How Australia is stubbing out smoking(bbc.com)
bbc.com
How Australia is stubbing out smoking
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38733502
327 comments
In the places I've lived in America the two classes of people who care the least about disposing of trash anywhere but on the ground are lottery players (I assume only the non-winners) and smokers. I see other types of litter, but nothing else nearly as regularly.
I happened to be watching a girl smoke once, and caught myself thinking, "grr, she's probably going to drop it on the ground". I realized I was being uncharitable, and just because a lot of people leave their cigarettes around doesn't mean this one person is going to.
Then she dropped it on the ground, stomped it and and walked away. It's really hard to be a generous person when others constantly prove cynicism right.
Then she dropped it on the ground, stomped it and and walked away. It's really hard to be a generous person when others constantly prove cynicism right.
I once said to a smoker outside a laundromat as he threw the butt on the ground "you dropped something".
He replied "we'll pick it up for me then" and walked inside.
I did pick it up, entered the laundromat and threw it in to his basket of clean clothes.
Then we got in a fight, it probably wasn't worth it but it felt really good.
He replied "we'll pick it up for me then" and walked inside.
I did pick it up, entered the laundromat and threw it in to his basket of clean clothes.
Then we got in a fight, it probably wasn't worth it but it felt really good.
Hey, I'm not the guy bragging about starting fictional fights.
A fantasy of mine is to throw cigarette butts back into smokers cars when seeing them toss them out at traffic lights and in traffic.
You'll like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo3cVuvVRUE then.
I wish I had as much free time to do the same.
I really like your style.
I didn't mean to come off well in the story. It was pretty dumb and could have ended quite badly.
You're my hero...
No, totally worth it!
This just made my morning.
Here's the thing about smokers. The very act of smoking is saying "I don't care about my health". If you don't care about your own health, why would you care about the health of strangers or the environment?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Their attitude seems to be "When you smoke, the whole world is an ashtray."
bike commuting every day I am exposed to a lot of litter, from my perspective the vastly most common litter is drink containers, coffee cups in the winter, soda cups in the summer, there is really no contest, it's by far the largest amount. Plastic bags are next, then those disposable flossing plastic U-shaped things, and then all sorts of other things.
I so wish that 7-11, starbucks etc. charged $5 deposit for every drink container they sell, ah one can always dream...
I so wish that 7-11, starbucks etc. charged $5 deposit for every drink container they sell, ah one can always dream...
Would you have said the same 30 years ago? Smoking used to be much more common - at least in places where I've lived. As smokers have quit the number of butts they have dropped have gone down. My impression is smokers in general are more likely to drop their used butts, but since there are so few of them you don't see much.
Those stick around for a long time. Toss an apple and it's quickly dirt inside a week or two, toss the bag it came in and that's still mostly intact in 6 months.
I actually felt anxiety about it raining just knowing where it was all headed.
You people scare me. Honestly. I'm not joking. What I can feel anxiety for: thinking that people can start a fight for a butt on the floor.
Making people feel guilt for using the wrong trash container, or leaving the tap open for too long. Life's too short for that crap, IMHO.
It makes me think of Demolition Man. I believed it was over the top comedy when it was released. Now I'm not taking it as a joke anymore.
Edit: I should not need to say this. But... I don't smoke. Also I don't approve people littering if they can avoid it.
You people scare me. Honestly. I'm not joking. What I can feel anxiety for: thinking that people can start a fight for a butt on the floor.
Making people feel guilt for using the wrong trash container, or leaving the tap open for too long. Life's too short for that crap, IMHO.
It makes me think of Demolition Man. I believed it was over the top comedy when it was released. Now I'm not taking it as a joke anymore.
Edit: I should not need to say this. But... I don't smoke. Also I don't approve people littering if they can avoid it.
Well I'm also affraid by self-interested people who think that life is short, therefore, behaving selfishly is fine. Fortunately we share this world with other living organisms and juvenille humans, who deserve a healthy eco-system.
Also, the natural environment is not the wrong trash can, it's simply not a trash can at all.
I've often seen people deliberately ignore signs warning people not to use a storm water drain as a trash can. What hope do we have when people do things like that?
Also, I have no idea how we got into water restrictions, but why not?
Also, the natural environment is not the wrong trash can, it's simply not a trash can at all.
I've often seen people deliberately ignore signs warning people not to use a storm water drain as a trash can. What hope do we have when people do things like that?
Also, I have no idea how we got into water restrictions, but why not?
[deleted]
Honestly, you should feel guilty. Recycling is easy; so is looking for a garbage can.
Our resources are limited. No use squandering them because "yolo".
Our resources are limited. No use squandering them because "yolo".
"You"? It seems you didn't understand my previous comment. Fine. I really don't know how to explain the concept much better. It's something about not putting absolute ideas over people, including oneself. That's not to say despising common interest, but just having a little common sense.
Let me share an old story of my hometown. Public water supply pipes are a disaster in the area. I saw an official report that showed that the waste was between 20% and 40%. So, even if this is the spanish province with the most rain, we suffered from restrictions most summers. No current water from 10 PM to 10 AM.
Now two infuriating (for me, at least) cases: one nearby village spent a hefty sum repairing the pipes, so no more leaks, and a family here that installed a reservoir in the roof to have water after 10 PM. Please notice that cutting the supply is not intended to make people consume less (they do more since water is kept in buckets for the night), but to reduce the leaks to half (half time pressurized pipes).
The family was fined because they were not "solidary" with their neighbours. The rest of councils of the area made a big noise and demanded the village that had invested in infrastructure, and thus attacked the root problem, to put restrictions in place.
You might think that these stories have nothing to do with the current conversation. Maybe I should have written about the fines for not recycling while there were not recycling facilities, so everything ended in the same dumpster, or the golf fields that sucked tons of water, I don't know.
My point is what I wrote above: beware of this kind of absolute idea when they stomp over people or common sense. Do what you reasonably can to make the world a little better, but don't put the responsability to save the world on your shoulders, that's not healthy.
Let me share an old story of my hometown. Public water supply pipes are a disaster in the area. I saw an official report that showed that the waste was between 20% and 40%. So, even if this is the spanish province with the most rain, we suffered from restrictions most summers. No current water from 10 PM to 10 AM.
Now two infuriating (for me, at least) cases: one nearby village spent a hefty sum repairing the pipes, so no more leaks, and a family here that installed a reservoir in the roof to have water after 10 PM. Please notice that cutting the supply is not intended to make people consume less (they do more since water is kept in buckets for the night), but to reduce the leaks to half (half time pressurized pipes).
The family was fined because they were not "solidary" with their neighbours. The rest of councils of the area made a big noise and demanded the village that had invested in infrastructure, and thus attacked the root problem, to put restrictions in place.
You might think that these stories have nothing to do with the current conversation. Maybe I should have written about the fines for not recycling while there were not recycling facilities, so everything ended in the same dumpster, or the golf fields that sucked tons of water, I don't know.
My point is what I wrote above: beware of this kind of absolute idea when they stomp over people or common sense. Do what you reasonably can to make the world a little better, but don't put the responsability to save the world on your shoulders, that's not healthy.
When I went to Italy I was shocked at how much people smoked. I always thought Italians were more health conscious but more people smoked in Italy than I see in America.
The train stations were horrible. I once looked under the platform and each time a trains comes it pushes butts to one side. There were literally 10,000s or more.
The train stations were horrible. I once looked under the platform and each time a trains comes it pushes butts to one side. There were literally 10,000s or more.
It honestly doesn't seem to me that consumption in Italy is that different from other western countries (it is lower than neighboring Austria or Switzerland, for instance)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cigarette...
In addition is forbidden to smoke in public enclosed spaces (which is not a given in many countries), and it is forbidden to advertise cigarettes and tobacco.
There is in general less stigma associated to smoking than in the US, for this reason people might feel more "free" to openly smoke in places where it is not forbidden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cigarette...
In addition is forbidden to smoke in public enclosed spaces (which is not a given in many countries), and it is forbidden to advertise cigarettes and tobacco.
There is in general less stigma associated to smoking than in the US, for this reason people might feel more "free" to openly smoke in places where it is not forbidden.
Cigarettes are a lot cheaper in Italy than they are in the UK, at least (a quick Google suggests cigarette prices vary wildly in the US depending on different taxes in each state).
why cannot the filters be mandated to be quickly biodegradable? We can make shipping peanuts from corn and they dissolve in water, why not the filters?
Even better, get rid of filters entirely.
They're the only part of a rollie that isn't biodegradable - the rest being plant matter (the tobacco) and other plant matter (paper).
The taste is far better without one too, less airflow restriction, and I vaguely recall something about filtered cigs being potentially more dangerous than unfiltered ones - something to do with all the nicotine being 'stolen' by the filter (due to it settling in with the tar-resin stuff that builds up in the filter or whatever), leading people who smoke filtered fags & rollies to actually smoke more to get the "hit" they were looking for, to the point where any benefit the filter provided in the first place is completely nullified and even beyond.
They're the only part of a rollie that isn't biodegradable - the rest being plant matter (the tobacco) and other plant matter (paper).
The taste is far better without one too, less airflow restriction, and I vaguely recall something about filtered cigs being potentially more dangerous than unfiltered ones - something to do with all the nicotine being 'stolen' by the filter (due to it settling in with the tar-resin stuff that builds up in the filter or whatever), leading people who smoke filtered fags & rollies to actually smoke more to get the "hit" they were looking for, to the point where any benefit the filter provided in the first place is completely nullified and even beyond.
You'll like Mr Trash Wheel: http://baltimorewaterfront.com/healthy-harbor/water-wheel/
The cost of smoking in Australia is probably the main thing that has cut smoking rates. At $20+ a pack smoking is so expensive.
It's also worth noting that Nicorette is much cheaper than in the US. The moment you start using that you save money in Australia.
It's curious that the article doesn't mention e-cigarettes. It's funny how harm minimisation is pushed by academic researchers when it comes to most drugs but isn't discussed that much when it comes to tobacco. They have been pretty much banned in Australia.
It's also worth noting that Nicorette is much cheaper than in the US. The moment you start using that you save money in Australia.
It's curious that the article doesn't mention e-cigarettes. It's funny how harm minimisation is pushed by academic researchers when it comes to most drugs but isn't discussed that much when it comes to tobacco. They have been pretty much banned in Australia.
And it's a regressive tax that mostly punishes the poor for smoking. Not to mention the ridiculous prices of alcohol. It's no wonder meth is exploding in popularity.
It's an easy way to evaluate the real priorities of politicians though. If cost of living issues were really their number one priority then these sin taxes would be the first to go.
It's an easy way to evaluate the real priorities of politicians though. If cost of living issues were really their number one priority then these sin taxes would be the first to go.
It certainly is a regressive tax, but is it really punishing someone if you make it more expensive to legally purchase something that only damages or kills them, is highly addictive and that only places an overall burden on society? After all, despite its flaws we in Australia have a great, free healthcare system, with an extensive quit smoking program. We tend to find that adequate and free government health services mean that the poorest in our society are looked after far better than in a society that has cheap booze and cigarettes and an incredibly expensive healthcare system.
I guess it depends on the priorities of your wider society. I think ours is pretty right, personally.
I guess it depends on the priorities of your wider society. I think ours is pretty right, personally.
Depends on how the calculations are done but it can be shown to save money overall. Smokers have a tendency to die much younger and more rapidly which saves the health and welfare budget a tonne, smokers are certainly aren't causing the population aging.
Aside from that there's the general problems you always have with prohibition, people will use other substances on the black market, many of which will be worse.
Aside from that there's the general problems you always have with prohibition, people will use other substances on the black market, many of which will be worse.
While it's technically true I've always hated this argument. Yes, smokers are without doubt cheaper for the healthcare system because they die earlier and faster. It's completely missing the point though, because the entire reason we have our healthcare system is to provide a long and high quality life for the population. Someone dying earlier may be cheaper, but it's also a failure.
The entire reason we have our healthcare system is so that a long and high quality life is an option for the population. It seems pretty apparent to me that most people aren't optimising for either though. No reason to get paternalistic with it.
Smoking imposes one person's choice on many others, in terms of length and quality of life, via the negative effects of passive smoking (and also just day-to-day---I personally hate having to suffer through someone's acrid fumes). If people smoked without releasing the byproducts into the air everyone else breathes, this argument would make more sense. But even then, there's massive money and expertise behind advertising (etc.) for getting people hooked, against what may be their "actual" preferences.
An easy problem solved by restricting use in public locations, which we already do to an extent. However a person quietly poisoning themselves in isolation within their own home is still unnecessarily and unfairly affected by tyrannical sin taxes.
They also have higher health care costs due to smoking, which in Australia costs billions of dollars in increased health spending. I think it's not unfair to have them subsidise their cohort's inevitable health care costs.
The argument runs both ways: given smoking is a lifestyle choice with absolutely no positive outcomes for anyone other than tobacco companies, and numerous and virtually guaranteed bad health outcomes for those who smoke and almost certainly for those frequently around the smoker, then I don't see why wider society should be "punished" for the avoidable actions of those who choose not to quit smoking.
It's not like there are not extensive campaigns and programs subsidised by the Australian government for those willing to attempt quitting cigarettes.
The argument runs both ways: given smoking is a lifestyle choice with absolutely no positive outcomes for anyone other than tobacco companies, and numerous and virtually guaranteed bad health outcomes for those who smoke and almost certainly for those frequently around the smoker, then I don't see why wider society should be "punished" for the avoidable actions of those who choose not to quit smoking.
It's not like there are not extensive campaigns and programs subsidised by the Australian government for those willing to attempt quitting cigarettes.
Everyone releases stuff into the air that effects others, from perfume to car exhaust to barbecues. Why is your car exhaust ok but not my cigarette smoke?
There are legal limits placed on exhaust. VW is one recent example of this. If I were to pump exhaust from my car into your home, I'm sure there would be repercussions. I believe there are regulations with respect to perfume as well— yup, there are ADA guidelines in the US[0]. I can imagine cases where barbecues have been considered a nuisance. Found an example of that, too.[1]
When looking up the phrase "my rights end where yours begin", I came across the much more colorful "Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins". I don't think the freedom to emit noisome or noxious fumes is quite as unlimited as implied by your comment.
[0]: https://www.laborlawcenter.com/education-center/new-ada-guid...
[1]: http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2015/07/27/florida-county-... (includes autoplay video, sorry)
When looking up the phrase "my rights end where yours begin", I came across the much more colorful "Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins". I don't think the freedom to emit noisome or noxious fumes is quite as unlimited as implied by your comment.
[0]: https://www.laborlawcenter.com/education-center/new-ada-guid...
[1]: http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2015/07/27/florida-county-... (includes autoplay video, sorry)
If you wanted to run your exhaust next to me in a restaurant I'd complain about that.
If your exhaust pipe was pointed at my face on the sidewalk again I'd complain.
A lot of offices have gone to perfume/cologne free because it is offensive to a lot of people.
Of course you still have to smell the person who just finished a smoke outside which is far worse than even the most liberal applier of perfume.
If your exhaust pipe was pointed at my face on the sidewalk again I'd complain.
A lot of offices have gone to perfume/cologne free because it is offensive to a lot of people.
Of course you still have to smell the person who just finished a smoke outside which is far worse than even the most liberal applier of perfume.
> If you wanted to run your exhaust next to me in a restaurant I'd complain about that.
That's fine, I'm not a fan of smoke in restaurants or indoors anyway. It's already banned here.
> If your exhaust pipe was pointed at my face on the sidewalk again I'd complain.
This is exactly what cars are doing on the sidewalk. It's not like the emissions travel in a straight line. No one is blowing smoke directly at you either.
> A lot of offices have gone to perfume/cologne free because it is offensive to a lot of people.
Never heard of this.
That's fine, I'm not a fan of smoke in restaurants or indoors anyway. It's already banned here.
> If your exhaust pipe was pointed at my face on the sidewalk again I'd complain.
This is exactly what cars are doing on the sidewalk. It's not like the emissions travel in a straight line. No one is blowing smoke directly at you either.
> A lot of offices have gone to perfume/cologne free because it is offensive to a lot of people.
Never heard of this.
>This is exactly what cars are doing on the sidewalk. It's not like the emissions travel in a straight line. No one is blowing smoke directly at you either.
This is wrong go walk on a sidewalk near a smoker and you'll see them blowing clouds which go in peoples faces as they walk by and leaving clouds in the faces of people walking behind them. This isn't an issue of being in the vicinity of the smoke it is having to walk through the cloud of it.
Go outside an office building around 9, 10:30 or lunch time and you'll often have to walk through a large cloud as all the smokers hang out to get in their smokes.
Smokers are in general super inconsiderate about their additions effect on other people in public.
>Never heard of this.
Google scent free office or fragrancy free office it's not uncommon these days.
