News that Sydney Uni has banned smoking on its campuses entirely has caused me to wonder whether we have gone too far in stigmatising smoking. http://bit.ly/x1zmNI.

Whilst at one stage while a uni student I occasionally smoked a pipe (that only ever contained tobacco), I haven't touched tobacco for years, hate being around cigarette smoke, and think that we would be healthier if no-one ever smoked.

However, that doesn't mean that I expect everyone else to follow suit.

I agree that smoking should be banned indoors - basically as a mark of respect to others - but I don't have a problem with smoking outside. The health effects of slipstream smoking even indoors is minute, and out of doors I suspect the particulates from my diesel 4X4 do much more damage than wafted tobacco fumes.

Part of the price we pay for living in a community is that what others do will have some impact on us that may at times be less than pleasant.

So corralling Sydney uni smokers into a few outdoor ghettos seems to me to go beyond what is reasonable.

Graham I get the impression that the response has moved from protecting non-smokers from unwanted exposure to cigarette smoke to trying to using whatever means are available to make it difficult for smokers to try and force them to give up.

I'd personally rather see smoking disappear but don't want the kind of society that imposes too many public values on private actions.

Would like to see a way of stopping the littering which so many smokers seem to be so fond of though. Cigarette but's don't belong on the road, in gardens etc.

R0bert

I smoked while a navy pilot,it helped stop the hands shaking, but had to give it up. Too expensive when I was paying my own way through my last 4 units at uni.

Graham, your 4X4 must be an absolute heap, if it comes anywhere near challenging the particulates coming out of Brisbane buses, or some of those run by at least some private suburban bus companies on school routs. Isn't it interesting that we find those protesting most about others smoking, are the very ones who champion those stinking buses.

I don't even notice normal cigarette smoke today, but do find that some of the heaver roll your own tobaccos emit a delicious fragrance. If I weren't so strong I could be tempted to try them, with possibly disastrous financial effect for a retired pauper.

Still I don't find the smokers, or even the buses half as annoying as the do gooders who want to force their opinions on everyone.

With their backing of so much bull, [AGW anyone], I'm not surprised that unis should do this.

It is just a step too far, in my view.

I used to smoke. I gave up a number of times, last time for good. And I'm pleased that I did.

But I'm with Hasbeen...

>>I don't find the smokers, or even the buses half as annoying as the do gooders who want to force their opinions on everyone<<

On a slightly more realistic note, I seem to recall that my school had a very strict no-smoking policy.

But it also had bike sheds.

<< News that Sydney Uni has banned smoking on its campuses entirely… >

But they haven’t banned it entirely.

From the linked article:

< In recognition that some people may still wish to smoke, a number of areas on each campus have been designated as smoking areas. These are easily located and are within short walking distance of all major buildings. >

Graham, you write:

<< So corralling Sydney uni smokers into a few outdoor ghettos seems to me to go beyond what is reasonable. >>

It is totally fair and reasonable for smoking to be confined to designated smoking areas, IMO.

Ciggarete smaoke would have to be one of, if not the only form of legal littering.

I think that perhaps the time has come to totally ban all smoking anywhere outside the private residence. Leave your home, no smoking allowed.

This would solve the argument on whether or not passive smoking is harmful, it would save millions on health care, would assits equality within the workplace and would not be something that could be legally challenged, unlike the plain packaging. but of cause, it would cost the government dearly in lost revenues.

I was a dedicated Camel plain smoker for 25 years & I gave up because I could feel it slowing me down. I don't subscribe to the claims that passive smokers are at such a risk. Walking down a street one inhales way more bad gases than a smoker. Dope is affecting bystanders but not a cigarette. It's a hysteria alright. A histeria which contributes to the economic decline for nothing more than pleasing some confused academics.

Dear Graham,

The dangers of smoking are well known, yet
plenty of people still smoke. Similarly
man decline to use automobile seat belts,
even though the practice drastically
reduces the chance of death or serious injury
in an accident. Many complain about and often
exceed the speed limits, although they save
lives and prevent severe head injuries each year.

Millions eat themselves into cholesterol-induced
heart disease, and still encourage their children
to eat junk food. Many more become addicted to
alcohol, barbiturates, cocaine, heroin, and other
drugs whose dangers are common knowledge.

Having exposed themsleves to the dangers of injury
and disease, they then turn to the medical
institutions for help when the damage is done.

It would be much cheaper, and far more effective,
for individuals and society to make changes that
would prevent disease from occuring in the first
place. The recognition of this fact is gradually
leading to devoting resources by governments and
other institutions to devoting resources to
prevention, as well as to cure.

This step taken by the university is a step in the
right direction. It is time individuals' realised
the importance for maintaining their own health
instead of leaving it up to the doctors to cure them.

Tobacco is a drug that kills so many each year through
diseases such as lung cancer and emphysema. If this
act by the university will stop and make someone think
before they smoke - it will be worth it.

Electronic cigarettes pose no passive risk to others, and contain similar ingredients to nicotine replacement therapies, which have less than 2% the mortality of tobacco products. Australian governments, with their great wisdom and foresight, have quickly moved to ban them. Morons.

*Ciggarete smaoke would have to be one of, if not the only form of legal littering.*

Not really, Rehctub. All those empty cans and drunks, lying around
in a town like Cairns, are not a pretty sight. Think of the
violence related to alcohol, so would you ban that too?

I have to agree with Graham, we are becoming a wowser society.

The problem with nicotine and addiction, is that its far more
complicated then most people understand. So the well meaning think
that banning this or that will solve it. It won't, not for hard core
addicts.

