Smoking in public: what you won't be able to do ... in 2015

[Marius]

No what I'm arguing is we breathe in a lot of bad stuff every day and I only have the time/motivation to directly protect against a few of them.

That's what I thought was saying in my long posts, anyway.

[lanklock]

Gotta agree with Tas in this case, people can mainline heroin for all i care, as long as they do that **** at home where they can't harm anyone else.

I can't believe some of you are arguing that we already breathe in a lot of carcinogens so a little more doesn't matter, if I breathe in particles from car exhaust then that's almost unavoidable, second hand smoke is not. I really thought that all those campaigns in the 90's were enough to educate people on the dangers of second hand smoke, guess not.

Agreed, saying "we already breathe in X amount of carcinogens, so why not just one more" is completely moronic.

The pro smoking campaign isn't where people should make their stance against the government/ nanny state. It stops becoming a personal issue of choice when it effects those around you, then it's political.

My boss's wife smoked through 2 of her pregnancy's, they have had 2 underweight undersized children that now suffer asthma and were constantly sick as babies.
- All of which is symptoms of a baby effected by smoking.
She is now pregnant again and refuses to stop smoking.
If there was ever some BS that should be banned, it's smoking while pregnant.
For the record, yes, I did call her a weak, inconsiderate POS.
I find it unfathomable that a mother could intentionally put her children in harms way, shrugging off a plethora of doctors orders, scientific evidence and common sense.

[Tas]

Gotta agree with Tas in this case, people can mainline heroin for all i care, as long as they do that **** at home where they can't harm anyone else.

I can't believe some of you are arguing that we already breathe in a lot of carcinogens so a little more doesn't matter, if I breathe in particles from car exhaust then that's almost unavoidable, second hand smoke is not. I really thought that all those campaigns in the 90's were enough to educate people on the dangers of second hand smoke, guess not.

Agreeing with me? hehe wow that's a first
But seriously a lot of it today is when people just stick their heads ins and an when they get sick they start raving how things need to change cos it isn't fair. Yet they forget that they were told in first place. Just more of the usual refusal to take responsibility.

[Chooky]

I have worked for a tobacco company, have being past tense, as i recently resigned.

i couldn't be assed reading the majority of the thread simply because i'm lazy, and most of you are probably under informed goobers.

The government will continue to take a hardline approach against the industry for everyone to see, however, lets not for get the tax. Tobacco Exise means that the government takes approximatly 67% of the price of a packet of smokes in tax. so figure a price of $17 , the Government takes $15ish, if memory serves me correct they are currently on track to take around 8.5 billion dollars in excise, not bad huh?

Governments like to be seen to be doing something against smoking, they have turned it into a socially unacceptable habit. The simple fact is however, just like a smoker, the government is addicted to cigarettes, and will continue to be so for at least another 20 years.

Next in line is alcohol.

So food for thought, ban cigarettes completely and the government needs to find that 8 billion. they have 2 options open to them, cut expenses, NBN would be a fast thing to scale back. Or increase taxes, whats the fastest way to grab some easy cash from us Australian's that love our alcohol?

[Marshmallow]

As a pack a day smoker I try very hard to get out of the way of others when I smoke. It irks me that this needs to be put to law because it's really just a common decency thing. I don’t go around farting on people so why should I go smoke around others.

However we do need somewhere to smoke, public transport stops, outside shopping malls, local watering holes ( areas of high human traffic ) are obvious places people shouldn’t smoke. But why are all the designated smoke areas next to the industrial bins?

This country is already over opinionated ( just my opinion  )and where I am based in Melbourne it is already illegal to do most of the things mentioned. For example you can’t smoke under covered areas of public transport; you can’t smoke within 20(ish) meters of an entrance to a public building, cant smoke with children in the car ( only the ignorant types who would ignore the laws anyway would do this ).

While smokers need to be respectful non smokers need a reality check and need to stop being so precious.... Last thing we need is more legislation.

[Tas]

As a pack a day smoker I try very hard to get out of the way of others when I smoke. It irks me that this needs to be put to law because it's really just a common decency thing. I don’t go around farting on people so why should I go smoke around others.

However we do need somewhere to smoke, public transport stops, outside shopping malls, local watering holes ( areas of high human traffic ) are obvious places people shouldn’t smoke. But why are all the designated smoke areas next to the industrial bins?

This country is already over opinionated ( just my opinion  )and where I am based in Melbourne it is already illegal to do most of the things mentioned. For example you can’t smoke under covered areas of public transport; you can’t smoke within 20(ish) meters of an entrance to a public building, cant smoke with children in the car ( only the ignorant types who would ignore the laws anyway would do this ).