This is wrong go walk on a sidewalk near a smoker and you'll see them blowing clouds which go in peoples faces as they walk by and leaving clouds in the faces of people walking behind them. This isn't an issue of being in the vicinity of the smoke it is having to walk through the cloud of it.
Go outside an office building around 9, 10:30 or lunch time and you'll often have to walk through a large cloud as all the smokers hang out to get in their smokes.
Smokers are in general super inconsiderate about their additions effect on other people in public.
>Never heard of this.
Google scent free office or fragrancy free office it's not uncommon these days.
> This is wrong go walk on a sidewalk near a smoker and you'll see them blowing clouds which go in peoples faces as they walk by and leaving clouds in the faces of people walking behind them. This isn't an issue of being in the vicinity of the smoke it is having to walk through the cloud of it.
The only difference is the visibility, just because you can't see car exhaust doesn't mean it's not there.
> Go outside an office building around 9, 10:30 or lunch time and you'll often have to walk through a large cloud as all the smokers hang out to get in their smokes.
Yes, because it's about the only area left to go for a smoke. It's an effect of banning it everywhere else, not smokers being inconsiderate. If there was a nice out of the way area where smoking was allowed then people would go there.
The only difference is the visibility, just because you can't see car exhaust doesn't mean it's not there.
> Go outside an office building around 9, 10:30 or lunch time and you'll often have to walk through a large cloud as all the smokers hang out to get in their smokes.
Yes, because it's about the only area left to go for a smoke. It's an effect of banning it everywhere else, not smokers being inconsiderate. If there was a nice out of the way area where smoking was allowed then people would go there.
Earlier but not necessarily cheaper, as they will pick up other forms of repiratory and cardiovascular disease before they expire (not every smoker end up getting incurable lung cancer, and its not like they should be refused treatment kf they do). Not to mention the secdonary harm they cause to the others.
I good portion of them would end up with some other chronic disease if the live to an older age.
It's not a failure of the health system though. Not everyone wants to optimize their life for living longer.
> Not everyone wants to optimize their life for living longer.
It would be real nice if they would refrain from optimizing the lives of everyone around them for not living longer as well.
It would be real nice if they would refrain from optimizing the lives of everyone around them for not living longer as well.
I like that line of thinking. Can't we make it more efficient though? Like, have a live grenade in the filter of every 1% of cigarettes to blow off the smoker's head. Есть человек — есть проблема, нет человека — нет проблемы.
Had to google translate your little saying there.
There are people - there is a problem, there are no people - no problem
I like the idea.
There are people - there is a problem, there are no people - no problem
I like the idea.
[deleted]
Well, thank god our friends and relatives are dying young so I can save a bob or two in tax!
>with an extensive quit smoking program
Do they hand out or heavily encourage ecigs? Are those cheap in general and permitted to be used everywhere on public property?
Because if so I accept your agreement, because it is clearly not about punishing people for enjoying something, but if not, then I assume the people who run it are just another bunch of statists out to kill as much fun as they can.
Do they hand out or heavily encourage ecigs? Are those cheap in general and permitted to be used everywhere on public property?
Because if so I accept your agreement, because it is clearly not about punishing people for enjoying something, but if not, then I assume the people who run it are just another bunch of statists out to kill as much fun as they can.
Can't speak to ecigs in particular, but most of the ads I've seen push addiction-combating substitutes like nicotine patches.
>It certainly is a regressive tax, but is it really punishing someone if you make it more expensive to legally purchase something that only damages or kills them, is highly addictive and that only places an overall burden on society?
Yes.
Yes.
That's a very short and unconvincing argument. Do feel free to expand on it!
> [smoking] places an overall burden on society
Are you sure about that?
Are you sure about that?
I am sure.
Smoking tobacco is recognised as one of the largest preventable causes of death and disease in Australia. Each year, smoking kills an estimated 15,000 Australians and costs Australia $31.5 billion in social (including health) and economic costs. The Australian Government and state and territory governments, through the Council of Australian Governments, have committed by 2018, to reduce the national adult daily smoking rate to 10% and halve the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adult daily smoking rate (from 47% in 2008).
http://www.health.gov.au/tobacco
Smoking tobacco is recognised as one of the largest preventable causes of death and disease in Australia. Each year, smoking kills an estimated 15,000 Australians and costs Australia $31.5 billion in social (including health) and economic costs. The Australian Government and state and territory governments, through the Council of Australian Governments, have committed by 2018, to reduce the national adult daily smoking rate to 10% and halve the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adult daily smoking rate (from 47% in 2008).
http://www.health.gov.au/tobacco
I am. I've had to sit in smoke-filled cafes (nearly all were so) and to take busses and taxis filled with smokers. I have had to passively smoke in billions of public places and there's no opt-out from that. I'm so glad that in my country, Turkey, a smoking ban in public interior spaces is in effect, and I think that's what really reduces the number of smokers along with people learning how harmful it is. I'm not so keen about the effect of raised prices though.
It's a pity you're being downvoted, because your first paragraph is factually correct. I guess people don't want to hear it if it conflicts with their (mistaken) preconceptions.
The language is heavily loaded. What about tobbaco being punishing for society (especially passive smoking), or tobacco companies being punishing for their addicted user base? Taxes drive people to meth? This badly sounds like fear mongering from lobbies, "let people smoke our cigarettes, or they'll become junkies".
It's been highly effective at lowering the smoking rate. In a country with taxpayer funded healthcare.
Citation? If you're talking about Australia btw (where I live), I'd suggest that's a highly debatable proposition.
'Curbing the epidemic: Governments and the economics of tobacco control'[1], World Bank, Washington DC, 1999, pp. 37–45 and C Gallet and J List, 'Cigarette demand: meta-analysis of elasticities'[2], Health Economics, 12/10, 2003, pp. 821–835.
According to a systematic review of studies of tobacco elasticities the average price elasticity for teenagers was -1.43 and -0.76 for young adults. As such, a 10% increase in tobacco price could be expected to decrease the tobacco consumption of teenagers by around 14%, and that of young adults by around 7.6%.
[1] http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/914041468176678949...
[2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.765/abstract
According to a systematic review of studies of tobacco elasticities the average price elasticity for teenagers was -1.43 and -0.76 for young adults. As such, a 10% increase in tobacco price could be expected to decrease the tobacco consumption of teenagers by around 14%, and that of young adults by around 7.6%.
[1] http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/914041468176678949...
[2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.765/abstract
Smoking has been gradually phased out here over the course of 30 years. It used to be that around 40% of adults smoked, and now it's down to 10-12%. If you think that smoking rates haven't changed significantly here over the past few decades, you're either very young or very blinkered.
Or just listen to smokers complaining how they're a dying breed (works on two levels, that one), or how you can't just ask anyone for a light anymore as fewer people carry lighters, and how bumming a cigarette off a stranger is no longer commonplace now that cigs are over a buck each.
Or just listen to smokers complaining how they're a dying breed (works on two levels, that one), or how you can't just ask anyone for a light anymore as fewer people carry lighters, and how bumming a cigarette off a stranger is no longer commonplace now that cigs are over a buck each.
I'm not questioning that smoking rates have dropped. That's absolutely true, and an easily verifiable fact. What I'm questioning is the assertion that higher taxes on cigarettes have been the primary cause of this reduction in the smoking rate. It's important that we carefully account for all the factors at play and arrive at a considered answer. If we do this, we then know the most effective way to combat, and hopefully one day, eliminate, smoking.
It really kills me that there seems to be a lot of lazy thinking around this subject. It has for a number of years, in fact. I hope this isn't taken as an 'appeal to authority' argument, but I'm an economist who has worked in tax policy for a number of years, during which time I actually advised a couple of Australian Prime Ministers and their Cabinets on excise tax. I'm not trying to be a contrarian here. If people know what is and is not effective, then they are in a better position to pressure their elected representatives to take effective measures to combat smoking.
It really kills me that there seems to be a lot of lazy thinking around this subject. It has for a number of years, in fact. I hope this isn't taken as an 'appeal to authority' argument, but I'm an economist who has worked in tax policy for a number of years, during which time I actually advised a couple of Australian Prime Ministers and their Cabinets on excise tax. I'm not trying to be a contrarian here. If people know what is and is not effective, then they are in a better position to pressure their elected representatives to take effective measures to combat smoking.
Social pressure probably dominates the total cause of smoking reduction, I would bet. I personally won't join a friend outside a bar for their smoke: it's cold and I hate the smell, I'll stay in here thanks. Also a lot of people actively find smoking and smokers disgusting, which eats away at the "cool" factor it used to have.
I think that the banning of smoking in clubs, pubs, and cafes had a significant effect. Now if you want to smoke you need to leave all your friends who don't smoke leave the club and then queue to get back in.
Doing this makes you feel like an outsider to your own friendship group. I know the clubs complained bitterly that it lowered their revenue.
Doing this makes you feel like an outsider to your own friendship group. I know the clubs complained bitterly that it lowered their revenue.
I'm a very happy non-smoker but I would think that the biggest reason for smokers to stop nowadays is the leper colony stigma aspect.
I would think that smokers (rightfully) feel like a shunned minority when they are told to smoke in alleys far away from the general population.
They have to make a special effort to go somewhere to smoke because they can no longer light up at a restaurant or while they're doing errands.
It's hard to pretend you're "cool" when you're standing by yourself and society doesn't want you anywhere near them.
So there's no coolness and no convenience.
I would think that smokers (rightfully) feel like a shunned minority when they are told to smoke in alleys far away from the general population.
They have to make a special effort to go somewhere to smoke because they can no longer light up at a restaurant or while they're doing errands.
It's hard to pretend you're "cool" when you're standing by yourself and society doesn't want you anywhere near them.
So there's no coolness and no convenience.
While I applaud your scientific rigor, why not do everything that might work and leave it at that?
As far as I am concerned, a cigarette tax should stand until proven harmful, not only if proven beneficial.
As far as I am concerned, a cigarette tax should stand until proven harmful, not only if proven beneficial.
The smoking rate has dropped down to nearly single digits. They exact cause is impossible to tell.
> In a country with taxpayer funded healthcare.
I believe that taxes paid by smokers help to subsidise the healthcare of non-smokers, not the other way around. Or put it this way - if all Australians stopped smoking then either everyone's taxes would have to go up to cover the shortfall or the quality of the healthcare would be lower.
I believe that taxes paid by smokers help to subsidise the healthcare of non-smokers, not the other way around. Or put it this way - if all Australians stopped smoking then either everyone's taxes would have to go up to cover the shortfall or the quality of the healthcare would be lower.
This isn't true.
Tobacco excise raises about $2B a year(1), but smoking costs around $30B a year(2). A 10% increase in the excise reduces the smoking rate around 4%, so simplistic analysis indicates that around $200M raised would save nearly $1.5B (lots of simplification and assumptions there obviously).
(1) http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departm...
(2) http://www.health.gov.au/tobacco
Tobacco excise raises about $2B a year(1), but smoking costs around $30B a year(2). A 10% increase in the excise reduces the smoking rate around 4%, so simplistic analysis indicates that around $200M raised would save nearly $1.5B (lots of simplification and assumptions there obviously).
(1) http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departm...
(2) http://www.health.gov.au/tobacco
The $30B figure you quote has to be pure hyperbole. It isn't possible to tell from the link you provided but I assume it must be allocating a monetary value to human life along with lost tax revenues and productivity due to early death.
$30B, with just over 3M smokers in Australia is $10,000 per smoker per year. I call bullshit.
Even in NZ the health department were only claiming a cost of $1.9B per year and that was controversial. An anti-smoking group's report in NZ only managed to stretch it as far as $350M per year.
Edit:
Ok, I found the paper where they came up with the $30B figure.
"The average intangible value of the loss of one year’s living in 2004/05 prices was calculated to be $53,267."
That is where the number comes from. Like I said, hyperbole.
Also, some napkin calculations: $2b / 3m smokers = $666 / year. $666 / 52 = $13. The average smoker is paying a lot more than that in tax each week (a single pack is $20 - $30).
The quoted $2B tax revenue is bunkum too. NZ was taking in $1B seven years ago with a population 1/5 of Australia's and with prices 1/2 what they are now.
$30B, with just over 3M smokers in Australia is $10,000 per smoker per year. I call bullshit.
Even in NZ the health department were only claiming a cost of $1.9B per year and that was controversial. An anti-smoking group's report in NZ only managed to stretch it as far as $350M per year.
Edit:
Ok, I found the paper where they came up with the $30B figure.
"The average intangible value of the loss of one year’s living in 2004/05 prices was calculated to be $53,267."
That is where the number comes from. Like I said, hyperbole.
Also, some napkin calculations: $2b / 3m smokers = $666 / year. $666 / 52 = $13. The average smoker is paying a lot more than that in tax each week (a single pack is $20 - $30).
The quoted $2B tax revenue is bunkum too. NZ was taking in $1B seven years ago with a population 1/5 of Australia's and with prices 1/2 what they are now.
Well, I tried to stay away...
Here are figures from the latest Commonwealth budget, and the latest inter-generational report: http://imgur.com/a/UWFAa
Tobacco excise takes in $9.4bn in revenue per year, and is expected to hit north of $10.5bn over the next four years, due to the recent excise hike. This will make tobacco the largest 'earner' when it comes to excise and customs duty (even beating diesel and petrol).
The IG report contends (as it has for many years now) that when people hit about age 62, their individual tax / revenue curves cross-over. By 70, they are receiving public expenditure 2.5 times greater than the tax they pay. By 75 it's about 3 times. By 80, it's about 4.5. And before anyone plays the "you're a monster" card, I also think it's good that people are living longer and not dying from smoking related illness.
But I would suggest that public finance is not the strongest grounds to argue anti-smoking on. The fact that it kills so many people, in pretty awful ways, is more than enough justification for us to try and hasten tobacco's demise. Please think carefully about the issue, because you'll be better able to pressure our politicians to take more effective action (and also make it impossible for them to quietly go backwards).
Here are figures from the latest Commonwealth budget, and the latest inter-generational report: http://imgur.com/a/UWFAa
Tobacco excise takes in $9.4bn in revenue per year, and is expected to hit north of $10.5bn over the next four years, due to the recent excise hike. This will make tobacco the largest 'earner' when it comes to excise and customs duty (even beating diesel and petrol).
The IG report contends (as it has for many years now) that when people hit about age 62, their individual tax / revenue curves cross-over. By 70, they are receiving public expenditure 2.5 times greater than the tax they pay. By 75 it's about 3 times. By 80, it's about 4.5. And before anyone plays the "you're a monster" card, I also think it's good that people are living longer and not dying from smoking related illness.
But I would suggest that public finance is not the strongest grounds to argue anti-smoking on. The fact that it kills so many people, in pretty awful ways, is more than enough justification for us to try and hasten tobacco's demise. Please think carefully about the issue, because you'll be better able to pressure our politicians to take more effective action (and also make it impossible for them to quietly go backwards).
Thank you.
I agree that we shouldn't be arguing in favour of anti-smoking regulations on the grounds of financial cost (esp. with regard to the health budget). There are, as you say, much better grounds to base the argument on. Exaggerated figures such as the $2B / $30B given above just help to discredit the entire argument. I prefer that my government not try to manipulate me with dodgy statistics (even if we largely agree on the goal of reducing smoking).
I agree that we shouldn't be arguing in favour of anti-smoking regulations on the grounds of financial cost (esp. with regard to the health budget). There are, as you say, much better grounds to base the argument on. Exaggerated figures such as the $2B / $30B given above just help to discredit the entire argument. I prefer that my government not try to manipulate me with dodgy statistics (even if we largely agree on the goal of reducing smoking).
The main cost of smoking in that study is value of life, the cost of premature deaths.
But in terms of raw dollars it's different. If smokers die 10 years earlier, that's 10 years less of unproductive period in life, retirement.
No pensions, no medical costs, no living expenses. They pay and save for retirement, but don't use it.
But in terms of raw dollars it's different. If smokers die 10 years earlier, that's 10 years less of unproductive period in life, retirement.
No pensions, no medical costs, no living expenses. They pay and save for retirement, but don't use it.
> They pay and save for retirement, but don't use it.
Since we're throwing around random opinions...
Would you say that the kind of person that continues such an expensive habit nowadays despite what everyone knows about smoking is the kind of person who "pays and saves for retirement"?
Poorer, less-educated people are much more likely to smoke. How about we also take this into account when we're speculating about how much they might be saving.
Since we're throwing around random opinions...
Would you say that the kind of person that continues such an expensive habit nowadays despite what everyone knows about smoking is the kind of person who "pays and saves for retirement"?
Poorer, less-educated people are much more likely to smoke. How about we also take this into account when we're speculating about how much they might be saving.
In many countries retirement insurance is automatically witheld from salary.
