Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Australia

'Australia Is Stubbing Out Smoking' (bbc.com) 532

Australia was the first country in the world to introduce mandatory plain packaging for tobacco products. Now it is taking another strong stand, but will other countries follow suit? From an article on BBC, shared by an anonymous reader: It's not easy being a smoker in Australia. The smoking bans started inside -- in workplaces, bars and restaurants -- and moved out. "Now, smoking is prohibited within 10m (33ft) of a playground, within 4m (13ft) of the entrance to a public building, at rail platforms, taxi ranks and bus stops," said Mark Driver, Sydney's Park and Recreation Planner. Those are the rules in New South Wales, but they are mirrored in many other states. Smoking is banned on many beaches, and most Australian states have now banned cigarettes in jail. All states ban smoking in vehicles if children are present. Fines vary, but in some places you may be fined AUD$2,000 (USD$1,515) if you smoke in the wrong place. And even if you don't, you'll be paying more than that each year by 2020, if you smoke just one AUD$40 pack a week. [...] These days, smoking is often taken up by people who are on the lowest rungs of the socio-economic ladder, Simone Dennis, an associate professor at Australian National University, points out, "and that adds a burden of shame to people who might already be marginalised." If it's the poor who are now the most likely to smoke, it's hard to see how they will ever afford the AUD$40 (USD$30) pack of cigarettes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Australia Is Stubbing Out Smoking'

Comments Filter:
  • The point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @11:20AM (#53780645)

    " If it's the poor who are now the most likely to smoke, it's hard to see how they will ever afford the AUD$40 (USD$30) pack of cigarettes."

    That's sort of the point, making it too expensive for the poor and uneducated.
    That this works, has been demonstrated time and time again in multiple countries.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      This is the correct approach. Banning it would seem silly and oppressive by many, taxing it for health reasons is perfectly fine.
      • Re:The point (Score:4, Insightful)

        by OneHundredAndTen ( 1523865 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @11:50AM (#53780871)

        This is the correct approach. Banning it would seem silly and oppressive by many, taxing it for health reasons is perfectly fine.

        One has to be careful though - things should be such that smoking is inconvenient, difficult and expensive, but not so inconvenient, difficult and expensive that an illegal cigarette industry will arise to satisfy the smoking needs. Can you remember what happened during the Prohibition?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          Can you remember what happened during the Prohibition?

          Are you talking about alcohol? Or the current prohibition on recreational drugs? Just look at what it has done for US prisons and the cartels in Mexico and central and south america.

          • Re:The point (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @12:33PM (#53781317) Journal

            Originally, he was talking about Prohibition, but yeah, same-same.

            Tax it high enough, and smuggling/home-growing/stolen black-market tobacco becomes profitable and enticing to folks who have enough creativity and the means to do it.

            Believe it or not, this was a big thing in the 1970s-1990s in New York state, where smokes would be smuggled in from Kentucky (or other places where they were cheap), then sold at a price far lower than the New York smokes - yet was still highly profitable for the smuggler to do it.

            Now Australia is rather isolated, but a large fishing boat or two and a determined bunch of black marketeers could still make out fairly well...

            • by bondsbw ( 888959 )

              It's a bit easier when it's a national tax. National borders are set up to more effectively enforce tariffs and smuggling laws, while there is little enforcement of use taxes between states and pretty much nothing that can be done about such a black market.

            • Canadian here, Tonnes of people go to the native reserves to get cigarettes here because they are prohibitively expensive. Now the government gets no tax and the people get unregulated and less safe cigarettes. But hey, the tobacco companies report less sales so the system must be working.
    • Re:The point (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @11:32AM (#53780721)

      Whether it works or not the question is whether they [government] should be doing it.

      I've never smoked in my life. I hate being around people who have smoked (I think they grow insensitive to the smell and don't realize how it permeates everything they own). That said, should government be in the business of making everyone stop smoking?

      I'm fully behind keeping it out of kids hands. I'm fully behind banning smoking in the same room/car as children, and banning it in public spaces. I'm not behind taxing it so high that it ends up $30USD a box. If people really want to smoke- especially with the knowledge of how horribly bad it is for them, and they do it in their own space in their own time- why are we so dead set on stopping them. Almost seems like they're trying to criminalize smoking without actually having the balls to pass that legislation.