While smokers need to be respectful non smokers need a reality check and need to stop being so precious.... Last thing we need is more legislation.

I am far from precious, but I have every right not to breath that ****, an risk cancer because a smoker thinks its his right to blow the **** anywhere he wants.

People will always do anything they want as long as they can, they dont want to police themselves, so how els is it to be fixed.?

I had a cop tell me one day I am not allowed to abuse this **** head cos he lit up on the bus, an I told him to get off or I'd throw him off.... Cop said he could charge me for threatening violence.....Yet it was the idiot who lit a **** on the freakin bus started the whole thing.

People will do what they want, so sometimes you have to legislate, because their too stupid to do it for themselves.

[Jez]

I have worked for a tobacco company, have being past tense, as i recently resigned.

i couldn't be assed reading the majority of the thread simply because i'm lazy, and most of you are probably under informed goobers.

The government will continue to take a hardline approach against the industry for everyone to see, however, lets not for get the tax. Tobacco Exise means that the government takes approximatly 67% of the price of a packet of smokes in tax. so figure a price of $17 , the Government takes $15ish, if memory serves me correct they are currently on track to take around 8.5 billion dollars in excise, not bad huh?

Governments like to be seen to be doing something against smoking, they have turned it into a socially unacceptable habit. The simple fact is however, just like a smoker, the government is addicted to cigarettes, and will continue to be so for at least another 20 years.

Next in line is alcohol.

So food for thought, ban cigarettes completely and the government needs to find that 8 billion. they have 2 options open to them, cut expenses, NBN would be a fast thing to scale back. Or increase taxes, whats the fastest way to grab some easy cash from us Australian's that love our alcohol?

Informed enough to know that 15 of 17 is a fair cry from being 67%...

The 2010-2011 budget reports they got 6.7 billion off tobacco excise, so it's a fair sum to be sure. Keep in mind that the entire budget expenditure is over 360 billion. It's all a bit of a moot point though in that nobody in government (and I don't think anyone in this thread) is proposing that tobacco be banned entirely.

It seems perfectly justified to me that in a society where we expect free or highly subsidised healthcare that we should be taxed if we choose to consume things that are more likely to make us more of a burden on that system.

Just for interest's sake, a quick look on the ABS website mentioned a 2002 study that put the cost to the health care system of tobacco related illness at over a billion dollars. It would undoubtedly be higher now.

[Tas]

I have worked for a tobacco company, have being past tense, as i recently resigned.

i couldn't be assed reading the majority of the thread simply because i'm lazy, and most of you are probably under informed goobers.

The government will continue to take a hardline approach against the industry for everyone to see, however, lets not for get the tax. Tobacco Exise means that the government takes approximatly 67% of the price of a packet of smokes in tax. so figure a price of $17 , the Government takes $15ish, if memory serves me correct they are currently on track to take around 8.5 billion dollars in excise, not bad huh?

Governments like to be seen to be doing something against smoking, they have turned it into a socially unacceptable habit. The simple fact is however, just like a smoker, the government is addicted to cigarettes, and will continue to be so for at least another 20 years.

Next in line is alcohol.

So food for thought, ban cigarettes completely and the government needs to find that 8 billion. they have 2 options open to them, cut expenses, NBN would be a fast thing to scale back. Or increase taxes, whats the fastest way to grab some easy cash from us Australian's that love our alcohol?

Informed enough to know that 15 of 17 is a fair cry from being 67%...

The 2010-2011 budget reports they got 6.7 billion off tobacco excise, so it's a fair sum to be sure. Keep in mind that the entire budget expenditure is over 360 billion. It's all a bit of a moot point though in that nobody in government (and I don't think anyone in this thread) is proposing that tobacco be banned entirely.

It seems perfectly justified to me that in a society where we expect free or highly subsidised healthcare that we should be taxed if we choose to consume things that are more likely to make us more of a burden on that system.

Just for interest's sake, a quick look on the ABS website mentioned a 2002 study that put the cost to the health care system of tobacco related illness at over a billion dollars. It would undoubtedly be higher now.

Well said, if you choose to smoke, you should pay for the privilege, an pay heavy.Simply because its a proven killer, so you are deliberately putting a strain on the health care system with your "choice" to take that risk.

[Mekon]

The 2010-2011 budget reports they got 6.7 billion off tobacco excise

(...)

a quick look on the ABS website mentioned a 2002 study that put the cost to the health care system of tobacco related illness at over a billion dollars.