In Poland it's 19,52% of salary. https://www.mpips.gov.pl/ubezpieczenia-spoleczne/ubezpieczen...
In Australia it's 9% http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/australia%E2%80%99s-retirement-syst...
In Poland it's 19,52% of salary. https://www.mpips.gov.pl/ubezpieczenia-spoleczne/ubezpieczen...
In Australia it's 9% http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/australia%E2%80%99s-retirement-syst...
Actually medical costs associated with smoking are extremely significant. I'm not aware of any studies showing that they are less than average costs associated with death in old age.
I don't know Australia, but in Poland total taxes from tobacco and alcohol are similar to income tax, and to healthcare budget.
-Tobacco and alcohol tax: 40 billion PLN 2013 [1]
-Personal income tax 42 billion PLN 2012 [2]
-Healthcare budget: 64.5 billion PLN 2013 [3]
Cigarettes (and to a lesser extent alcohol) account for 2/3 of whole healthcare, for everyone!
And smokers pay retirement insurance for whole life, statistically getting nothing. Especially when being male; females have 5 years lower retirement age and live 7.8 years longer. 5+7.8+10=22.8 years difference. So a male smoker pays every month, but gets nothing.
[1] - http://natemat.pl/77753,alkohol-i-papierosy-sa-dla-polskiego...
[2] - http://www.pit.pl/aktualnosci-podatkowe/2011/archiwum-2011-v...
[3] - http://pulsmedycyny.pl/2642297,42366,znamy-budzet-nfz
-Tobacco and alcohol tax: 40 billion PLN 2013 [1]
-Personal income tax 42 billion PLN 2012 [2]
-Healthcare budget: 64.5 billion PLN 2013 [3]
Cigarettes (and to a lesser extent alcohol) account for 2/3 of whole healthcare, for everyone!
And smokers pay retirement insurance for whole life, statistically getting nothing. Especially when being male; females have 5 years lower retirement age and live 7.8 years longer. 5+7.8+10=22.8 years difference. So a male smoker pays every month, but gets nothing.
[1] - http://natemat.pl/77753,alkohol-i-papierosy-sa-dla-polskiego...
[2] - http://www.pit.pl/aktualnosci-podatkowe/2011/archiwum-2011-v...
[3] - http://pulsmedycyny.pl/2642297,42366,znamy-budzet-nfz
The post you replied to had how much it raises in Australia: AU$2B/year. That compares to AU$258B/year in income tax[1]. The health, aged care and sport spending allocation is AU$89.5B[2]
[1] http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/5506.0
[2] http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/C...
[1] http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/5506.0
[2] http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/C...
That's interesting! Completely different.
Here you go, latest Inter-Generational report: http://imgur.com/a/UWFAa
Your tax/public expenditure curves cross roughly when you turn 62. By 70 the government spends on you more than twice what you pay in taxes. 75 it's 3 times as much. 80, it's 4.5. The expenditure curve is pretty much asymptotic by that point.
Your tax/public expenditure curves cross roughly when you turn 62. By 70 the government spends on you more than twice what you pay in taxes. 75 it's 3 times as much. 80, it's 4.5. The expenditure curve is pretty much asymptotic by that point.
Exactly, smoking costs a lot more than the taxes raised.
Worse, it uses up the free hospital beds and there is a waitlist.
Worse, it uses up the free hospital beds and there is a waitlist.
[deleted]
The revenue of taxes isn't specifically allocated in this way in Australia. Another way of looking at it, the federal government doesn't specifically dictate that x% of the health budget must be allocated to subsidising the healthcare of smokers vs non-smokers.
Lowering the smoking rate increases health cost significantly. Old age medicare is the bulk of state funded healthcare. Smokers die young so their net burden on the healthcare system is significantly reduced.
That's a fallacy. Smoking costs $31.5 billion dollars a year in increased health funding in Australia.
And your argument is particularly silly - do you think people die of cancer overnight? No, they hang in there for years, and as a compassionate society we treat them for their terrible disease until they die. Of course, there are many other things that smoking can do before someone contracts a fatal condition: gangrenous limbs that must be amputated, rooting teeth and gums that must be operated on, non-fatal strokes that prevent them from working and must be subsidised, cataracts and blindness, hip and bone fractures, diabetes and increased recovery times from surgery all contribute to the cost.
And we have an additional cost that's not obvious to those outside Australia: bushfires. In fact, it's estimated that a quarter of all deaths in fires were due to cigarettes being improperly disposed. I believe the cost is something like $150 million a year. And that's not even putting a cost on the deaths of these people to their families and friends.
And your argument is particularly silly - do you think people die of cancer overnight? No, they hang in there for years, and as a compassionate society we treat them for their terrible disease until they die. Of course, there are many other things that smoking can do before someone contracts a fatal condition: gangrenous limbs that must be amputated, rooting teeth and gums that must be operated on, non-fatal strokes that prevent them from working and must be subsidised, cataracts and blindness, hip and bone fractures, diabetes and increased recovery times from surgery all contribute to the cost.
And we have an additional cost that's not obvious to those outside Australia: bushfires. In fact, it's estimated that a quarter of all deaths in fires were due to cigarettes being improperly disposed. I believe the cost is something like $150 million a year. And that's not even putting a cost on the deaths of these people to their families and friends.
I see this quoted all the time and I wonder if it takes into account the total economic benifit of the individual. I'll conceed that an individual who lives longer will (on average) cost more in health care. I also believe it when I hear that lung cancer is a cheaper way to die than many other ways. But what about the lost 20-30 years of economic output that would have taken place if the individual lived? On top of that we see benefits that can't easily be calculated, like being able to leave children with their grandparents for care. Can't do that if they're dead.
I've read a study before (sorry don't have a link) and the timing tends to work quite well, you smoke and work until retirement, then die - give or take a few years.
> being able to leave children with their grandparents for care.
Don't recall that being addressed though, but it's almost certainly less than pension.
> being able to leave children with their grandparents for care.
Don't recall that being addressed though, but it's almost certainly less than pension.
This is the second time in this thread I've seen this claimed. I haven't seen any evidence showing this, and in Australia at least it's difficult to prove. For example, residential aged care is expensive, but generally privately funded and a major source of employment.
I do agree that killing people as soon as they retire is the economic thing to do. Unsure that will win many elections, but who knows....
I do agree that killing people as soon as they retire is the economic thing to do. Unsure that will win many elections, but who knows....
The ageing population is why we need to invest heavily in automation, and get away from the "creating jobs is good" mindset and into the "creating value is good" mindset.
Instead of trying to find ways to make people retire later and work more, let's find ways to make people not need to work as much.
Instead of trying to find ways to make people retire later and work more, let's find ways to make people not need to work as much.
Not really, cancer treatment is ridiculously expensive.
Also aged people put money into the economy in various ways so it's not a lost cause.
Aged people are also great baby sitters. You know day cares are insanely expensive. Grandparents are a lot cheaper.
Plus let's not kill people to save money. Many chose to euthanize themselves once they become bed ridden.
I know I would rather die than live a life where my memory is not functional. If I am bed ridden, I would happily say good bye to my family and call it a good life.
Also aged people put money into the economy in various ways so it's not a lost cause.
Aged people are also great baby sitters. You know day cares are insanely expensive. Grandparents are a lot cheaper.
Plus let's not kill people to save money. Many chose to euthanize themselves once they become bed ridden.
I know I would rather die than live a life where my memory is not functional. If I am bed ridden, I would happily say good bye to my family and call it a good life.
> regressive tax that mostly punishes the poor for smoking
"The poor" need to reevaluate their priorities if smoking is their choice for spending their limited resources. How else should activities that are bad for society be discouraged?
It's interesting that the rich are much more likely to choose not to smoke even though they are the ones who can actually afford it. I'm not sure what that means but it's interesting to me.
Smoking rates go down by level of education but is that cause or correlation?
What makes poor people want to smoke more than rich?
> If cost of living issues were really their number one priority then these sin taxes would be the first to go.
Not sure about this. Cost of living IMO is about affordable housing, food and transport. You know, the actual essentials, not non-essential "luxuries" such as poisonous addictions.
"The poor" need to reevaluate their priorities if smoking is their choice for spending their limited resources. How else should activities that are bad for society be discouraged?
It's interesting that the rich are much more likely to choose not to smoke even though they are the ones who can actually afford it. I'm not sure what that means but it's interesting to me.
Smoking rates go down by level of education but is that cause or correlation?
What makes poor people want to smoke more than rich?
> If cost of living issues were really their number one priority then these sin taxes would be the first to go.
Not sure about this. Cost of living IMO is about affordable housing, food and transport. You know, the actual essentials, not non-essential "luxuries" such as poisonous addictions.
Every tax punishes the poor first, but what's the other solution: Let the cigarette be affordable for the poor? According to the theory that poor people make bad life choices[1], they'll smoke anyway; so the discussion is only whether the higher, middle and smart-lower classes would be deterred by taxes on toxic products, and the answer is yes, so let's not enter into a fallacy about the poor people to deter us from saving the rest of the people.
[1] It's a theory I don't agree with – I think they're as responsible as us and taxes on cigarettes still deter them from smoking.
[1] It's a theory I don't agree with – I think they're as responsible as us and taxes on cigarettes still deter them from smoking.
I think its not just the tax, but the combination of plain packaging (strong imagery) and the laws regarding where people can smoke. It makes it harder for people to continue to smoke, providing motivation to quit.
However, I think its more about providing a strong deterrent for potential new smokers.
However, I think its more about providing a strong deterrent for potential new smokers.
So is lotto. Rich people mostly don't smoke or play state lottery.
While I'm both an avid user of e-cigarettes and I'm not eager to use them for harm minimization, their banning would be deeply concerning to me. It has not been demonstrated that they are a health risk, and it is vanishingly unlikely their health profile is anywhere near that of combusted tobacco, so banning it would amount to a dogmatic fear of nicotine.
Which again, might not be so terrible given how little is understood about the drug. It can certainly be life-destroying if you smoke to get it.
Which again, might not be so terrible given how little is understood about the drug. It can certainly be life-destroying if you smoke to get it.
> banning [e-cigs] would amount to a dogmatic fear of nicotine.
And yet nicotine patches are widely and cheaply available and unstigmatized.
I'd guess that it's more due to the fact that e-cigs look like normal cigarettes.
And yet nicotine patches are widely and cheaply available and unstigmatized.
I'd guess that it's more due to the fact that e-cigs look like normal cigarettes.
No ecigs blow their garbage in my face. Use all the nicotine patches you want. Literally coat your body in them. I just don't have to inhale the vapors. I have 0 interest in inhaling your exit vapors.
I could say the same thing about your vehicle exhaust, which unlike ecig vapor, is bad for your health.
I bike and walk when I can. But I don't sit next to you in the subway and blow vehicle exhaust in your face.
There hasn't been enough research about e-cigarettes to say whether or not they're a health hazard people who are around users.
And many of us who are anti-smoking (and anti-vaping), are also supporters of public transportation and reducing car usage.
And many of us who are anti-smoking (and anti-vaping), are also supporters of public transportation and reducing car usage.
We have no reason to believe they would be a health hazard. Vegetable Glyrecin is approved for food consumption, most flavour concentrates likewise and, nicotine, well, at worse it could raise someone's blood pressure a bit, but due to the nature of vaping, it has been measured that
"the level of cotinine in passive vapers is approximately 1200 times lower than active smokers" [...] "In conclusion, the levels of nicotine absorbed from passive vaping are not only harmless but do not even produce any biological effect (not even heart rate acceleration)" (quoting Dr. Farsalinos).
We could, of course, assume that there might be ill effects even thogh we can't even imagine what those would be at this point, however we could do that with practically anything, couldn't we?
We could, of course, assume that there might be ill effects even thogh we can't even imagine what those would be at this point, however we could do that with practically anything, couldn't we?
Sure, and I would vote we burn banning or incinerating anything in a shared public space. Not pick and choose X is ok but Y isn't. Just keep shared airspace as clean as possible.
Clean of what though? Burning emissions have an actual impact on the environment, so yes, "clean" does make sense in this case. Vegetable glycerine vapour does not.
Vehicle exhaust is regulated. If it's not strict enough for your liking, work to have the regulations strengthened.
Just because it's regulated doesn't mean the harm isn't being done on enormous quantities.
Indeed. I understand my parent to be saying that since we allow this other thing that's more harmful, we shouldn't be so concerned, that there's an inconsistency. My point is that we do make the attempt to reduce the harm of vehicle exhaust, that we do attempt to limit harm (and nuisances, for that matter). We certainly can discuss whether those protections are adequate. And we very well may disagree on the level of protection necessary. That doesn't mean we should dismiss protections on one because we think protections on another aren't sufficient.
Vehicle exhaust is regulated only because it has been proven to be harmful. Why should something be regulated otherwise?
We also regulate things that are only nuisances. Elsewhere in this thread are examples of where perfume and barbecue smoke are regulated. We have noise ordinances, too.
Noise ordinances to the measure that the noise becomes really disruptive, as in, people can't sleep or function because of it. That is reasonable and regulating is happening only to the extent necessary to prevent this. If it was handled the way Vaping is handled in Australia, there would be blanket ban on music at public places, for example.
Vaping is primarily a nuisance to those that (correctly) learned to consider smoke (but also, unfortunately, whatever looks like smoke) as something negative, due to decades of anti-smoking campaigns. It looks like smoke so it's bound to be bad.
Anti-smoking campaigns and legislation exist not because smoking is a nuisance, but because it causes real health issues.
Perfume is not really regulated by legislation in public spaces (unless there is some edge-case that I'm missing), obviously it can be regulated internally, as part of a private work policy for example -the same way that dressing code does. Totally different matter.
Barbeque smoke, like any smoke, is harmful, so I don't think we should compare it either.
If vaping becomes a disturbance to the extent that it needs to be regulated, any regulating should be done completely independently of any superficial similarities to smoking, based solely on facts relevant to the actual disturbance.
The fact that most arguments I see are based on the possibility of unknown health effects -even though there is no evidence for such- and not on the fact that it is otherwise disturbing, to me indicates that it's no more disturbing than dozens of other things that are allowed in public places but nobody dares propose that they should be banned by law.
Vaping is primarily a nuisance to those that (correctly) learned to consider smoke (but also, unfortunately, whatever looks like smoke) as something negative, due to decades of anti-smoking campaigns. It looks like smoke so it's bound to be bad.
Anti-smoking campaigns and legislation exist not because smoking is a nuisance, but because it causes real health issues.
Perfume is not really regulated by legislation in public spaces (unless there is some edge-case that I'm missing), obviously it can be regulated internally, as part of a private work policy for example -the same way that dressing code does. Totally different matter.
Barbeque smoke, like any smoke, is harmful, so I don't think we should compare it either.
If vaping becomes a disturbance to the extent that it needs to be regulated, any regulating should be done completely independently of any superficial similarities to smoking, based solely on facts relevant to the actual disturbance.
The fact that most arguments I see are based on the possibility of unknown health effects -even though there is no evidence for such- and not on the fact that it is otherwise disturbing, to me indicates that it's no more disturbing than dozens of other things that are allowed in public places but nobody dares propose that they should be banned by law.
And countries actively work on limiting the exaust fumes and subsidising zero emission transport.
You will get about as much nicotine from a potato. Or is it the water vapor that bothers you?
It's not about what it does, it's about respect. It's certainly not my place to dictate others' comfort.
As a society we've worked hard to ensure you can live your life without inhaling cigarette smoke; I don't see any reason to avoid extending this to e-cigarettes.
Of course, I've also seen clauses forbidding e-cigs inside apartment buildings. That's just an irrational, dick move—they aren't a fire hazard and don't appear to cause property damage like smoke does.
As a society we've worked hard to ensure you can live your life without inhaling cigarette smoke; I don't see any reason to avoid extending this to e-cigarettes.
Of course, I've also seen clauses forbidding e-cigs inside apartment buildings. That's just an irrational, dick move—they aren't a fire hazard and don't appear to cause property damage like smoke does.
I do not want myself or my children to breath in any chemicals they are absolutely not required. You are free to blow vapes in your kid's face. Please do not require me to pay for their medical conditions down the road though.
The first time I saw an e-cigarette was in a commercial for them. The actor was using one in front of a large, clearly visible no smoking sign, and then arguing with the stewardess when she came to tell him to stop smoking. No mention, as I recall, of any health benefits compared to smoking. I came away thinking that the only purpose of e-cigarettes was to be a jerk to other people.
> I came away thinking that the only purpose of e-cigarettes was to be a jerk to other people.
Unfortunately, I can't say I disagree with you. There's an entire culture around "big clouds", which are extremely obnoxious in public.
Unfortunately, I can't say I disagree with you. There's an entire culture around "big clouds", which are extremely obnoxious in public.
