I've recently returned from a trip to Italy, which is about ten years behind Oz in smoking reduction, and on several occasions my companions and I were annoyed and inconvenienced by having to breathe other people's foul-smelling smoke on stations, on the street -- and at bus stops. At Christmas we were visited by several smokers, and every time they came in after their outside indulgence, they brought in a waft of stench on their clothes and hair. It wasn't life-threatening; it wasn't traumatic; but I would have prevented it from happening if I could.

And this is what we are seeing here; people who object to a minor annoyance attempting to stop it. If there was some offsetting good resulting from that minor annoyance, then there would be some reason to prevent them; but since there isn't, it's quite reasonable to try and suppress it altogether. And while I have sympathy for those who are genuinely addicted, there are many medical interventions now available to prevent them emitting annoying substances in public.

Some people enjoy spitting on the floor. But we as a society have decided to view that with disapprobation, and now the few remaining people who want to do so usually seek out isolated spots where they won't offend or annoy anyone by doing it. Hopefully smokers will get the same message.

Thanks for the good article David.

I smoke.

I like how you informed that smokers pay 17 times the health costs imposed onto the public. I'd understand if they wanted to charge double, in a effort to re-educate people on the dangers of smoking but 17 times is too much.

Government sanctioned theft.
Just like the fuel tax.

So, I'm paying for other's doctors visits, for them and their kids.
The very same people that would turn their nose up at me actually benefit financially from me.

I was born early 70's, a teenager mid 80's.
Back then cigarette advertising was everywhere, and on everything, and government profited from that advertising both in tax on advertising revenue, tax on smoking and people taking up smoking from that advertising.
Both my parents smoked at that time, and nobody stopped me as a 12 or 13 year-old going into Coles and purchasing Peter Jackson 15's for 85cents.

Times changed.

From my early's 20's until my early 30's I'd get asked for identification, and felt a little insulted always being asked when as a young teenager nobody cared.

Recently my brother has given up cigarettes and started vaping.
He buys his stuff from overseas sellers on ebay as the government doesn't allow the sale of larger quantaties.
He thinks they are trying to stop people taking up vaping because they are protecting their income.

I believe in freedom and liberty for everyone, so I understand that my smoking affects others, and try to be respectful.
But non-smokers also have to be respectful of others right to freedom as well.
It was the government who directly profited when and since I first took up smoking.

The government cares about the income it makes from me, but come election time it sells me out and capitalises politically from the people who demand change.

So to the people who want change I ask -
Haven't you taken enough from me?
Why don't you just come and help yourself to my wallet like you have done for the last 25years?
- And then whinge at me too?

I am with Jon Jon
.
Smoking is a disgusting habit that intrudes on the personal space of those in the vicinity. The weed truncated my father's life by probably 20 years. At least he didn't smoke in our home so at 84 y.o. I am already ten years older than he was when the emphysema and heart problems linked to his habit caused his death.

Has the senator been reading too much Ayn Rand and accepting her rubbish as a sensible guide to life? Too many American have done that and as a consequence, in a German study of social justice in 31 OECD countries, the USA only rated better than Greece, Chile, Mexico and Turkey. Thatcher was wrong. Human beings are as much team oriented as individualists. Society does matter!

Hopefully the preference system will have a better outcome next Senate Election and the author will be a "oncer".

Well, this is a case of the bullies 'bullied'.
For years, non-smokers had to suffer the consequences of smokers' addiction to nicotine, the fact is that passive smoking is dangerous and under the harm principle, smoking should not be allowed where it affects the health of others.
Smoking is restricted, because running red lights is restricted, the health of the nicotine addict is not the main issue, but the health of the public is. Whining about the tax impost on smokers is ridiculous and the justification that passive smoking should be tolerated because the environment is already polluted is specious.
Consulting adults are free to smoke as much as they like, so long as non-consenting adults and children are not exposed to the toxic effects.

The author is really drawing a longbow.

No amount of tobacco taxes could ever cover the immense cost to our nation for the medical bills for smoking related illnesses.

There is no such thing as 'anti-smoking bullies' , who should instead be referred to as intelligent non-smokers!

I sure expect a higher standard of debate than this author has brought here today.

He was strong on assertions, on claiming non-existent rights and stirring of the metaphorical pot, but very weak on rational argument, persuasion and effective communication.

