and what we do is no of their business in many cases.

[Warpy]

16. Yes and no

#1. Not really. Smokers die sooner and are less likely to become frail elderly, increasing the burden on the rest of the citizenry. I think this one is likely a wash.

#2. Once a government is invested in being a nanny to adults, it's hard to get them to stop. Today cigarettes. Tomorrow, fried food. Next year, free speech. It's for your own good, you know.

#3. I hate smoking with a purple and undying passion, it makes me deathly sick to be around. Having said that, I would never vote to ban it outright, only in confined spaces indoors. If somebody whips out a cigarette in my presence indoors, I tell them I'll throw up on them and that isn't a threat, it's a prediction. Outdoors I don't like the stink but I'm a big girl and I can tolerate it since the stink isn't what makes me sick.

[BlueJazz]

20. Well...Warpy...You speak your mind and you speak it well. If the stink isn't what makes you...

...sick, it has to be a chemical and since there's at least 50 dangerous ingredients in a cig. ...it could be anything.
The damn things don't bother me...don't know why.

[Warpy]

21. Whatever it is, it has to be indoors and concentrated

Outdoors and dilute, it's just a nuisance. Indoors, it's like trying to breathe under water.

[JesterCS]

24. you guys DO realize

that a study was done some years ago and smokers actually end up costing LESS than non-smokers insurance-wise. #1 Reason being sooner death.

[BlueJazz]

28. I thought of that. I would vote against the law, if possible. I hate to see others...

...ruin their body thought. I smoked for 2 years, 6 years ago so I know a little about it.

[hunter]

12. I think banning mass marketing is as far as it should go.

For alcohol, tobacco, pot, and pharmaceuticals.

Everything generic or a local word-of-mouth brand.

"Coors light? Never heard of it. But we've got three versions of light piss on tap... Want a sampler?"

[roamer65]

14. Abbott's Coalition gov't won't allow it to happen.

Too much money to be had from tobacco lobbyists.

[Downwinder]

17. Considering that it takes 64 1/4" dia. cigarettes (3 1/5 packs)

to equal one 2" dia. exhaust pipe, if clean air is the goal there might be a better approach.

[Warpy]

22. That's why there's very little driving done indoors

and where it exists, there's plenty of ventilation.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Dumb idea.

[greyl]

25. Disappointed that you didn't explain...

I was all primed for intellectual enrichment.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. Heh. I can't tell if you're being snarky, or not.

But either way, I like that answer...

Anyway, well, I just tend to fall on the side of letting people make their own decisions about their own bodies, including really bad ones- and smoking is a bad one. My dad died of lung cancer. Still, I think prohibition just doesn't work.

Regulating where people can smoke- like indoor public spaces- that's one thing. Outlawing it altogether is something else. I just think it's a bad idea, I doubt they'll go forward with it, but if they do I suspect it's doomed to fail.

[greyl]

30. Snarky + real, how to handle? :)

I agree with you here; the legislation is doomed to fail, in a rational world.

(ex-smoker of 2.75 years thanks largely to vaping alternatives)

[Warren DeMontague]

33. It says something about me that I apparently enjoy being dissed as much as I enjoy getting props

congrats on quitting, BTW.

[greyl]

35. Being dissed can keep one sharp,

with the right attitude.
And thanks

[eridani]

23. Smoking in enclosed areas is disgusting, but this is WAY beyond stupid n/t

[gopiscrap]

26. YES and if we could do that in the US it would be even better!

[DonCoquixote]

27. not that I favor Tobacco

But this is the nation that legalizes marijuana, but will try to ban cigarettes? Prohibition is a dumb idea on either side, just tax it to death.

[TheDeputy]

31. A great nation, down the shitter.

Liberty is paramount. These fuckers want to say I can't smoke? Fuck them. Next they will outlaw abortion. Fuck them. Government should work to protect our freedom.

[Logical]

34. Like the freedom to drive drunk officer? Nt

[KinMd]

32. I quit smoking 15 yrs ago but I think a nationwide band is ridculous...

what? arresting people for possession of Marlboros with intent to distribute?