Tasmanian smoking ban?

[Starlight]

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.

Yeah I don't think Ice is something you can just try and throw away and forget about. There can be serious implications. I don't think there's such a thing as the 'responsible use of ice',

[slothpomba]

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

Thats the whole idea of living in a society, you give up certain freedoms for the greater good and to allow society to function - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

2) bottom line of many retailers (would certainly close many tobacconists)

Oh, boohoo. You can't stand in the way of progress to save a few jobs. There's a reason we don't have blacksmiths or farriers anymore as large professions, society progressed and advanced.

They're doing something inherently harmful as well, their whole line of business is based on selling a product that does real harm. How would you feel if your local crack dealer or sex trafficker went out of business?

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..

It's one concern but its a short term one. Some kind of illegal sales ring might pop up.

Another concern is people simply go to another state and load up on the ciggies. When gambling was banned in Victoria, people often went to casino's or pokies just over the border. We have to face the fact, no matter what we think, plenty of people will keep doing shit that bad for them.

If you calculate how much they're contributing to society by taxes and other things like that as compared to what the sale of cigarettes is costing society, i'm sure you'd hit a negative. It's not like they can't get other jobs either. Almost all of the workers in Australia don't sell cigarettes.

Freedom of choice shouldn't include doing things that are batshit stupid, like not wearing your seatbelt. I don't hear the freedom of choice crowd complain about that one... i guess they're thinking one step at a time?

It's nice to have principals and believe in something but its even better to be pragmatic and realistic, while i think this is a decent idea in some idealistic theory, i doubt it'll work that well in real life. I'm in favour of more regulation and other things like that but this way wont work.

It's quite clear they're addictive. According to a study in the lancet, they're much closer to Cocaine than Marujiana or Meth in addictivity potential. I don't smoke so i don't know how pleasurable it is in the same way a few drinks are, i'm sure thats one factor. Lets not forget though, if you smoke on a regular basis, a lot of the supposed "pleasure" is just feeding your addiction, getting that next hit rather than simply enjoying it.



I think Alcohol is a much more pressing problem though. Smokers aren't usually violent or smoke so many packs a day on the same level an alcoholic might. A mate works at IGA and plenty of people come back 3 or 4 times a day to buy booze, they dont even buy a 6 pack or in bulk. I guess its to maintain some illusion that they're "not that bad" then later come back for more. I know the kids of alcoholics, it sounds like hell. Smokers aren't nearly as bad on that level. As far as i know, considering the most recent legislation too, we probably have the highest regulation on it already out of any nation on earth. I don't see nearly as many of you crusading against obesity or ultra-bad foods. Obesity certainly causes a lot of problems, i dont know if its on par with smoking but its pretty bad. I'm happy with how we have it now.

This is a silly plan and it won't work. Rates are already declining. I think we should just keep up our current efforts and wait for natural attrition of smokers. We'll never get it down to 0.00% but we can certainly chip away at it.

[Starlight]

I think Alcohol is a much more pressing problem though.

Yeah that reminds me of when everyone was talking about whether the legal limit of alcohol to drive should be set to zero, what do you guys think about that?
I probably agree with it.

And yeah something should be done with obesity/ introducing physical activity.

[Mao]

(Image removed from quote.)

Wait. LSD and E are 'better' than tobacco and alcohol?

[slothpomba]

Wait. LSD and E are 'better' than tobacco and alcohol?

According to this study, yes. Heres what seems to be a half decent summary - http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/01/alcohol.harm/index.html .

We're almost culturally conditioned to think alcohol and tabacco aren't that harmful in comparison to something almost scary to the general public like Ectasy or Meth. Alcohol is actually incredibly harmful in a lot of ways. Since its relevant to my academic interests i've come across it quite a bit, withdrawl from alcohol can actually kill someone. If you're a chronic alcoholic and get off the sauce, you could die. That's very rare if you look at a lot of other drugs. You go through horrible withdrawals but it won't actually kill you. Not to mention all the cancer alcohol causes...liver problems...obesity...strokes...etc. What i also like about this scale is how it also included harm to other people under the banner of harm. We all know alcohol can make people violent and impair their decision making in a bad way. I wouldn't drive on E or LSD but it wont make you violent like alcohol does (unless you have a bad trip i guess).