      Stopping people smoking in private doesn't seem that different to trying to stop gay people having sex. WhyTF does it matter what someone does in their own home if no one is being harmed other than the smoker?

      The world is moving at the moment to allow Marijuana to be legalized (I'm OK with that), but at the same time trying to kill smoking cigarettes. (both contain harmful compounds when smoked.

      If there is no victim (other than a fully informed-consented individual doing it to him/herself) why try stopping it? Government shouldn't be in the business of private morals.

      • Re:The point (Score:5, Informative)

        by amalcolm ( 1838434 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @11:40AM (#53780789)
        cost of health care? I don't know how it works in Aus but in the UK the costs of lung removals, limb amputations etc. etc fall on the NHS and is apparently a huge burden on the taxpayer
        • Re:The point (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @11:49AM (#53780859)

          That's fine if you can justify- it costs the public tax payer "50p" per pack smoked. I don't think you can honestly say it costs the public tax payer £15 in health costs per pack smoked.

          The extra tax in most countries has long surpassed the extra cost in healthcare. This is about punishing people who don't think the same way the people in charge do.

        • This is where those fears of death judges or panels or whatever comes from. First the government starts with something like smoking, justification? Tax payers. Well then when do we stop with age, or other diseases? Coal miners? Fuck them for getting jobs? Smokers pay their taxes, more than a lot with the huge taxes on their smokes, so they should be entitled to all that medical care, seems like they're paying more than their fair share in with those crazy tax amounts.
        • Re:The point (Score:4, Interesting)

          by totallyarb ( 889799 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @01:02PM (#53781721)

          in the UK the costs of lung removals, limb amputations etc. etc fall on the NHS

          Total taxes collected in the UK annually on cigarettes: £12 billion
          Total budget of the entire NHS: £120 billion

          Unless you're going to tell me that you think that cigarettes on their own account for a full 10% of all healthcare-related costs, I think it's safe to say that the "burden on the taxpayer" argument doesn't stand up even on its own merit (setting aside the moral question of whether offering people free healthcare gives you the right to control their behaviour).

          For what it's worth, the Department of Public Health at Oxford University estimated that burden at £5 billion [nursingtimes.net] (in 2009, so let's adjust for inflation and call it £6 billion). Sounds to me like smokers are contributing about twice as much as they're costing, right?

      • Yep, I think this is perfectly prudent.
        Ideally, if you choose to smoke, you should be allowed to do so - but only after signing a waiver to any and all health care (publicly or privately funded) for smoking-related illnesses.
        It's not a freedom issue - it's an "I'm tired of paying for the consequences of your horrible life decisions" issue.
        • Would smoking be the only life decision you would choose to deny health care for? This reminds me of the department of education. The only real authority it has over the states the the threat of denying additional funding. If the government can deny you health care (life essentially) if you don't live the way it approves of, is there any facet of your life outside of the government's authority?
        • by dryeo ( 100693 )

          So true. We can expand it to any risky behaviour. Want to drive, that's risky, better sign a waiver. Work at an office job that involves sitting all day, that's risky, sign a waiver. Have sex, that's really risky, sign a waiver. And of course as others point out, there are a lot dietary decisions that end up costing healthcare dollars.
          And the most risky, leading a healthy lifestyle, living to a ripe old age costs perhaps the most healthcare dollars, sign a waiver in case you live longer then the mean and co

      • Re:The point (Score:5, Insightful)

        by omfglearntoplay ( 1163771 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @12:00PM (#53780971)

        You are right. It is totally fine for someone to kill themself in their own home... if nobody lives there with them... and if they never come near me in public and smell like smokey shit. And if they don't throw their fucking butts on the ground in my neighborhood, out the car window to and from work... etc.

        So in reality, the government has to be the one to step in and kill smoking b/c there is not one smoker that doesn't step all over every other person's rights. And they don't care about their own body, why would they care about anybody else?

