Australia tobacco free in 20 years (1 Viewer)

[loquasagacious]

In the ACT there's been talk of an open-air ban eg smoking would only be allowed in places that are 60%+ open to the air.

Personally (and coming from a non-smokers opinion) it is a choice to passive smoke. When I go out and go into pubs and clubs I am making a choice to passively smoke. I am weighing up the benefit to myself of socialising against the disadvantages of passive smoking and socialising wins. The massive popularity of smoking venues (PJs, Acadamy, O'Malleys, Mooseheads/The Moose, Shooters, etc - for Canberra people) clearly indicates that the public deems passive smoking to be acceptable.

Likewise anyone who chooses to work in such a venue has chosen to. The only scenario in which I can see a problem is if people were making this choice asymetrically eg they were unaware of the effects of smoking which frankly in this age of warnings and confrontational adds I deem impossible.

If the government(s) wished to ban smoking in government buildings or where people were forced to be then I would be ok with that. However I believe that it is down to the owner of individual private property whether or not it is a smoking/non-smoking area. I believe that the operator/owner of a shopping centre should be able to make it a smoking area IF they so choose. I think it would be a bad idea and would adversly impact business.

Ultimately I would place smoking as an issue squarly of the individual and the market not an area in which government should interfere. All I would suggest is that as part of ensuring an efficient market the cost for treatment of smoking related illness to be borne by the individual/their insurer not the public purse.

So there we have it as a non-smoker I am against the banning of smoking because I believe it is an un-necessary infringement on the freedom of the individual.

EDIT: Agree with Neo I have absolutely nothing against smoking in the open air, not only is the smoke carried away rapidly and its concentration low it is also exceedingly easy to avoid sitting near a smoker etc. The only rational argument I can see is the butts being left on the beach which can suck.

As an aside there's some irony in two out of the three canberran NCAPers coming out in support of smoking within about ten minutes of each other....

 

[withoutaface]

she says the evidence and the shit is there if you want to look it up; pubs and shit will be smoke free very very soon. not the one corner/room shit anymore.

And I for one (as a non smoker) think that legislation is disgusting.
EDIT: For reasons that addymac has already stated. It's a total violation of property rights.

 

[stazi]

stupid liberal govt

 

[withoutaface]

The tax on ciggies is also rubbish, it has nothing to do with taxing for the public good, but taxing a price inelastic good and raking in a healthy profit - like petrol.

It could well be argued, though, that the tax is better off there than on income tax (as it has minimal impact upon the market because, as you say, it is inelastic), and it also (depending on the rates of tax) provides something of a user pays system for future treatment that smokers may require as a direct result of the habit

 

[leetom]

It could well be argued, though, that the tax is better off there than on income tax (as it has minimal impact upon the market because, as you say, it is inelastic), and it also (depending on the rates of tax) provides something of a user pays system for future treatment that smokers may require as a direct result of the habit

Indeed. Freedom of the individual is all good and well until that individual's freedom ultimately results in him seeking costly medical assistance from the state.

The state has an obligation to its citizens to minimise expenditure, and so by enacting legislation which saves the state money and safeguards public health at the same time and in the longterm, the state is not only being socially-minded but also fiscally responsible.

 

[withoutaface]

My main concern is that the tax on ciggarettes is probably far higher than the cost of future treatment.

 

[veterandoggy]

i dont see how people cant quit smoking. my grandfather quit a few years ago cold turkey style. if an old man could quit cold turkey, im sure younger adults could at least slowly reduce the amount of cigarettes they smoke per day on their own. in this way people wont need tobacco in 20 years anyway.

but then there's the thought of job losses...

 

[Sarah]

My main concern is that the tax on ciggarettes is probably far higher than the cost of future treatment.

Well maybe the rate of tax is set to take into account costs associated for those affected by passive smoking

 

[Kwayera]

You know what? Ban the fuckers. Cigarettes are damaging to both people and environment (the amount of cigarette butts that wash up in rivers, go out to the oceans and reefs etc is vile). I just don't GET people who willingly addict themselves to something so horrid (my mother included).

I hope Australia is tobacco-free in SOONER than 20 years.

 

[crazyhomo]

You know what? Ban the fuckers. Cigarettes are damaging to both people and environment (the amount of cigarette butts that wash up in rivers, go out to the oceans and reefs etc is vile). I just don't GET people who willingly addict themselves to something so horrid (my mother included).

I hope Australia is tobacco-free in SOONER than 20 years.

i agree. everything that can cause litter should be banned

 

[veterandoggy]

i agree. everything that can cause litter should be banned

that means no more food too.

 

[withoutaface]

that means no more food too.

Remind me one day to introduce you to my little friend Mr Sarcasm.

You know what? Ban the fuckers. Cigarettes are damaging to both people and environment (the amount of cigarette butts that wash up in rivers, go out to the oceans and reefs etc is vile). I just don't GET people who willingly addict themselves to something so horrid (my mother included).

I hope Australia is tobacco-free in SOONER than 20 years.

Yes it is disgusting, but people should not be prevented from doing something purely on the basis that it harms them alone.

 

[Xayma]

Remind me one day to introduce you to my little friend Mr Sarcasm.

Yes it is disgusting, but people should not be prevented from doing something purely on the basis that it harms them alone.

withoutaface: That is a bit of an iffy area. It harms the children if the disposable income of a parent is spent on cigarettes instead of for example education. Young children are harmed greatly from cigarette smoke through passive smoking.

 

[withoutaface]

withoutaface: That is a bit of an iffy area. It harms the children if the disposable income of a parent is spent on cigarettes instead of for example education. Young children are harmed greatly from cigarette smoke through passive smoking.

Duty of care is very sketchy, for example if the parent buys the child fatty foods it is both more harmful for them, and in most cases more expensive than buying healthy ones, they are harming the child, but to suggest anything but fruit and veg be banned is just preposterous.

 

[samuelblayden]

it will be never stopped