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.
Racist. The correct term is African-American Australians.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Unless they move to New Zealand, then they are African American Australian New Zealanders.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Do we have a nationally enforced vegan lifestyle?
Do you have any evidence that vegans live longer? Where are all the communes full of 120-year-old vegans?
(or even 90-year-old vegans)
Nope. Vegans die at the same rate as everybody else.
No sig today...
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.
As a general rule, we're moving to a much more closely managed lifestyle across the board. Any personal habit which creates a cost somewhere down the line is being scrutinized. It's just like corporate finance guys squeezing costs out of a business, 50-60 years ago they lacked the tools to easily model and analyze costs, so there was a lot more built in slack in the system and now that the tools and data exist, they're coming up with all kinds of ways to squeeze costs and jack up profits.
Healthcare is experiencing the same effect, whether it's insurer driven or government driven under the rubric of program funding or public health. Nobody wants to pay for expenses they think can be eliminated.
Based on a lot of the new thinking surrounding sugar, I think one easy thing they could do is create an excise tax on sugar manufacturers and importers. Price increases on sugar at the source will force up the price of products with added sugar. Food manufacturers will have to either cut the junk sugar they add to juice flavor or charge a higher price and be less competitive.
If you could cut total sugar consumption in the population by 20% you'd probably work wonders with obesity and type II diabetes rates.
Yeah! Fuck those fucking smokers who put their goddamn drugs into the common air and thereby force me to do their drugs with them whether I want to or not!
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The study you link to was done in Holland, not the US. Holland hospital care is far cheaper, so stop with the apples-vs-tomatoes comparisons, mkay?
The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.
It also didn't include the lost tax income from consumers living longer after they stop working. Al the money they continue to spend circulates in the economy, creating jobs and taxes. And many of them continue to work after 65, generating more work income to put back into the economy.
A dead person don't do any of that.
"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.
Aren't you Canadian, and aren't we talking about Australia? Anyways, using my parents again, my Dad died at 66 after retiring at 64 (job got outsourced to America), my Mom collects $2000 a month in pensions, which all go to her care, basically a wealth transfer from the federal government to the provincial one, so 15 extra years of collecting pensions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism