Tasmanian smoking ban?

[abeybaby]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9492504/Tasmania-considers-cigarette-ban-for-anyone-born-after-2000.html


I'm genuinely not sure how I feel about this. It will certainly save lives and save public hospital money, however, it would come at the cost of:
1) freedom to choose
2) bottom line of many retailers (would certainly close many tobacconists)

I think I'm against this one.

[Surgeon]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9492504/Tasmania-considers-cigarette-ban-for-anyone-born-after-2000.html


I'm genuinely not sure how I feel about this. It will certainly save lives and save public hospital money, however, it would come at the cost of:
1) freedom to choose
2) bottom line of many retailers (would certainly close many tobacconists)

I think I'm against this one.

I'm also against this one.

As you said, it certainly impedes upon the rights of individuals to choose to smoke and will eventually result on tobacconists closing down.

Also, it won't actually stop them from buying cigarettes, anyway. They can still ask other people to buy it for them, and some tobacconists will sell it to them anyway. It's almost redundant.

[abeybaby]

Also, it won't actually stop them from buying cigarettes, anyway. They can still ask other people to buy it for them, and some tobacconists will sell it to them anyway. It's almost redundant.

I thought about this, and sure, that will be true from say 2018 to maybe say 2050, but the point is that by roughly 2080, the ENTIRE Tasmanian populace will be smoke free. Also, say you're a smoke from qld, and you wanna visit tassie. If you can't buy cigarettes, you won't visit. It would damage tourism as well..

[Russ]

Normally I'm pro-libertarian, but I don't buy the freedom of choice argument in this case because it is fairly obvious that the correct ('correct') 'informed choice' is to not smoke. I'd support a bill that bans smoking in any public place or any area where others may reasonably be exposed, even if you don't want to ban tobacco outright.

[abeybaby]

Normally I'm pro-libertarian, but I don't buy the freedom of choice argument in this case because it is fairly obvious that the correct ('correct') 'informed choice' is to not smoke. I'd support a bill that bans smoking in any public place or any area where others may reasonably be exposed, even if you don't want to ban tobacco outright.

see thats why im conflicted - is putting retailers out of business, damaging tourism and trampling over people's right to choose worth the lives it will save? i dont have a definitive answer at all.. but yes, id also support a bill for no smoking in public except in some designated areas, like smoking restaurants/bars etc

[thushan]

Normally I'm pro-libertarian, but I don't buy the freedom of choice argument in this case because it is fairly obvious that the correct ('correct') 'informed choice' is to not smoke. I'd support a bill that bans smoking in any public place or any area where others may reasonably be exposed, even if you don't want to ban tobacco outright.

see thats why im conflicted - is putting retailers out of business, damaging tourism and trampling over people's right to choose worth the lives it will save? i dont have a definitive answer at all.. but yes, id also support a bill for no smoking in public except in some designated areas, like smoking restaurants/bars etc

Has it ever been thought that many of those who DO choose to smoke do not do it out of their own free will, but out of peer pressure and other sociocultural factors? Plus, once you're in smoking, it's quite...difficult to quit. Stupid nicotine and its addictive nature. So in that case they weren't really free to choose...

So either way choice is being impeded...so I'm not buying the "freedom of choice" argument.

For this reason, along with the fact that OTHERS are being harmed by YOUR smoking (second hand smoke blah blah), I support significant restrictions on smoking. As for a total ban, I'm not going to project an opinion here; I'd like a complete ban, but smoking has been so entrenched in business that a complete ban may not be practical.

However, I may be wrong in making that grand assumption that 'those who DO choose to smoke do not do it out of their own free will, but out of peer pressure and other sociocultural factors.'

[Starlight]

Normally I'm pro-libertarian, but I don't buy the freedom of choice argument in this case because it is fairly obvious that the correct ('correct') 'informed choice' is to not smoke. I'd support a bill that bans smoking in any public place or any area where others may reasonably be exposed, even if you don't want to ban tobacco outright.

see thats why im conflicted - is putting retailers out of business, damaging tourism and trampling over people's right to choose worth the lives it will save? i dont have a definitive answer at all.. but yes, id also support a bill for no smoking in public except in some designated areas, like smoking restaurants/bars etc

Has it ever been thought that many of those who DO choose to smoke do not do it out of their own free will, but out of peer pressure and other sociocultural factors? Plus, once you're in smoking, it's quite...difficult to quit. Stupid nicotine and its addictive nature. So in that case they weren't really free to choose...