So the government is making a tidy profit, well over and above any costs incurred. Puts paid the whingers complaining about *their* tax dollars paying for the costs of smoking...

Should probably give smokers a bit more respect as they are greater contributors to the public purse.

[Jez]

So the government is making a tidy profit, well over and above any costs incurred. Puts paid the whingers complaining about *their* tax dollars paying for the costs of smoking...

Note that one report is from 2010-2011, while the other is from 2002. But yes I've always known that smokers paid more in tax than their health care costs, what I was getting at was the shortfall in finances would be partly made up by the decline in health costs.

Should probably give smokers a bit more respect as they are greater contributors to the public purse.

Oh definitely. I always make a point of saluting speeding cars as they go by, sure in the knowledge that those selfless road warriors are simply helping out the rest of us with all their speeding fines.

[psychofruiterer]

It's nanny state thinking when the Government thinks it knows best and starts restricting individual freedoms.

Lets use your exact argument on alcohol, we've spent millions of dollars in anti drinking and safe drinking advertisements, government quit programs, and medical treatment directly for the ailments caused by drinking, not to mention cleaning up broken bottles, vomit, and vandlism that is everywhere and emergency services time wasted in breaking up fights, patroling alcohol hotspots..etc.

So I gather you're 100% behind banning alcohol, as well?

nope, but using that as an example is just plain wrong.
You CAN use alcohol responsibly in a way that doesn't hurt yourself or others.
Smoking on the other hand, you CAN'T
If you can't see the difference, then , i don't know what to say.

hehe, and just to add fuel to the fire, i have no doubt at all, that there would be a much higher % of ppl involved in alcohol misuse and abuse who are ALSO smokers, than people who use alcohol responsibly....but don't smoke
Tell me i am wrong

[Marius]

Speaking of costs, enforcement costs for something like this will be pretty damn high. How are they going to enforce the laws at a midnight taxi rank?

Oh and I clicked through to the original article...

A big problem in it is that they justify it on grounds of total costs to health caused by smoking, but this legislation is aimed only at passive smoking.

Plus it still won't stamp out all passive smoking. People can still smoke at a backyard BBQ. They can still smoke while walking down the street. It's very focused on specific venues.

[SuicidalSalad]

nope, but using that as an example is just plain wrong.
You CAN use alcohol responsibly in a way that doesn't hurt yourself or others.
Smoking on the other hand, you CAN'T
If you can't see the difference, then , i don't know what to say.

hehe, and just to add fuel to the fire, i have no doubt at all, that there would be a much higher % of ppl involved in alcohol misuse and abuse who are ALSO smokers, than people who use alcohol responsibly....but don't smoke
Tell me i am wrong

How is smoking any different?

If you have one cigarette here and there (ie. Social Smoking. More common than you would think), that is exactly the same as someone who has a glass of wine here and there or a beer after work. Either way, you aren't doing anyone else or yourself any harm.

When I hit the town at night I see way more people buying multiple drinks, getting hammered and stumbling home than I see people lighting up a dart. Those hammered people are much more likely to harm others and themselves than the smokers are that night...

And just to add fuel to the fire I'm going to go ahead and make the assumption that your inability to correctly use capital letters has stemmed from alcohol abuse...

The fact that you are even trying to correlate alcohol abuse and smoking is ridiculous.

[Jez]

Speaking of costs, enforcement costs for something like this will be pretty damn high. How are they going to enforce the laws at a midnight taxi rank?

One would hope that midnight taxi ranks would be targets for enforcement already, at least in Sydney anyway.

Oh and I clicked through to the original article...

Interesting. The original article has been updated and if that 8 billion figure is accurate then I may have to have another look at whether smoking costs more than it gains in revenue. I'm not sure what the state's cut is like.

A big problem in it is that they justify it on grounds of total costs to health caused by smoking, but this legislation is aimed only at passive smoking.

It's not an entirely appropriate use of the stats, but it's in a politician's nature to quote the biggest cost possible when campaigning against something.

Plus it still won't stamp out all passive smoking. People can still smoke at a backyard BBQ. They can still smoke while walking down the street. It's very focused on specific venues.

I know in Marrickville here they've completely banned smoking all along the main road of the suburb, I think if other local councils followed suit it would really help. I mean we accept that it's not acceptable to walk along a main road in broad daylight drinking booze, to allow people to smoke under the same circumstances seems perverse to me. As for the BBQ I think that comes down to what you mentioned before, controlling whom you socialise with.

[Marshmallow]

Blah