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The tax covers the otherwise externalized costs. Healthcare, cleaning, enforcement etc.

        You could argue that any taxation is an attempt to discourage behaviour, but that's clearly not right. Income tax isn't designed to discourage employment.

      • Re:The point (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @12:08PM (#53781029)

        I hate being around people who have smoked (I think they grow insensitive to the smell and don't realize how it permeates everything they own).

        This isn't true. It's true for current smokers, but it's not true, in my experience, for people who are former smokers. (You said, "people who have smoked", which implies former smokers.) Instead, IME, the former smokers are frequently the most ardently anti-smoking people you'll ever meet, and seem especially sensitive to the smell of cigarette smoke, and complain about it the most.

        The world is moving at the moment to allow Marijuana to be legalized

        No, it's not. The US was, but now that Trump is elected and Sessions is about to be appointed AG, that's going to come to a quick halt as the Federal government starts throwing pot smokers in prison for decades for simple possession. Jeff Sessions is a huge anti-marijuana crusader. Luckily I'm not a user of that, but I know people who are, and who are also big Trump fans, and it's really funny (and sad at the same time) to see them justify their fandom of Trump/Sessions (and specifically Sessions) and try to handwave away Sessions' anti-pot position, all because they hate Hispanics and Muslims so much.

        • Sorry, I meant to imply anyone who had smoked recently but is indeed past tense. When someone has smoked recently, they frequently don't realize the smell hangs around for hours.

        • Dunno, this is going to be interesting. Lots of his supporters want to smoke pot. The world is different now. It's not just some marginalized lower economic unfortunates that do drugs. It's everybody.

          Worse, states now make money off of marijuana. Try to wean them off that....

          Grab the popcorn. But leave the funny smelling green butter alone.

      • If there is no victim (other than a fully informed-consented individual doing it to him/herself) why try stopping it?

        The problem is, the industry has worked for years to increase the nicotine content to ensure that customers are more likely to be unable to stop using the product to ensure revenue. Many simply cannot quit. So the consent is a little shaky. If you are unable to revoke consent, is it really consent any more?

        Also, there can be other victims. The people who care about these people who die sooner than they otherwise likely would. The people who have to pay for the extended healthcare for these individuals. Toba

    • by whoda ( 569082 )

      The poor and uneducated people where I live still manage to drive around in their Mercedes and BMW's.
      Expense doesn't seem to faze them.

    • by v1 ( 525388 )

      Chemical addiction stinks. If you're truly hooked, "whether or not you can afford it" isn't really a question that's up for debate. It's like air, you have a hunger for it that can't be ignored, and causes a person great distress when denied. Other "less important" things like utilities and clothing and food will have to step aside to feed the chemical dependence.

      Though I'm not arguing against it, raising the price while still making it legal in ever-shrinking situations is probably the most effective wa

    • If you make an addictive drug expensive, take a wild guess what a poor person (who also happen to be the ones with low education, low impulse control and poor judgement skills) will do.

      Hint: It's not going on withdrawal.

      If you need further hints, take a look at areas with poor people who're hooked on expensive drugs.
      Another hint: I'd use binoculars to take that look. Going there isn't advisable.

    • " If it's the poor who are now the most likely to smoke, it's hard to see how they will ever afford the AUD$40 (USD$30) pack of cigarettes."

      That's sort of the point, making it too expensive for the poor and uneducated. That this works, has been demonstrated time and time again in multiple countries.

      Anyone with an IQ above a warthog understands that cigarettes are not good for you in ANY way, so one can hardly point to education as a factor here. Society holds no illusions regarding this, unlike half a century ago when you would find the family doctor pimping his favorite brand of cancer sticks to your kids.

      And given the manufactured addiction embedded within cigarettes (that probably should be illegal), we should be careful with this make-it-expensive approach. When it is only the social elite who s

  • How long will it take the government to extend this to diet and other lifestyles? Diet correlates more strongly than smoking to decreased lifespan. Do we have a nationally enforced vegan lifestyle? Since homosexual lifestyles for men result in larger health risks should we fine men for being gay? Selfishly, I would like to see this as a law here because I have loved ones that I would like to stop smoking but... slippery slope.
    • The things you bring up, while valid points, do not in any way impact other people (outside of emotional stuff). Cigarette smoke does not stay with the smoker, it moves around and gets caught in the lungs of those around the smoker too (which is why these laws talk about 10m from playgrounds and 4m from building entrances).

