Tobacco is sold legally to adults, but cannot be advertised. This, we are told, is because of its known very serious adverse health effects and the fact that it is extremely addictive. What do we think about this?

Alcohol can also be addictive and have, if used to excess, adverse health and social effects.

Gambling can also be addictive and have, if done to excess, adverse social effects.

I see the difference as being that alcohol and gambling can [theoretically] be used in moderation by most people without adverse effects and presumably the law currently sees it this way.

How about junk food, particularly its potential to cause obesity [and perhaps also psychological problems such as ADHD] and the way advertisers deliberately target children and young people?

And how about what many people regard as inappropriately sexy clothing designed for young children?

What about car adverts apparently glorifying speed, allegedly one of the major killers on our roads?

And how about political advertising, particularly pre-election, where we seem to be offered much and finish up getting little or nothing?

Any more?

Quite a valid point Rex....

The Tobacco advert ban.

When it comes to childrens clothes, we get into a grey area, where it is VERY difficult to quantify 'damage' done to them by the impact of overly sexy clothes.

This is just one of a number of areas where 'culture' is probably the more important sanction than law. The problem then is that while we definitely have a culture, it is not taught, or.. is sacrificed on the alter of ethno/religious/cultural diversity.

I often use the illustration of a pacific Islander culture, where bare breasts are not 'immodest' but exposed thighs is. Point being, they have recognized cultural guidelines about where the lines are drawn regarding clothing and bodies.

The real danger in this marketing sexy clothes to children is where a concerted multi-pronged campaign is used such as with Bratz dolls.
-Cartoons.
-Dolls.
-Clothes

I think we should live adventurously and have a means of enforcing bans on such campaigns where it is deemed to be outside our values framework.
Its not difficult to identify values promoted in cartoons and dolls and clothes which when taken together constitute a formiddable attack on our boundaries.
For example, we could examine the values which underpin the Bratz cartoons interaction with adults and peers, and see if the actual message is "screw them, we will do what we like biatch".

Putting this in a Biblical Values context, "Honor your father and mother... that it may go well with you" would be a foundation we could appeal to for justifying the banning of a cartoon which actually promoted "disrespect for parents and adults".

We are all able to identify 'disrespect' so.. lets BAN the campaign and lets become a cesspool of censorship and pariah state :) and watch while the world catches up to our progressive groundbreaking ways.

Wrong question;
The correct question is;
Should the growing and import of tobacco be illegal ?

There are many less dangerous products than tobacco that are banned.
For instance the US has just banned Vegamite would you believe ?

Some people will say, oh you can't ban it, think of the illegal traffic
that will occur. The point that those that say that miss is that tobacco
is so bulky that to smuggle it in unoticed is virtually impossible.
At present is is imported by the multiple container load. I have seen
the containers at the factory.

Growing like they grow canibus would be very difficult.
The upshot is that the small amount smuggled and grown would be so
small that its effect on the nations health would be miniscule
compared to the current problem.

Another question is can Govt. afford NOT to allow tobacco consumption.

Taxes
$286.44 per kg for loose tobacco.

Production 18,785 tonnes

$5,380,775,400 in taxes excluding GST. $538,077,540 in GST on the tax.

Nearly $6 billion per year is any Govt. ever going to get serious ?

Wrong Question again;
Can the government afford not to ban tobacco ?

Medical cost of tobacco are greater than tax income.
That is if you want to be just mercenary.
The misery and family loss, how do you calculate that ?