Tasmanian smoking ban?

[Mao]

Mao, your reasons are heavily base on your external world - do you only smoke in the presence others? Your choices don't seem to apply to when you're alone.

I sometimes do it when I'm alone. I find it therapeutic when I need the thinking space.

[Tomw2]

Better than heavy taxation on a product with an inelastic demand fueled by addiction

While tobacco demand is not as elastic as many other daily consumables,  there is no doubt that price exerts a profound impact on tobacco consumption. Increasing price is universally associated with reduced uptake, decreased consumption and increased quitting. It is likely the most significant single factor implicated in the massive decrease of smoking uptake and consumption since the 1990s.

As such I think gradually pricing it out of the mainstream market until it is an expensive boutique habit is a good, realistic strategy. Unfortunately in the interim, those from a lower socioeconomic background (with the highest levels of tobacco uptake and consumption) are going to be impacted more than other groups. Still, I find this strategy better than adding yet another drug to the crimes act.

That said, superficially, the post-2000 ban sounds like a reasonable policy as far as the war on drugs goes, so long as there is flexibility with how they penalise people for contraventions.

[paulsterio]

I don't understand something though, if you're pro choice for cigarette smoking then you would technically have to be pro choice for other drugs like marijuana for instance as well - right?

Personally I'm divided, the truth is I'm also pro choice in that I wish we could just do anything as long as nobody else is harmed, however in this case many are harmed, passive smokers, the general public who pay for the health care of smokers, the families of the smokers...etc. not to mention those who grow up thinking smoking is cool and get into it.

[mark_alec]

take my examples from before, say drugs - ok yeah for sure, have some eckie pills, but if you get busted with them, the law will turn on you.  why? cos' the government has had the authority to make the law, and the coppers have enforced this law by chuckin you in jail. in turn, the government has had the 'authority' to tell you what you cant do!

If laws are made to protect people from themselves, then there is evidence that horse-riding is more dangerous and addictive than ecstasy (study was done for the UK, but probably applies here too).

I agree with Mao, laws should not infringe of the rights of the individual to do as they want, but should be present to protect others (i.e. ban smoking in public spaces, but never smoking itself.)

[JellyDonut]

Increasing price is universally associated with reduced uptake, decreased consumption and increased quitting. It is likely the most significant single factor implicated in the massive decrease of smoking uptake and consumption since the 1990s.

How so and implicated by whom? I don't deny that it doesn't work on some level, but you can't just isolate and champion taxes alone. Keep in mind that along taxation, huge sums of money were put into scare campaigns, enacting laws and education.

Unfortunately in the interim, those from a lower socioeconomic background (with the highest levels of tobacco uptake and consumption) are going to be impacted more than other groups. Still, I find this strategy better than adding yet another drug to the crimes act.

Even in the long term, without proper education, taxation would only end up acting as a wealth transfer from the lower brackets.

[Mao]

I don't understand something though, if you're pro choice for cigarette smoking then you would technically have to be pro choice for other drugs like marijuana for instance as well - right?

Of course. I see no good reason to make marijuana, or in fact any illicit drugs, ilegal. Just tax them let people be.

Personally I'm divided, the truth is I'm also pro choice in that I wish we could just do anything as long as nobody else is harmed, however in this case many are harmed, passive smokers, the general public who pay for the health care of smokers, the families of the smokers...etc. not to mention those who grow up thinking smoking is cool and get into it.

I think the passive smoking problem is mostly fixed, with smoking banned indoors and family venues. In my experience, who don't wish to smoke generally don't encounter much passive smoking.
The argument for health care is moot, at least in Australia. Tobacco is overtaxed in Australia, and the return covers more than the burden of health care, so the public doesn't pay. In fact, the public profits.
The peer pressure argument is in my opinion silly. Underage smoking should be prohibited, but people grow up to be adults, and they are educated in the effects of smoking. They can take responsibilities for their own decisions.

[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.

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.

That's why it's in inverted commas. My point was that smoking kills blah blah, so making a rational decision to smoke would seem to be rather contradictory. I don't buy 'freedom of choice' to make choices that will probably negatively impact others, which is why I want public smoking banned but also wouldn't particularly care if tobacco was banned. This may be a difference of opinion, which is where I'm happy to leave it.

[Eriny]

The argument for health care is moot, at least in Australia. Tobacco is overtaxed in Australia, and the return covers more than the burden of health care, so the public doesn't pay. In fact, the public profits.

This comment reminds me of something Michael Marmot (a UK professor of Epidemiology and Public Health) said, that basically if we were concerned with the national health budget, the state would actually be better off if every low income person was given free cigarettes and died early as a result of their smoking, because it would mean that we wouldn't have to support them in old age. The problem is, it's totally immoral to play political/ideological games with peoples lives. Maybe the public profits overall from smoking, that doesn't mean we lose out substantially from so many preventable deaths. It's probably not what you meant, but I found that point to be quite harsh.

