Although I detest smoking , I do not argue that it should be banned. This is not because of the alleged civil liberty of persons to smoke , as I do not believe that such a right exists , but because a ban would be resisted by the addicts and the pushers , using the same types of specious arguments that have appeared in some of the above posts . There would be illegal suppliers of banned tobacco , but this [ by itself ] is not an argument against a ban . People commit breaches of all laws , but the laws are still needed , with suitable penalties for breaches . My reason is that it is probably just not worth the expense and trouble of enforcing a ban . One of the saddest features of the smoking addiction is that the pushers seek out the most poorly educated and financially poor citizens as addicts . Even more aggresssive smoking restrictions and anti - smoking advertisements should continue . Any loss of revenue from smoking taxes would be more than compensated by the savings in health expenditure .

Its a furphy to suggest that smokers are costing society all this
money. Govts earn many billions a year from nicotine addicted
citizens, so smokers more then pay their way.

From a cost point of view, some of the most expensive people
to maintain, are those who live on a pension to a ripe old age
of 95 or whatever. The smoker who dies 30 years earlier, will
actually save Govts money.

I don't smoke and I am opposed to a ban. Government is already far too involved in the private lives of citizens and we should be demanding a retreat from, not further invasion of, people's privacy. I am happy that more than enough has been done as a deterrent and smokers should be given a little freedom back.

The sedentary moaners who consume processed food are the ticking time bombs for serious chronic health problems gained early in life, such as Diabetes 2. They will get sick early and last long. They also come from generations that are used to consuming medical care to the max, frequently visiting doctors and demanding scripts.

You really have to feel sorry for smokers though, they are social outcasts and are taxed outrageously. It seems that there have to be groups to pick on and there is a broad range of victims available, from 4X4 owners through to university students (many are jealous of the young). Even people who wear hats cop a serve from some.

Australia is becoming, make that has become, a nation of busybodies whose recreational pastime is looking over their neighbour's fence for something to complain about. I also detect the growth of envy, which would really top off the Whining Oz as a serial nuisance and health hazard.

Let our motto be 'Vive et sine vivere', live and let live.

I may have been deleted or may have hit the wrong key, thought I answered rechtub.
OUG, lets call it game set match bloke,tried very hard, in fact gave it up and tried again later.
But lie? attributed or said to be how can than be different.
Now you, and cornflower put the point about personal freedoms.
17% who smoke 83% who do not, then rechtubs is right? let those who can not pay pay, the sick and unwell victims.
Here is the reason OUG I will no longer read your posts, this is a question, one I have put two answers for here.
TAX it out of existance, or ban it, either way for me it has to be one or the other.
For you? seemingly no tax and leave the bills to us.
Others without doubt have views different than both of us, one may have an answer we do not see.
But freedom to debate any issue without being called for lies that do not exist are a must.

If you're serious about banning tobacco you must also have to ban alcohol, which is far more socially destructive substance.

Then we can move onto removing unhealthy foods from our diet and impose some sort of mandatory exercise regime on the population.

The restrictive bans implemented to date are more about legislating against individual behaviour rather than out of some higher moral purpose.

Some political parties are still accepting donations from Tobacco Industries and Nick Minchin's own website used to promote the notion that dangers from passive smoking was a fraud.

Government revenue taken from smokers should be quarantined and used to build "Smokers-only" Hospitals.