In the context of cigarrettes, it's easy to see why they banned it first. Cigarettes hadn't been demonstrated to do harm either. I hope though that the ban would be lifted if studies can show that they are not harmful.
My intuition is on your side though, I imagine they are far less damaging than normal cigarettes.
My intuition is on your side though, I imagine they are far less damaging than normal cigarettes.
>Cigarettes hadn't been demonstrated to do harm either
Of course they have. There has been solid evidence of the harm of tobacco cigarettes for decades. Smoking bans are well supported by the evidence. Any restrictions on e-cigarettes is not.
Of course they have. There has been solid evidence of the harm of tobacco cigarettes for decades. Smoking bans are well supported by the evidence. Any restrictions on e-cigarettes is not.
You missed the tense. When cigarettes became popular they weren't banned right away because we had no idea they would become harmful. Of course we know differently now.
In this case, we are erring on the side of caution and banning e-cigs until they are further studied. Learning from our mistakes.
In this case, we are erring on the side of caution and banning e-cigs until they are further studied. Learning from our mistakes.
Banning something is a good way to prevent such studies from ever happening.
Also, they aren't banned. The FDA just made it so small businesses wouldn't be able to make the ecig products (basically). Big tabacco, however, is able to take the hit. Take it how you will.
Also, they aren't banned. The FDA just made it so small businesses wouldn't be able to make the ecig products (basically). Big tabacco, however, is able to take the hit. Take it how you will.
The physiological effect of nicotine use is pretty well established as in the case of alcohol and IMO it makes no sense to ban ecigs while allowing other forms of tobacco to be sold.
The problem with banning ecigs are that there are people who are currently smoking, who now can't go to ecigs because you banned them and so they continue to smoke normal cigs. They typically don't quit.
Yup. The recent vice (tobacco) tax laws that target e-cigarettes were (in many cases) a hit job by big tobacco to ensure continued cigarette profits. The only e-cigarette vendors that will continue to exist in two years are the ones you see in gas stations, a truly terrible product with massive profit margins typically owned by big tobacco.
I understand that side of the issue for sure. If ecigs are really healthier I see no reason not to have them on the market. But I can understand why regulators are not in a hurry to let an untested and unregulated product roam free.
Keep in mind this article is about Australia too. We have a much tighter and more strict food and consumables regulatory body which has typically served us well. It wouldn't make sense for us to strongly fight against cigarettes and then just let some new inhaled product on the market without studies showing they're okay.
Another part of the regulation impetus was that they were uncertified electronic devices which no matter the purpose is fairly tightly regulated as well.
Keep in mind this article is about Australia too. We have a much tighter and more strict food and consumables regulatory body which has typically served us well. It wouldn't make sense for us to strongly fight against cigarettes and then just let some new inhaled product on the market without studies showing they're okay.
Another part of the regulation impetus was that they were uncertified electronic devices which no matter the purpose is fairly tightly regulated as well.
>>> It has not been demonstrated that they are a health risk
It has not been demonstrated they are completely safe either. Some countries take your approach, others a more conservative one.
It has not been demonstrated they are completely safe either. Some countries take your approach, others a more conservative one.
> It has not been demonstrated they are completely safe either
This holds for any substance in existence. Yes, that's fairly pedantic, but I think it demonstrates the lack of any argument for banning it based on solid health research.
This holds for any substance in existence. Yes, that's fairly pedantic, but I think it demonstrates the lack of any argument for banning it based on solid health research.
You're right, that is fairly pedantic. Nothing can be proven 100% safe (except maybe water?).
That doesn't mean a more conservative approach shouldn't be taken when new products enter the market for user consumption.
That doesn't mean a more conservative approach shouldn't be taken when new products enter the market for user consumption.
Certainly far less damaging than cigarettes.
Nicotine itself does have problems. It is, after all, a pesticide.
Nicotine itself does have problems. It is, after all, a pesticide.
The last line by itself is a non-argument: Caffeine is also a pesticide, and about as dangerous in and of itself as nicotine is -- and yet no one is rallying around a cry to ban coffee.
Assuming that e-cigarettes result in a lowered level of cigarette smoking, banning e-cigarettes sounds a lot like perfect being the enemy of good.
Assuming that e-cigarettes result in a lowered level of cigarette smoking, banning e-cigarettes sounds a lot like perfect being the enemy of good.
The dose is still the poison.
[deleted]
Came here to say that. It is ridiculously expensive there and that is the reason why smoking has dropped. I know plenty of aussie's who still smoke though. To me, the weirdest bit is how cheap it is a short flight away, say Indonesia; I believe I paid between 2 and 1.5 USD per pack, maybe 10 bucks for a carton. I'm in NYC and even the prices here, about 12 USD a pack, have made me cut down considerably.
A short flight? Sydney to Denpasar is 6 and a half hours...
Australian short.
That's short. Getting to the other side of Australia is also a few hours (4 from memory) and Europe takes about a day.
Hour and a half from Darwin.
I've seen high $30's per pack in pubs around Sydney which really kills the idea of just grabbing a pack for social smoking too.
Yeah, but you can't smoke in Sydney pubs any more so that stops it too. As a non-smoker who enjoys the odd drink, I quite enjoy a pub with no cigarette smoke.
The Sydney Publican guide to dealing with smoking bans.
Step 1. Open a pokies room with a slated wall
Step 2. Let people smoke in it and call it "outside"
Step 1. Open a pokies room with a slated wall
Step 2. Let people smoke in it and call it "outside"
I hope they ban pokies next.
The pollies get too much money from the gambling sector (casinos, pubs, RSL clubs etc) to ever take real action in the eastern states.
WA gets pinged by NSW and Victoria whenever GST distribution comes up for not having pokies as an alternative tax source.
I hope WA continues to resist the temptation to allow them here.
WA gets pinged by NSW and Victoria whenever GST distribution comes up for not having pokies as an alternative tax source.
I hope WA continues to resist the temptation to allow them here.
That's crazy. I dunno what prices are like in the US (I don't smoke), but really...I mean at that price it'd probably be cheaper to smoke weed...
It's definitely not. Illegal drugs are also much more expensive in Australia than in many other places in the world. There is a growing problem with black market untaxed "chop chop" tobacco here. The tax increases have made it more and more attractive to both importers and smokers.
For imported stuff definitely. I wouldn't want to have a coke habit here. Weed seems as cheap as anywhere else though.
If you smoke the same amount of weed, it's probably not cheaper, but since it's typical to smoke maybe one joint per day but 20+ cigarettes, yeah, weed could be cheaper.
Where I live in the US a pack of Marlboros is about $6.x
Before we get into pack sizes, they're about $1 per cigarette.
Sin taxes work, I suppose.
As an Australian who has been living abroad for the better half of a decade, I've noticed ever increasing prices and ever restrictive policies every time I've been back.
Being a very occasional social smoker who should probably quit anyway it hasn't bothered me, but I did find it just a bit ludicrous when I tried to buy a pack at Safeway. The exchange went something like this:
Being a very occasional social smoker who should probably quit anyway it hasn't bothered me, but I did find it just a bit ludicrous when I tried to buy a pack at Safeway. The exchange went something like this:
me: Give me a pack of Peter Stuyvesants, ah, um, I think the light ones in the blue colored pack.
staff: They don't have colors anymore. We can't show you the packet. You have to tell us which ones.
me: Really? Ok, fine. Well, just give me the 8mg low tar ones, whatever they're called.
staff: They don't have mg measures on the packets any more.
me: So how do I know which ones are the light ones?
staff: You just have to know.
> Not what I'd call the best harm minimisation strategy
At some point in your life, a tobacco company has marketed something at your in such a way that they've conveyed a mistruth; they lied to you. Shocking, I know.
"Light" cigarettes are not better for you. There is no "harm minimisation".
Tar and nicotine are a "measured" by percentage of puff multiplied by the expected number of puffs in the burn duration. Cigarettes are "lightened" by adding perforations in the filter tip so the smoker inhales air at the same time. This lowers the concentrations of smoke, lowering the measurements above.
The industry standards for "light" and "ultralight" are just boundaries around tar measurements.
The problem is the "burn duration" used to calculate all this is normalised at a static rate and not at real flow. It's basically a made up length of time based on the observation of lighting a cigarette and letting it burn down. There's less airflow through the tobacco in a light cigarette, so it burns a lot slower. Its smoker gets more drags.
The amount of tobacco and nicotine and tar is the same. The amount delivered isn't as appreciably different as a smoker might like.
This is reflected in countless outcome studies. Just as many people die from smoking light cigarettes.
At some point in your life, a tobacco company has marketed something at your in such a way that they've conveyed a mistruth; they lied to you. Shocking, I know.
"Light" cigarettes are not better for you. There is no "harm minimisation".
Tar and nicotine are a "measured" by percentage of puff multiplied by the expected number of puffs in the burn duration. Cigarettes are "lightened" by adding perforations in the filter tip so the smoker inhales air at the same time. This lowers the concentrations of smoke, lowering the measurements above.
The industry standards for "light" and "ultralight" are just boundaries around tar measurements.
The problem is the "burn duration" used to calculate all this is normalised at a static rate and not at real flow. It's basically a made up length of time based on the observation of lighting a cigarette and letting it burn down. There's less airflow through the tobacco in a light cigarette, so it burns a lot slower. Its smoker gets more drags.
The amount of tobacco and nicotine and tar is the same. The amount delivered isn't as appreciably different as a smoker might like.
This is reflected in countless outcome studies. Just as many people die from smoking light cigarettes.
> The amount of tobacco and nicotine and tar is the same. The amount delivered isn't as appreciably different as a smoker might like.
If light cigarettes have any amount less tar, then that's still an improvement.
Anecdotally, I smoked for 8 years and used ultra light cigarettes (1-3mg) as a tool to cut down and eventually quit.
If light cigarettes have any amount less tar, then that's still an improvement.
Anecdotally, I smoked for 8 years and used ultra light cigarettes (1-3mg) as a tool to cut down and eventually quit.
Also an ex-smoker. I don't think the psychology or physiological methods of breaking addiction are that clear or consistent for populations. Feeling like you were getting less might have been the progress you needed, irrespective of your actual blood-nicotine levels.
Conversely, I dicked around with various NRTs, various actual doses but nicotine cravings and the fear of even worse cravings kept me returning to cigarettes. To quit, I had to go cold turkey. It was the psychological and physical finality that let me let go.
For me the finality was important. I'd read a fair amount about breaking addiction and people describing it as the most traumatic thing in their life and that's a narrative that's very commonplace in quitting services, NRT products. It makes quitting a very scary prospect. Moreso to an anxious, risk averse guy in his late 20s. In reality, even cold turkey is only horrible for a short amount of time. A couple of weeks... Which is nothing for the lifetime and quality of life you regain.
I reflected on fear-of-quitting a month after my last cigarette. https://thepcspy.com/read/breaking-the-habit/
Anyway, my point above is that in terms of actual damage done, a cigarette is a cigarette. There may be slight variances and you can trick yourself into thinking different things, but physiologically, the same stuff happens.
Conversely, I dicked around with various NRTs, various actual doses but nicotine cravings and the fear of even worse cravings kept me returning to cigarettes. To quit, I had to go cold turkey. It was the psychological and physical finality that let me let go.
For me the finality was important. I'd read a fair amount about breaking addiction and people describing it as the most traumatic thing in their life and that's a narrative that's very commonplace in quitting services, NRT products. It makes quitting a very scary prospect. Moreso to an anxious, risk averse guy in his late 20s. In reality, even cold turkey is only horrible for a short amount of time. A couple of weeks... Which is nothing for the lifetime and quality of life you regain.
I reflected on fear-of-quitting a month after my last cigarette. https://thepcspy.com/read/breaking-the-habit/
Anyway, my point above is that in terms of actual damage done, a cigarette is a cigarette. There may be slight variances and you can trick yourself into thinking different things, but physiologically, the same stuff happens.
Light cigarettes are not light. They have perforations around the filter. The machines that measure the tar draw air though the cigarette and also through these perforation holes, so they measure less nicotine and tar.
But people smoking these cigarettes block the holes with their fingers or their mouths, and so they draw air through the cigarette but not through the perforations.
But people smoking these cigarettes block the holes with their fingers or their mouths, and so they draw air through the cigarette but not through the perforations.
And if the Safeway has a pharmacy, they wouldn't be allowed to sell tobacco products even in their storefront. At least in California.
Pharmacies are typically separate to supermarkets in Australia (potentially legally so). Tobacco products are sold at a different counter in the supermarket though (since they have to be served by a person).
Why can't they show you the packets? That's crazy...
Because they might be attractive to teenagers. They're not shown anymore in the UK either.
As a German-Australian, and ignoring that this is anecdotal, but I've often noted the big difference in levels of smoking when I visit German cities vs Australian ones.
Smoking just isn't popular in Australia among my age group (late 20's), where it is still way more common in Germany.
Young people just don't seem interested in Australia outside of having a smoke with a beer at a party, it's very much perceived as something poorer people do, and is not considered classy at all.
So yeah, compared with other countries that I've visited, smoking is seen quite differently here and seems like its well on the way out. It'll be interesting to see if it rebounds in future generations though.
Smoking just isn't popular in Australia among my age group (late 20's), where it is still way more common in Germany.
Young people just don't seem interested in Australia outside of having a smoke with a beer at a party, it's very much perceived as something poorer people do, and is not considered classy at all.
So yeah, compared with other countries that I've visited, smoking is seen quite differently here and seems like its well on the way out. It'll be interesting to see if it rebounds in future generations though.
The price is one thing, but there is a huge stigma attached now. There has been a long winded information campaign for decades, and it is impossible to ignore the health effects when they are litterally and grotesquely displayed on the pack.
Amongst friends my age, mid to late 20s, most of those who smoke have to do so separated from the group outside as well, as you are not allowed to smoke indoors. So people simply don't. There are enough barriers to make social smoking less prevelant and then if you are by yourself it is harder to justify the health cost and monetary cost.
To smoke a pack a day here you would have to spend $300 a fortnight.
Amongst friends my age, mid to late 20s, most of those who smoke have to do so separated from the group outside as well, as you are not allowed to smoke indoors. So people simply don't. There are enough barriers to make social smoking less prevelant and then if you are by yourself it is harder to justify the health cost and monetary cost.
To smoke a pack a day here you would have to spend $300 a fortnight.
And the inverse for an Australian native, its quite confronting that smoking is a lot more prevalent elsewhere.
Did you notice any major price difference compared to Australia vs Germany? Consider buying a pack of cig's is damn expensive, not mentioning alcohol too here in Auz.
> Did you notice any major price difference compared to Australia vs Germany? Consider buying a pack of cig's is damn expensive, not mentioning alcohol too here in Auz.
Yes, huge difference.
But alcohol also has a huge difference in price, but that doesn't stop Australians from drinking a ton. (Though its not as a big a difference as smoking).
Yes, huge difference.
But alcohol also has a huge difference in price, but that doesn't stop Australians from drinking a ton. (Though its not as a big a difference as smoking).
These kinds of efforts seem to be having great success not just in Australia but at least in the United States[1] as well.
What I don't understand is -- why isn't a similar education, advertising, and taxation effort being made with alcohol? The negative externalities associated with alcohol are mind-boggling[2].
[1] http://www.vox.com/a/teens [2] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
What I don't understand is -- why isn't a similar education, advertising, and taxation effort being made with alcohol? The negative externalities associated with alcohol are mind-boggling[2].
[1] http://www.vox.com/a/teens [2] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
Indeed. In the context of a publicly-funded healthcare system (which Australia has), the direct health costs of alcohol consumption do end up being 'socialised'. While my (minority) view is that this argument doesn't apply to smoking, I think it does for alcohol.
Although, it is much more tricky to estimate the harm caused by alcohol consumption and then levy taxes accordingly. The reason being that unlike smoking, which has very high rates of addiction, the vast majority of people who consume alcohol don't really come to any harm because of it. But 10-15 % of consumers are super badly harmed by it, mostly due to a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. It's similar to gambling in many ways.
Ideally you'd have a tax rate that increases with each additional 'unit' of alcohol purchased within some time period. Obviously this is totally impractical to implement. But before all that there's a pretty basic 'first-step' we should be taking: levying tax on alcohol on a volumetric basis, rather than having different rates for beer, wine, spirits etc. It's the best starting point: simply levy a tax of x cents per milli-litre of alcohol. Only after we've done that can we start getting all fancy with measures like 'pre-commitment', time-varying tax rates (which I personally think are unfeasible) etc.
EDIT: As for negative externalities, putting aside public health, my guess is the two main sources would be (a) drunk, anti-social behaviour and (b) third-party road injuries and fatalities. As to the magnitude of these, I have no idea...