While people are responsible for themselves and their actions, I just think it would be good if we lived in a society that was kind and was willing to help people out when necessary. It's one thing if someone chooses to smoke and happily does it, but they should know what they are doing and they should have resources to turn to if they want to quit. If the future is so bleak that an expensive smoking addiction that has a high chance of killing you is considered to be a good option, then it's worth entertaining the idea that this person might need some help. You shouldn't and can't force anyone to get help, but it should be there.

[Starlight]

The problems that I think should be addressed with regards to smoking are:

* Once again second hand smoke. Mao you mention that you are pretty respectful when it comes to smoking around others, however this by no means is a reflection of every smoker. The amount of times i've had to walk to the city through a cloud of smoke.. well i've lost count.

* The litter. Have you seen some of the melbourne city streets? Some people don't even have the decency to walk up to a god damn bin.

[Mao]

The problems that I think should be addressed with regards to smoking are:

* Once again second hand smoke. Mao you mention that you are pretty respectful when it comes to smoking around others, however this by no means is a reflection of every smoker. The amount of times i've had to walk to the city through a cloud of smoke.. well i've lost count.

* The litter. Have you seen some of the melbourne city streets? Some people don't even have the decency to walk up to a god damn bin.

Agree on both accounts. Without intentionally tooting my own horn, I think I'm part of the minority, and that is the basis of my argument. Whilst a blanket legislation seems nice, why should my freedom be taken away when I've done nothing wrong?

There should be more legislation towards literring, towards second hand smoking and so forth, but a blanket legislation is a silly idea.

That's why it's in inverted commas. My point was that smoking kills blah blah, so making a rational decision to smoke would seem to be rather contradictory. I don't buy 'freedom of choice' to make choices that will probably negatively impact others, which is why I want public smoking banned but also wouldn't particularly care if tobacco was banned. This may be a difference of opinion, which is where I'm happy to leave it.

I agree with banning public smoking, and create certain smoking areas (such as in some airports and most bars). I think most sensible people will agree with you there. But this concept is completely different from having a blanket ban on an entire age bracket.

[brenden]

Emotionally I want to say the ban is fantastic and a brilliant solution to what is nothing but detrimental. I was thinking along the lines of whilst there is freedom of choice, we aren't left to be completely autonomous. I was likening the justification of the blanket ban to the justification of forcing suicidal people into treatment when they're a danger to themselves or others. And whilst smoking is a 'danger' in that it causes harm, the thing that separated it from self-harm was the intention.
That being said, a government telling an individual what they can and cannot do with their own body is a scary one and reminds me of any sort of oppressive dictatorship. Logically, I can't support the idea of taking away freedom to choose, regardless of the benefits.

I don't understand something though, if you're pro choice for cigarette smoking then you would technically have to be pro choice for other drugs like marijuana for instance as well - right?

Of course. I see no good reason to make marijuana, or in fact any illicit drugs, ilegal. Just tax them let people be.

How would you justify making Ice accessible to people when it potentially harms others?

[Mao]

I don't understand something though, if you're pro choice for cigarette smoking then you would technically have to be pro choice for other drugs like marijuana for instance as well - right?

Of course. I see no good reason to make marijuana, or in fact any illicit drugs, ilegal. Just tax them let people be.

How would you justify making Ice accessible to people when it potentially harms others?

Irresponsible use and accessibility are two different things. Analogies can be drawn between ice and tobacco, even though ice is much more extreme. Just like how responsible smoking can avoid causing second hand inhalation, responsible ice usage can avoid harming others, just that the measures must be much more strict. It is difficult to implement, but in principle it should be accessible (provided the usage is responsible).

[TheMirrorMan]

If Mao or anyone else smokes when no one else is around, who is harmed? I agree that the government should prevent people from smoking in public places, educate the public on its harms etc. but what right do you have to stop him from smoking if no one else is directly harmed? I believe that in a free society, people must be allowed to make decisions that others consider foolish or stupid (with some exceptions for extremely harmful acts of course). But, I don't think that cigarettes are so harmful that we should ban people from buying or using them, regardless of their date of birth. 

[brenden]

How would you justify making Ice accessible to people when it potentially harms others?

Irresponsible use and accessibility are two different things. Analogies can be drawn between ice and tobacco, even though ice is much more extreme. Just like how responsible smoking can avoid causing second hand inhalation, responsible ice usage can avoid harming others, just that the measures must be much more strict. It is difficult to implement, but in principle it should be accessible (provided the usage is responsible).

Regardless of implementation there will always be those who abuse the accessibility. If we were to draw analogies between tobacco and ice, then the worst case scenario of irresponsible tobacco usage is perhaps children grown up with inefficient lungs and the subsequent consequences of that. Otherwise, we get a bit of careless second hand smoke. However irresponsible ice usage could lead to the death or harm of others, and whilst individuals similar to yourself could use ice responsibly, what's to say those who don't cause a loss of life? And even those who do use responsibly, it's entirely plausible for them to misjudge themselves and (whilst it would be a slim chance) wind up paranoid or psychotic for two hours and, again, harm others.

[Starlight]

If Mao or anyone else smokes when no one else is around, who is harmed? I agree that the government should prevent people from smoking in public places, educate the public on its harms etc. but what right do you have to stop him from smoking if no one else is directly harmed?

Yeah but this is one person, 80% of others wouldn't care.