It's not about indoctrination. It's not about your right to take risks. It's about my right not to have you impose risks on me. STOP BLOWING SMOKE IN MY FACE, GODDAMN IT!

Well said. The government can warn us of the dangers, but ultimately it is our choice whether to smoke. We elect governments to do our bidding, not run our lives.

The only change needed is to ensure smokers wear their own health cost. In fact, that should apply to everyone. There are plenty of health costs arising from personal choices that others would not make.

"The decision to smoke is an individual choice a third party can't make on our behalf."

The irony here is that the addictive nature of the products and the marketing techniques of the companies that sell them undermine the notion of individual choice that is held as sacred. The government advertisements and regulation are just an attempt to counter these other influences and provide the opportunity for a balanced and informed choice.

That's all very well but what about a non-smoker's rights?

Do we go back to the good ol' days when you had to endure smoke in buses, planes and restaurants. It is just lack of courtesy and manners. Why should other people have to endure the second hand smoke and discomfort of another's addiction.

Tobacco companies sell to the poorest of countries where there is no regulation regarding marketing and health (labelling/filters). Countries like Nepal faced huge problems with the high take-up of the habit, and have in the last few years drafted their own legislation to combat the problem including no-smoking areas.

Butt out indeed from smoking within my personal space.

Brilliant Article!

grputland,

Why don't we just ban blowing smoke in people's faces instead. Happy? Thought not. You're a self righteous indignation junkie. You'd be the most upset if they banned smoking. You'd have to go and yell at kids for climbing trees instead.

DavidL,

'The only change needed is to ensure smokers wear their own health cost. '

No deal. Slippery slope. Every decision can be in some way harmful or recalcitrant. Where does it stop? I'm not even a bleeding heart but the end game is in that scenario will always be that for the poor and mentally ill, it's all their fault or the fault of their parents so any vice or coping mechanism is ultimately their own fault too. It would make it prohibitively expensive to have any emotional issues.

Someone who has a stressful job and neglects to smoke to calm down should pay for their heart surgery.

Anyway, non smokers DO get lung cancer, so how you gonna prove it mate!

pelican,

'Why should other people have to endure the second hand smoke and discomfort of another's addiction. '

How far you going to take that. There is no right not to be annoyed in public. There are plenty of people lining up to ban dogs and children you know, why not just give them a thin edge of the wedge they need.

So, garlic bans and curry bans? Compulsory deodorant?

I've never smoked but I feel for the pariahs of this anal society. It's just a bit of bloody smoke! Get over it people. Do you all carry around hand sanitising cream? I bet you do.

I actually miss the days when I used to pick my clothes off the floor of some random girls bedroom to smell the stench of stale cigarette smoke. Ah, the smell of the night before.

Now pubs are so free of haze it's impossible to have that atmosphere any more. There should be pubs that you can go to where all the staff smoke and smoking is allowed.

Houellebecq: I'll be satisfied when the law treats smoking like sex: the right to do it exists only between consenting adults in private.

The law acknowledges that what you do in your bedroom is your business, but that I shouldn't have to see it when I walk down the street. (I offer no opinion as to whether it would be a pretty sight.)

Smoking should be treated likewise -- the more so because I not only see it but also inhale it.

grputland,

How do you feel about coughing or blowing ones nose in public? What about kissing in public?

I would like to see people having sex in public. Free porn. That would be wonderful. The human body is a beautiful thing.

But, I am more interested grputland, in where you would direct your self righteous indignation it weren't for smokers. What would your outlet be? You would still need an outlet for that. I think if you really think about it, you would agree that you would be poorer for the absence of smokers.

You better watch out, I am starting a movement about self-righteous indignation in public. It should only be partaken in the privacy of ones home. I don't need to see your tut tut. Your fake cough and glare, your passive aggressive demeanour or your confrontational grandstanding to the waiter.

That'd be right, Houellebecq. Those who act against the public interest always want to be protected from public criticism.

New scientist last year stated that the scientific evidence for long term harm caused by passive smoking in out door situations was poor, it went on to say that overstating the evidence in support of a undoubtedly good cause (stopping smoking) will rebound- discredit science .

Pragmatically there are many more offensive things that people do in public, for example the wide acceptance of outrageously offensive ,often physically dangerous, public drunkenness is much more of an issue than a bit of smelly smoke on a balcony.

I'm a non-smoker BTW.

What is the 'public interest'? Who defines it?

