Slashdot Mirror
'Australia Is Stubbing Out Smoking' (bbc.com)
Australia was the first country in the world to introduce mandatory plain packaging for tobacco products. Now it is taking another strong stand, but will other countries follow suit? From an article on BBC, shared by an anonymous reader: It's not easy being a smoker in Australia.
The smoking bans started inside -- in workplaces, bars and restaurants -- and moved out. "Now, smoking is prohibited within 10m (33ft) of a playground, within 4m (13ft) of the entrance to a public building, at rail platforms, taxi ranks and bus stops," said Mark Driver, Sydney's Park and Recreation Planner. Those are the rules in New South Wales, but they are mirrored in many other states. Smoking is banned on many beaches, and most Australian states have now banned cigarettes in jail. All states ban smoking in vehicles if children are present. Fines vary, but in some places you may be fined AUD$2,000 (USD$1,515) if you smoke in the wrong place. And even if you don't, you'll be paying more than that each year by 2020, if you smoke just one AUD$40 pack a week. [...] These days, smoking is often taken up by people who are on the lowest rungs of the socio-economic ladder, Simone Dennis, an associate professor at Australian National University, points out, "and that adds a burden of shame to people who might already be marginalised." If it's the poor who are now the most likely to smoke, it's hard to see how they will ever afford the AUD$40 (USD$30) pack of cigarettes.
" If it's the poor who are now the most likely to smoke, it's hard to see how they will ever afford the AUD$40 (USD$30) pack of cigarettes."
That's sort of the point, making it too expensive for the poor and uneducated.
That this works, has been demonstrated time and time again in multiple countries.
The immediate and predictable consequence for this is a burgeoning black market in Australian cigarette sales.
https://cdn.meme.am/cache/inst...
#DeleteFacebook
Which, of course, has no health problems at all and is good for you...
How long will it take the government to extend this to diet and other lifestyles? Diet correlates more strongly than smoking to decreased lifespan. Do we have a nationally enforced vegan lifestyle? Since homosexual lifestyles for men result in larger health risks should we fine men for being gay? Selfishly, I would like to see this as a law here because I have loved ones that I would like to stop smoking but... slippery slope.
ISTM that she's advocating "poor shaming".
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Having no money and no options can be stressful. Does smoking there cost more than using illegal drugs?
Congratulations on fostering a new black market!
captcha: cremates
Sounds more like they're catching up - https://www.ontario.ca/page/sm...
Making all the brown people go away. You know, the descdendants of the people who were there before all the proper people arrived.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I live in New York, and prices for cigarettes are incredibly high (for the US.) Go to South Carolina, and by comparison they basically give them away because SC is a tobacco state. It's been proven over and over again that long-term smoking causes expensive end-of-life health problems, and when the majority of people who smoke are poor and uneducated, everybody pays in the form of increased charity health care. And in the US, if a smoker makes it to 65, Medicare has to pay a lot more to get the average smoker through the end of their life so everyone pays regardless of the person's income in Medicare taxes. In my opinion it's fair to tax cigarettes to a high degree as long as the proceeds go directly to health care or smoking cessation programs.
In NY, smoking is a very expensive habit and it's hard to even smoke in public anymore. Go elsewhere in the country (Texas, Nevada, lots of Southern states) and everyone can smoke in public along with most businesses being smoker-friendly indoors. The problem is that the US isn't a monoculture and a small country -- each state has its own agenda. New York is dealing with a city the size of a small country combined with a poor rural upstate region...that's why high tobacco taxes make sense. A smaller state is going to have lower overall public health expenditures regardless of ability to pay just based on population. Also, tobacco-producing states aren't going to be happy with any taxes because they want a market for their product. Back in the 50s, the majority of men smoked and something like 35% of women did too. Now, it's way less than that and dropping.
I think taxing tobacco heavily is a good compromise. Unless you want an outright ban (which I don't think is the best idea even if it would improve public health,) this is the best way to recover the additional costs a smoker places on society.
Ah, "SJW". No acronym paints the unironic user as quite so much of a cunt. Get mad at some trannies today, did we? Aw. Ethics in Gaming Journalism!! Boo, women.
Ireland has similar rules too, including no indoors smoking in anything that could be called a workplace. This includes pubs, which had a major impact, as you can imagine.
I have no sympathy. Smoking is entirely unnecessary. People keep doing it only because they are addicted to it, not for any other positive reasons. It can go entirely without any objectively negative impacts whatsoever.