Although, it is much more tricky to estimate the harm caused by alcohol consumption and then levy taxes accordingly. The reason being that unlike smoking, which has very high rates of addiction, the vast majority of people who consume alcohol don't really come to any harm because of it. But 10-15 % of consumers are super badly harmed by it, mostly due to a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. It's similar to gambling in many ways.
Ideally you'd have a tax rate that increases with each additional 'unit' of alcohol purchased within some time period. Obviously this is totally impractical to implement. But before all that there's a pretty basic 'first-step' we should be taking: levying tax on alcohol on a volumetric basis, rather than having different rates for beer, wine, spirits etc. It's the best starting point: simply levy a tax of x cents per milli-litre of alcohol. Only after we've done that can we start getting all fancy with measures like 'pre-commitment', time-varying tax rates (which I personally think are unfeasible) etc.
EDIT: As for negative externalities, putting aside public health, my guess is the two main sources would be (a) drunk, anti-social behaviour and (b) third-party road injuries and fatalities. As to the magnitude of these, I have no idea...
The most obvious difference is that alcohol isn't directly harmful to other people, whereas smoking is...
This attribute basically makes it very difficult for people to adopt a "well it's their choice, I'll let them dig their own grave" attitude in regard to smoking.
This attribute basically makes it very difficult for people to adopt a "well it's their choice, I'll let them dig their own grave" attitude in regard to smoking.
Except that second hand smoke isn't really that bad.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-fi...
That does not match the scientific consensus [1]. You'll have to do better than a single study, summarized in a Forbes article, if you want to make that claim.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking
From your link.
>Most of the research has come from studies of nonsmokers who are married to a smoker. Those conclusions are also backed up by further studies of workplace exposure to smoke
I suggest you don't marry a smoker, or work in a bar where they allow smoking. Otherwise, you'll be fine. You'll probably be fine either way. The increased risk is minimal (1-4%?) and requires years and years of constant exposure.
>Most of the research has come from studies of nonsmokers who are married to a smoker. Those conclusions are also backed up by further studies of workplace exposure to smoke
I suggest you don't marry a smoker, or work in a bar where they allow smoking. Otherwise, you'll be fine. You'll probably be fine either way. The increased risk is minimal (1-4%?) and requires years and years of constant exposure.
Even ignoring health effects, it has a smell that can be sickening for non-smokers, and you can't control where the smoke goes. Ordinances against smoking are also nuisance ordinances, not unlike rules around excessively loud music or mufflers.
At this point some smokers like to bring up "b-b-but what if someone wears a ton of perfume??" but in practice basically nobody regularly takes a break to shoot perfume several times in a row into the air around them.
At this point some smokers like to bring up "b-b-but what if someone wears a ton of perfume??" but in practice basically nobody regularly takes a break to shoot perfume several times in a row into the air around them.
> Even ignoring health effects, it has a smell that can be sickening for non-smokers, and you can't control where the smoke goes.
That also applies to different cultures' bathing and perfume practises, but I think we all recognise that banning those practises would be unjust.
> At this point some smokers like to bring up "b-b-but what if someone wears a ton of perfume??" but in practice basically nobody regularly takes a break to shoot perfume several times in a row into the air around them.
You've clearly never shared an enclosed space with someone whose bathing practises — while unobjectionable from a health & sanitation viewpoint — are different from your own.
That also applies to different cultures' bathing and perfume practises, but I think we all recognise that banning those practises would be unjust.
> At this point some smokers like to bring up "b-b-but what if someone wears a ton of perfume??" but in practice basically nobody regularly takes a break to shoot perfume several times in a row into the air around them.
You've clearly never shared an enclosed space with someone whose bathing practises — while unobjectionable from a health & sanitation viewpoint — are different from your own.
Ah, here come the bad analogies from the smoking apologists.
It's quite rare that I come across anyone who's even close to as stinky as a smoker who's currently smoking. Besides, as a practical matter, restricting bad body odor is not nearly as problematic as restricting smoking.
It's quite rare that I come across anyone who's even close to as stinky as a smoker who's currently smoking. Besides, as a practical matter, restricting bad body odor is not nearly as problematic as restricting smoking.
[deleted]
There are considerable taxes on alcohol:
https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Excise-and-excise-equivalent...
https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Excise-and-excise-equivalent...
The negative externalities of alcohol are substantially exaggerated. Public health researchers go crazy inventing externalities for things they don't like.
http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com.au/2009/06/price-of-...
With cigarettes the damage and causation is much clearer. Something like 1 in 2 people who smoke will die early from a smoking related cause. With alcohol the figure is an order of magnitude lower at least.
http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com.au/2009/06/price-of-...
With cigarettes the damage and causation is much clearer. Something like 1 in 2 people who smoke will die early from a smoking related cause. With alcohol the figure is an order of magnitude lower at least.
> The negative externalities of alcohol are substantially exaggerated. Public health researchers go crazy inventing externalities for things they don't like.
…
> With cigarettes the damage and causation is much clearer. Something like 1 in 2 people who smoke will die early from a smoking related cause.
But the externalities of tobacco are essentially non-existent: 'second-hand smoke' is one of those invented public-health externalities. Tobacco preponderantly affects those who smoke it (although of course young children of older parents may lose their parents to smoking-related illnesses).
…
> With cigarettes the damage and causation is much clearer. Something like 1 in 2 people who smoke will die early from a smoking related cause.
But the externalities of tobacco are essentially non-existent: 'second-hand smoke' is one of those invented public-health externalities. Tobacco preponderantly affects those who smoke it (although of course young children of older parents may lose their parents to smoking-related illnesses).
> 'second-hand smoke' is one of those invented public-health externalities
The immediate effects of second-hand smoke on asthmatics are not exactly invented, nor, alas, hard to notice.
The immediate effects of second-hand smoke on asthmatics are not exactly invented, nor, alas, hard to notice.
“Cigarette smoke is the residue of your pleasure. It contaminates the air, pollutes my hair and clothes, not to mention my lungs. This takes place without my consent. I have a pleasure, also. I like a beer now and then. The residue of my pleasure is urine. Would you be annoyed if I stood on a chair and pissed on your head and your clothes without your consent?”
— Sign from Ken’s Magic Shop
— Sign from Ken’s Magic Shop
How do you explain the millions of non-smokers dying of smoking related illnesses if second hand smoke is an invented thing?
Because that statistic was made up? You know you can still get lung cancer even without have ever inhaled second hand smoke.
True about second-hand smoke. It was exaggerated.
The big externality for tobacco smoking is the health costs of those who smoke and die and get very sick from it, both early and with health costs.
Even in the US the public wound up footing the bill for the public health costs. At a certain point taxes on cigarettes do cover the health costs. That point may have been reached in Australia. It depends on what people include and how big they make the damages.
The big externality for tobacco smoking is the health costs of those who smoke and die and get very sick from it, both early and with health costs.
Even in the US the public wound up footing the bill for the public health costs. At a certain point taxes on cigarettes do cover the health costs. That point may have been reached in Australia. It depends on what people include and how big they make the damages.
Another externality is that a lot of non-smokers dislike breathing in second-hand smoke, apart from whatever negative health impacts it may have–yet inevitably they end up doing so due to smoking in public places, smoking neighbours, etc.
It is hard to measure the value of this externality. But in the abstract it must have some value: suppose there was a magic spell which made all secondhand smoke go away, and using it had no negative side effects – how much would the average non-smoker be willing to pay for this spell? Personally I'd be willing to pay at least $1/day, and let us assume the average adult non-smoker puts the same value on it as I do. Then, by rough estimation, I'd say there are about 16 million adult non-smokers in Australia, which implies the cost of this externality in Australia is around $5.8 billion a year. That dwarfs in comparison to the health costs, but it isn't nothing either.
It is hard to measure the value of this externality. But in the abstract it must have some value: suppose there was a magic spell which made all secondhand smoke go away, and using it had no negative side effects – how much would the average non-smoker be willing to pay for this spell? Personally I'd be willing to pay at least $1/day, and let us assume the average adult non-smoker puts the same value on it as I do. Then, by rough estimation, I'd say there are about 16 million adult non-smokers in Australia, which implies the cost of this externality in Australia is around $5.8 billion a year. That dwarfs in comparison to the health costs, but it isn't nothing either.
no, my mum has emphysema, she's never smoked in her life, but she's surrounded by smokers. Second hand smoke is a real thing.
And how do you know it's tobacco smoke that caused her illness and not your car exhaust system?
Because while social smoking helps in terms of meeting other smokers, it's not a big part of our social culture. Drinking (like it or not) is a huge helper socially, sure it can be a crutch in many cases, but in a whole lot of other cases its a huge boon to meeting friends and getting social.
It certainly helped me in the past, and got me through a lot of social barriers.
I'm not saying alcohol and alcoholism isn't a significant problem in many cases, but it has a well deserved social status, which I don't see as going anywhere soon. Smoking has no such status.
It certainly helped me in the past, and got me through a lot of social barriers.
I'm not saying alcohol and alcoholism isn't a significant problem in many cases, but it has a well deserved social status, which I don't see as going anywhere soon. Smoking has no such status.
Also, AFAIA, the addictiveness of alcohol varies a lot amongst the population, whereas pretty much everybody who smokes is addicted.
This means that using alcohol like you mention, as an occasional social lubricant, is a very viable strategy for many people. Once somebody starts smoking though, most of them can't just stop at will, they're probably doomed to spending all their breaks standing outside in the carpark, every day...
This means that using alcohol like you mention, as an occasional social lubricant, is a very viable strategy for many people. Once somebody starts smoking though, most of them can't just stop at will, they're probably doomed to spending all their breaks standing outside in the carpark, every day...
[deleted]
I can't really grow tobacco at home, at least not in any great quantity but upgrading wine to moonshine isn't that difficult and thanks to modern electronics (read a thermometer from ali express and a drip cooker) you can control the temperature perfectly so you get no methanol.
That drastically limits how much you can tax alcohol.
That drastically limits how much you can tax alcohol.
I think the laws that only permit outdoor smoking (a certain distance away from entryways/exits), have been so effective because of the social incentives they create. Speaking as an ex-smoker, having to go outside a bar to smoke with the rest of the smoking leper colony, while all your friends are inside having fun without you, is a very powerful social motivator. I honestly feel that this, more than anything else (increased price, graphic health warnings on packets etc.), has been the major contributor to lowered smoking rates.
As an aside, I really don't agree with the popular notion that increasing excise (tax) on cigarettes contributes very much to declining rates of smoking. The demand for cigarettes is highly inelastic (i.e. consumers are not very sensitive to changes in price). Heavy taxation of goods with inelastic demand simply results in higher revenue for the government and, eventually, the formation of black markets. Same goes for fuel excise btw: although the (hilarious) justification given is 'road maintenance/user-pays', it is coincidentally another good with highly inelastic demand (making it a pretty efficient tax-base, up to a point). And fuel is such a poor proxy for 'road damage' anyway.
EDIT: Also the argument that smokers cause the (public) health-care system to incur additional costs is pretty suspect. Although he's an ultra-right wing nut, and was practically booed off the stage when he made this point, I think Nick Minchin (former leader of the opposition in the Senate) was right when he suggested heavy smokers cost the public health-case system less overall: they tend to die quickly from an acute disease (e.g. lung cancer) at a relatively young age. This means they die before they hit that 'old age' when individual health-care costs sky-rocket.
As an aside, I really don't agree with the popular notion that increasing excise (tax) on cigarettes contributes very much to declining rates of smoking. The demand for cigarettes is highly inelastic (i.e. consumers are not very sensitive to changes in price). Heavy taxation of goods with inelastic demand simply results in higher revenue for the government and, eventually, the formation of black markets. Same goes for fuel excise btw: although the (hilarious) justification given is 'road maintenance/user-pays', it is coincidentally another good with highly inelastic demand (making it a pretty efficient tax-base, up to a point). And fuel is such a poor proxy for 'road damage' anyway.
EDIT: Also the argument that smokers cause the (public) health-care system to incur additional costs is pretty suspect. Although he's an ultra-right wing nut, and was practically booed off the stage when he made this point, I think Nick Minchin (former leader of the opposition in the Senate) was right when he suggested heavy smokers cost the public health-case system less overall: they tend to die quickly from an acute disease (e.g. lung cancer) at a relatively young age. This means they die before they hit that 'old age' when individual health-care costs sky-rocket.
Those laws banning smoking indoors at public places (and also in outdoor eating areas at cafes and restaurants in my state) are also wonderful for non-smokers. You sort of take it for granted until you visit somewhere without the laws and remember just how obnoxious cigarette smoke is!
[deleted]
This story gives a very one sided view of the situation in Australia.
The decrease in population wide smoking in Australia this century has not been due to an increase in quitting. It's mainly due to reduced rates of initiation in young people.
http://mike.bailey.net.au/2015/10/smoking-prevention-and-tre...
People who cannot or do not want to quit are being denied information and access to reduced harm alternatives so as e-cigarettes.
It's currently illegal to sell nicotine e-liquid in Australia, thanks largely to hard campaining by a large cancer charity that receives millions on dollars each year from taxpayers to reduce smoking rates.
Look up 'health facism'. It finds a safe space within the "tobacco control" arm of public health. Not all public health advocates are humanitarians.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/the-nazis...
"But according to Proctor, the Nazi ban did manage to do some good for a subset of the population: German women. Proctor estimates that some 20,000 German women avoided lung cancer deaths, thanks to “Nazi paternalism, which discouraged women from smoking, often with police force.”
The decrease in population wide smoking in Australia this century has not been due to an increase in quitting. It's mainly due to reduced rates of initiation in young people.
http://mike.bailey.net.au/2015/10/smoking-prevention-and-tre...
People who cannot or do not want to quit are being denied information and access to reduced harm alternatives so as e-cigarettes.
It's currently illegal to sell nicotine e-liquid in Australia, thanks largely to hard campaining by a large cancer charity that receives millions on dollars each year from taxpayers to reduce smoking rates.
Look up 'health facism'. It finds a safe space within the "tobacco control" arm of public health. Not all public health advocates are humanitarians.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/the-nazis...
"But according to Proctor, the Nazi ban did manage to do some good for a subset of the population: German women. Proctor estimates that some 20,000 German women avoided lung cancer deaths, thanks to “Nazi paternalism, which discouraged women from smoking, often with police force.”
While the story was mostly in favor of Australia's current smoking policy, I believe it was much more fair to both sides of the story than a claim that just because the Nazis's didn't like smoking, that means that any other government that doesn't like smoking is a Fascist dictatorship.
I agree with your assertion but suggest you misunderstood mine.
Well meaning politicians in liberal democracies would do well to consider carefully before crossing the line between encouragement and coercion when trying to modify individuals behaviour "for their own good".
Health facism can include appealing arguments like "the State pays for your healthcare so we can punish you for risky bahviour".
Australia's TGA today rejected an application to permit smokers to legally purchase a safer source of nicotine (e-liquid for vaping), largely due to pressure from the same groups patting themselves on the back for what a great job they've done making life harder for smokers.
Well meaning politicians in liberal democracies would do well to consider carefully before crossing the line between encouragement and coercion when trying to modify individuals behaviour "for their own good".
Health facism can include appealing arguments like "the State pays for your healthcare so we can punish you for risky bahviour".
Australia's TGA today rejected an application to permit smokers to legally purchase a safer source of nicotine (e-liquid for vaping), largely due to pressure from the same groups patting themselves on the back for what a great job they've done making life harder for smokers.
Too bad they don't do that with alcohol... There's advertising for alcohol everywhere, often associated with sports club which is especially bad for young people. People drink everywhere even at the beach. There's a real alcohol problem here and it's a shame they don't spend as much energy fighting it because in the grand scheme of things, it's even worse than tobacco.
I would rather see an end to sports betting advertising before alcohol. At least the alcohol advertising is not integrated into sports tv coverage.
What do you mean "not integrated"? Alcohol advertising is present in the most popular sport in Australia, AFL football.
I can't say anything about Channel 7, but during the Foxtel coverage, during every pre-match, and Friday and Saturday post-matches they have to cross to a man from the betting company to give them the odds for other games in the round etc. I don't see them cross to someone from CUB or Lion Nathan to give the beer update.
Well it's arguable that alcoholism has way less direct bad effects on public than smoking. There's nothing like passive alcoholism.
It may be a nuisance but passive smoking has negligible effects on public health.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-fi...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-fi...
Alcoholism is actually one of the drugs that scores the highest on the "harm to others" category, due to things like drunk driving
Tell that to the drunk car crash victim, or the overloaded EMT at closing time.
I agree with you that alcohol abuse is a problem, but it does seem to me like a different take would be required to reduce binge drinking.
Two things stand out:
1) Alcohol branding and brand identification is extremely common and deep seeded in the West. It'd be a very hard cultural sell to drop alcohol branding.
2) A lot of alcohol is consumed in bar specific pints, not the packaging it's sold in.