Houlley as much as I enjoy playing with you don't you get sick of being adjudicator? :)

Massive garlic inhalation is not a problem and dogs are usually confined to neighbourhood disputes or parks. They are not things that are in your face and most normal people I would imagine can put up with a bit of inconvenience - it is give and take.

However, you may be too young to remember the days when smoking was everywhere, one could not get away from it even in the workplace. You may not remember sitting at work having to endure smoke on a regular basis. I do not want to go back to that no matter how unpopular the position of anti-smoking particularly from some uber-libertarians who can only see the issue from one side of the 'rights' equation.

An excellent article and highlights for me how rules and regulations completely monopolise our life.I am tired of life being regulated to excess--- I am advised (or face a fine) where I can walk, run, jog, eat, smoke, send my children to school--(provided it is within the prescribed kilometers)so surely it is time to STOP and allow us all to live as was destined. What have all the regulations given us? A safer society? A healthier society? Or more red tape and jobs for the dumb and dumber?

pelican - we are not about to go back to the days of 'Madmen'.

There was a report this week of a body corp banning smoking inside the individual flats in their building.

Having once experienced the powerlessness of bodycorps to deal with much more truly anti social behavior - I don't like their chances of enforcing this one ..... But in principle- how many vaguely annoying things do we want to police?
If the worse thing that can assail me walking down the street or in a park is a (increasingly rare) waft of cigarette smoke , I would count myself lucky.
Smokers , unlike drunks, do not punch complete strangers and/or spouses , they do not vomit on your door step and they do not cause a lot of accidents.

'how many vaguely annoying things do we want to police? '

Oh Lots and Lots and Lots!

I'm not adjudicator pelican, you just seem to assign my opinions such gravitas.

What is 'normal'?

'most normal people I would imagine can put up with a bit of inconvenience'

Should we also ban leaf blowers? They create noise pollution, and the wielders would be better off having some exercise via use of a rake or broom. I think it's as big an inconvenience as smoking, but nobody would attempt to ban people doing that.

It's the catch-cry of our pampered age; I DON'T LIKE IT! BAN IT!

Well, I don't like that passive aggressive cough of non-smokers. I want to ban it. The enjoyment of a peaceful meal in outdoor beer gardens have more often been interrupted by those lot than the smokers themselves.

I'll take a whiff of tobacco smoke over the stink of the average council diesel bus any day.

So how about a deal? I'll support a ban on smoking in public, just as soon as you get all those stinking buses off the road.

I do find it strange indeed that it is usually the same people who bitch about tobacco smoke, that want to inflict more stinking buses on everyone.

This proves that it has nothing to do with anything but control. Stop people smoking, but make them ride buses, the 2 go hand in hand.

I just wish they would ban the free-basing treatment that makes the drug so much more addictive and harmful. Natural nicotine is nowhere near as bad as the freebased "crackotine" that we are legally obliged to purchase.
Big Tobacco lobbied years ago to curtail any threat to their market so there is *no* alternative to the highly processed and unnaturally addictive products. All natural alternative smokes that can replace nicotine addiction are also banned.
The government is playing both sides: Great "idiots tax" for those locked in, and a great outlet for the "holier than thou" crowd who will always criticise *someone*.
Nice work Houellebecq...I find many behaviours in others annoying and could probably come up with a "public interest" argument against most of them.
The "War on drugs" is a perfect example of the idiocy of this way: Increases drug availability and use, corrupts police and customs, creates *huge* black economy, empowers scumbags, corrupts kids...
For what? Huge cost for the *opposite effect* of the stated intention. of course the real thing is that it gives the "holier than thou" control freaks the warm fuzzies. The fact that it costs $Billions while having a negative effect is irrelevant to the egos of these folks...we can't "send the wrong message!". Yeah, but we can make hundreds of criminals millionaires, and thats OK!
Laws should be minimised and optimised. Another way of putting it: Freedom should be maximised. This requires some restriction, but only where justifiable. Alas, the perfect world of the moalist does not recognise the need for this real-world dance.

Houellie,

Did you ever look up that book I once recommended to you titled "How To Be Free" by Tom Hodgkinson?
It has a chapter titled "Self-Important Puritans Must Die" : )

I think you'd like it - he sounds a lot like you.

Btw - I enjoy the odd contemplative puff myself (of ordinary tobacco) - good for meditation and cogitation,
- works for me : )

I would like to ban leaf blowers and whipper snippers.