Speaking of persuasion, the dear Senator made clear at the outset and reinforced throughout that he is not open to discussion on this topic - his mind is closed and he is beyond rational consideration of contrary opinion.

Are these the ideal attributes of a Senator of the Commonwealth of Australia?

At least he is consistent - he consistently plays the role of the bully when discussing firearms and smoking. I wonder what other topics he brings his neanderthal, uncritical, antisocial, unintelligent, inflexible and loudmouthed approach to... no, I probably do not. I can happily get by without interacting with such as Senator David Leyonhjelm.

Thanks for a timely and soundly based article, David.

I am a non-smoker, but am appalled at the tactics of the anti- smoking bullies, particularly their ignorance and dishonesty. Yes, Suse, contrary to your baseless assertion, they are the uninformed and misinformed, whether or not they are intelligent.

My father was a heavy smoker from a young age, and never had a heart problem. His brother was a non-smoker, and died of a heart attack. One of my brothers was a non-smoker, and died of a heart attack. I had open heart surgery. Another brother smokes heavily, and has had no heart problem. Yet I constantly see TV ads warning that smoking causes heart attack. In my own experience this is untrue.

I'm all for smokers' rights and I think that they should be allowed to inhale all the tobacco smoke that they want to, however they have no right to exhale their noxious fumes anywhere near a person who does not wish to inhale poisons.

So I'd support a complete ban on the exhaling of tobacco smoke in any public place.

I like your way of thinking Is Mise :)

Leo Lane, there are strong genetic components and other lifestyle issues involved with heart attacks other than smoking.

Having worked as a hospital and community nurse for many years, I can assure you that there are many many smokers out there living a much worse life in their latter years than the non-smokers, so you are right not to smoke.

To my mind, I would prefer to enjoy my retirement with the more likely option of being able to go out and travel as I want, rather than sitting at home or in a nursing home sucking on an oxygen tube....

Smoking may not always kill you early at all, but you can linger on for years not being able to breath properly from emphysema, chronic obstructive airways disease or lung cancer.
All truly awful ways to linger on.

The anti smoking lobby (health etc ) claim their bullying is for our own health... So they hike the taxes, ostracise and use senseless overblown toxic language. So, if these latest round of price increase is for our own good, how come ' aping' is illegal, no sensitivities of the nearby public affected there, the pointless 'quit' hotline, is there any evidence that it has contributed to a decrease in smoking? Why is the increased price in tobacco not channeled into reducing the price of smoking sensation products, nicotine patches etc. at this rate, if the health lobby is so concerned for us, why are patches, gum etc not priced at $1:00 per pack?
Please link to the study that proves 'passive' smoking is any more harmful than diesel fumes.... Please point to a link that rejects David's assertion of the costs associated with smoking to the health budget is incorrect.
David, for this and a host of other of your policies has gained my decided first preference vote at the next election.

"The senator who defended the rights of smokers and said they were being disproportionately slugged through tobacco taxes has confirmed his party accepted donations from tobacco giant Phillip Morris.

Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm confirmed the donation to Fairfax Media and said while he could not recall the exact amount given to his party by the tobacco company, it was in the “tens of thousands”. “We are very pleased to receive the donations and we hope to receive them from the other tobacco companies,” he said.

I (myself) oppose all forms of "smoking". I have done this since about eight years of age. Wearing a "heart" (like I was from the Heart Foundation) I threw my parents packet of cigarettes on the roof - and they stupidly went onto the roof to get them.

It wasn't until about over 5 years ago, both of my parents where in their car on a freeway, my dad felt uncomfortable and then went to a local GP. He collapsed and had to be taken to the Royal Adelaide Hospital. Imagine if he had crashed and killed himself or other people. Freedom of choice? Or an addiction?

He thanked me afterwoods when I went to see him in hospital - and said he should have listened to me earlier.

I believe we should phase out smoking, by a certain year (if you turn 18 by then) and other people can continue to buy the products who are still smoking - but at the same time encourage people to visit their local GP to help them quit smoking - a toxic product.

To those who say "a phase out" will simply push the product underground, well let's get the shovels and spades out now and save lives.

Hey David maybe the Smokers can defend themselves with their concealed weapons, if the nasty bullies pick on them to much.