Two things stand out:
1) Alcohol branding and brand identification is extremely common and deep seeded in the West. It'd be a very hard cultural sell to drop alcohol branding.
2) A lot of alcohol is consumed in bar specific pints, not the packaging it's sold in.
Off topic, but "deep seeded" is a pretty great eggcorn (word/phrase that sounds like another word/phrase, is quite different but still approximates the meaning of the original).
It's like "deep seated" with a reproductive twist.
It's like "deep seated" with a reproductive twist.
Of all the ways that don't work is trying to make people quit something by increasing taxes. Guess that's a win for Indonesian smugglers.
It works.
Specifically, it works because the taxes make it too expensive for teenagers to become regular smokers. That's the most important time to limit tobacco consumption, as we all know.
Research indicates smoking among teenagers has declined by about 65-70% in the 15 years to 2014 [1].
But even regular smokers I know who are well into their 30s are cutting down, switching to e-cigs or quitting, due to the cost. Yes it's for health reasons too, but the cost factor is adding urgency.
http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-1-prevalence/1-...
Specifically, it works because the taxes make it too expensive for teenagers to become regular smokers. That's the most important time to limit tobacco consumption, as we all know.
Research indicates smoking among teenagers has declined by about 65-70% in the 15 years to 2014 [1].
But even regular smokers I know who are well into their 30s are cutting down, switching to e-cigs or quitting, due to the cost. Yes it's for health reasons too, but the cost factor is adding urgency.
http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-1-prevalence/1-...
I'm in Australia and although I'm very happy these laws have come in, I would love to get some actual statistics on how many people have actually been fined for smoking where they are not allowed to.
I have never seen anyone fined for smoking in any of the places where it isn't allowed (sporting fields, bus stops, etc), and I see people smoking at these locations literally every single day - especially at bus stops. The whole legislation seems to be "smoke and mirrors".
I'm in NSW, and there is a NSW Health website where you are meant to report places to investigate. I have done so about a couple of locations where people smoke where they're not meant to, and nothing has happened. People continue to smoke at those locations regularly. You never get a case number, or any indication whatsoever that anything has been done at all. Police do not enforce smoking bans, and will readily admit that their policy is not to.
Even places as famous as the Manly Beach corso, where smoking is banned, have smokers there every day. Rangers there do nothing, and as I said police do nothing. I have spoken to a ranger on the only occasion I have actually seen one there, and he said that he "usually gives a warning". When pressed, he admitted that he had never actually fined anyone.
Another glaring and infuriating omission to the smoking situation in Australia is in apartment blocks. My neighbour continues to smoke regularly, which comes right into my living room. Apparently I have no right to fresh air in my own living room, and have been told as much by the police.
Smoking is not permitted within 4m of outdoor public eating areas, but my living/dining room is closer than 4m to my neighbor's balcony, yet I have no protection there.
Why are the rights of smokers to smoke taken more seriously than the non-smoking majority's right to not inhale secondhand smoke?
These laws need to have actual teeth, and be enforced.
Addicts cannot be relied upon to do the right thing, or apparently even the bare minimum required by law.
I have never seen anyone fined for smoking in any of the places where it isn't allowed (sporting fields, bus stops, etc), and I see people smoking at these locations literally every single day - especially at bus stops. The whole legislation seems to be "smoke and mirrors".
I'm in NSW, and there is a NSW Health website where you are meant to report places to investigate. I have done so about a couple of locations where people smoke where they're not meant to, and nothing has happened. People continue to smoke at those locations regularly. You never get a case number, or any indication whatsoever that anything has been done at all. Police do not enforce smoking bans, and will readily admit that their policy is not to.
Even places as famous as the Manly Beach corso, where smoking is banned, have smokers there every day. Rangers there do nothing, and as I said police do nothing. I have spoken to a ranger on the only occasion I have actually seen one there, and he said that he "usually gives a warning". When pressed, he admitted that he had never actually fined anyone.
Another glaring and infuriating omission to the smoking situation in Australia is in apartment blocks. My neighbour continues to smoke regularly, which comes right into my living room. Apparently I have no right to fresh air in my own living room, and have been told as much by the police.
Smoking is not permitted within 4m of outdoor public eating areas, but my living/dining room is closer than 4m to my neighbor's balcony, yet I have no protection there.
Why are the rights of smokers to smoke taken more seriously than the non-smoking majority's right to not inhale secondhand smoke?
These laws need to have actual teeth, and be enforced.
Addicts cannot be relied upon to do the right thing, or apparently even the bare minimum required by law.
You take much more damage by car and industrial pollution than secondhand smoke, so there's no need to overreact for neighbor smoking in their property. Don't get me wrong, I don't smoke and hate when somebody does that beside me, but all this "ban smoking 10 meter from anywhere" looks pretentious to me -- there are much bigger health hazards living in a city. I see smoking as a small nuisance, like a cars passing by a window at night and it's a price you pay for living with a bunch of other people around.
People are confusing the smell, a signal from the part-per-million sensor on their face, with getting a harmful dose.
Most people have never had a serious addiction, so they don't understand that smokers NEED to smoke.
Most people have never had a serious addiction, so they don't understand that smokers NEED to smoke.
I don't care how you feel about smoking, I don't want to be exposed to it in my living room. If I can smell it, I'm exposed to it. There is no safe level of secondhand smoke [1].
I trust peer-reviewed studies over your "feeling" about what is harmful, and besides, the smell is disgusting, worse than literally any other smell I have experienced. I don't want that in my living room, plus it gives my partner asthma attacks. I don't think it's fair that someone should get asthma attacks because of someone else's addiction.
Nobody needs to smoke anyway. There are many good options for quitting if you have motivation and willpower.
[1] https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/t...
I trust peer-reviewed studies over your "feeling" about what is harmful, and besides, the smell is disgusting, worse than literally any other smell I have experienced. I don't want that in my living room, plus it gives my partner asthma attacks. I don't think it's fair that someone should get asthma attacks because of someone else's addiction.
Nobody needs to smoke anyway. There are many good options for quitting if you have motivation and willpower.
[1] https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/t...
> I have never seen anyone fined for smoking in any of the places where it isn't allowed (sporting fields, bus stops, etc), and I see people smoking at these locations literally every single day - especially at bus stops. The whole legislation seems to be "smoke and mirrors".
I'm from Brisbane and it's extremely common on Friday and Saturday nights to see police and council workers in pairs fining people in the city and similar suburbs who are smoking in incorrect areas, or who have thrown their butts on the ground.
I'm from Brisbane and it's extremely common on Friday and Saturday nights to see police and council workers in pairs fining people in the city and similar suburbs who are smoking in incorrect areas, or who have thrown their butts on the ground.
Queensland has the most retarded smoking laws. Can't by groceries and smokes at the same time, have to walk to the cigarette counter. Festivals where you can't take drinks into the smoking area. Pubs where you can't take a bowl of chips into the smoking area. Can't have an type of entertainment (TV) in the smoking area.
If you smoke, don't even think of visiting Queensland.
If you smoke, don't even think of visiting Queensland.
They are designed to be as killjoy as possible. Sucks if you have an addiction obviously. But effective at a societal level.
Give up the fags, it'll be the best thing you ever do for yourself. If you don't like patches, Zyban is quite effective and low side effect.
Give up the fags, it'll be the best thing you ever do for yourself. If you don't like patches, Zyban is quite effective and low side effect.
Those smoking laws are strict, not "retarded".
While I don't think I've seen anyone fined, I've definitely seen people 'moved on' by police in Perth for smoking in the city center (at Forrest Place). I've also seen social pressure in Perth, people asking smokers nearby to put their cigarettes out even in areas where smoking is allowed.
I'm a non-smoker and appreciate the cleaner air, but I find the bans weird when the city also allow pop-up flame grilled chicken vendors in the same space, putting out far more smoke than any smokers ever did.
I'm a non-smoker and appreciate the cleaner air, but I find the bans weird when the city also allow pop-up flame grilled chicken vendors in the same space, putting out far more smoke than any smokers ever did.
This is one of the reasons why people in Australian were explicitly concerned by the now dead Trans-Pacific Partnership.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-05/trans-pacific-partners...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-05/trans-pacific-partners...
Their concerns were misplaced and the outcome lawsuits against the Australian government (they won every time) show how ridiculous the scare campaign about ISDS was.
Not really, the Australian govt's ISDS case wins were largely because the tobacco companies were found to have little business standing to launch their cases from the (few) jurisdictions with who Australia has ISDS-ful treaties. The Phillip Morris case, launched from venue-shopped Hong Kong is an example - the arbitration tribunal refused to hear the case for this reason: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/austr...
The TPP would drastically increase the number of nations with reciprocal ISDS agreements. In particular it would have included the US, where many/most of the the tobacco companies are domiciled.
Why the TPP would probably have not included retrospectivity, it could have frustrated any future efforts.
The TPP would drastically increase the number of nations with reciprocal ISDS agreements. In particular it would have included the US, where many/most of the the tobacco companies are domiciled.
Why the TPP would probably have not included retrospectivity, it could have frustrated any future efforts.
I certainly think the concerns were misplaced, but wasn't the Phillip Morris case dismissed because they were found to have a lack of standing, having reincorporated in Hong Kong specifically to make use of the ISDS provision? While I can't see how the tobacco companies could prevail in any case, history has yet to furnish us with a proper example.
You are correct about the HK case. However there weren't many observers who though Phillip Morris stood a chance. The lawsuit was much more about signalling to other countries considering plain packaging than actually overturning the laws in Australia. There is still a pending WTO arbitration which is also expected to be decided in Australia's favour.
See also the outcome of Phillip Morris v Uruguay
See also the outcome of Phillip Morris v Uruguay
I don't miss any of the "joys" of having to deal with cigarette smokers. The streets of Melbourne are no longer littered with butts. Waste bins no longer catch fire from careless half-stubbed cigarettes falling inside. I can walk along the footpaths here without having to smell the acrid stench. I can go to a pub and not have to wash my clothes when I get home to get the smell out. It's incredible. Every country should do it.
> It's incredible. Every country should do it.
Yeah, it sure is wonderful to repress a hated minority. How dare they befoul our pristine public spaces with their benighted culture and their foul customs‽
Of course, the victims of your repression might feel a bit differently than you do.
Yeah, it sure is wonderful to repress a hated minority. How dare they befoul our pristine public spaces with their benighted culture and their foul customs‽
Of course, the victims of your repression might feel a bit differently than you do.
Smokers choose to be smokers. Smokers choose to inflict their smoke on others when they smoke around other people. Smokers make excuses for not dealing with their butts properly(oh they didn't provide an ashtray so it's not my fault).
Smokers choose to be smokers.
Cigarette's are addictive. They choose to smoke as much as an alcoholic chooses to drink or a heroin addict chooses to shoot up.
Cigarette's are addictive. They choose to smoke as much as an alcoholic chooses to drink or a heroin addict chooses to shoot up.
Show me the dangerous side effects when a smoker quits smoking and I'll allow you to include it in the addictive category of alcohol and heroin.
What difference does that make? I've read where tobacco is one of, if not the most addictive substances. I think you just have no empathy for people addicted to tobacco because you've been subjected to a relentless barrage of anti-tobacco propaganda over decades.
That is as fallacious as saying 'people choose to be crackheads'.
You aren't born a smoker. There's nothing in your genes that says you have to smoke, and there's no medical conditions that would prevent someone from smoking.
As such, smokers can avoid feeling repressed simply by quitting smoking, and they can save money and improve their health in the process.
As such, smokers can avoid feeling repressed simply by quitting smoking, and they can save money and improve their health in the process.
> smokers can avoid feeling repressed simply by quitting smoking
What gives you the right to oppress people for the behavioural choices? What gives you the right to tell someone that his health is more important than his happiness?
I don't believe that you have that right.
What gives you the right to oppress people for the behavioural choices? What gives you the right to tell someone that his health is more important than his happiness?
I don't believe that you have that right.
In this case, this behavior choice affects me personally.
Back when I played in bands, one of the aspects I hated about it was playing in the bars that allowed smoking. That very habit you are talking about caused my clothes and hair etc. to stink of tobacco smoke after the gig. Instruments would likewise smell like an ashtray and have to be aired out. I'm sure that wasn't good for my lungs, either.
I no longer play out, which means thankfully I can avoid any establishment that still allows smoking. I value my health and happiness too; second hand smoke isn't very healthy, and stuff that stinks of tobacco doesn't make me very happy.
Back when I played in bands, one of the aspects I hated about it was playing in the bars that allowed smoking. That very habit you are talking about caused my clothes and hair etc. to stink of tobacco smoke after the gig. Instruments would likewise smell like an ashtray and have to be aired out. I'm sure that wasn't good for my lungs, either.
I no longer play out, which means thankfully I can avoid any establishment that still allows smoking. I value my health and happiness too; second hand smoke isn't very healthy, and stuff that stinks of tobacco doesn't make me very happy.
What gives you the right to smoke near people who arent smokers.
A typically insensitive comment from someone who has never had a serious addiction.
beedogs(1)
What we have here now is effectively prohibition with all that entails i.e. a huge black market.For people on average incomes, tobacco is now in effect an illegal drug.
The official stats on smoking exclude the black market and greatly understate smoking rates.
The official stats on smoking exclude the black market and greatly understate smoking rates.
This - and so much this.
I understand the urge to reduce smoking. I find it weird that prices are so high because I think it encourages a black market. Black markets are somewhat dangerous, as there aren't the quality controls in place. The other option seems to be to switch to nicotine gums most of the time, which carry their own health risks.
I find it even more appalling considering the dismal rates at which people actually succeed dropping the habit, which is something like 6%. For those already smoking, it might seem hopeless. I support some tax on them, even though I smoke, but I wish they'd save the highest price at least until we are better equipped to handle the addiction part of it.
I understand the urge to reduce smoking. I find it weird that prices are so high because I think it encourages a black market. Black markets are somewhat dangerous, as there aren't the quality controls in place. The other option seems to be to switch to nicotine gums most of the time, which carry their own health risks.
I find it even more appalling considering the dismal rates at which people actually succeed dropping the habit, which is something like 6%. For those already smoking, it might seem hopeless. I support some tax on them, even though I smoke, but I wish they'd save the highest price at least until we are better equipped to handle the addiction part of it.
A third of cigarettes sold in Ontario are contraband, study suggests:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/01/23/a-third-of-ci...
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/01/23/a-third-of-ci...
One aspect that the article doesn't mention is the racial/immigrant aspect.
White people are quitting in droves for sure, but Asians still seem to smoke a lot.
I have no numbers here (are they even collected?) but anecdotally it's unusual for white people to smoke in their own homes, but common for Asian families here.
Note that this is different from the "poorer end of society" mentioned in TFA - race is not an indicator of affluence or social standing in Australia.
White people are quitting in droves for sure, but Asians still seem to smoke a lot.
I have no numbers here (are they even collected?) but anecdotally it's unusual for white people to smoke in their own homes, but common for Asian families here.
Note that this is different from the "poorer end of society" mentioned in TFA - race is not an indicator of affluence or social standing in Australia.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say this that I think this is a cultural bias, not a 'racial' one.
Anecdotally, the number of college-aged Asians you walk past in the street that are smoking is much higher than the number of college-aged caucasians. I won't pretend to know which portion of which demographic is immigrant or not, but Melbourne imports absolutely huge numbers of international students, a large portion of whom come from Asian countries and who have grown up in a country where smoking is not the social-taboo it is among millennial Australians.
Among older generations, I don't see the same marked divide. Older Australians smoke much more frequently than their younger counterparts.
As a side note: I don't know a better way to separate out Australian-born "Australians" who may be of any race, including Asian, from "international students from Asia", so if any of my phrasing comes across smelling even slightly offensive please let me know.
Anecdotally, the number of college-aged Asians you walk past in the street that are smoking is much higher than the number of college-aged caucasians. I won't pretend to know which portion of which demographic is immigrant or not, but Melbourne imports absolutely huge numbers of international students, a large portion of whom come from Asian countries and who have grown up in a country where smoking is not the social-taboo it is among millennial Australians.
Among older generations, I don't see the same marked divide. Older Australians smoke much more frequently than their younger counterparts.
As a side note: I don't know a better way to separate out Australian-born "Australians" who may be of any race, including Asian, from "international students from Asia", so if any of my phrasing comes across smelling even slightly offensive please let me know.
you're probably right, in that this is probably not a race thing, but a culture thing. My bad
There is a reason for this: it's getting to be so hard to sell cigarettes in Australia that the tobacco companies have stopped trying, and they're going after the Indonesians and Timorese instead. Four Corners reported on it a few years ago.
I had a conversation with friends who live in LA yesterday about the fact that they thought smoking is more prevalent in Melbourne than in the LA.