And I think it's good that nobody can smoke on planes, though last time I was on one somebody got caught at it in the toilet and was publicly shamed.

I would also like to ban people who sound like Julia Gillard and her voice coach, Simon Crean from speaking in public.

Then the F word on buses except when appropriate, and using mobile phones for inane conversations at the top of your voice on all public transport.

Then fast food that makes people obese and a drain on the health system. Maybe they should smoke and get thin.

Then dogs that bark at night so you think you're living in a Balinese village and have to wear silicone earplugs in your own bed, for god's sake.

And I would really like not having my environment polluted by all those anti smoking billboards with imagery taken straight from Dante's Inferno. Just because all those smokers are gonna die with bits of themselves coughed up and spat about, doesn't mean I should have to look at their destiny every time I go out in the car.

There's not enough control in this society. Or they're controlling the wrong things.

Mark lost me after he tried to attack Christianity in a pro-smoking essay. Well, he can hop in his time machine and enjoy Red Russia’s gulags if he wants to know what real indoctrination looks like.

By the way, I think there are some father-son and projection issues in this piece here too. Not to overanalyse, but who is controlling whom when taxpayers are lumped with health bills too?

Hasbeen: That's why so many public transport proponents prefer trams and electric trains; they don't stink like buses.

Ozandy: There's no comparison between the war on tobacco and the wider "war on drugs". Nobody is suggesting that possession of tobacco should be a crime, let alone that if someone plants tobacco on you, the onus should be on you to prove that it was planted. But that's precisely what happens with other drugs. In reversing the onus of proof, the "war on drugs" forfeits all resemblance of legitimacy. I therefore draw your attention to the proposed GetUp! campaign on drug law reform:
http://suggest.getup.org.au/forums/60819-campaign-ideas/suggestions/1067729-drug-law-reform-drugs-are-implicated-in-most-of- .

I liked the article. There is a point when something goes beyond protecting others to excessive control.

I remember when a older guy I worked with many years ago would wind up the car windows before lighting up his smoke and there being nothing much I could do about it. I'm glad those days are gone but we don't have to go back to that period to recognise that current measures are not just about protecting the rest of us from excessive cigarette smoke inhallation.

I remember sitting though an expensive concert once being constantly distracted by the very strong stench of garlic coming from the person next to me. I've gagged on a long bus journey jammed up against a very obese woman with very poor personal (and more than one train journey). I've had many a nice evening walk become not so peaceful by chorus of barking dogs that either don't think I should walk past their house or those who join in sympathy.

Lifes like that.

Legal intervention should be at a level that strikes a balance between "public good"(whatever that is) and personal freedom.

Of course the root cause is that we have a political system where people fight hard to become "leaders".

The system pretty much guarantee's that it will be overloaded with those who think that they know how others should live and want to do something to make it so.

R0bert

The "campaign" against smoking certainly needs a critique, along with other public health campaigns. The old doctrines of liberalism usually don't take the analysis past a few simple abstract dichotomies, such as the individual versus the state, or freedom vs control. And terms like "social engineering" are an empty echo from the cold war conspiracy days. Instead, it is more helpful ask about how campaigns are constructed and impact on different social classes. Hence, a more useful question to pose is: Why does the public pay for these campaigns, and not the corporations that make addictive and dangerous products?

Jesus! This whole thread smells like an ash tray! Its poison, and your throwing away thousands of $$$$$$$ for nothing:) You suckers:) Where,s OUG...he loves a puff..lol...also, non-smokers are never accused of pot smoking when pulled over by the police, I mean the benefit of the doubt is strait away on your side........and it stinks! Man' I can not stand the smell of it.

"They might be wrapped in good intentions, but anti-smoking zealotry and other social engineering crusades are mostly about control."

What a lot of cobblers. The only thing I can see it helping, is population reduction. All other,s here that can see the negatives as to the public health system purse, well..........I guess it keeps altogether the myths of all thats not well in doing it in first place.

But see, here,s the problem..........its makes a truck-load of cash for the big guy:) and we all want to help him...right?

LEAP

An attempt to initiate National anti-passive smoking laws in the USA failed some time ago because - in spite of other evidence - there was no definite statistical proof that it was harmful (The science had been deliberately "tainted" in the manner of todays AGW debate).

All subsequent laws have been State, Regional or Local and has been legislation based on behaviour rather than on scientific evidence, like anti-littering or public drunkeness laws.