Bravo David! More people than you know or can imagine (despite the number of people commenting here that illustrate your point perfectly and who I hope you can just ignore) are behind you. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I may as well admit that I'm an ex-smoker, I smoked till I was 26 then one day a friend took me to Sydney Uni. with him whilst he got a Luger pistol x-rayed.
While there I asked his friend who was doing the x-ray if it was OK to smoke, he said that he would prefer me not to and then shewed me the human lung (in a jar) of a heavy smoker.
I had a two ounce tin of Log Cabin fine cut that was half empty and it stayed that way till it crumbled to dust, I quit 'cold turkey'.

I did smoke one cigarette after quitting, about a year later in 1961.
It was on the way back from a trip to rural Victoria and the mate I was with had said that he'd have me smoking again before the trip was over, it was the last night and we were camped by the Hume Highway.
Don rolled a smoke with loving care and just before he lit it I reached over and took it, "This's the one I'll smoke" I said, and he said "You bastard, that's the best smoke I ever rolled!!"

I lit and had a drag from a 'Benson & Hedges' tailor made in 1979, then threw it in the fire as the taste was disgusting and nothing like tobacco.
The smell of a good tobacco can still bring pleasant memories, particularly something like 'Erinmore' Flake.

Thank goodness we have someone like David to protect us from bullies.

Could he please now turn his venom on to people who bully us into driving on the same side side of the road, turning our phones off in concerts, talking softly in quiet carriages and libraries and pooing and peeing in lavatories rather than where we are when the urge arises.

Smokers don't have any more right to practice their repulsive habit than I have the right to thieve another's possessions, unhindered by social standards.
When I see people, particularly teenagers, with cigarettes hanging out of their lips I see people attempting to be conformist followers of fashion in attempting to portray the image of a smart, sophisticted adopter of maturity.
People have the right to smoke if they want to, but not to assume that the right extends to their being able to inflict their filthy practice on others.
I don't feel the need to bully them; just to tell them,'if you don't smoke near me, I won't fart near you'.

Emotionally, I say "kill them all!", but unfortunately I cannot find a consistent moral rationale to do so, not even for taxing them - so in that regard I agree with the senator.

Nor do I find the argument on [their own] health grounds convincing: most people spend their last years as a burden on the health/care system anyway, so by dying younger and ridding themselves and ourselves of their bodies sooner, smokers actually cost less, not more.

Anyone should be able to do whatever they like, including poison themselves, unless by doing so they hurt others - and smokers do hurt others and cause suffering to their neighbours, emitting a very tangible and disturbing substance. It is therefore (unlike the tax) justified to demand zero emissions, that no matter how they achieve so (or whether they can), no tobacco is spilled out of the premises of smokers (or of owners of premises that allow it).

Similarly, littering streets and public areas with butts should be enforced as a serious criminal offence with jail terms for repeat offenders and community-work of cleaning up the streets and parks after them for first offenders. This is the only reason why I currently object to storm-water harvesting.

Finally, non-smoking should be a condition for immigration, as part of the character test: no one who smoked in the last 10 years should be able to receive an Australian visa of any kind and while permanent-residents await citizenship (should be for 10 years), there should be a condition on their visa that they must submit to random blood/urine/breath tests and if found smoking they would be expelled immediately. While this is not my intention, I think that this move would also be supported by the anti-Muslim lobby because Arab males have one of the highest percentage of smoking in the world.

I think that there is a far more powerful urge underpinning the want of some to "smoke" than just the mere allure and addiction of tobacco.

And that is the urge to seek an elevated state of mood, a mild state change if you will or a different sense of being, wherein the way you feel and the sort of thoughts that one has changes, if even but for a short passage of time.

For some, this can be a quiet glass of carcinogenic alcohol at the end of the day when other responsibilities have ended. For others, for sure, it can be a floundering in full blown substance addiction. Of course, for some, but not all, this can be accomplished by "healthy" means. But whether it is sport, prayer, a big fat reefer, or whatever it is in the mix that does it for you personally, the want for a taste of euphoria every so often in no small way unites most of us at times.

The need and want to be happy is a very powerful motivator and the absence thereof is one gateway to substance abuse. In some cases, in reality this is a need to self medicate. Thus, other ways to address this issue could include an affordable for all response to medical alternatives.

(i.e. instead of a big box of nicobate costing between $24.99 to $38 and the like)

Suffice to say that in my view the economic mechanism ought to be prevented from gouging the wallets of those afflicted with addiction.

