'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.

Comments

The point

[nospam007]

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

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

Re:The point

[Oswald McWeany]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:The point

[amalcolm]

cost of health care? I don't know how it works in Aus but in the UK the costs of lung removals, limb amputations etc. etc fall on the NHS and is apparently a huge burden on the taxpayer

Re:The point

[Oswald McWeany]

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

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

Re:The point

[OneHundredAndTen]

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

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

Re:The point

[omfglearntoplay]

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

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

Re:The point

[Grishnakh]

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

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

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

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

Re:The point

[Penguinisto]

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

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

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

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

Re:The point

[totallyarb]

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

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

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

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

Re:The point

[AmiMoJo]

Forcing people to pay for the health care of other adults is wrong.

It's absolutely right and one of the best things about countries with social/subsidised healthcare. Shame on America for abandoning it.

Re:The point

[thinkwaitfast]

Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.

Although smoking cessation is desirable from a public health perspective, its consequences with respect to health care costs are still debated. Smokers have more disease than nonsmokers, but nonsmokers live longer and can incur more health costs at advanced ages. We analyzed health care costs for smokers and nonsmokers and estimated the economic consequences of smoking cessation.

And no I don't smoke and didn't vote for trump standard disclaimer.

Re: The point

[dryeo]

Smokers who quit will cost less to the public health care system

And you know this how? Smokers usually die quicker, so don't burden the system as much. My Dad died from smoking, once he was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, most of his health spending was on morphine with just a few days of hospital care. My Mom, who is a non-smoker, developed Alzheimers 15 years ago and just keeps hanging in there, in a condition that if she was a dog, would see us sentenced for animal abuse, eating up tons of healthcare dollars as she is completely incapable of caring for herself

Re:The point

[ColaMan]

Australia is unique in that it is an island continent. You can't just drive across the border to get some smokes.

You can fly in with your suitcase full of packs of cigarettes and have them taxed to hell and back in customs, or you can use a boat to go from the northern coast of Australia to PNG / Indonesia, which is not a short trip by any stretch.

Then you have to get your boatload of cigarettes that are boxed in bright, attractive packaging to your customers without arousing suspicion, because every pack of cigarettes in Australia is plain white with pictures of mouth cancer &etc on it by law. So you stuff about and put them all into little baggies, or whaterever, increasing your labour and distribution costs further.

So what will happen is that you'll have a few large black market operators that are regularly picked off by Customs, and black market cigarettes will be hard to come by, and hopefully people will just save themselves the hassle, quit smoking, and drink themselves to death instead with the money they've saved.

Re: The point

[spire3661]

This isnt a dichotomy. I dont like sin taxes, its really that simple. You have people in countries with socialized medicine who now think they have the right to decide other's lifestyle choices without ever addressing things like coal miners and other hazardous jobs.

Re: The point

[dryeo]

Interesting, but seems American biased, a country with high healthcare costs and low tobacco taxes.
Down the page there are a few references to studies done with the NHS which show the opposite. Probably need a meta-study to compare the different studies and take in different health systems.

Re:Black market

[Oswald McWeany]

Racist. The correct term is African-American Australians.

Should be done in the US too, but won't be

[ErichTheRed]

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

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

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

Re:Should be done in the US too, but won't be

[Anubis IV]

So, Is the following statement true or false? Is it true all over the state or only outside Austin?

"everyone can smoke in public along with most businesses being smoker-friendly indoors"

As a Texan who's been living in the College Station area (where Texas A&M University is) since 2002, I can't think of anytime in the last decade that I've seen smoking indoors. And I'm an asthmatic, so I tend to take note of people smoking around me.

I still remember the not-so-fond days (i.e. the '80s and '90s, for me) of places like Cracker Barrel using an open lattice to separate the smoking and "non-smoking" sections of the restaurant. These days though? The last time I remember seeing anyone smoking indoors was at a bar back in 2005 or so. I'll admit, I don't frequent bars, so it wouldn't come as a surprise to me if smoking was still allowed at some or all of the ones in town, but other than that, I can't remember the last time I saw anyone smoking indoors, whether we're talking about a restaurant, a store, or some other indoor establishment. And while it's generally allowed outdoors, it's such a rare occurrence to actually encounter someone smoking in public that when my wife and I were on a cruise this last December, we were struck by just how unusual it felt to have so many smokers around us when we went out on the deck of the ship.

Really, about the only time I see people smoking at all around here is when I visit the university campus. I'll see clusters of international grad students at the cigarette disposal receptacles 30 ft away from the entrances to major buildings on campus, since they're required by law to maintain that distance if they want to smoke.

Actually, there are a few cases smoking benefit

[PeterM from Berkeley]

Hello,

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

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

--PM

Re:Actually, there are a few cases smoking benefit

[skids]

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

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

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

Joy Joy Feelings for all

[GLMDesigns]

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.

Re:Joy Joy Feelings for all

[thegarbz]

I fully agree. I should be free not to breath in your smoke.

And the fact you don't think it's a person vs corporation issue when someone is selling you a product that provides you with zero benefit at all to the end user... well that says a lot.

But just like any drug addiction smoking has negative affects on people around you. Unlike most drug addictions smokers have shown an inability to keep their habit to themselves.

Seriously fuck smokers. Karma / mod points be damned. The vast majority are filthy entitled scum who feel like their habit should be all that matters and then whine when managers complain about the amount of breaks they take or people complain that they don't want to smell smoke while eating, or god forbid a workplace shall have an atmosphere that doesn't cause cancer. Lock them in their homes and close all the windows.

Where the fuck is the problem?

[Opportunist]

Seriously.

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Where the fuck is the problem?

[Yunzil]

If you don't, well, there's other places to go to.

There's other places for you to go to smoke, too. Such as your house.

Re:Where the fuck is the problem?

[AmiMoJo]

But frankly, what's wrong with smoking in a bar?

It's bad for the bar staff's help.

Imagine if it was paint fumes. The decorating company says to its staff, "you just have to put up with paint fumes and the damage they do to your lungs, or get another job". That wouldn't fly in most places, the law requires jobs that expose workers to hazards to provide protective equipment.

In other words the bar staff would need breathing equipment, and would be required to wear it by law to prevent unfair competition (i.e. individuals opting out of safety equipment to make themselves more employable).

There are exemptions for things like actors who smoke for a role, but just wanting to operate a smoking room in a bar is not one of them.

Re: Where the fuck is the problem?

[ljw1004]

I think that free market is incompatible with addiction - pretty much by definition.

Re:No Sympathy

[totallyarb]

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

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

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

[Citation Needed]

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

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

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

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

Re:No Sympathy

[lbalbalba]

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

Fixed that for you.

Now

[The-Ixian]

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.