'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.
The point (Score:5, Insightful)
" 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)
Re:The point (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The point (Score:5, Interesting)
Australia is unique in that it is an island continent. You can't just drive across the border to get some smokes.
You can fly in with your suitcase full of packs of cigarettes and have them taxed to hell and back in customs, or you can use a boat to go from the northern coast of Australia to PNG / Indonesia, which is not a short trip by any stretch.
Then you have to get your boatload of cigarettes that are boxed in bright, attractive packaging to your customers without arousing suspicion, because every pack of cigarettes in Australia is plain white with pictures of mouth cancer &etc on it by law. So you stuff about and put them all into little baggies, or whaterever, increasing your labour and distribution costs further.
So what will happen is that you'll have a few large black market operators that are regularly picked off by Customs, and black market cigarettes will be hard to come by, and hopefully people will just save themselves the hassle, quit smoking, and drink themselves to death instead with the money they've saved.
Re: (Score:3)
guess again: http://www.news.com.au/finance... [news.com.au]
you people that try to control others with taxes are hilarious. also wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
A very large proportion of many voluntary activities/behaviors that can affect health in the U.S. falls to Medicaid and Medicare, i.e. you and me.
FTFY
We need a government list of approved and non-approved activities, diets/foods, and behaviors (default unapproved until/unless reviewed & approved) legislated into law.
After all, if something negatively affects a person's health it puts a burden on everyone. We could put all the people unemployed due to automation, high minimum wages, and bad economies to work monitoring individuals for compliance.
What could possibly go wrong?
Or, maybe we could make health care costs a mostly individual responsibili
Re: (Score:3)
This is why I think such supplemental taxes should be earmarked for a particular purpose only. Ie, vice taxes pay for prevention services or health costs, gasoline taxes pay for roads, and so forth. Sticking this money into a general fund is what causes problems.
Re: The point (Score:5, Interesting)
Smokers who quit will cost less to the public health care system
And you know this how? Smokers usually die quicker, so don't burden the system as much. My Dad died from smoking, once he was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, most of his health spending was on morphine with just a few days of hospital care. My Mom, who is a non-smoker, developed Alzheimers 15 years ago and just keeps hanging in there, in a condition that if she was a dog, would see us sentenced for animal abuse, eating up tons of healthcare dollars as she is completely incapable of caring for herself
Re: (Score:3)
The study you link to was done in Holland, not the US. Holland hospital care is far cheaper, so stop with the apples-vs-tomatoes comparisons, mkay?
The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.
It also didn't include the lost tax income from consumers living longer after they stop working. Al the money they continue to spend circulates in the economy, creating jobs and taxes. And many of them continue to work after 65, generating more work income to put back into the economy.
A dead person don't do any of that.
Re: (Score:3)
Aren't you Canadian, and aren't we talking about Australia? Anyways, using my parents again, my Dad died at 66 after retiring at 64 (job got outsourced to America), my Mom collects $2000 a month in pensions, which all go to her care, basically a wealth transfer from the federal government to the provincial one, so 15 extra years of collecting pensions.
Re: The point (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting, but seems American biased, a country with high healthcare costs and low tobacco taxes.
Down the page there are a few references to studies done with the NHS which show the opposite. Probably need a meta-study to compare the different studies and take in different health systems.
Re: (Score:3, Redundant)
Smokers who quit will cost less to the public health care system,
Thoroughly-debunked urban legend. People should be embarrassed repeating this on these days. Smoking-related deaths are average-cost ways to die.
lso, since they'll live longer they can work longer and consume longer - and sales taxes and other consumer levies are must-haves for most tax systems.
I can only hope you're being snarky here, but there are people who would sincerely argue that you don't have the right to die early, or to risk your life in any way, because that would deprive the state of needed tax revenue. Those people are assholes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Lot's of thing are "force" if you choose to define things that way. The social contract is effectively a kind of force, peer pressure is a kind of force. But the use of the word "force" is intended to suggest violence, as in "it's an act of violence that I have to pay taxes", which is about as sensible as saying "it's an act of violence to demand that I drive the speed limit".
Re: The point (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the taxes are worse in Somalia. Upon arrival you'll be grabbed by a local warlord and be informed that you better come up with X dollars (usually a few thousand, they're not too unreasonable) if you want to live, here's a phone. And they will kill you if you don't find some way to raise that money.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on how you define taxes. Some define all taxes as theft, which is a crime, and others could define the local warlord as government needing to raise revenue. The point stands that going to Somalia is likely to cost, much as living in civilization costs.
Re:The point (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:The point (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The point (Score:4, Insightful)
Although smoking cessation is desirable from a public health perspective, its consequences with respect to health care costs are still debated. Smokers have more disease than nonsmokers, but nonsmokers live longer and can incur more health costs at advanced ages. We analyzed health care costs for smokers and nonsmokers and estimated the economic consequences of smoking cessation.
And no I don't smoke and didn't vote for trump standard disclaimer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The point (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:The point (Score:5, Interesting)
Forcing people to pay for the health care of other adults is wrong.
It's absolutely right and one of the best things about countries with social/subsidised healthcare. Shame on America for abandoning it.
Re: (Score:3)
The basis of your argument is flawed. If tax is taking time away, the stuff it pays for more than gives it back. In the case of healthcare, it's insurance that most people could never afford on their own. Insurance that covers existing conditions, for example.
More over, the value of things like infrastructure and an educated population are difficult to calculate but undoubtedly valuable.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Consent (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see how much the Australian government collects in taxes on cigarettes versus smoke-related healthcare costs.
Re: (Score:3)
If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
" 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
Re: (Score:2)
You are proposing that people be punished, not in proportion to the harm that they do, but in proportion to how wealthy they are. Let's see how this might work in practice.
Case 1: Homeless bum steals an axe and uses it to smash your front door to splinters. He has no income and no money, so he pays no fine.
Case 2: Bill Gates leaves a thumbprint on your window, which makes your life worse by infinitesimally blurring the view through that window. Fine: $1 million, because he's rich.
See a problem here?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your argument here is that, in reality, "the rich" don't smoke remotely as much as the poor. The rich seem to be too smart for that. I'm sure there's a few exceptions here and there, but there's a reason you don't see cigarettes and chewing tobacco sold in fancy boutique shops on Rodeo Drive and other such places.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have some sort of evidence that smoking does *not* cause massive long-term health problems like emphysema and lung cancer?
If not, then yes, he *does* know what's best for people.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are chasing some sort of optimized outcome for each individual you need to start addressing daily habits like sitting and diet before focusing on smoking. If you are willing to go that far, I'm not sure we have even the illusion of individual liberty or self determination left.
How soon until this is extended to other areas? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That problem is not exclusive to socialized health care; it applies to any such insurance, obviously. (Just like the fictitious "death panels" would have be equally scary were they composed of corporate bean counters instead of government bureaucrats.)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to invoke socialized health care to identify real physical damage caused by sexual promiscuity. Many diseases are spread by sexual intercourse, some by actions as minor as kissing.
Your bias is evident by your classification of "weapons ownership" as "unhealthy." Not "shooting people", but "weapons ownership." Please think before posting.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that when you follow an unhealthy lifestyle, society ultimately pays the price.
You make a valid point for people living in countries that actually have a public health care system instead of some backwards "rich people deserve better medical care" system. I agree with you- if something costs public health care extra money there might be a justification. Are we going to have a "sit on your bum all day" tax as well though for people who don't exercise?
Again though, make it relative. If government pays health care costs then, fine, add a 1% unhealthy-choice tax on pizza or ice-cream.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Ontario Already has Those Rules (Score:2)
Should be done in the US too, but won't be (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Should be done in the US too, but won't be (Score:4, Informative)
So, Is the following statement true or false? Is it true all over the state or only outside Austin?
"everyone can smoke in public along with most businesses being smoker-friendly indoors"
As a Texan who's been living in the College Station area (where Texas A&M University is) since 2002, I can't think of anytime in the last decade that I've seen smoking indoors. And I'm an asthmatic, so I tend to take note of people smoking around me.