This practice of gouging the wallets of the afflicted is as offensive as "safety net" individuals having to buy their food from publicly listed, foreign owned companies.

Unfortunately, the absurd price of cigarettes is little more than a sop for the bleeding hearts on the one hand and a parasitic money grab by the immoral guvment PoliTicks on the other.

Other alternatives could include members' clubs

(as once there was)

where people who do like to smoke can also enjoy themselves. Surely common sense dictates that both these ends can be achieved?

But just to return to this matter of “happiness”

(and from the perspective of monitoring/maintaining/enhancing the prerequisites of “happiness” to fortify one's Self against the “slippery slope” of substance and other forms of abuse)

Much could be said obviously so I'll just flip and chuck in my “2 cents” worth.

One way to monitor, possibly stabilise and even restore “happiness” would just be a broader application of that which is already practised in the education sector, which is that they are, at least in theory, very sensitive to any disturbances in the self esteem levels of those over whom they watch and that can lead all the way to “Child Protection” cases.

(Yes folks, it is a reasonable bet that well before the kiddies start banging their heads on the wall for relief that there'll be positive and assertive intervention and the less published and broadcast than it ought to have been (but on Compass) “sit in” by religious persons resulting in Police attendance at that wretched t.abbott's office is to be applauded, as if the guvment treated a member of the school community in the way in which they treat the children of others then they would be binned for sure, assuming some of the parents didn't get to him first. )

To hear some people suggest that the matter of child abuse and detention is just so complicated that others simply fail to understand and should hold their tongues is laughable, and is but part of the veil that draws down around the worst of the guvment 's “Evil” behaviour.

In Race Science, it is not that noting certain differences is the problem per se, but rather when these differences are used to ferment views such as:

" ... we are superior therefore we should treat those that we consider to be inferior to us in ways other than the way that we treat our own, or indeed other than the way in which we would like others to treat us is.

For Adults too, perhaps the Child within all of Us, caring is required in the mix.

Yuyutsu,

You "assume" that smoking really only affects the individual and "assume" there won't have impacts on others - and to put it simply, this is a load of garbage. I know from experience.

I have Epilepsy and I take (seven) medications per week, (which also includes an Epilepsy related bone condition). Subsidies total $10,000 per year. One medication around $5000 and lasts for three weeks at a time.

Read what can happen in real life. I know because I have seizures. One year I had five large seizures in a weekend, I couldn't walk without a walking frame - spending nine days in hospital. I needed Ambulance officers, doctors, a Neurologist, Nurses, a Physiotherapist (to get back to walking), food staff and cleaners for toilets (and no doubt other staff) - all costing a fortune (probably more tax than I pay).

Read the following and see why smoking is 100% stupid and why people should stay away from it - and if using the product get off it.

I get annoyed when I read totally misinformed comments about smoking. People underestimate the damage and costs.

http://epilepsy.med.nyu.edu/living-with-epilepsy/epilepsy-and-lifestyle/smoking-and-epilepsy#sthash.uPT8khJO.dpbs

From the site: Consider what happened to a patient and her daughter. The patient, a 35-year-old woman with absence and tonic-clonic seizures, shared an apartment with her lively 5-year-old daughter. One evening, the woman had a tonic-clonic seizure while smoking. When she awoke in the hospital, she had first-degree burns on a large part of her arms and body. Her daughter suffered severe smoke inhalation and brain damage. The girl, now 18 years old, is severely retarded, uses a wheelchair, and is in an institution. The woman stopped smoking and went through a long emotional process of dealing with what happened.

Epilepsy can come on at any time - including at ages like 35. Vehicles also put out a lot of "smoke" - but we won't be getting rid of those will we? I know as I can't drive having Epilepsy. Waiting to cross at a street corner, with so many cars there one day - I felt totally ill.

Dear Nathan,

<<You "assume" that smoking really only affects the individual and "assume" there won't have impacts on others>>

I wrote exactly the opposite. Care to read what others write before commenting back?

Yuyutsu,

I do read other people's comments - otherwise I would not have referred to yours.

"Anyone should be able to do whatever they like, including poison themselves, unless by doing so they hurt others." These are your words not mine.

The comment above (from you) however is an "assumption", because if you look at the story I mentioned, the woman in question clearly had a "belief" that such an horrendous activity, (like what happened in the story) would never occur. If she did, she would not be smoking - and the story refers to how the mother quit smoking, after the incident - being emotionally affected and the impacts left on her daughter.