(this is not a
Traditionally, the best way to get a bus to arrive within about 30 seconds is always to light up a cigarette. Ideally, you can fool the fates and only motion as if you are going to light it up, but not actually waste it, although it seems that this trick only seems to work once. Still a very handy thing to do in sub-freezing temperatures, however.
Are you getting offended at people calling other people SJWs despite not being an SJW yourself, much as they do?
What this country needs is a Bobbitize A Busybody Act. If someone is caught with their nose in someone else's business, then Whack! Off with their weenie!
Posting from Las Vegas (there for work). There is no escape from the disgusting cigarette smoke stench, even in the "non-smoking" rooms. Rarely a better analogy to the "no-peeing" section of a pool. Even outside it's difficult to find clean air. I feel like if I had a fine grained net I could reconstruct cigarettes from a few swipes. Lots of people complaining about headaches, feeling sick, etc. from the smoke. Can't wait until the US enacts decent laws like this.
Hello,
There are in fact a few positive reasons for smoking. Nicotine helps schizophrenics regulate their illness. Also, nicotine helps some intestinal disorders.
However, seemingly the use of e-cigs or nicotine patches or other safer nicotine delivery would provide the same benefits at far lower risk.
--PM
Yeah! Let's increase the police power of the state. Let's make states even more intrusive. Let's ban everything we think is immoral and wrong and just plain nasty.
Then we will have utopia. And we will all inspire joy-joy feelings in all those around us.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
I am all for snubbing out 2nd hand smoke as one's rights end when you infringe on another's but forcing people's will through economic means is still using force and it should not be tolerated. Govt has no right to control what I do with my body...
Good luck Australia.
I don't give two shits if Dirk of South Carolina is dying of lung cancer after a lifetime of voluntarily smoking what everyone has told him are "death sticks".
However, I do care when I'm forced at the point of a gun to pay for his treatment, just because you guys thought it would be cute to put a violently imposed organization that calls itself "government" in charge of yet another aspect of our lives: Health Care.
The more you want government to care for you, the more your life will be restricted and controlled by other people.
Canada's (at least in Ontario) attempts to kill smoking might not have implemented taxes bringing a pack up to $40 but they already put horrible images on the packages and all businesses selling them have to hide them from being displayed to the public.
Also, rules about where a person can smoke have been in place for a long time.
Australians are just catching up, and the reporters are useless idiots, as usual.
I just came back from a business trip in Sydney, and the thing I noticed most of all besides the Ibis birds was the amount of people smoking, everywhere. People on the sidewalks, taxi drivers waiting on a fare, people getting out of the train station hanging out in Wynyard Park. I applaud this well meaning attempt to curb smoking, but the reality for me seems to be that its one of those laws that the police only enforce if its convenient for them.
Yeah, because you're essentially initiating a prohibition without the prohibition. Remember how well that worked out for alcohol in the US?
The entire thing is stupid and interferes with something that makes a subset of people happy. Yes it's bad for you, we know that and so do they. Yes it should be inappropriate in certain public spaces. However this has past the point of protecting people who don't want to smoke - it's now forcing other people's ideals on to them for the sake of doing it. That's wrong on every level. These people really aren't hurting you with their habit.
If you want to head towards a demolition man-like police state where everything potentially bad for you is banned, this is how you do it.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Fuck everybody who tries to force me to do something.
smoking is prohibited within 10m (33ft) of a playground, within 4m (13ft) of the entrance to a public building, at rail platforms, taxi ranks and bus stops
I wonder how they come up with those distances. Some evenings I sit in my house, and get this penetrating smell of smoke, and start some anti-invasion house clearing procedures, since there are no smokers living there. Then I look out the window and see it's just some bloke walking past in the street and smoking, some 30m (+-100ft) from the closest point to my house.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
The black market for cigs is going to make for some awesome gangster films in 50 years. Thanks Aussies!
:T:R:A:N:S:
They won't.
They'll buy black market cigarettes for a fraction of that price.
Log in or piss off.
If there is no victim (other than a fully informed-consented individual doing it to him/herself) why try stopping it?
The problem is, the industry has worked for years to increase the nicotine content to ensure that customers are more likely to be unable to stop using the product to ensure revenue. Many simply cannot quit. So the consent is a little shaky. If you are unable to revoke consent, is it really consent any more?
Also, there can be other victims. The people who care about these people who die sooner than they otherwise likely would. The people who have to pay for the extended healthcare for these individuals. Tobacco companies should have to foot the bill.