Really, we need to reshape peoples perceptions, as far as things you can take goes, alcohol is pretty bad, especially considering how wide-spread it is. Just looking at the demographics. i dobut you have a lot of 50 year old accountant fathers taking E or LSD, fair few people hit the bottle though. I'm not saying drinking is bad, i drink myself, i enjoy it. If i had to be stranded on an island with a few beverages to drink for eternity Gin and beer would be up there. It's a lie to say it doesn't cause harm though. I live in a pretty low SES area, a lot of these people already dont have a lot of money to begin with and they're blowing half of it on booze. Theres 4 bottle shops within like 500 meters of each other here. Just annecdotally, i don't see it as much in the well off areas. It's all kinds of bad. Don't have a solution though.

[Tomw2]

How so and implicated by whom?

By whom? Well, pretty much everyone who has conducted a major study into it. I supposed if you have the patience I could do a literature review for you, but it's probably easier to read the WHO reports which evaluate a range of studies that don't just implicate it, they suggest taxation should be central to any governmental response.

I don't deny that it doesn't work on some level, but you can't just isolate and champion taxes alone.

Er, who did? Taxes should be part of it, not all of the response.

[brenden]

Don't have a solution though.

Again, whilst there will never be a 'solution' I think mostly education would be a step in the right direction. A girl I'm friends with -didn't know alcohol was a drug, -disagreed that six standard drinks was considered a binge, -told me it was fine to drink when she was on anti-d's, and then drank when she was on benzos. Brilliance. Perhaps with increased awareness not drinking alcohol would be culturally more acceptable and less people might choose to drink, or drink a lot.

[JellyDonut]

[
By whom? Well, pretty much everyone who has conducted a major study into it. I supposed if you have the patience I could do a literature review for you, but it's probably easier to read the WHO reports which evaluate a range of studies that don't just implicate it, they suggest taxation should be central to any governmental response.

I would like to have a look at said reports. Also, keep in mind that this is the claim that you'd have to back up: "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."

Er, who did? Taxes should be part of it, not all of the response.

Well, you did omit the other factors while making bold claims championing taxes.

[alexa94]

Wow, this would actually be the single good thing to come out of Tasmania if it happens. I personally don't have a vendetta or anything against the image of smoking or smokers in general (lots of my friends smoke), but as someone who cares greatly about their health I absolutely detest the lack of regulation on second-hand smoke; if the government won't ban lighting up in ALL public places, or create 'smoking rooms' around the city etc. then just ban the freakin things completely.

To all the people crying 'i am a citizen i have rights etc.' yeah alright, get over yourselves. A couple of the toxic components in cigarettes are formaldehyde and lead. If I went to a restuarant and started lacing people's food with formaldehyde and lead I'd probably be arrested for attempted murder via food poisoning. So why should someone be allowed to blow that same sh*t right in your face, the logic bewilders me. I would support any law that made smoking only legal on private property (e.g. your home or at house parties). But even then there will be mothers who smoke and damage their baby's health in utero (I feel absolutely disgusted at this revolting behaviour whenever I see it happen), as well as parents from lower-income areas smoking all day around their kids who don't have any say in the matter, etc. Does a fetus in the womb have a say in whether or not their carrier floods their body with toxins from smoking? Does a 5 year old child have the mental or physical capacity to convince his stressed out parent to stop smoking inside the house?

We all know that the only reason cigarettes haven't been banned in this day and age is because they are far too widespread within society; tobacco companies have unfortunately been allowed to garner massive influence over the past century. And any government today, no matter how foward-thinking, are too p*ssy to take a stand (well fair enough, every smoker in the nation would vote them out if a cigarette ban was even hinted at). Which is why for once in my life I actually have some respect for Tasmania for having the balls to do what other states won't, although I am doubtful anything of substance will ever eventuate.