So a belief, is just that - a belief and not necessarily a fact. So with that in mind people should not "be able to do whatever they like."

So lets properly look at some of issues that directly relate to smoking and the impacts on our health system and others (like in the story I mentioned) - based on facts. From the Cancer Council of Australia for example:

"Overall, health care costs have increased at a rate exceeding the Consumer Price Index. This is due to a number of factors, including the availability of more expensive and complex procedures, resulting in patients consuming more resources."

So with this in mind we need to consider the need for services for people affected by smoking and their increasing costs in areas like:

1. The provision of 24 hour Ambulance and emergency services;
2. Specialists needed, in which patients may need to see various;
3. Subsidised medications like the costs I referred to;
4. Ongoing costs to institutions like the article I referred to;
5. Economic and public service costs with people in hospital;

Finally references to immigration, I would argue that is the real form of "bullying", compared to those who advocate against smoking. I have health conditions myself and believe prevention is better than cure.

Dear Nathan,

Certainly, prevention is better than cure. Therefore, don't smoke.

I believe we already agree that smoking is extremely bad for one's health as well as for others who happen to be around the smoker.

I also believe that we agree on the high costs incurred by the health system when dealing with the aftermath of smoking. However, I think that this is offset by the fact that smokers die earlier (and dead people cost zero to the health system). Almost everyone in the West spends their last few years costing heaps to the health system: ambulances, specialists, medications, institutions, hospitals. Smokers simply do it earlier than others, then they are gone, good riddance.

Regarding immigration, you call it "bullying", but I call it self-defence: I just want to prevent entry of more people who would be likely to emit this disturbing and harmful substance into our environment. By forcing me to breath that poison, they would be the bullies, not me, so I believe that it's reasonable and moral for me to want to nip that in the bud.

Perhaps what we don't agree about, is whether people should be allowed to harm themselves, knowingly or otherwise. It seems that you think that those who are about to harm themselves should be forcibly stopped by the state, while I say that the state should have no place in our lives unless we voluntarily invite them in.

If you want the state to protect you against your own foolish actions, then by all means tell it that this is your wish, then sign off to them your freedom to behave foolishly and enter into such a contract whereby the government can stop you in your tracks. However, myself and others have not signed away our freedom, so any attempt to stop us from harming ourselves, but especially from doing whatever [is not really harmful, but] the government believes is harmful to us, is sheer immoral violence.

I defend Yuyutsu's statement "Anyone should be able to do whatever they like, including poison themselves, unless by doing so they hurt others".

I think much the same way - People are entitled to live however they choose unless it affects someone else in an adverse manner - when it does something has to change.

That's the fine line between freedom and tyranny.

Smoking does affect non-smokers and in a perfect world they shouldn't have to put up with it, ever.

But say I'm allergic to seafood and cant stand it's smell.
Does that mean seafood shops should be banned because I don't like the smell when I walk past?
I think for everything that exists in the world some people would oppose it.

So if you don't like the smell of my cigarette, too bad.

If smelling it affects your health, then we have a difficult discussion because by that ideology trucks and cars should be banned so that people who don't drive them aren't affected by them.

If you're forced to breathe in my smoke, then you have cause to complain and I'd be obliged to accept your complaint and change my behavior.

Smokers already pay a huge price for their own right to freedom and liberty, and government has taken advantage of us financially, and for political gain.

Smokers die, Non-smokers put up with our smoking and the government profits.

Morally if government and non-smokers seek change in the way society treats smoking, and seeks to stop people taking it up and help others quit, there's more it could do rather than leave us fighting amongst ourselves, while it makes off with bundles of cash.

If this is a topic within society marked for change, governments shouldn't be getting rich off it.

Excess revenue from smoking tax should go back in cheap patches (a box of patches should be a few dollars max), cheap medication, better educational programs.

Victimising smokers, who government has profited off nicely, as well as profited from advertising (historically) which only helped people take up smoking and become addicted, isn't right either.