Zealots in any camp are the people to be worried about.

(The science had been deliberately "tainted" in the manner of todays AGW debate). YES............. and we can also add this thread to the "Freedom of Speech imposes a Duty of Responsible Journalism/advertising/ The Simpsons/and all the movies that the big guy seems to get his product on..mmm..one that seems to come under.........Are humans playing each other off, in the all too good hunting for the almighty dollar?

Makes you think:)

Jaws theme in the back-ground:)

LEAP

Lol Leap :) You have a way with words :)

I don't believe it is a disruption of smokers rights to insist they only pollute their own lungs- all by themselves.

They should accept non-smokers rights to NOT inhale second hand smoke from them though.

The biggest drivers of the anti-smoking machine are the Australian Medical Association.

They can't be accused of doing anything other than trying to save people's lives and/or enjoyment of life, given that smokers presently pay them probably the most in doctor's fees than any other group.

Give up smoking for your family's sake, if not your own.
You are forcing all the non-smokers in your family to smoke along with you...

Thanks for the link grputland...but alas I think they have little chance of success. The vested interests are just too loud and influential (very high cash flows in drugs!)
The semi-controlled nature of tobacco is actually causing similar problems to the fully banned substances: black market tobacco has increased massively since the recent tax increase. "Chop chop" tobacco is huge business and has resulted in murders in the tobacco growing regions.
And folks *have* actually suggested banning tobacco without any thought as to the downside. Not many I'll grant you, but even those who like the idea of small government, minimal market intervention, etc just *love* maximum social engineering via unworkable laws.
A "crime" is generally understood as one persons actions *against another*. The reason that passive smoking has been pushed so hard is that it justifies seeing smoking as a crime...not a personal choice. Whilst I agree with most of the smoking restrictions designed to minimise the impact, such as banning smoking indoors, I think we have to be careful to set limits on where the Law can and should apply.

pedestrian
I don't watch Madmen but I can imagine the scenario. A friend of mine lives in an apartment and can smell the smoke from the apartment beneath because his wife won't let him smoke inside so he puffs out the window. The smoke goes right up into her apartment. She has opted to keep her bathroom window shut when she knows they are home. Sometimes you just have to adapt, that is part of life. It would be intrusive to promote the idea of any regulation within the privacy of one's own home.

There is always a risk of regulation going OTT on any issue. However, to ridicule the rights of non-smokers by likening or reducing the argument to leaf blowers and garlic inhaling as though they are the same thing won't win anyone over unless they already sit in the pro-smoker's camp (ie. smokers rights over all others).

RObert's comment: "Legal intervention should be at a level that strikes a balance between "public good"(whatever that is) and personal freedom" is closest to my position but who determines or how does one find agreement about what constitutes "public good". In this case it comes down to medical evidence and public health.

Most of us have put up with our fair share of smoke inhalation in the workplace and in enclosed spaces, do smokers ever think it might be their turn to turn a blind eye or to tolerate someone else's needs. I developed adult onset asthma (now only mild) and it happened after working in highly smoke filled workplaces. There were no protections for non-smokers at all and we had to just lump it.

You will never get rid of smoking, it isn't possible but the devil is in the detail of how to ensure those habits which are intrusive on other's are dealt with fairly.

pelican - I do not smoke.(anymore)
Most Australian apartments are built to very poor (well below Europe) standards re
noise and other intrusions from other apartments( the one we lived in -every time any of the neighbors had a pest controller in we would be invaded by exiled cockroaches) The odd bit of smoke is just one of the drawbacks of the lifestyle.

Body corporates have virtually no real power - we could not stop apartments being used as defacto backpacker lodges . And as for noise-- very few apartments are built to contain the 5000 w outputs of most home entertainment systems. Compared to the endless Saturday afternoons filled with the endless car crashes and gun fire of most popular movies these days,that we endured, a occasional waft of smoke would have been bliss.

PS The fine particulates in diesel dust are bad for asthma ,carcinogenic and also provide a 'carrier' for other toxins ( e.g heavy metals and aromatic hydrocarbons) to pass deep into the body, I would stay well away from main roads if possible, it is roughly equivalent to smoking 2-5 cigarettes a week.

Yes Sue, your quite right. Common-sense is no compensator for good health:) However others have rights also......let I explain the true histories of the almighty tobacco planet.