I still remember the not-so-fond days (i.e. the '80s and '90s, for me) of places like Cracker Barrel using an open lattice to separate the smoking and "non-smoking" sections of the restaurant. These days though? The last time I remember seeing anyone smoking indoors was at a bar back in 2005 or so. I'll admit, I don't frequent bars, so it wouldn't come as a surprise to me if smoking was still allowed at some or all of the ones in town, but other than that, I can't remember the last time I saw anyone smoking indoors, whether we're talking about a restaurant, a store, or some other indoor establishment. And while it's generally allowed outdoors, it's such a rare occurrence to actually encounter someone smoking in public that when my wife and I were on a cruise this last December, we were struck by just how unusual it felt to have so many smokers around us when we went out on the deck of the ship.
Really, about the only time I see people smoking at all around here is when I visit the university campus. I'll see clusters of international grad students at the cigarette disposal receptacles 30 ft away from the entrances to major buildings on campus, since they're required by law to maintain that distance if they want to smoke.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Actually, there are a few cases smoking benefit (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Actually, there are a few cases smoking benefit (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"harm reduction" is not the same as "help you quit".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But then where do you stop? Will you ban alcohol as well?
Re:No Sympathy (Score:5, Insightful)
"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)
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.
Joy Joy Feelings for all (Score:5, Insightful)
Then we will have utopia. And we will all inspire joy-joy feelings in all those around us.
Re: (Score:3)
You should be free to f*k who you want.
You should be free to smoke tobacco, weed, crack, whatever.
Either you own your own body or you don't.
If you don't have a right to smoke tobacco you don't have a right to drink or take any other substance that some all-knowing, do-gooder bureaucrat thinks is harmful.
Either you make the decision for yourself or the state does it for you.
Re:Joy Joy Feelings for all (Score:5, Insightful)
I fully agree. I should be free not to breath in your smoke.
And the fact you don't think it's a person vs corporation issue when someone is selling you a product that provides you with zero benefit at all to the end user... well that says a lot.
But just like any drug addiction smoking has negative affects on people around you. Unlike most drug addictions smokers have shown an inability to keep their habit to themselves.
Seriously fuck smokers. Karma / mod points be damned. The vast majority are filthy entitled scum who feel like their habit should be all that matters and then whine when managers complain about the amount of breaks they take or people complain that they don't want to smell smoke while eating, or god forbid a workplace shall have an atmosphere that doesn't cause cancer. Lock them in their homes and close all the windows.
Re: (Score:3)
I own my own body.
I get to choose what goes into it and I have every right to use any means up to and including violence, including state violence if available, to prevent other people from putting things into my body that I don't want there.
So keep your fucking drugs inside your own body and we're fine. Start putting them in the common air and thus into my body and we've got a problem, and either the state will do something about it for me, or I'll do it myself.
They will shoot themselves in the food (Score:3)
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 the world (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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!
Affordability (Score:3)
They won't.
They'll buy black market cigarettes for a fraction of that price.
Where the fuck is the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Where the fuck is the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't, well, there's other places to go to.
There's other places for you to go to smoke, too. Such as your house.
Re:Where the fuck is the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
But frankly, what's wrong with smoking in a bar?
It's bad for the bar staff's help.
Imagine if it was paint fumes. The decorating company says to its staff, "you just have to put up with paint fumes and the damage they do to your lungs, or get another job". That wouldn't fly in most places, the law requires jobs that expose workers to hazards to provide protective equipment.
In other words the bar staff would need breathing equipment, and would be required to wear it by law to prevent unfair competition (i.e. individuals opting out of safety equipment to make themselves more employable).
There are exemptions for things like actors who smoke for a role, but just wanting to operate a smoking room in a bar is not one of them.
Re: Where the fuck is the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that free market is incompatible with addiction - pretty much by definition.
Now (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
ISTM that she's advocating "poor shaming".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Black market (Score:4, Funny)
Racist. The correct term is African-American Australians.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless they move to New Zealand, then they are African American Australian New Zealanders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US doesn't need laws like that, at least not nationwide. Instead, it should be done state-by-state, and people who come from pro-smoking states should be forced to pay higher taxes when they move to non-smoking states, to compensate for the higher burden on the public health system they'll present.
If Nevada is too dumb to enact some decent anti-smoking laws like everyone else, then its citizens should pay the price.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a wild guess who the heavy smokers are...
Re: (Score:2)