To the argument that ciggies should be legal alongside all drugs; googs aren't cool brah. Think of all the times you've had druggies come up to you in the city and ask you for change for 'food'. Thankfully there probably aren't many incidents you can recall. However, imagine that ice, crack and all that other nasty sh*t is legalised for the next generation, even with high taxes and all. Within 100 years we will have most likely destroyed all progress humanity has made over the past thousands of years; every second person on the street will be begging for loose change for their next hit. I'm not being some moralistic preacher here, in fact I approve of the fact that if you really want a hit, it's not that difficult if you know the right people to supply you with what you want, for instance when I really feel stressed out my mate and I cook hash brownies. But for the government to actually put it out there and say 'you know what, snort as much meth as you can afford', I can't even comprehend the logic that says we should legalise drugs. I simply cannot comprehend how any educated person would support legalising drugs just because they feel that people should 'have a choice to live how they want'.

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.

1) no one has the freedom to choose to damage the health of those in the immediate vinicty, no mother has the right to subject her newborn baby to the toxins from cigarettes.
2) ok well why don't we start selling kalishnakovs, pistols and grenade launchers in Australia then, i hear many weapon retailers here are pissed off at our current gun laws because it's bad for business

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?

seriously bro

I am honestly surprised at the number of people who support the use of cigarettes and even illicit drugs on this forum. I mean, a lot of you see it as the right to choose to do what you want no matter the consequences, kind of feels like everyone here has paranoia of being ruled by an ostensibly totalitarian government. I see it as society being progressive, adapting and improving upon previous generations so the future will continually develop to provide a brighter, healthier and more productive existence. Rules and laws exist for a reason people, they're not just in place because someone one day decided to be a b*tch and make everything less fun for everyone.

Well that's my logic anyway, my other solution is to provide free cigarettes to anyone who wants them so that the stupid people will kill themselves faster

[Bhootnike]

Amen. 

[Soul_Khan]

alexa94 your solution is basically the government FORCING you to be healthy.. seriously how is this no different than an 'ostensibly totalitarian government'


Also what are your views on alcohol.. i guess this should be banned as well right?

[alexa94]

alexa94 your solution is basically the government FORCING you to be healthy.. seriously how is this no different than an 'ostensibly totalitarian government'


Also what are your views on alcohol.. i guess this should be banned as well right?

Hell no, why would I want alcohol banned?

No, did you read what I wrote mate - the government is preventing smokers from imposing their vices on other people, whether it is just a general non-smoker, child or fetus in the womb. Are you telling me that this is unreasonable and makes the government excessively controlling? If I want to eat fatty food or drink a beer I am not destroying the livers of everyone around me, I am not clogging the arteries of those sitting next to me

[Soul_Khan]

alexa94 your solution is basically the government FORCING you to be healthy.. seriously how is this no different than an 'ostensibly totalitarian government'


Also what are your views on alcohol.. i guess this should be banned as well right?

Hell no, why would I want alcohol banned?

Well..to "provide a brighter, healthier and more productive existence" surely you wouldn't disagree that alcohol use and abuse is extremely unhealthy? So why should the government allow people to drink it? We should ban it to fulfill the purpose of your statement which I just quoted above.

No, did you read what I wrote mate - the government is preventing smokers from imposing their vices on other people, whether it is just a general non-smoker, child or fetus in the womb.

Yes i did read what you wrote.. yes I agree that public smoking should be banned there should be certain areas where smoking can be allowed so it doesn't effect other people. But I don't agree with you in that we should outright ban it and refuse the right of people to use it.

In regards to women who smoke.. well there will always be stupid people, we can't deny that there will be a few people who are negligent who don't care about their health or their babies health but does this mean we should refuse the right for people to smoke for those who don't condone or act in this way? Hell no. The same argument can be applied to women who drink alcohol when their pregnant, so according to you we should ban alcohol because some retard decided to drink when she was pregnant which subsequently effected her child's health..

If I want to eat fatty food or drink a beer I am not destroying the livers of everyone around me, I am not clogging the arteries of those sitting next to me

So it's okay when it only effects YOUR own health and not anyone elses.. well then what about drugs which don't effect anyone elses health expect the user, would you support their legalization then?

