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.