( I,ll put in my own words ) Its better that way:)

Tobacco/planet matter has been enjoyed for 1000,s of years:)

Sue....I think that wins the peoples choice awards for the best story of all time:), dont you think?

"It's a well-known strategy of men. Church leaders declare Christian schools give kids a quality education and that religion serves the poor and needy, when really the end-game is indoctrination. A husband offers to duck out to the corner store adjacent to a TAB for some needed household groceries, five minutes before his hot tip jumps in the sixth at Randwick."

Sue! is this why the gov,s have to import workers? What century are we in again?:)

And as we go back in time, we see that tobacco, like religion....was once the corner store of all reality, but..............lets go back even further......drum roll.........Now people, I think by accident we have brought something from the past that doesn't correlate with our evolutionary speed trip.....and something tells me that bad habits are in-fact the way we make our money:)

H.G.wells...The time machine, does show who and how the Morlocks had gained the upper hand.......was Mr wells trying to warn us of our impending dangers?
I dont know:)

As long as the surface-people dont mind............I guess its alright.

I love this saying......Its your life.....well! thats what the Morlocks told me. He he he:)

Sorry....This was just a bed time story that my grand-father used to tell me.

Good luck:)

LEA

I see where you are coming from Leap, but that won't stop medical people (me :), extolling the virtues of not smoking!
I have looked after way too many people who have told me they bitterly regret smoking, as they slowly gasp their way to an untimely death.

Your story of the father who went to the TAB instead of the corner store, brings to mind my own Dad. He used to tell my Mum that he would take the four of us kids for a drive on a Saturday arvo, to 'give her a break'.

Excitedly, we all piled into Dad's car, knowing full well that if we kept Dad's 'secret' from Mum, we would get chips and icecreams to eat in the park next door to the local TAB!

Your story of the father who went to the TAB instead of the corner store.....? My story...lol... haven't you read the article? My father ever gambled in his life, smoked the odd cigar in the 70ies, but thats about it. Philip Morris's campaign in the Courier Mail said yesterday that the profits from Australians smokers was to the tune of 27.2 billion dollars.

I,ll quote this.....Anti-smoking advocates are in-censed with the "sneaky" campaign ,given Philip would reap significant financial rewards by having any future smoking bans halted....and goes on to say, " they know the sale of which is a highly addictive product, a product that kills 15.000 Australians a year to the cancer " they know it causes.

And with your story......" Excitedly, we all piled into Dad's car, knowing full well that if we kept Dad's 'secret' from Mum, we would get chips and icecreams to eat in the park next door to the local TAB!

And your story is just how the chain continues.

I hope you didn't pick up any Bad habits yourself.

Yes the Morlocks of this world really do have a good grip on humans in this example, and thats some of the parasitic I talk about some-times, and all for almighty dollar.LOL.... Makes you wonder how they sleep at nights, and I,ll bet they do it with ease.

Have a great day.

LEAP

I can’t stand the smell of cigarette smoke I grew up with it and I work in a place that still allows smoking. I have never understood what makes people take that second puff, when the first puff would have been violently rejected by your lungs.

One thing that trumps smoking on my “can’t stand” list is “thought police”. It seems every day though police make a rule of behalf of us, so that we can cruise through life never needing to make a decision.

I sit in my bubbling bath of apathy with the majority of Australia and I get to read in my newspaper the latest rules passed by the though police.

Easter is cancelled, no smoking in space shuttles on Saturdays, schools are no longer allowed to teach children, father Christmas is no longer allowed to call women Ho’s three times, prison inmates are allowed to vote, your not allowed to swear in front of your pets.

Ok I might stop…………now

No Leap, I have absolutely no bad habits at all :)
Cheers,
Suze.

One thing that trumps smoking on my “can’t stand” list is “thought police”. It seems every day though police make a rule of behalf of us, so that we can cruise through life never needing to make a decision.

Are you finished?...:) If it wasn't for the thought police as you call it, making a fair-for-all world you so love to enjoy, well............... we would have nurses puffing away in hospitals:), schools with ash-trays on every desk-top, wouldn't be able to enjoy a meal, with-out some tool trying to be cool, you would see all the things that most people cant save-themselves from, in the morgues long before they should be.

It would be a killing zone with people stoned out of there minds, doing 180ks with a bottle of beer in each hand, while blowing a joint.

The world would go from Champaign to sh!t in a heart-beat.