Its interesting to see the rise of obesity in the general population roughly coinciding with the fall in smoking. Seems we need to have an oral fixation of some sort... day will come, if not here already, when obese people will have the control freaks breathing down their necks, that is the control freaks this article refers too.. if they can find it amongst all the fat...
Seriously, smoking is just another form of air pollution like motor vehicle & aircraft exhaust, chimney smoke, etc... IF we are serious about stamping out smoking, then stop driving anything that contaminates the air or encouraging the use of internal combustion engines commonly found in lots of motor vehicle transport as an example.
I'm sure the amount of fumes or exhaust smoke ejected into the earth's atmosphere is far far above what smokers contribute over the face of the earth.. its just that individuals who choose to smoke are "easy to pick on".
One's right to smoke is and should be respected, just don't contaminate another s right to breathe "clean" air.

Posted by Rojama, Friday, 2 January 2015 11:47:57 AM

" ... I'm sure the amount of fumes or exhaust smoke ejected into the earth's atmosphere is far far above what smokers contribute over the face of the earth.. its just that individuals who choose to smoke are "easy to pick on". One's right to smoke is and should be respected, just don't contaminate another s right to breathe "clean" air. ... "

I seem to remember facts from the morgue being quoted as stating that the lungs of a dead packet per day country smoker look better than the lungs of a non-smoker who lives in a high air pollution city.

Perhaps someone can clarify that.

Yuyutsu,

I put your logic akin to the "stolen generation".

That being people who think they have the right to do "whatever they want" and 'take away' or 'steal' others, like the first story I mentioned.

1. A five year old girl who suffered severe smoke inhalation and brain damage and at 18 years of age, is severely retarded, uses a wheelchair, and is in an institution; - and in another case:

2. A 24 year old male, was killed in a road matter, after a man aged over 90 (with serious visual impairment) hit the 24 year old in the car incident.

In relation to the first incident, the five year old girl was "stolen" in the context that her mother will not be able to see her in the same light compared to if (her daughter) had grown up without the medical conditions in question - and also in regard to the fact her daughter is in an institution, with her daughter having restricted access to the free world - and:

In relation to the second incident the 24 year old male has been killed and has, had his life "stolen" (and taken away due to death) and "stolen" in the context that his family will never be able to see him again, that being now or into the future.

So those who think they have the right to "do whatever they want" - all people, (but more to those may be likely to put others at risk of harm) - need to sit down calmly and have a good look at themselves.

As one lawyer put it on television today - lawyers are becoming more controlling in our society - and I believe it is up to our society to manage society better ourselves, as best as we can - not the legal system or courts.

Dear Nathan,

My original statement to which you referred was: "Anyone should be able to do whatever they like, including poison themselves, unless by doing so they hurt others."

Where has the second half of it disappeared in your last post?

Yuyutsu,

"Anyone should be able to do whatever they like, including poison themselves, unless by doing so they hurt others."

The problem with your argument, is the use of the word "unless" and this is a factor that with regard to smoking in principle cannot be guaranteed - in terms of impacts on others.

The word unless is used to "introduce a case in which a statement being made is not true or valid."

So let's say one of my family members was to die from smoking related illness - I am supposed to not be "hurt" by that person's actions?

Smoking is not a two way street - it hurts others - and there is no "unless" about it.

Dear Nathan,

<<Smoking is not a two way street - it hurts others - and there is no "unless" about it.>>

Very true, and so I wrote.

(unless smokers find a way to produce zero emissions so that no one outside their circle is hurt)

Yuyutsu,

"(unless smokers find a way to produce zero emissions so that no one outside their circle is hurt)"

"Unless" gets brought into the picture again, which is used to "introduce a case in which a statement being made is not true or valid."

So it's not about producing zero emissions - as smoking itself is damaging to the human body and potentially other people (in multiple ways), zero emissions or not.

So an argument on smoking based on "unless" is an ongoing circle - which achieves absolutely nothing.

Dear Nathan,

Yes, smoking is damaging to the human body and that smoke damages others who come in contact with it, hence a reason to demand zero emissions.

I suppose that if you kill yourself, then your mother would be very sad, but she may also be sad if you fail your university degree or refuse to enrol there in the first place; or if you select a girlfriend/wife that's not to her liking. Do you then suggest making it illegal to make your Mom sad?

<<(in multiple ways)>>

Please list them, so they are all openly on the table.

Yuyutsu,

"(unless smokers find a way to produce zero emissions so that no one outside their circle is hurt)"

1. Smokers have not found a way to produce zero emissions, so that no one outside the circle is hurt - this is based on science.

2. Smokers have not found a way to produce zero emissions, so that no one "inside" their circle is hurt (like an unborn child for example) - and this is also based on science.