So either way choice is being impeded...so I'm not buying the "freedom of choice" argument.

For this reason, along with the fact that OTHERS are being harmed by YOUR smoking (second hand smoke blah blah), I support significant restrictions on smoking. As for a total ban, I'm not going to project an opinion here; I'd like a complete ban, but smoking has been so entrenched in business that a complete ban may not be practical.

However, I may be wrong in making that grand assumption that 'those who DO choose to smoke do not do it out of their own free will, but out of peer pressure and other sociocultural factors.'

I think you're partly correct that it begins because of social factors but then becomes a part of an individual's daily routine.

Just wish the darn things were never invented!

[abeybaby]

Normally I'm pro-libertarian, but I don't buy the freedom of choice argument in this case because it is fairly obvious that the correct ('correct') 'informed choice' is to not smoke. I'd support a bill that bans smoking in any public place or any area where others may reasonably be exposed, even if you don't want to ban tobacco outright.

see thats why im conflicted - is putting retailers out of business, damaging tourism and trampling over people's right to choose worth the lives it will save? i dont have a definitive answer at all.. but yes, id also support a bill for no smoking in public except in some designated areas, like smoking restaurants/bars etc

Has it ever been thought that many of those who DO choose to smoke do not do it out of their own free will, but out of peer pressure and other sociocultural factors? Plus, once you're in smoking, it's quite...difficult to quit. Stupid nicotine and its addictive nature. So in that case they weren't really free to choose...

So either way choice is being impeded...so I'm not buying the "freedom of choice" argument.

For this reason, along with the fact that OTHERS are being harmed by YOUR smoking (second hand smoke blah blah), I support significant restrictions on smoking. As for a total ban, I'm not going to project an opinion here; I'd like a complete ban, but smoking has been so entrenched in business that a complete ban may not be practical.

However, I may be wrong in making that grand assumption that 'those who DO choose to smoke do not do it out of their own free will, but out of peer pressure and other sociocultural factors.'

Sure, people are influenced by sociocultural factors - but the choice is still theirs, and it is their free will. Society is not to 'blame' per se, sure, it doesn't always help, but it's not the CAUSE of people smoking. People still need to decide to smoke or not

[thushan]

Normally I'm pro-libertarian, but I don't buy the freedom of choice argument in this case because it is fairly obvious that the correct ('correct') 'informed choice' is to not smoke. I'd support a bill that bans smoking in any public place or any area where others may reasonably be exposed, even if you don't want to ban tobacco outright.

see thats why im conflicted - is putting retailers out of business, damaging tourism and trampling over people's right to choose worth the lives it will save? i dont have a definitive answer at all.. but yes, id also support a bill for no smoking in public except in some designated areas, like smoking restaurants/bars etc

Has it ever been thought that many of those who DO choose to smoke do not do it out of their own free will, but out of peer pressure and other sociocultural factors? Plus, once you're in smoking, it's quite...difficult to quit. Stupid nicotine and its addictive nature. So in that case they weren't really free to choose...

So either way choice is being impeded...so I'm not buying the "freedom of choice" argument.

For this reason, along with the fact that OTHERS are being harmed by YOUR smoking (second hand smoke blah blah), I support significant restrictions on smoking. As for a total ban, I'm not going to project an opinion here; I'd like a complete ban, but smoking has been so entrenched in business that a complete ban may not be practical.

However, I may be wrong in making that grand assumption that 'those who DO choose to smoke do not do it out of their own free will, but out of peer pressure and other sociocultural factors.'

Sure, people are influenced by sociocultural factors - but the choice is still theirs, and it is their free will. Society is not to 'blame' per se, sure, it doesn't always help, but it's not the CAUSE of people smoking. People still need to decide to smoke or not.

But it's not actually about NOT helping, it's actively forcing.