Its already illegal to smoke in public in Boulder colorado. In your car ok, arm with cig outside of car, illegal.
Seriously.
I've been a long time smoker. I stopped smoking a while ago. Didn't want to anymore. Honestly no big deal, at least for me. Likewise, it's no big deal for me if someone does smoke.
Now, of course I can see it in places where people who do not enjoy smoke have to go. Public offices and buildings, especially when kids are involved, absolutely off limits when it comes to smoking. I can also see how smoke takes away the experience of a good dinner at a restaurant. Absolutely d'accord.
But frankly, what's wrong with smoking in a bar? I finally found a place that's still sane, where people can get together, enjoy their cocktails in a cultivated atmosphere, some of the people enjoy their cigars, yes, that adds to my experience. I love that. I can go there and simply relax, unwind, have a good and entertaining conversation and spend an evening drinking, talking and enjoying the smell of cigars.
If you don't, well, there's other places to go to. Nobody forces you to go to my bar, it's far from the only one and there are plenty of non-smoking places now.
Why does it have to be mandatory non-smoking? Could anyone explain this to me? Why not allow the owner of the pub, bar or even restaurant to decide whether he wishes to allow smoking? Good ol' capitalist logic tells me that the market dictates that a product that the customer does not want will vanish and the one offering it shall perish, why not let the market sort it out?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Selling addictive products that kill people is part of evolution. Imagine coming back as a psychopath in your next life and be discriminated against instead of protected.
Gun point?
You'll pay your share no matter how you slice it - no guns necessary. And you're so stupid you won't even know you're still paying for him.
If Dirk can't pay his bill, then who the fuck do you think pays it? Yeah, that's right - you, because whoever gets stuck with it will end up passing the cost on to you. You'll end up paying them higher rates for their services, whether it is the hospital, doctors, or insurance company premiums.
You WILL pay your fair share.
Only the poor are targeted with these "sin taxes" and other such regressive taxes. In cultures where rich people buy expensive bottled water, there will be soda taxes. In areas where rich people drink soda pop, there will not be soda taxes. It's better to tax white poor people though; so there won't be a fried chicken tax, just a taco bell tax.
Note that in most countries, it's "Cigarettes", not "tobacco", as rich people smoke cigars and pipes.
...is this news for nerds?
This is a site for Tech news. Not this bullshit, Whipslash. Take your agenda elsewhere.
Signed, the smokers of slashdot, who keep your ass from going down because we're too busy laughing at your laughably-secured e-mail system to do shit about what we're seeing.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
We don't like poor people, but we can't do anything racist, so we tax poor people's habits.
Show me a 340% tax on cosmetic surgery. It has significant personal and social negative health outcomes, and isn't nearly as addictive as cigarettes. Oh wait, that's a rich people vice.
If you're already broke and you insist on spending what little you have on smoking, maybe you SHOULD be ashamed. Actually, there's no "maybe" about it. There is nobody alive today who has not heard about the ill effects of smoking, so there really is no excuse. Governments have implemented free patch and drug programs to help those same poor people quit, and their excuse is always the same - "I'll quit when I'm ready. I'm not ready yet." The whole idea of nicotine replacements and antidepressants that remove the urge to smoke as much is to help you quit even though you're "not ready" - because we all know that you will never be ready otherwise, or you would have already quit.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Of all the places to do social engineering, I should expect China to do something about smoking. It's a real problem there.
If you're already fat and you insist on spending what little you have on more food, maybe you SHOULD be ashamed. Actually, there's no "maybe" about it. There is nobody alive today who has not heard about the ill effects of being overweight, so there really is no excuse. Governments have implemented free exercise programs (aka sidewalks) to help those same poor people lose weight, and their excuse is always the same - "I'll lose it when I'm ready. I'm not ready yet."
FTFY.
Oh, wait. Fat shaming is Eeeeevil.
http://new3.fjcdn.com/pictures/Fat+shaming+friday+comp+_6d849f_5267853.jpg
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
From smokers. Just wondering... I kinda miss them.
How about driving a car that each second pumps into the air more carcinogens than 100 smokers, does it impact others health and so should be totally forbidden? Right, smoking outside doesn't endanger people's life, it just doesn't smell good to many. Not a viable argument.
Paying through voluntary association is perfectly fine; how can you possibly think that violent governmental coercion is in any way the same???
since I'm lazy
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html
I remember a study was done which said smokers and fat people die sooner, so they require less health care.
