I think Abbott will recind that law if he wins - just to please one of his major sponsors.

Nairbe <" Alcohol does more damage socially and medically than tobacco, and on that if you do get lung cancer and die at 50 is it really costing the tax payer more than it would cost to keep you if you live to be 90?"

Not really true though... I looked it up on Wikipedia and found this information: "Tobacco is the single greatest cause of preventable death in the United States[3] and worldwide.[4] Tobacco use leads most commonly to diseases affecting the heart and lungs, with smoking being a major risk factor for heart attacks, strokes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema, and cancer (particularly lung cancer, cancers of the larynx and mouth, and pancreatic cancer)."

I have seen and nursed many patients who had a history of smoking, and quite a few live into their 70's and 80's - albeit with much worse health, and thus lifestyle, than the non-smokers of the same age.

While many retiree smokers stay home nursing their terrible chest problems and more, sucking on oxygen, the non-smokers are far more likely to be out there enjoying their retirement.
I know which retirement I would rather have!

The heavy drinkers don't live nearly as long- most alcoholics die quite young, unless they give it up early. Drinking alcohol in moderation doesn't lead to nearly as many health disorders as smoking,
whereas there is no safe level of smoking.

The tax revenue from tobacco smoking is obviously more lucrative to Governments than the medical costs of dealing with patients with smoke related disorders.
We need to make tobacco illegal as a start- then maybe later we can look at the other reasons for societies health problems

While I agree that branding plays a large part in tabaco sales, I don't think it has much influence on kids having thier first drag, which, by the way, is where they start from.

Most kids either steal cigarettes or at least steal to get cigarettes, or, they purswade older kids to get them for them. The brand doesn't matter at that point.

Now as for Tony Abbott recinding the laws, well, I would rather suggest he would give much needed consideration to the law and its possible ramifications to smokers, retailers and all those indirectly involved with the habit. In fact, this is what he has said, but nice try from the labor lobiests and spin doctors.

In reality, the last thing he, or we, for that matter want, is yet another failed 'grocery watch', or 'fuel watch', as the present government has a trophy case full of 'rushed policy' failures.

Lastly, profits from selling cigarettes is miniscule, in % terms, however, retailers sell them simply as a method of getting someone into thier store/garage in the hope they will buy something else.

What irritates me is the way the checkout chick drops everything to serve someone with tabaco, yet leaves those buying goods to feed thier families hanging.

Smoking is almost impossible to stop and even harder to police. There is a fine for smoking in the wrong place, but it's the police who have to police it, so most get off scott free as we don't have the resources.

I think the answer is to tax it beyond belief and make sure the purchaser is aware they are being 'ripped off' when they buy.

I also think that wefare money should not be able to be used for tabaco.

I for one think this would have a major impact on smoking, more so than plain packaging.

Tobacco does kill people, cars kill more, australian education kills common sense.
Everything kills something or other. All we can do is to reduce the financial burden. Education is the one that offers no revenue only cost, it just keeps costing us more & more. No benefit whatsoever.

suzeonline, Yes the out right figure is there but what if you add any death where alcohol was involved. Murder and violent bashings, car accidents and so on. The number grows, add to this the social problems i mentioned, domestic violence being one of the most common and consider the cost to society. Actually i favour making tobacco illegal and treating it like heroin but this won't happen so i only ask for some equality in the way they apply their taxes. hugh taxes should be charged on fast food to help pay for obesity as an example.

nairbe,

You are right to criticise the focus on one killer seemingly to the absence of others, however that represents a rare win by activists. Government was dragged reluctantly into initiatives to reduce the use of tobacco, especially by youth. Some political parties notably the LNP in Australia, obviously still have problems with anything that could reduce profit for big business. Similarly the LNP is opposed to limiting junk advertising during kiddy TV, seeing the liberty of large junk food manufacturers to make bigger profits as trumping concerns about the unconscionable psychological manipulation of minors and the growth of childhood obesity and crippling diseases like diabetes 2.

The LNP, some might point out, is similarly opposed to initiatives to reduce binge drinking by teens, despite obvious links to violence.

What helped in the case of tobacco was the information from medical science of no 'safe' dosage of the carcinogens released by smoking. On the other hand, it is abuse of the drug alcohol that causes problems, while millions can consume it without serious negative effects at all. There is a difference with alcohol where use in some circumstances, examples being operating machinery or driving and there are severe punishments and public humiliation is deliberately encouraged for that. The same thinking applies to workplaces. Alcohol is highly taxed but not to the same level as tobacco, which would not be politically acceptable.