[Eriny]

The choice argument is compelling, but as mentioned above, it doesn't make much sense to talk about choice unless we talk about all the things that are thrusted upon us too. Not many people are so privileged that they get to be a pure product of their own choices. That's not to say that personal responsibility isn't important either, it just operates in a complex context (why, for instance, are there so many smokers who are financially disadvantaged given that cigarettes cost so damn much?).

The way Australia is arranged currently as well is that we all pay for smoking in various ways - we all know someone who is sick or has died from the effects of smoking, we've all experienced second-hand smoke involuntarily, eventually our tax dollars pay for the care and treatment of people who have spent their lives smoking. Yes, smoking is an individual choice, but it can hardly be said that the ramifications are purely individual (it's the same with many of the choices we make for ourselves).

Aside from looking at smoking as a nasty habit, it might also be worth understanding it as a coping mechanism, and trying to figure out how it helps people beyond the fact that it's addictive. Is it most commonly taken up by the hard done by? The alienated? The disenfranchised? Maybe instead of banning cigarettes, we could do more to discover and address the causes of smoking. That might be win/win, because we wouldn't be taking away personal choice, but we could help people who don't feel the personal agency necessary to quit.

As an aside, the fact that places that sell tobacco will go out of business isn't really important if you admit that it's bad to make money off others' addictions. As in, by itself it isn't a great reason to allow smoking.

[Bhootnike]

good on tassie.
hope they ban it.

[Mao]

Normally I'm pro-libertarian, but I don't buy the freedom of choice argument in this case because it is fairly obvious that the correct ('correct') 'informed choice' is to not smoke. I'd support a bill that bans smoking in any public place or any area where others may reasonably be exposed, even if you don't want to ban tobacco outright.

What? If you want the freedom of choice, it's a god damn choice, not the freedom to make the right choice. You contradict the very premise of freedom of choice by claiming there is a correct choice.

Anyways, if people choose to harm themselves without harming others, then so be it. Banning smoking in public places is very reasonable, and it should be a more widespread practice. Having specific sections for smokers is also a good practice (see: all bars). Banning an entire age bracket is just totally stupid.

The government does not, and will never, have the authority to tell me what life choices I can and cannot make.

[Bhootnike]

The government does not, and will never, have the authority to tell me what life choices I can and cannot make.

1. same sex marriage - gov. doesnt recognise it
2. illicit drugs - jail
3. child pornogaphy - jail
4. having sex with a minor - jail
5. bashing someone up -jail
etc etc

point is, the government sort of does... lol.
if theyre banning smoking its for the good!

[Mao]

Has it ever been thought that many of those who DO choose to smoke do not do it out of their own free will, but out of peer pressure and other sociocultural factors? Plus, once you're in smoking, it's quite...difficult to quit. Stupid nicotine and its addictive nature. So in that case they weren't really free to choose...

So either way choice is being impeded...so I'm not buying the "freedom of choice" argument.

I shall entertain the thought that people who take up smoking do so under peer pressure and other sociocultural factors. Let me ask you this:

Can the subject make a well-informed decision to smoke or not smoke?
With the amount of government advertising and with the current level of social awareness, I think anyone with eyes, ears and half a brain knows smoking kills. The subject making the decision is aware of the consequences (i.e. lung cancer, death, etc).

Who makes the ultimate decision to smoke or not smoke?
Obviously, the person himself/herself. I have never heard of a case where someone is grievously injured because they did not smoke under peer pressure. If the subject makes a decision to smoke (under peer pressure), but does not want the consequences (of lung cancer), then I argue this person does not qualify to be an adult. If you want to make a decision on smoking for this subject, then all other adult privileges should also be taken away (no alcohol, mandatory contraceptives, etc).

If we take your argument to the extreme (I realise this is reducto ad absurdum, but this is where the slippery slope goes), you are saying people shouldn't be treated as adults, their poor decisions can be corrected by you making decisions for them.

[Surgeon]

The government does not, and will never, have the authority to tell me what life choices I can and cannot make.

1. same sex marriage - gov. doesnt recognise it
2. illicit drugs - jail
3. child pornogaphy - jail
4. having sex with a minor - jail
5. bashing someone up -jail
etc etc

point is, the government sort of does... lol.
if theyre banning smoking its for the good!

Anyone can do whatever they want, regardless of what the government dictates. They just have to face the consequences of their actions, should it conflict with laws.