A 50/50 world is not a perfect one, but at least one will live longer:)

A world with-out thought police...lol......Yeah! I know one.....its called the stone-age:)

And you can see all the Mad-Maxes out there right now, with the biggest smiles you ever seen, for a world with NO THOUGHT.

Must be nice on your planet...lol....

LEAP

lets be honest
bad smells abound in this world

be it from cheap perfume..on old woman
[or hormoan based stuff on boys
designed to seduce young femails]

or the smokey diesal or the stink of industry
anyone deliberatly smoking in your face is assult
call a cop..dont colectivly lable or punish the lot of us

I NEVER SMOKED IN YOUR FACE
i dont complain about your stinking car or your perfume
to callup on smoking in busses is living in the past..get real

as for me not paying my way
i dont visit docters..have paid my medicare levie
have paid my tax on my smokes...
and dont complain about you getting its use..mainly to ridicule me

dont make up numbers
20 percent of all aborigonal deaths is the latest claim
GIVE YOUR PROOF..[as no autopisies are conducted..its a GUESSTIMATE]
based on hate/spin..and to make your point

just like the other points made

31 billion is the total costs

quotes from
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4307&page=0

[quoted from govt speeches]

ALP
Chris Hayes

""Leaving aside the emotional costs..of that toll,

...*the social costs...*
are estimated at $31.5 billion...""
[lost labour/income tax guestimates]
and plenty of other lard/spin

[social costs..
[attributable guesstimates]..not REAL COST]

this new law
raises 5 billion

ALP
Melissa Parke

""has a double purpose:it adds a significant price disincentive to the purchase of tobacco products,and it will generate an additional $5 billion..over four years to be directly invested*..in better health and hospitals""

yet costs
669 million

smoking..""was responsible for 753,618 hospital bed days,
and for $669 million in hospital costs..*.""

the spin dont add up

laurie furgessing[alp]
smoking responsable...for
""...*20 per cent..!
of all cancer-deaths..in general""

Leap I think your reading my post a little too literally, my concerns are that the government are making decisions that are increasingly micro-managing our day to day living, and my opposition to that does not extend to every decision that the government has ever made. Perhaps in the planet I live on I have more faith in humanity than you do. And please do not make the assumption that I love and enjoy the fair-for-all world, I don’t believe that you know me well enough to reflect my world views.

From the opposing point of view look down the track some 50 years with the thought police dictating how we live, following the trend of vocal minority group’s vs mainstream apathy and you may not be so pro-government.

My point of the original post albeit laced with sarcasm was, I feel the government is and has been for some time making decisions for political favour that are not in the best interests of the people

Pigsta..........I will not comment on your well thought-out post:)................you will do fine here.

LEAP

"My point of the original post albeit laced with sarcasm was, I feel the government is and has been for some time making decisions for political favour that are not in the best interests of the people"

No argument there but which policies do you particularly refer?

My layman's theory is that manners and general courtesies used to take care of most of the behaviours we are trying to legislate now. It was never necesary (except possible in the example of smoking). Society has also changed and other restrictions such as early closing (pubs/clubs) has gone in favour of personal liberty.

Just consider the number of accidents, particularly in the US, caused by using mobile phones while driving. Now blind freddy would know it is dangerous, do people really think it won't happen to them. Maybe in some respects legislation is needed - make it illegal with consequences.

Trouble is often we get nonsense legislation that makes no difference and is used as an excuse for the hidden (or not so hidden) motive of revenue raising.

on last nights 7 pm project
the former docter lobbiest [roxin]
who next is attacking packaging of smokes
with dirty pictures on it

[pictures that will need be proving
to be what they claim to be in court...SOON*]

completly ignoring the problems
of adverse reaction to *perscribed drugs
killing one in 10 hospitalised for adverse reaction

[as well as the numbers needed to treat
number...[where the number that need to take a given subsidised medication to achieve just one cure..

that reveals most of the heavilly
lobbied for subsidy[subsidised drugs]
only work in 1 in one hundred cases]

ie 100 need to take the drug
for one cure

anyhow back to
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2F7pmproject.com.au%2F&ei=TC6eTe3uDMODcN-zofEB&usg=AFQjCNGRT5IxM8tSfsbb8nImZQpbzjJa-Q&sig2=VPpKs4hZcVt6sO1ZU5AV7g

the weazel faced host
asked rocks on..
what was the medical cost of smoking..[669 million]
and how much the INCREASE was taking in..[6 Billion]

and rocks on replied blah blah blah
social costs =31 billion

to which the rat faced host replied
oh 31 billion for medical costs

IE HE WAS SPINNING A LIE

CANT YOU LOT
TELL SOMEONE IS SELLING us all..SPIN?

since when is social cost =medical cost?
social cost is AT BEST a guess

just as CAUSE of death..
CANNOT be 'smoking'...