Amused by the timing :-)
(If I'd guessed, I would've assumed smoking was less prevalent in Melbourne (because of the reasons mentioned in the article, but mostly the cost), although I've not actually paid enough attention to compare.)
(We all agreed it seemed more common in Europe, very vaguely speaking.)
Amused by the timing :-)
(If I'd guessed, I would've assumed smoking was less prevalent in Melbourne (because of the reasons mentioned in the article, but mostly the cost), although I've not actually paid enough attention to compare.)
(We all agreed it seemed more common in Europe, very vaguely speaking.)
Most smokers in Melbourne CBD are Asian immigrants (anecdotally).
I think it's culturally hard for them to give it up, which is a real shame as I hate walking through clouds of smoke on Little Bourke St.
Not sure what can be done about it though, banning it outright I think is too far as it's an assault on people's personal freedoms but I would like to see a ban on smoking on the street/public places.
I don't want to be secondary smoking the stuff, it smells awful and probably does a decent chunk of damage if you are walking through it every day though that is unsubstantiated, I haven't read any studies on secondary smoking.
Atleast most smokers here seem responsible when disposing the butts. Silver lining I guess.
I think it's culturally hard for them to give it up, which is a real shame as I hate walking through clouds of smoke on Little Bourke St.
Not sure what can be done about it though, banning it outright I think is too far as it's an assault on people's personal freedoms but I would like to see a ban on smoking on the street/public places.
I don't want to be secondary smoking the stuff, it smells awful and probably does a decent chunk of damage if you are walking through it every day though that is unsubstantiated, I haven't read any studies on secondary smoking.
Atleast most smokers here seem responsible when disposing the butts. Silver lining I guess.
Can confirm truth of that. Chinese neighbours on either side of me smoke, and I only ever see young Asian people smoking at the back of my building here in Melbourne. My annoying neighbour smokes on his balcony every day and the smell drifts into my apartment. Still figuring out what to do about that if anything.
Note that the story was from the BBC and compared Europe to Australia. I didn't see anything about US numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if the US had similar numbers to Australia. I suspect not though - in the "deep south" of the US smoking is still common, so if we have lower numbers here it is because the rest of the country has low enough smoking rates to balance out that part of the country.
Good riddance. What really bugs me is that why is every smoker an idiot throwing the cigarette butts everywhere? I really despise that behavior.
A big change I've seen in the US is the "class" aspect of smoking. Smokers (outside of a bar environment) in the US come across as lower class, at least among white folks (can't speak for others). Not sure how this came about, but it's effective and one of the reasons I never picked the habit up from my parents.
Seems like increasing the age limit every year would be an easy way to wipe out smoking. Why are there no countries doing this though?
The Tasmanian parliament is considering exactly this -- banning smoking for anyone born after 2000.
This sounds like an insanely bad idea.
While the goal is admirable (eliminating smoking once and for all), without strong enough social norms in place discouraging smoking, all this will do is create another lucrative black market drug (much like what happened when the US prohibited alcohol from 1920 to 1933).
While the goal is admirable (eliminating smoking once and for all), without strong enough social norms in place discouraging smoking, all this will do is create another lucrative black market drug (much like what happened when the US prohibited alcohol from 1920 to 1933).
But there are strong social norms discouraging smoking. It's gone from looking like a cool, sociable thing (restaurants, pubs, colleagues at work) to "Look at those people who can't quit."
People aren't smoking in restaurants. At pubs, they are forced into a dodgy little area, often near gambling machines. And outside offices, they often hide around the side near alleys because they are discouraged or embarrassed about smoking out the front.
People aren't smoking in restaurants. At pubs, they are forced into a dodgy little area, often near gambling machines. And outside offices, they often hide around the side near alleys because they are discouraged or embarrassed about smoking out the front.
Precisely! If you check some of my other comments in this thread, you'll see me putting forward the idea that these social incentives (created by these laws) are the primary cause of reduced smoking rates over the past decade or so.
My concern here is over timing. I'm not sure that smoking has been sufficiently socially marginalised to the point that a black market would not form if we banned cigarettes. We've seen this already in Australia. The ATO (where I used to work) has had compliance teams in the field for at least a decade now dealing with the 'chop-chop' problem (black market tobacco), which grows larger with every excise increase. In a sense, banning it is the equivalent of setting excise at some rate approaching infinity per cent.
I don't have any control over what the Tasmanian parliament does, but I really hope they understand that they only get about 1 shot at this per decade at most. If they pass this law and it turns out smoking is not sufficiently marginalised, and a black market subsequently forms, they'll spend the next 3-5 years fighting the black markets, another 3-5 debating and eventually re-legalising cigarettes and then we'll be back to where we are now.
Although it requires a bit more patience, it might be safer to wait a couple more years as the 'outdoor smoking laws' strengthen social incentives and norms. They might even be able to come up with additional measures to accelerate this process.
I agree that we're close to the point where banning cigarettes is feasible. But whether we've actually past that point...
My concern here is over timing. I'm not sure that smoking has been sufficiently socially marginalised to the point that a black market would not form if we banned cigarettes. We've seen this already in Australia. The ATO (where I used to work) has had compliance teams in the field for at least a decade now dealing with the 'chop-chop' problem (black market tobacco), which grows larger with every excise increase. In a sense, banning it is the equivalent of setting excise at some rate approaching infinity per cent.
I don't have any control over what the Tasmanian parliament does, but I really hope they understand that they only get about 1 shot at this per decade at most. If they pass this law and it turns out smoking is not sufficiently marginalised, and a black market subsequently forms, they'll spend the next 3-5 years fighting the black markets, another 3-5 debating and eventually re-legalising cigarettes and then we'll be back to where we are now.
Although it requires a bit more patience, it might be safer to wait a couple more years as the 'outdoor smoking laws' strengthen social incentives and norms. They might even be able to come up with additional measures to accelerate this process.
I agree that we're close to the point where banning cigarettes is feasible. But whether we've actually past that point...
>> "Precisely! If you check some of my other comments in this thread, you'll see me putting forward the idea that these social incentives (created by these laws) are the primary cause of reduced smoking rates over the past decade or so."
I believe it actually works the other way too. If your friend group is primarily made up of smokers who are forced to go outside the pub/restaurant etc. multiple times in an evening you might decide to start joining them. I know a tonne of people who only 'smoke when they drink' for this reason and many others who started like that and now smoke full-time.
I believe it actually works the other way too. If your friend group is primarily made up of smokers who are forced to go outside the pub/restaurant etc. multiple times in an evening you might decide to start joining them. I know a tonne of people who only 'smoke when they drink' for this reason and many others who started like that and now smoke full-time.
No really, when they banned alcohol in 1920, it was for everybody, and everybody already drank alot.
Somebody born after 2000 has never bought thier own cigarettes.
Somebody born after 2000 has never bought thier own cigarettes.
Someone born in 2000 has probably never bought there own weed, but plenty still will.
There are already strong social norms in Australia against smoking, partially because of these laws. (See other comments in this thread.)
Is that actually making any progress?
The only information that I could find just said that it was being considered, and that was from July 2016.
The only information that I could find just said that it was being considered, and that was from July 2016.
Russia is planning to ban the sale of cigarettes to people born in 2015 and after[0].
0. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/world/europe/russia-smoki...
0. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/world/europe/russia-smoki...
Because governments don't care about smokers, they just want the sweet, sweet tax revenue. It's called a "sin tax." and it's very regressive. It's so they don't have to tax the rich as much.
The thing I hate about the anti-smoking advertising is that it's blanket coverage. The "Shock and awe" is broadcast far and wide for all to see, whether you smoke or not.
From cinema screens to small screens to billboards. I was driving behind a bus and had to stare at a larger than life cancerous growth being operated on. I don't even smoke, so why must my field of view be contaminated by this horrible imagery? Everyone must suffer the offensive ads because a few people smoke. Way to go Australia. Bring back the ladies underwear ads for buses please, I'm trying to concentrate!
From cinema screens to small screens to billboards. I was driving behind a bus and had to stare at a larger than life cancerous growth being operated on. I don't even smoke, so why must my field of view be contaminated by this horrible imagery? Everyone must suffer the offensive ads because a few people smoke. Way to go Australia. Bring back the ladies underwear ads for buses please, I'm trying to concentrate!
Aussie living in China, ex-smoker. Every time I went back I used to always take a bunch of cigarettes to sell to people at cut rates, specifically because they are so expensive in Australia. This year I couldn't even find anyone to buy them! Won't be bothering in future.
I strongly support the progressive anti-smoking policies in Australia, but I do think the nanny statism has come a bit far in other areas. For example you can't catch a taxi or go to the (now 100% non-smoking) pub with a child. What the hell? Makes it really hard to stop for a drink when you are carrying a kid and walking to the nearest mass transit facility in the stinking hot summer sun, because you can't catch a taxi. Come on, people take buses without seat belts all the time ... it's off the charts stupid to ban young families from the use of taxis!
I strongly support the progressive anti-smoking policies in Australia, but I do think the nanny statism has come a bit far in other areas. For example you can't catch a taxi or go to the (now 100% non-smoking) pub with a child. What the hell? Makes it really hard to stop for a drink when you are carrying a kid and walking to the nearest mass transit facility in the stinking hot summer sun, because you can't catch a taxi. Come on, people take buses without seat belts all the time ... it's off the charts stupid to ban young families from the use of taxis!
> For example you can't catch a taxi or go to the (now 100% non-smoking) pub with a child.
I don't understand about the taxi. What do you mean?
Regarding the pubs, I live in Queensland and have never seen a 100% non-smoking pub. They always have a dedicated smoking area.
I don't understand about the taxi. What do you mean?
Regarding the pubs, I live in Queensland and have never seen a 100% non-smoking pub. They always have a dedicated smoking area.
Depending on the age of the child, the child may be required by law to use a child safety seat.
Taxis typically don't come with such seats and so they will refuse to carry you.
Taxis typically don't come with such seats and so they will refuse to carry you.
In most states taxis (but not uber) have an exemption, QLD is just a massive pain in the arse. Logically the market should evolve to allow requesting a car with seats but no.
Maybe they're talking about a child young enough to need a booster seat? They recently raised the age below which children require a booster seat to 7 years.
They always have a dedicated smoking area.
In my NSW experience, you're not allowed to smoke within X meters of an indoor pub (even outside on the public pavement), and certainly not indoors, which makes it smoke free. That said, they probably have special exceptions to allow aircon for farming sadcases at gambling machines in special rooms.
In my NSW experience, you're not allowed to smoke within X meters of an indoor pub (even outside on the public pavement), and certainly not indoors, which makes it smoke free. That said, they probably have special exceptions to allow aircon for farming sadcases at gambling machines in special rooms.
> For example you can't catch a taxi or go to the (now 100% non-smoking) pub with a child
Can't catch a taxi with a child? Where is this factoid coming from? Children under 12 months without a child restraint have to be in the back seat (airbags), and children over 12 months just have to occupy their own seat, not be on someone's lap.
Also, here in Victoria, pubs aren't 100% non-smoking. Only indoors. You can smoke outdoors at a pub - the area just needs to have one 'side' open to the air, whether that's the roof or a wall.
Can't catch a taxi with a child? Where is this factoid coming from? Children under 12 months without a child restraint have to be in the back seat (airbags), and children over 12 months just have to occupy their own seat, not be on someone's lap.
Also, here in Victoria, pubs aren't 100% non-smoking. Only indoors. You can smoke outdoors at a pub - the area just needs to have one 'side' open to the air, whether that's the roof or a wall.
Where is this factoid coming from?
Personal experience. Sounds like Victoria is sane, my experience is in NSW.
Personal experience. Sounds like Victoria is sane, my experience is in NSW.
It doesn't work on everybody, though. Friend witnessed someone asking for a "pack o' dyin' Bryans, thanks."
http://imgur.com/HNDvjAJ
I fully support people's right to smoke (or to use any drug), but I do find it odd that companies can legally sell such a dangerous and addictive substance. The solution would be to criminalise the sale of tobacco, but make it completely legal to grow your own. Same for pot or any other drug.
I honestly think that things like $40 packs of cigarettes are pure bigotry (the only politically-acceptable bigotry at the moment). It's kicking a man when he's down.
But then, I believe that cigars & pipes are an essential part of the good life. Can you imagine a world in which C.S. Lewis & J.R.R. Tolkien didn't head down to the Eagle & Child to enjoy a pot of ale and a few good pipes together?
But then, I believe that cigars & pipes are an essential part of the good life. Can you imagine a world in which C.S. Lewis & J.R.R. Tolkien didn't head down to the Eagle & Child to enjoy a pot of ale and a few good pipes together?
> It's kicking a man when he's down.
My father in law has had problems on his lungs and heart since I know him.
I married my wife 6 years ago. His father was hospitalized at the time (again). He was exceptionally discharged from the hospital to attend the wedding, and went back there the next day. You know what he did while he was there? Distribute cigars. And smoke them.
He recently died of pulmonary and heart-related problems. He was 60, but doctors said that his lungs and heart looked like 90. Months before he died, blood was failing to reach his feet, so they gradually had to cut them down: first the toes of one foot. Then the other's. Then a whole foot. Then the other, and part of the leg. It was at this point when his mind started to crack. He started saying that he wanted to die.
The last 3 years of his life, he spent 90% of his time at hospitals. At the end, he was a shadow of himself, physically and mentally. At least he could meet his only grandchild once, before he passed away.
That is being down.
You don't want to be there. Before you get there, anything that deviates you from that path, kicks or whatever else, is a good thing in my view.
My father in law has had problems on his lungs and heart since I know him.
I married my wife 6 years ago. His father was hospitalized at the time (again). He was exceptionally discharged from the hospital to attend the wedding, and went back there the next day. You know what he did while he was there? Distribute cigars. And smoke them.
He recently died of pulmonary and heart-related problems. He was 60, but doctors said that his lungs and heart looked like 90. Months before he died, blood was failing to reach his feet, so they gradually had to cut them down: first the toes of one foot. Then the other's. Then a whole foot. Then the other, and part of the leg. It was at this point when his mind started to crack. He started saying that he wanted to die.
The last 3 years of his life, he spent 90% of his time at hospitals. At the end, he was a shadow of himself, physically and mentally. At least he could meet his only grandchild once, before he passed away.
That is being down.
You don't want to be there. Before you get there, anything that deviates you from that path, kicks or whatever else, is a good thing in my view.
Yes and it'd certainly smell a lot nicer and involve a lot less drooling on themselves.
> How Australia is stubbing out smoking
By massive invasions on basic human rights.
There are also many campaigns that don't, but many do and they are the most effective.
By massive invasions on basic human rights.
There are also many campaigns that don't, but many do and they are the most effective.
These are bans on smoking in public areas. You can still smoke your lungs out in private.
How is it a "massive invasion on basic human rights"?
It's basically applying the drug war to cigarette smokers.
It's using the police and state to use force to deal with people who are doing no harm to anyone but at best themselves.
I think this breaks basic human rights.
It's using the police and state to use force to deal with people who are doing no harm to anyone but at best themselves.
I think this breaks basic human rights.
> doing no harm to anyone but at best themselves
Secondhand smoke is disgusting, and so dangerous that it has been proven to kill thousands of non-smokers [1]. I'd call causing death, "harm".
Also smoking in private is still legal, unfortunately.
Hardly a "human right".
[1] "Since 1964, approximately 2,500,000 nonsmokers have died from health problems caused by exposure to secondhand smoke." - https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... - Stats from the US, from the first google result I came across.
Secondhand smoke is disgusting, and so dangerous that it has been proven to kill thousands of non-smokers [1]. I'd call causing death, "harm".
Also smoking in private is still legal, unfortunately.
Hardly a "human right".
[1] "Since 1964, approximately 2,500,000 nonsmokers have died from health problems caused by exposure to secondhand smoke." - https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... - Stats from the US, from the first google result I came across.
> unfortunately !?
some people want to control what they do with their own bodies and not be slaves to the state. gtfo
some people want to control what they do with their own bodies and not be slaves to the state. gtfo
You still have complete control over what you do to your own body in your own privacy.
This gives other people complete control over their body too – in terms of not having to breathe in your smoke.
This gives other people complete control over their body too – in terms of not having to breathe in your smoke.
This comment would have been better without the last 'gtfo' appended.
> Secondhand smoke is disgusting, and so dangerous that it has been proven to kill thousands of non-smokers
And this is why people vote Trump.
I never mentioned second hand smoke, it's irrelevant to the conversation, if the science is there then ban it where it harms others. Australia does this for instance.
You just picked something that conforms to your world view which you later admit since you say its not even relevant to you, you still want to control other human beings.
"Also smoking in private is still legal, unfortunately."
And this is why people vote Trump.
I never mentioned second hand smoke, it's irrelevant to the conversation, if the science is there then ban it where it harms others. Australia does this for instance.