So an argument based on "unless" in relation to smoking, is an ongoing cycle like putting washing constantly in my dryer - (and no I don't have one), but if I did, eventually with so much use, it's going to overheat, turn itself off or eventually break down.

By the way, I'm sure many appreciate those who did invent the dryer - American inventor, Mr J. Ross Moore, in 1938 and industrial designer, Brooks Stevens who developed the first electric dryer with a glass window in the 1940s.

I'm not so sure however, for the large numbers of people who are currently dying from smoking related illness or have been left with permanent damage by the actions of others - due to smoking.

So using "unless" in relation to other cases you mentioned, is nothing more than a simplistic "denial" of the issue, that being the realities of smoking - and why it should not be part of society.

However if we are going to look at this issue simplistically - we could look at the following site which some would argue as being humorous:

http://www.safetysign.com/images/catlog/product/large/K1342.png

Dear Nathan,

I am saying "unless" because it is none of my business whether or not smokers can find practical ways to produce zero emissions outside their own circle. Thus, I leave it open: if they can and do find a way, then good on them - otherwise they may not produce that smoke and other by-products.

As for their inner circle, I disagree - they should have the legal freedom to poison each other and their unborn too. If you (like myself) hate smoking, then don't enter the womb of a smoker (and if you do, then you only got yourself to blame)!

You don't need to convince me that doing so is wrong - however, the state has no moral authority to enforce righteousness and prevent sin. If it were in fact serious about preventing sin, then the first thing it would do is to dismantle itself!

I agree with the author completely. In my view not one government has ever asked any smoking company NOT to add nicotine and other chemicals which cause the foul smell and also make the person an addict. The companies do this under the heading of 'Flavouring and Moisturizing agents' . I have been smoking cigars for the last 21 years. I am yet to be an addict of it. I havent smoked one since november and I do not 'NEED' to. Cigarettes contain 40%tobacco at most and the rest is the yuck that goes in it! On the other hand, cigars are made up of pure fermented cigar tobacco dry air cured. No chemicals added.
Cigars are hand rolled by poor craftsmen and women who wish to make an honest living abd put dinner on the table for their families and try to put the kids thru school. These are good christian country people who take pride on earning their livlihood and not beg like our neighboring Indonesians and othe mideast refugee producing countries do. May be by hiking the taxes and reducing the smoking area we are on the verge of importing refugees into australia. I am sure all the puritans would love to hear that.
In Newzealand their people are allowed to grow ten kilos of tobacco per year for personal use but we in australia are prohibited by a rule made by the then aristocrats. If people were allowed to grow their own then they would not be addicted. Did you know that the most addictive substance is sugar!! I have certain ideas which will help all sides to this debate and I think I will suggest it to the hon.senator.

I have a phobia of tobacco smoke. I absolutely hate it.
When I was a kid the adult smokers in my family would regularly smoke around me, my sister, and our cousins, and yell at us if we ever asked them not to. My maternal grandmother would actually yell at us if we did anything to avoid breathing in her cigarette smoke, such as changing seats, covering our faces, waving the smoke away, or leaving the room. As a child I had bronchitis a couple of times, an ear infection, and chronic sinus problems. When I was six-years-old I had to go to hospital to have an operation to have my adenoids drilled.

These days if I am in any way exposed to cigarette smoke all those childhood memories come flooding back, and I start subconsciously grinding my teeth.

Regarding the supposed "right" to smoke, I actually believe that no such right exists. I believe that for the following two reasons:

(1) Smoking pollutes the air

(2) The tobacco industry is riddled with human trafficking, child labour, and deforestation.

For evidence of the latter reason, check out these links:

http://www.unfairtobacco.org/en

https://plan-international.org/about-plan/resources/news/child-tobacco-pickers-poisoned-reveals-report/

http://www.plan.org.au/Our-Work/Blog/20140612-indias-tobacco-girls.aspx

http://www.traffickingproject.org/2010/08/tobaccos-other-dirty-secret.html

http://www.laborrights.org/sites/default/files/publications-and-resources/Tobacco%20Position%20Paper.pdf

There are plenty more.

Heck, even Malawi's tobacco workers union is calling for a phasing out of the tobacco industry. Malawi grows a lot of the world's tobacco.

http://laborrights.org/sites/default/files/docs/TOAWUM_letter_FINAL%20w%20logos.pdf