[ie if you die of cancer WRITE cancer
if you die of heart atack WRITE heart attack]

CAUSE of death
cannot be ...tHE ACT of smoking

yes i know you hate smoking

but just think
i hate drinking..

when booze goes plain lable
and you pay HUGE PUNITIVE taxes on booze

i will be laughing TOO

all docters ARE LYING
no autopsies are conducted
the death numbers are hiding LIES

P.S.: The reversal of the onus of proof in the name of the "war on drugs" is INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE RULE OF LAW: http://is.gd/LJzDGQ .

OUG
There seems to be enough evidence that smoking causes cancer. Why would the tobacco companies have spent years hiding their own findings?

As for packaging. If it deters smokers great, maybe it will maybe it won't. I would imagine that many people who smoke are addicted so it doesn't matter what the packaging looks like. Most will probably buy cigarette cases and keep the fags in them, so they won't have to look at the packet. Well it is possible.

It does seem like the packaging is an issue though given the tobacco companies strong reaction to it and threats of litigation. Which is funny given a while back they argued that marketing does not increase smoking retention rates or uptake.

i know your not normally dumb by choice
so let me ask you..

do you recall EVER hearing
we have a cure for cancer
or a cancer cure is only a few years away..etc etc

[they have been saying it for decades]
thing is curing cancer has never been closer
think why

now
a cure is more in-sight than ever
now they CHOSE to ban it..
[or rather chose to attack it]
or rather tax it

thing is ONLY one quater of the most 'obvious'
smoking realated..cancers..ie lung cancers are smoking related

3/4 ARNT smoking related
yet all are accredited as smoking deaths
[ie ITS A LIE}..a profitable taxable lie

see all the spin
i have been exposing

why the spin?
to get a new tax
and vilify harmless smokers HURTING NO-one

drunks do more damage
auto's do more damage
why is prostitution and gambling just fine and dandy

but smokers are vile and evil
must be taxed into quiting


but lets face facts..many hate smokers
here is a chance to hate others
and to be in the in crowd

its al built on fear and lies

ya really think they can proove
that little sick girl...was a smoker
or that her sickness WAS from someone smoking?

ya think that eye with the hooks
went blind from smoking?
ya really believe those black toes is from smoking[not frostbite]

ya really believe that those teth went crooked and rotted from smoke
or from softdrink or fruitose acids...and them tb blisters on their lips..was that smoking related
or to generate fear

why would libs and govt buy shares in something they want to tax
to shut up complaint..have a say on the boardroom..to kill us without ANY representation by govt or 'big tobacco'

please think
is smoke the worst thing
or just the easiest to generate hate or fear

what next plain lable booze?
generic scotch..passive booze intoxication
taxing breathing!

"why is prostitution and gambling just fine and dandy"...lol....Coz they dont stink:)

Look puff and billy, peddle poison else where!:) Any how, have a winfeold, is not going to work in the 21 century.

Lets see, what do we have?..Oh yes, this one....."please think
is smoke the worst thing".......I dont know......maybe stabbing my self in the eye with a blunt stick perhaps:)

Oh and we have more:)...... "what next plain lable booze?
generic scotch..passive booze intoxication
taxing breathing!"

I dont know.....you have to ask Tony Abbott that one, Taxing people on what we know that kills...........mmmmm, thats going to be a tough one.

Its like how we all live on a island, and cocaine, Heroin and a whole range of highly profitable contraband, seem to get in and poison our community, which this spills over into another thread:)

Oh and seek some help about the 4000 chemicals that seems to be affecting your judgement:)

Have a nice day:)

LEAP

OUG
I'll try not to be dumb.

Smoking is not the only cause of cancer, but it is one of the big risk factors.

Medical science is coming closer to a cure for cancer. Today many people survive cancer thanks to modern medicine, in previous years it was literally a miracle if a person survived.

There is a long way to go before we could say cancer has been cured but it is amazing the strides medicine has already made to a number of diseases.