      Banning cigarettes can be done without breaking any libertarian philosophies or irritating the ghost of Jefferson.

      • by Calydor ( 739835 )

        Alright, then let's at least increase the price on alcohol tenfold because of drunk drivers, violent tendencies when people get drunk etc.

        Wait. Didn't the US try banning alcohol before? Does anyone have a link to a study of what happened?

        • by nwf ( 25607 )

          Wait. Didn't the US try banning alcohol before? Does anyone have a link to a study of what happened?

          Yep, it led to the creation of a whole genre of movies: gangster movies. Otherwise, not much else lasting effects.

    • Many locations are trying to pass laws extending to diet and lifestyle. Some of them I approve of, some of them I don't.

      I approve of ones that inform the consumer (show calorie content). I don't approve of ones that force the consumer to not have choice (New York banning drink size).

      There is a right and a wrong way to handle this. The right way is to inform the consumer. This has been done pretty well most places regarding smoking. If you don't know smoking is bad and how bad it is... you're never goin

      • I don't approve of ones that force the consumer to not have choice (New York banning drink size).

        That was one of the worst ideas, not that I live there.

        If I'm being cheap somewhere, I'll buy a large drink and share with my wife. One large is less than two smalls. And it has the added effect that since it's being shared, I don't feel entitled to "free" refills either. Overall, that means forced smaller sizes would be worse for my health.

      • by skids ( 119237 )

        I'm on the fence about drink size... portion size is a tacit endorsement of expected "normal behavior". It's a gray area, but even so legislation seems a bit heavy handed... which may still be justifiable anyway in some cases, for lack of any better mechanism to simulate shame among the pathologically shameless.

        Anyway, you're mostly on my wavelength... remember it's the fact that tobacco companies concealed information from the consumer that got them in legal trouble, and better information should be the c

    • by skids ( 119237 )

      Probably not as long as it takes them to seriously tackle PM2.5 air pollution and indoor air quality, which might be never. If it's a law that lets the majority of people feel superior to a smaller group of fellow citizens, it'll be pretty popular, but if it affects corporate bottom lines, it'll never see the light of day.

    • by quenda ( 644621 )

      How long will it take the government to extend this to diet and other lifestyles?

      We have had a high tax on alcoholic spirits since forever. This succeeds in getting people to drink beer and wine instead, which supposedly reduces harm.
      More recently, a similar tax has been applied to "alcopops" - sugary pre-mixed drinks. But beer and wine? Not a chance.

      Fat tax is a silly "thin end of the wedge" argument. But there has been pressure on fast-food businesses to offer healthier options at the same price.

      Cigarette tax is the only one that has broad support. Even smokers want to quit. So no,

    • Do we have a nationally enforced vegan lifestyle?

      Do you have any evidence that vegans live longer? Where are all the communes full of 120-year-old vegans?

      (or even 90-year-old vegans)

      Nope. Vegans die at the same rate as everybody else.

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      As a general rule, we're moving to a much more closely managed lifestyle across the board. Any personal habit which creates a cost somewhere down the line is being scrutinized. It's just like corporate finance guys squeezing costs out of a business, 50-60 years ago they lacked the tools to easily model and analyze costs, so there was a lot more built in slack in the system and now that the tools and data exist, they're coming up with all kinds of ways to squeeze costs and jack up profits.

      Healthcare is exp

  • Sounds more like they're catching up - https://www.ontario.ca/page/sm... [ontario.ca]
  • by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @11:42AM (#53780801)

    I live in New York, and prices for cigarettes are incredibly high (for the US.) Go to South Carolina, and by comparison they basically give them away because SC is a tobacco state. It's been proven over and over again that long-term smoking causes expensive end-of-life health problems, and when the majority of people who smoke are poor and uneducated, everybody pays in the form of increased charity health care. And in the US, if a smoker makes it to 65, Medicare has to pay a lot more to get the average smoker through the end of their life so everyone pays regardless of the person's income in Medicare taxes. In my opinion it's fair to tax cigarettes to a high degree as long as the proceeds go directly to health care or smoking cessation programs.