Think of all the times you've had druggies come up to you in the city and ask you for change for 'food'.

What a nice generalization of ALL drug users.. nice man. Anyway you do realize that a lot of them are also extreme alcoholics? Alcohol.. you know that substance which you think should be legal.

my other solution is to provide free cigarettes to anyone who wants them so that the stupid people will kill themselves faster

Same solution can be applied to alcohol.. isn't there some kind of double standard you are using here? Stupid people can be given unlimited supplies of booze so they can kill themselves faster.

[alexa94]

Well..to "provide a brighter, healthier and more productive existence" surely you wouldn't disagree that alcohol use and abuse is extremely unhealthy? So why should the government allow people to drink it? We should ban it to fulfill the purpose of your statement which I just quoted above.

Of course alcohol abuse is extremely unhealthy, but there is a safe level of alcohol consumption, which is why guidelines generally recommend for an adult not to consume more than 2 standard drinks a day, because the body is able to metabolise the alcohol (hopefully) with no permanent effects on the body. Alcohol is even used in cooking, indicative of the fact that small or moderate amounts of alcohol are not 'extremely unhealthy' for the body, otherwise the number of deaths from liver cancer would probably be much higher. But it has been said time and time again, there is NO safe limit of inhalation of cigarette smoke or secondhand smoke

Yeah I agree, drinking while pregnent is just as bad and unfortunately that can't be controlled. But that's where the direct effects on other lives are limited to; I'm not going to go back into the whole secondhand smoke argument again.


My current viewpoint on illicit drugs continuing to be illegal and alcohol being legal stems from the fact that I believe the negative consequences on health and society of hard drugs is far, far worse than that of alcohol. To be honest, I'm not really sure what your stance is here though; do you believe that all hard drugs should be legal?

my other solution is to provide free cigarettes to anyone who wants them so that the stupid people will kill themselves faster

Same solution can be applied to alcohol.. isn't there some kind of double standard you are using here? Stupid people can be given unlimited supplies of booze so they can kill themselves faster.

notsureifsrs

A line obviously needs to be drawn somewhere - it is ridiculous to say that if one moderately harmful substance is banned then every single thing that is unhealthy should be banned. And opposingly, the argument that if one moderately harmful substance is legal then all unhealthy substances (illicit drugs) need to be legal is just dumb, such extremist views probably won't go very far. Anyway, that's pretty much what we're discussing now right? And I'm saying the line should be drawn at alcohol/cigarettes being legal/illegal. Disagree?

[Soul_Khan]

Of course alcohol abuse is extremely unhealthy, but there is a safe level of alcohol consumption, which is why guidelines generally recommend for an adult not to consume more than 2 standard drinks a day..

The guidelines are just guidelines they just act as a warning to not exceed the recommend limit but any person can be usually exceed with no legal consequences whatsoever.. so in that sense it is quite dangerous and addiction and dependence on alcohol is not that hard to acquire.

But it has been said time and time again, there is NO safe limit of inhalation of cigarette smoke or secondhand smoke

Once again.. my solution to this is to creating specific places where people are allowed to smoke so second-hand smoke doesn't occur, don't you think this is a more viable option then literally spitting in the face of the millions of people who smoke by outright banning it? Also what do you think would happen if you banned it? There will be heaps of angry smokers who will riot and try to protest against the smoking ban.. it will just cause an inconvenience that other solutions don't.

Yeah I agree, drinking while pregnent is just as bad and unfortunately that can't be controlled.

Then why did you use it as an argument to ban smoking if its simply out of our control..

My current viewpoint on illicit drugs continuing to be illegal and alcohol being legal stems from the fact that I believe the negative consequences on health and society of hard drugs is far, far worse than that of alcohol. To be honest, I'm not really sure what your stance is here though; do you believe that all hard drugs should be legal?

I support the legalization of marijuana only.. as I haven't done any research on the other drugs..

In terms of how harmful alcohol is I suggest you take a good read of kingpomba's post which shows that alcohol is more harmful then most people think, whilst other illegal drugs which aren't as harmful are typically perceived as being worst then alcohol..