Do you want to create a black market for cigarettes? Because this is exactly how you'd start one.
Popisms.com - Connecting pop culture
We need to get back to the point where its okay to shame people for unhealthy health styles, rather than be afraid it will hurt their self image. Telling kids it's okay to be obese is not doing them any favors. Because no, it's not okay to eat your own body weight every month.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Now we just need to make it illegal to throw your cigarette butt on the ground.
Why do people do that?! It's way more aggravating than 2nd hand smoke ever was.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
I have no problem spending your money to ensure others live as long as possible. Perhaps you should just die.
You have a very steep, very politically incorrect fight on your hands. Most University students (trained in moral outrage by your friends on the left) would tar & feather you, then ban you from every county that voted for Hillary.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
I refuse to be told how to live my life. I moved to an area when I was young where I can do almost anything, as long as I pay my tiny property tax. (can't avoid the tax).
The fear about smoking is utter bullshit.
By any measure, the air you breathe at a paved 4-way road intersection over a 4 minute period is many times worse for you than smoking for that same 4 minutes.
The chemicals that are in the air from various combustion sources, which are not in cigarettes, are all known carcinogens.
I have worked with a department of transportation, and every big city in the u.s. knows this fact and does some 'odd things' as a result.
Stop being sheeple and giving away your right to do what you want.
NO ONE knows you better than you know yourself, so NO ONE can justify telling you how to behave.
Do not allow anyone other than your parents to tell you want you can and cannot do.
Nonsmoker here.
I can think of two places, from experience, where the line gets blurry.
1) Move in to an apartment. Smokers move in next door. You _can't_ get away from it.
2) Public transportation. Someone is smoking at the bus stop, stomps out his cigarette seconds before getting on the bus.
The truth is, you can't so much as flush a toilet in the city without affecting _someone_ . I think people forget that, and walk around, literally not even realizing what they smell like. My wife developed medical problems because of neighbors who smoked, years ago, before we were married.
I know it's a two way street, but I have a hard time sympathizing with a mostly recreational activity that does so much damage. If someone is okay with giving themselves lung cancer, how can we honestly expect them to care for the well being of others?
If you don't believe laws are enforced at gunpoint, try not paying your taxes this year.
You'll probably get a few polite letters and phone calls, but eventually, gun-toting government employees will come around to drag you off and throw you in a cage. Resist being thrown in a cage and you will be shot.
Alcohol prohibition got the US more problems that it solved with the rise of organized crime and undermining a general respect for the law. We have not really recovered yet. I wonder what it will do to the land down under.
What the fuck does this have to do with technology? All the political shit lately is bad enough but apparently we've gone completely off the track.
Can't afford coke like the rich. It's cool to do coke.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Eighty percent of schizophrenics smoke, and scientists have recently found that nicotine increases blood flow to the prefrontal cortex of the brain, lessening some symptoms of the disorder. Are there other reasons for self medication with nicotine?
E Proelio Veritas.
Well let's just think this through shall we? Let's start with the general case.
What would you call something like a government that didn't have the legitimated use of force at its disposal as real governments do? An incorporated body of people in big one organization, without owners, not driven by a profit motive but instead by some kind of charter (or constitution, if you will) to serve a public good? That'd be a non-profit organization.
And without that use of force at its disposal, how would such an organization go about collecting money from the economy at large, so as to provide its services at no cost (or at least, at subsidized rates on a sliding scale to provide equal access to people of all income levels)? Well, it would have to have some kind of passive income, like from owning a bunch of stock. If it needs some percent of the GDP in order to fund those public goods it provides, then it would need to own a large enough percent of the productive capital -- enough stock, etc -- to provide that kind of passive income. In fact real non-profit organizations often have associated "Foundations" that are enormous investments like that, donating their proceeds to the non-profit proper to fund their work.
So a government that didn't use force to raise taxes would look like an enormous non-profit organization with an enormous diversified stock portfolio funding it.
How to set such a thing up in the first place is a hard question, but consider that the question of how to set any government up in the first place is a hard one. You had to get a bunch of people to contribute a bunch of time and resources like money to get the thing rolling in the first place. If you're trying to set up a liberal, democratic government, then those people are going to be donating all that time and money for nothing in return but the society they're building, which is a big thing to ask of enough people, which is why setting up good governments is hard -- much easier for powerful people who want something in return to put their power into making a government that enriches them personally and gives them a more direct return on that investment. So it makes sense that putting together an even better government that doesn't rely on force to raise revenue would be even harder; you'd have to get large swathes of society, including those already in power, to come together and donate a lot of resources to create the investment that would go on to fund the services provided to society at large.