    In NY, smoking is a very expensive habit and it's hard to even smoke in public anymore. Go elsewhere in the country (Texas, Nevada, lots of Southern states) and everyone can smoke in public along with most businesses being smoker-friendly indoors. The problem is that the US isn't a monoculture and a small country -- each state has its own agenda. New York is dealing with a city the size of a small country combined with a poor rural upstate region...that's why high tobacco taxes make sense. A smaller state is going to have lower overall public health expenditures regardless of ability to pay just based on population. Also, tobacco-producing states aren't going to be happy with any taxes because they want a market for their product. Back in the 50s, the majority of men smoked and something like 35% of women did too. Now, it's way less than that and dropping.

    I think taxing tobacco heavily is a good compromise. Unless you want an outright ban (which I don't think is the best idea even if it would improve public health,) this is the best way to recover the additional costs a smoker places on society.

    • As a Texan, where in the hell are you getting your information that "[sic] in Texas...everyone can smoke in public along with most businesses being smoker-friendly indoors."

      As a New Yorker, is this propaganda that you get spoon-fed by your nanny state? Did you copy/paste that from a ministry-approved pamphlet?

      Because my Texas-approved pamphlet says that New York is full of people who believe guns belong only in the hands of criminals, the citizens want to pay more taxes to expand government control over ev

    • by skids ( 119237 )

      It's been proven over and over again that long-term smoking causes expensive end-of-life health problems

      Please cite these proofs. Its quite easy to find studies showing the opposite... treating dementia for a decade or so is much more expensive than treating lung cancer for a year, for example.

    • by Nutria ( 679911 )

      It's been proven over and over again that long-term smoking causes expensive end-of-life health problems

      The obvious liberty-maintaining solution is for the government to refuse to pay for such care.

    • You make a valid point, if you posted this 15 years ago and Slashdot only just published it.

      The fact is, you can't smoke in public in most places in the South anymore.

  • No Sympathy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by stereoroid ( 234317 )

    Ireland has similar rules too, including no indoors smoking in anything that could be called a workplace. This includes pubs, which had a major impact, as you can imagine.

    I have no sympathy. Smoking is entirely unnecessary. People keep doing it only because they are addicted to it, not for any other positive reasons. It can go entirely without any objectively negative impacts whatsoever.

    • Hello,

          There are in fact a few positive reasons for smoking. Nicotine helps schizophrenics regulate their illness. Also, nicotine helps some intestinal disorders.

          However, seemingly the use of e-cigs or nicotine patches or other safer nicotine delivery would provide the same benefits at far lower risk.

      --PM

      • by skids ( 119237 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @12:43PM (#53781441) Homepage

        However, seemingly the use of e-cigs or nicotine patches or other safer nicotine delivery would provide the same benefits at far lower risk.

        A competent harm reduction strategy for nicotine consumers would require the abstinence-only anti-tobacco nut-jobs to allow new tobacco/nicotine products. E-cigs (still horribly under-regulated and under-studied) and such were perfectly possible in the 60s, but we got nowhere because we have fanatical idiots on one side of the issue and the shameless corporate lackeys on the other. It was only through a "flash mob"-like phenomena and the advancement of consumer-level tech to the point where a horde of hard-to-regulate single-owner e-commerce businesses could produce such technology profitably that e-cigs have gotten where they are today. They got so popular so fast (despite the crazy lack of any sort of real quality control) that the genie got out of the bottle before the crazier elements among the anti-smoking crowd could step on its throat.

        Nicotine patches are IMO a pretty useless product; the lack of self titration is too huge a step away from the smoking experience for most... and I'd bet by the time you'd cut down to the point where you just wanted a baseline delivery rather than a rush, you'd be able to do without the patch.

    • But then where do you stop? Will you ban alcohol as well?