People don't hate smokers they hate smoking (hate is too strong a word) or sometimes the lack of manners by some smokers as regards their habit.

Smoking is not the only cause of cancer, but it is one of the big risk factors.....lol..A contradiction in terms. Thats like all the different studies thats says one day coffee is bad for you, and the next... coffee is good for you:)...by the way, pelican maybe his real name:) And do you know why you dont hear about those- W.blowers, ( Mr leaks ) They have either been arrested for what, or a set up....or the constitutionals all are given, for all the peoples.............and if I end up dead..( Mr leaks has screamed by In-tel..unknowns only to me:) )................you will know something stinks:)

Lets see what they do next here in Australia:)

I bet its not smart.

Its your world:) I just live on it:) and unfortunately....with some of you. I mean that in the best way that the LAW will let me:)

OUG

OUG
Are you also Leap?

So your argument is that the relationship between smoking and cancer is all one big conspiracy to extract money from the smokers in the form of taxes.

That is one big claim. The conspiracy was on the other foot when tobacco companies were hiding the evidence of their own findings as regards the links with cancer.

Many other things cause cancer as well, science has yet to determine all the risk factors. However smoking is one that is well known and the evidence is strongly in support of that claim. Why do smokers have a much higher incidence of lung cancer?

Even if you are not a scientist, that fact must raise some antennae.

Fact is you are free to do what you want with your own body just so long as it does not interfere with another's right to a smoke free lunch. :)

no pelican
I AM NOT LEAP..!

i have only had the one SAME one..id here at olo
even at other web logs im one under god

i dont need to pretend
dont know nor care who leap is

you dont mind breathing diesal smoke
[the biggest cause of cancer

or woodsmoke
the 2 de highest cause of cancer

but its too easy to hate me
you never met me

but..i know your not* a man

anyhow why im here
is yet another jury has found against govts
thinking to blame smoker's and smoking suppliers
for selling a poisen/ causing sickness..health costs etc
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110429-711529.html

[and trying to get yet more cash from..us smokers VIA LIES]
[noting 3/4 people CANNOT EVEN GET CANCER]

see previous posts
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4307&page=0

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpps/money/st.-louis-jury-finds-tobacco-companies-not-responsible-for-smokers'-health-costs-dpgonc-20110429-to_12987706

St. Louis Jury Finds Tobacco Companies Not Responsible for Smokers
...29 Apr 2011 ...

Jury Decides Philip Morris USA is Not Liable in Smoking Lawsuit
28 Feb 2003
http://www.tobacco.org/news/118674.html

Snus News & Other Tobacco Products:
Jury decides in favor of ...March 31, 2011

A jury today, March 28th
decided in favour of Philip Morris USA and RJ Reynolds
in the first Engle case to go to trial in Clay County, ...


http://snus-news.blogspot.com/2011/03/jury-decides-in-favor-of-philip-morris.html

our lives are made-up of moments
that we chose to bring into our reality

my point being
it was our choice
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4307&page=0

its not my fault if your making
what you feel are bad choices

we all get such feelings at times..thus learn from every choice
but learn more from the ones we dont like
than the ones that we do like

then..think of the bits you do like,
ignoring those we dont like

[feel as you will]
for good or ill..
its your choice alone..

you chose how you..

we chose to feel
as WE chose..not you not govt

WHAT WE CHOSE to do or not do
IS NONE OF GOVT's
NOR YOUR BUSINESS...

noted on lasts nights q&a
simon crean...dolling out more cream

to wit
auberry/woodonga getting 65 million for a..
...CANCER CLINIC

sems townsville got one[41 mil]
and we want one too

is anyone seeing a pattern here?
our smoking tax building...BUILDINGS

read on about this global SCAM
realise the why of these wars on smokers

[oh and china has just declared its first shot against
the one thrird chies that smoke..too]

Cancer: The beat of an ancient drum?
By: malterwitty
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/25/cancer-evolution-ancient-toolkit-genes

Forty years ago President Richard Nixon
declared a "war on cancer". [SOUND FAMILIOUR?

Yet in spite of $100bn (£60bn) of taxpayer-funded research
in the US alone,..

the cancer mortality rate remains little changed.

Dozens of much-hyped "cures"
developed by drug companies are either useless
or have marginal effect*.

but there is great..$$$
in building buildings

dont forget to note the cancer cures i posted previously
see the ban smoking topic link..previous posts
that cost less than 5 bucks