Of course in real history, good governments, liberal democratic ones, didn't just get built from scratch out of nothing by donations of time and money from common people out of the good of their hearts. There was usually already a big powerful organization with tons of resources at its disposal pre-existing, one that acquired those resources and that power through illegitimate, violent means over a long period of time -- the previous, usually monarchic or feudal, government. The better-hearted liberal democrats then took over that enormous machine and used its ill-gotten goods and status to build a better government to replace it. So why not use that same kind of mechanism to set up a better, tax-independent government out of the ones we've already got? Use its existing illegitimate source of revenue, taxation, to slowly build up that investment portfolio that will then in turn accelerate the revenue available to grow it and in time reduce the tax burden on the people. At the very least, something like corporate welfare could be restructured such that whenever the government pays out money to some company, it gets stock ownership in return. (Which it can then trade away for more general, diversified holdings; the point isn't to own a controlling interest in any particular company or meddle at all in their day-to-day operations).
Although in the particular example case you give, the solution is much simpler. Roads are a network, and we already monitor and charge for access to that network (you and your vehicle must b
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
It created the gangsters as well as the gangster movies. The gangsters survive to this day because of other arbitrary prohibitions against things people want. The gangsters cause more problems than the prohibited substances every did.
Prohibition causes crime. It's that simple.
Taxing and regulating something reduces usage from massive to manageable. That's the correct approach to every substance.
That's why there are laws regulating emissions from cars. A car that would produces as much carcinogens as 100 (or even one) smokers would not get a type approval.
Let's stay on topic, asshole. Try to keep up, m'kay?
The discussion isn't about how laws are enforced. What I am saying is that you'll be glad to pay your taxes, because your taxes won't be used to pay for the poor. Therefore, no guns come knocking.
That's because there are other ways to make you pay. The cost can be hidden from you in the form of higher doctor/hospital/insurance fees. Those institutions can't absorb the cost, otherwise they go under, so they have to pass it on to you. And you can remain blissfully unaware, and pretend you're not even paying for them at all.
So I guess your preference is to remain fat, dumb and happy, then?
Do I look like I give a sh*t? Manufacturers of unhealthy processed foods (see Kellogg's latest commercials) are spending big bucks convincing people that being fat is okay. It's NOT. Obesity kills. It should be treated the same way we dealt with smoking. Taxes, public shaming, banning of advertising for unhealthy products, packaging with pictures of what obesity does to your insides, and educational programs.
Nothing else will work.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Do I look like I give a sh*t?
I don't know what you look like. What I do know is that you need to be sent to a reeducation camp for thinking that shaming poor, defenseless poundage-challenged people is a good idea.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
We ll smoke electric sparks now that we **invented** electricity? I just realized all my drinks are based on herbs, everything I drink is a herb or some other herb. Obviously when inventing Fire we invented smoke and... smoking. They will realized something is missing but maybe too late. OR do you think Britain crossed half planet to go to India and get... spices... some cummin (now missing from most supermarkets here) or saffron? They went to get the SMOKES. This is not very well documented, but we do not document underwear much either, though any grown up knows about it. Truly, no other animal can smoke, only US. WE are the Animal That Smokes. This alone can distinguish a Human from any other animal for any hypothetical Extraterrestrial.
People that smoke are apparently unaware of the harm, in more than one form, that is done.
Even not-so-dumb people see the value in not smoking - or in tolerating withdrawal from the addiction.
I say make cigs cheap,or free, and deadlier. Then we can clean the gene pool and leave the rest of humanity that much more advanced!
And, the world get free of that stench and the trashy butts!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Smoking has been deliberately associated by its advertisers with wealth, sexual attractiveness and other characteristics that many of us ordinary folks would like to emulate. When smoking was ubiquitous just the need to feel part of the group was a big attraction. However if smoking is predominantly only undertaken by the least successful of a population that could make the young non-smoker much less likely to take up the habit.
I look at it a little differently. If you're already broke, and you insist on spending money on smoking to the exclusion of essentials, then there's a reason why you're doing it, and we really need to find out why first and shame later (if at all).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Wait until people realize that, after the low-hanging, and easy to demonize, fruits of tobacco, alcohol is next on the list of social ills to cure. In the name of healthcare. Sugar'll be right after that. Then *fun*.