You just picked something that conforms to your world view which you later admit since you say its not even relevant to you, you still want to control other human beings.
"Also smoking in private is still legal, unfortunately."
> And this is why people vote Trump.
Irrelevant and nonsensical comment is irrelevant and nonsensical.
> I never mentioned second hand smoke, it's irrelevant to the conversation, if the science is there then ban it where it harms others. Australia does this for instance.
GP said that smokers are "doing no harm to anyone but themselves". Since secondhand smoke is known to kill and otherwise harm non-smokers I would very much argue that smokers are doing harm to others. Hence why parent brought up secondhand smoking.
And that's why Australia has laws against smoking indoors (outside your home) and near public places where people have no choice where to stand (such as near bus stops, on some promenades and other similar places). Unfortunately, there are no laws against smoking on busy sidewalks (in NSW) and the pitiful "3m from the entrance" laws don't actually mean you can enter or leave some cinemas without running into a wall of carcinogenic and toxic smoke. Not to mention that people routinely break the law and smoke near bus stops (which as someone who catches public transport, this pisses me off no end and I enjoy telling smokers to fuck off when they decide to increase the cancer risk of the people around them).
I have no issue with people that smoke in their own homes. But people who decide to smoke on public walkways where other people are walking past are simply disgusting for harming others because of their habit.
Irrelevant and nonsensical comment is irrelevant and nonsensical.
> I never mentioned second hand smoke, it's irrelevant to the conversation, if the science is there then ban it where it harms others. Australia does this for instance.
GP said that smokers are "doing no harm to anyone but themselves". Since secondhand smoke is known to kill and otherwise harm non-smokers I would very much argue that smokers are doing harm to others. Hence why parent brought up secondhand smoking.
And that's why Australia has laws against smoking indoors (outside your home) and near public places where people have no choice where to stand (such as near bus stops, on some promenades and other similar places). Unfortunately, there are no laws against smoking on busy sidewalks (in NSW) and the pitiful "3m from the entrance" laws don't actually mean you can enter or leave some cinemas without running into a wall of carcinogenic and toxic smoke. Not to mention that people routinely break the law and smoke near bus stops (which as someone who catches public transport, this pisses me off no end and I enjoy telling smokers to fuck off when they decide to increase the cancer risk of the people around them).
I have no issue with people that smoke in their own homes. But people who decide to smoke on public walkways where other people are walking past are simply disgusting for harming others because of their habit.
Actually there are some laws here which protect residents in apartment blocks from suffering the second-hand smoke of neighbours smoking on their balconies. I'm currently putting up with my neighbor's smoke which enters my apartment on a daily basis. He smokes many cigarettes in a day and it wafts from his balcony to mine and comes inside. I haven't taken action yet, mainly because I'm not looking forward to taking action.
Really? In which state do you live? In NSW I don't believe there's laws against smoking on balconies (though I don't live in apartments, so I don't have first-hand experience with this).
I live in Vic, but I was reading about NSW laws dealing with this problem...
From an SMH article...
"Tenants who create too much smoke when barbecuing their lamb chops or sausages on unit balconies could soon face fines of up to $2200 under proposed changes to strata laws. The same goes for smokers if the smoke from their cigarettes or cigars drifts into neighbouring units."
From an SMH article...
"Tenants who create too much smoke when barbecuing their lamb chops or sausages on unit balconies could soon face fines of up to $2200 under proposed changes to strata laws. The same goes for smokers if the smoke from their cigarettes or cigars drifts into neighbouring units."
"proposed" changes.
I'm living in the same situation in NSW. There is no recourse that I know of, unless your strata has a non-smoking by-law, which almost none do. The proposed changes to strata laws will AFAIK only apply to new developments.
We are currently looking to move since some addicts moved in next door, but there is no guarantee the next place we move to won't have the same problem. Asthma attacks caused by a selfish person's addiction are no fun.
The government is ignoring the suffering of non-smokers forced to live near these disgusting addicts.
I'm living in the same situation in NSW. There is no recourse that I know of, unless your strata has a non-smoking by-law, which almost none do. The proposed changes to strata laws will AFAIK only apply to new developments.
We are currently looking to move since some addicts moved in next door, but there is no guarantee the next place we move to won't have the same problem. Asthma attacks caused by a selfish person's addiction are no fun.
The government is ignoring the suffering of non-smokers forced to live near these disgusting addicts.
[deleted]
> > And this is why people vote Trump.
> Irrelevant and nonsensical comment is irrelevant and nonsensical.
No I find this totally on topic.
We are specifically talking about smoking practices that do not harm others being banned in Australia.
Yet people are continuously bringing up passive smoking, something that does harm so totally off topic, but this is their argument.
A classic method of the Left, diffuse and confuse.
We also know smokers cost the tax payers less. This has been shown in numerous studies, yet once again people pull out it cost tax payers money argument. Basically a lie, but they will not accept the facts. It's impossible to bring in logic.
For any non-Australians, Australian basically stopped anything related to passive smoking many years ago, legislation now is all about smoking that causes noone else harm. (The article even mentions talk of banning people born after a certain date!)
Australians care little about fundamental rights, it part of their culture of being apathetic.
But they hate to know this, hence the kick back, plus they get to bully a minority with immunity, also an Australian trait.
No I find this totally on topic.
We are specifically talking about smoking practices that do not harm others being banned in Australia.
Yet people are continuously bringing up passive smoking, something that does harm so totally off topic, but this is their argument.
A classic method of the Left, diffuse and confuse.
We also know smokers cost the tax payers less. This has been shown in numerous studies, yet once again people pull out it cost tax payers money argument. Basically a lie, but they will not accept the facts. It's impossible to bring in logic.
For any non-Australians, Australian basically stopped anything related to passive smoking many years ago, legislation now is all about smoking that causes noone else harm. (The article even mentions talk of banning people born after a certain date!)
Australians care little about fundamental rights, it part of their culture of being apathetic.
But they hate to know this, hence the kick back, plus they get to bully a minority with immunity, also an Australian trait.
> We are specifically talking about smoking practices that do not harm others being banned in Australia.
Smoking in a private residence is not banned in Australia.
> Yet people are continuously bringing up passive smoking, something that does harm so totally off topic, but this is their argument.
Most of Australia's bans are to make secondhand smoking something that can be entirely avoided by non-smokers. Taxation is a separate issue, and there are valid arguments against taxation of products like tobacco and alcohol.
The only thing mentioned in the article which is not related to this goal is discussions about age discrimination for tobacco sales. Personally I think such a law would not be a good idea, simply because it would increase the demand for black market tobacco.
The right way of combating the public health epidemic of smoking is through social stigmatisation. And luckily it's worked (I'm in the younger generation, and smoking carries far more of a stigma than it did in previous generations).
And believe it or not, but plain packaging does actually work. At least, it did for me (the images on packets scared the crap out of me as a child).
> bully a minority with immunity, also an Australian trait.
As someone who came from a country where non-smokers are the minority, I definitely prefer living in a country where you can actually go to the CBD and also being able to breathe. Maybe the "bullying" is earned, when a person is negatively affecting public spaces.
Not to mention that you keep talking about fundamental human rights but you've yet to explain what right is being infringed. The right to consume any substance is actually not a human right -- though maybe you would like it to be? In which case, lets fix all of the human rights violations in impoverished nations where starvation is common before we start discussing tobacco.
Smoking in a private residence is not banned in Australia.
> Yet people are continuously bringing up passive smoking, something that does harm so totally off topic, but this is their argument.
Most of Australia's bans are to make secondhand smoking something that can be entirely avoided by non-smokers. Taxation is a separate issue, and there are valid arguments against taxation of products like tobacco and alcohol.
The only thing mentioned in the article which is not related to this goal is discussions about age discrimination for tobacco sales. Personally I think such a law would not be a good idea, simply because it would increase the demand for black market tobacco.
The right way of combating the public health epidemic of smoking is through social stigmatisation. And luckily it's worked (I'm in the younger generation, and smoking carries far more of a stigma than it did in previous generations).
And believe it or not, but plain packaging does actually work. At least, it did for me (the images on packets scared the crap out of me as a child).
> bully a minority with immunity, also an Australian trait.
As someone who came from a country where non-smokers are the minority, I definitely prefer living in a country where you can actually go to the CBD and also being able to breathe. Maybe the "bullying" is earned, when a person is negatively affecting public spaces.
Not to mention that you keep talking about fundamental human rights but you've yet to explain what right is being infringed. The right to consume any substance is actually not a human right -- though maybe you would like it to be? In which case, lets fix all of the human rights violations in impoverished nations where starvation is common before we start discussing tobacco.
As long as I'm paying someones healthcare, I'm not going to allow them to smoke. If they are going to smoke, then the cost of their cigarettes should cover their increased medical costs and other costs to society (such as work years lost, increased sick days).
The fact that I'm directly harmed by cigarette smoke is a minor nuisance compared to the enormous costs to society.
Also: which human right is it you are referring to here?
The fact that I'm directly harmed by cigarette smoke is a minor nuisance compared to the enormous costs to society.
Also: which human right is it you are referring to here?
>I'm not going to allow them to smoke.
Same can be said for any dangerous activity. Like bicycling? As long as I pay for health care, I'm not going to allow you to do it. Driving? Hell no! You need to walk, and you can't use roads or sidewalks near roads. Only the rich can use roads, we're putting on a driving tax.
Same can be said for any dangerous activity. Like bicycling? As long as I pay for health care, I'm not going to allow you to do it. Driving? Hell no! You need to walk, and you can't use roads or sidewalks near roads. Only the rich can use roads, we're putting on a driving tax.
> Same can be said for any dangerous activity. Like bicycling? As long as I pay for health care, I'm not going to allow you to do it.
Exactly like bicycling. However, bicycling has positive benefits - it gets people places (as does driving), it provides excercise etc. So a reasonable compromise might be requiring a helmet while cycling, which lots of countries does. That reduces the costs of injuries to a point where it's likely to be outweighed by the positives.
> Only the rich can use roads, we're putting on a driving tax.
Cars do have very expensive side effects (injuries in car accidents, pollution, lack of excercise, ...). I pay a 25% VAT on a car. Then I pay a yearly car tax of $100 year and around $2/mile in fuel taxes. That still is probably not enough for cars to "pay for themselves".
Exactly like bicycling. However, bicycling has positive benefits - it gets people places (as does driving), it provides excercise etc. So a reasonable compromise might be requiring a helmet while cycling, which lots of countries does. That reduces the costs of injuries to a point where it's likely to be outweighed by the positives.
> Only the rich can use roads, we're putting on a driving tax.
Cars do have very expensive side effects (injuries in car accidents, pollution, lack of excercise, ...). I pay a 25% VAT on a car. Then I pay a yearly car tax of $100 year and around $2/mile in fuel taxes. That still is probably not enough for cars to "pay for themselves".
No comparison to the cost of a bicycle helmet and the taxes levied on cigarettes. Depending on where you live, how about $50 a week to rent a government approved bicycle helmet?
It's starts to sound much more unreasonable when you compare the taxes.
It's starts to sound much more unreasonable when you compare the taxes.
I'm not sure what the costs to society of bicycle accidents vs lung cancer are, but if the equilibrium was $1000 per pack I wouldn't consider that unreasonable (although at that price black markets would become an issue)
>but if the equilibrium was $1000 per pack I wouldn't consider that unreasonable
Ok, so you still haven't solved the problem, you aren't collecting any revenue, and now you have a pretty serious black market and all the crime, policing costs, jail costs and bribes that go with it. At what point do you realize it's bad policy to tax sin and really only succeeds in getting revenue from predominantly poor people?
1. You will never get all people to stop smoking. 2. Any effort to squeeze down the last 15% or so is the same folly that got us into the drug war. 3. The only thing you can reasonably do as a nation is to keep pushing out the commercials and hope for the best.
Quit taxing the crap out of poor people. Quit acting like smoke is mustard gas.
Ok, so you still haven't solved the problem, you aren't collecting any revenue, and now you have a pretty serious black market and all the crime, policing costs, jail costs and bribes that go with it. At what point do you realize it's bad policy to tax sin and really only succeeds in getting revenue from predominantly poor people?
1. You will never get all people to stop smoking. 2. Any effort to squeeze down the last 15% or so is the same folly that got us into the drug war. 3. The only thing you can reasonably do as a nation is to keep pushing out the commercials and hope for the best.
Quit taxing the crap out of poor people. Quit acting like smoke is mustard gas.
As I said - I'd consider it reasonable but I acknowledge the practical problems with it. I think prices a pretty good as they are in e.g Australia and Scandinavia.
> As long as I'm paying someones healthcare, I'm not going to allow them to smoke.
This. Once you socialise the costs of something it becomes increasing easy to justify laws banning it. Welcome to creeping authoritarianism.
The solution: stop socialism. Or if you must, tax at a level sufficient to cover the costs, but no more.
This. Once you socialise the costs of something it becomes increasing easy to justify laws banning it. Welcome to creeping authoritarianism.
The solution: stop socialism. Or if you must, tax at a level sufficient to cover the costs, but no more.
> This. Once you socialise the costs of something it becomes increasing easy to justify laws banning it. Welcome to creeping authoritarianism.
I agree: socializing healthcare means your health is my concern. That's what socialism is: your well being is my problem. That is both positive (If you are in need I'll provide) but as you point out also in the negative sense.
But the same can be said without socialized healthcare; as long as you pay any taxes or receive any benefits, your life expectancy is the concern of others. Smokers living N years shorter than non-smokers is a problem to the next person in the US just as it is in Australia, but the difference is that without socialized healthcare, the tax needed for a pack of cigarettes in the US might be $2 to offset the cost, but in Australia it might be $50.
I agree: socializing healthcare means your health is my concern. That's what socialism is: your well being is my problem. That is both positive (If you are in need I'll provide) but as you point out also in the negative sense.
But the same can be said without socialized healthcare; as long as you pay any taxes or receive any benefits, your life expectancy is the concern of others. Smokers living N years shorter than non-smokers is a problem to the next person in the US just as it is in Australia, but the difference is that without socialized healthcare, the tax needed for a pack of cigarettes in the US might be $2 to offset the cost, but in Australia it might be $50.
Are you not going to allow me to skydive, scuba dive, ski, or ride my motorcycle either?
I already pay more in taxes than the average person earns in gross income, I don't owe you or society jack shit.
I already pay more in taxes than the average person earns in gross income, I don't owe you or society jack shit.
> Are you not going to allow me to skydive, scuba dive, ski, or ride my motorcycle either?
Too few people die from skydiving for it to be an economic problem to society. For motorcycling the law is usually to require a helmet (it's still an activity that's expensive as hell to society so perhaps motorcycle taxes should be higher as to not have other people subsidize the activity).
Edit: I realize I was being deliberately harsh in the previous comment. By "I'm not going to allow them to", I mean "I'm going to support taxes on activity or product X that are so high they fully pay for the damages of product or activity X to society".
Too few people die from skydiving for it to be an economic problem to society. For motorcycling the law is usually to require a helmet (it's still an activity that's expensive as hell to society so perhaps motorcycle taxes should be higher as to not have other people subsidize the activity).
Edit: I realize I was being deliberately harsh in the previous comment. By "I'm not going to allow them to", I mean "I'm going to support taxes on activity or product X that are so high they fully pay for the damages of product or activity X to society".
And you allow them to eat and drink processed foodstuff with high amounts of sugar?
Sugar taxes are definitely planned in many places and if it was as easy to tax sugar as it is to tax nicotine then I'd be all for it - in principle. I oppose them only because they are arbitrary and vague.
In many countries with VAT there is a reduced VAT for "food" (typically ~half the general VAT) and it wouldn't be unreasonable to categorize candy and soda as "not food", effectively doubling the tax.
In many countries with VAT there is a reduced VAT for "food" (typically ~half the general VAT) and it wouldn't be unreasonable to categorize candy and soda as "not food", effectively doubling the tax.
The UN list of human rights:
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-...
I'm not sure where "right to smoke cigarettes" appears in the list.
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-...
I'm not sure where "right to smoke cigarettes" appears in the list.
They are doing harm to others. Second hand smoke is a serious concern that has lead to many deaths of non-smokers.
Every taxpayer dollar spent pulling cancerous lungs out of smokers is damage done to our society.
In Europe I find it really hard to watch people _constantly_ throwing cigarette butts down storm water drains, into canals and doing other disgusting things, like stubbing the butts into the sand on the beach or into the soil of a river bank. I find it highly disturbing how un-aware people are about the damage being done to fragile eco-systems.
I remember walking around Rome not long ago just thinking how disgustingly dirty the city was (I love Rome btw), there was little flower gardens just over flowing with butts, butts accumulating in gutters etc.
I actually felt anxiety about it raining just knowing where it was all headed.
So yeah, it would be cool to see this happen in other places around the world.