    • Re:No Sympathy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by totallyarb ( 889799 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @12:48PM (#53781515)

      "I have no sympathy. Smoking is entirely unnecessary."

      That, I'm afraid, is the perfect totalitarian mantra: "I think it is unnecessary, therefore I will ban it."

      "People keep doing it only because they are addicted to it, not for any other positive reasons."

      [Citation Needed]

      What you seem to be saying is actually "*I* don't enjoy it, so it is impossible that anyone else does."

      "It can go entirely without any objectively negative impacts whatsoever."

      So, you're the sort of crude utilitarian who assumes there are objective standards of which activities are enjoyable and which are not? And moreover, that your judgement of these "objective" standards is objectively perfect? Wow. Just wow.

      I don't smoke, have never smoked, no stake in this game; but your post is a crime against logic and reason.

    • Re:No Sympathy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by lbalbalba ( 526209 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @12:50PM (#53781537)

      I have no sympathy. Civilians owning guns is entirely unnecessary. People keep doing it only because they are addicted to it, not for any other positive reasons. It can go entirely without any objectively negative impacts whatsoever.

      Fixed that for you.

  • by GLMDesigns ( 2044134 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @12:00PM (#53780969)
    Yeah! Let's increase the police power of the state. Let's make states even more intrusive. Let's ban everything we think is immoral and wrong and just plain nasty.

    Then we will have utopia. And we will all inspire joy-joy feelings in all those around us.
  • by kuzb ( 724081 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @12:27PM (#53781269)
    Yeah, because you're essentially initiating a prohibition without the prohibition. Remember how well that worked out for alcohol in the US?

    The entire thing is stupid and interferes with something that makes a subset of people happy. Yes it's bad for you, we know that and so do they. Yes it should be inappropriate in certain public spaces. However this has past the point of protecting people who don't want to smoke - it's now forcing other people's ideals on to them for the sake of doing it. That's wrong on every level. These people really aren't hurting you with their habit.

    If you want to head towards a demolition man-like police state where everything potentially bad for you is banned, this is how you do it.
  • Fuck everybody who tries to force me to do something.
    • Yeah! Fuck those fucking smokers who put their goddamn drugs into the common air and thereby force me to do their drugs with them whether I want to or not!

  • by c ( 8461 ) <beauregardcp@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @12:35PM (#53781343)

    If it's the poor who are now the most likely to smoke, it's hard to see how they will ever afford the AUD$40 (USD$30) pack of cigarettes.

    They won't.

    They'll buy black market cigarettes for a fraction of that price.

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @12:39PM (#53781385)

    Seriously.

    I've been a long time smoker. I stopped smoking a while ago. Didn't want to anymore. Honestly no big deal, at least for me. Likewise, it's no big deal for me if someone does smoke.

    Now, of course I can see it in places where people who do not enjoy smoke have to go. Public offices and buildings, especially when kids are involved, absolutely off limits when it comes to smoking. I can also see how smoke takes away the experience of a good dinner at a restaurant. Absolutely d'accord.

    But frankly, what's wrong with smoking in a bar? I finally found a place that's still sane, where people can get together, enjoy their cocktails in a cultivated atmosphere, some of the people enjoy their cigars, yes, that adds to my experience. I love that. I can go there and simply relax, unwind, have a good and entertaining conversation and spend an evening drinking, talking and enjoying the smell of cigars.

    If you don't, well, there's other places to go to. Nobody forces you to go to my bar, it's far from the only one and there are plenty of non-smoking places now.

    Why does it have to be mandatory non-smoking? Could anyone explain this to me? Why not allow the owner of the pub, bar or even restaurant to decide whether he wishes to allow smoking? Good ol' capitalist logic tells me that the market dictates that a product that the customer does not want will vanish and the one offering it shall perish, why not let the market sort it out?

  • Now (Score:4, Insightful)

    by The-Ixian ( 168184 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @02:45PM (#53782819)

    Now we just need to make it illegal to throw your cigarette butt on the ground.

    Why do people do that?! It's way more aggravating than 2nd hand smoke ever was.

Remember Darwin; building a better mousetrap merely results in smarter mice.

Working...