There are a few experts around, like Renee Bittoun from Sydney University,
and a handful of others, who understand the neurochemistry
behind it all and its quite complex.

Our brains are not all wired exactly the same. The person who goes
into deep depression for instance, suffers from a neurochemistry
imbalance, where they simply can't help themselves. Its not much
different with some hardcore smokers. Many are people with
schyzophrenia, or ADHD. Its all tied up with homeostasis and the
balance between serotonin, cortisol and dopamine. Nicotine fiddles
with dopamine levels and dopamine is tied up with most addictions.

So the more informed in places like America, are starting to see
addiction more like a disease, rather then a character weakness.
Genetics plays a role in all of this. So rather then more bans
and adverts, what we really need is more funding at the cutting edge
of science, to gain a further understanding of how we deal with
the brain chemistry issues

I respect people's right to smoke. Having said that I would like the people who smoke to respect my equal right to enter into public places (even outdoor public places) without ending up in hospital, having suffered a severe asthma attack as a result of exposure to cigarette smoke. I have become a virtual recluse, only venturing out when absolutely necessary and when out, needing to be hyper-vigilant because the toll of people's cigarette smoke is no longer tolerable. Being in hospital affects my child who has to suffer the consequences and the disruption to life that causes.

So whilst I respect a person's right to smoke, I would like to see it banned in all public places, inside and outside in order to allow others to be free from the effects that it can cause. Many smokers think that their smoke will not affect others because they are outside, but this is not true. It only takes a slight exposure for a split second to send a person who reacts like I do to hospital.

Tired

All good points, Lexi, concerning the harm we voluntarily inflict upon ourselves. But it doesn't get us closer to the key issue that Graham raised, which focusses on what we can - or rather should - do about it.

I don't consider seat belts or speed limits to fall into the same category, by the way. Seat belt rules include passengers, who could be endangered by the actions of the driver. Speed limits too, are not primarily for the protection of the driver, but the public who might be put at risk without them. School Zones, for example.

Closer to the mark is this:

>>Millions eat themselves into cholesterol-induced heart disease<<

They choose to do so. Junk food is not illegal. Should we make it so? Should it be taxed, to make it less affordable, in the hope that people will move on to raw carrots or quinoa?

>>Having exposed themsleves to the dangers of injury and disease, they then turn to the medical institutions for help<<

Would you deny them access to medical services? It would be a form of punishment, I guess, which has been known to have a deterrent effect.

>>It would be much cheaper, and far more effective, for individuals and society to make changes that would prevent disease from occuring in the first place.<<

Indeed it would. And the most effective form of prevention would be to make alcohol, fatty foods and cigarettes illegal, and use law enforcement to ensure compliance. Since we don't have the collective will to achieve that end, education would appear to be the most appropriate means to address the issue.

Turning ordinary people into social pariahs by means of creeping legislation is, in my view, not a satisfactory approach.

Dear Pericles,

Many of our contemporary ailments - although
they often cannot be cured, they can be prevented.
Unfortunately, modern medical practice focuses
primarily on the treatment rather than the
prevention of disease - on surgery for failed hearts
rather than preventing habits that led to those hearts
to fail in the first place. We've grown accustomed to
the idea that when we become sick, doctors will make us well.
In all too many cases, however, the truth is that we
make ourselves sick, and the doctors can do little
or nothing to make us better.

A prime example of this is tobacco use. As I stated
earlier the dangers of smoking are well known, yet
many people still smoke. My point was - if we try to
make this practice socially unacceptable and a medically
unsound cultural habit - perhaps many more people will
eventually get the message. If that's inhibiting
someone's "rights," so be it.

"If that's inhibiting
someone's "rights," so be it."

Lexi where do you stop with that? It's a dangerous approach that once accepted seems to know few if any limits (on the rights of others). I strongly support the idea that the government should stay out of peoples choices except where there are clear impacts on non-consenting participants and any government involvement should be the minimum required.

Governments once on the track of regulating peoples lives don't seem to have the ability to limit themselves to what's essential, they keep finding way's to expand their reach.

It's probably fair to say that a lot of smoking, excess drinking, bad eating and other unhealthy practices are to some degree stress related. Smokers regularly talk about the calming effect of smoking and comfort eating seems to be a big factor to many. Eg both practices are for many symptoms of deeper issues.

Those who want more regulation in peoples lives could perhaps pay more attention to the stress that creates in peoples lives and the likely consequential health impacts of that regulation.

R0bert

Come on Lexi, a damn sight more people have suffered because of a car or an implement, controlled by a drunk, or a drug addict, hit them than have ever been hurt by a bit of tobacco.

If you want to reduce self harm, or third party harm, you'll have to get rid of grog first.

I've never heard of someone being attacked, or glassed by someone who has smoked too much nicotine. So lets start with the more damaging products, if you are driven to protect your fellow citizen, not that they'll thank you for your effort.

Gentlemen,

What I am referring to is things like the University
of Sydney is doing. Designating certain areas where
smokers can go - which some have interpreted as an
infringement of smokers rights. I don't view that
as any sort of infringement at all but part of an
"educational" process that protects the rights of
everyone. When discussing rights we need to grasp
the bigger picture when it comes to the issues that
confront our nation. We all have rights - but with
those rights come certain responsibilities - and that
includes the rights of others - in this case those of
non-smokers.

Does anyone see the dichotomy between the Aboriginal Embassy being
allowed to stay in place and the cigarette companies being allowed to
sell their product when any other product that was known to kill would
be subject to a rush around the shops to remove the product ?

That tobacco has not been banned from sale and import is an obvious
contravention of safety of product laws.

<a damn sight more people have suffered because of a car or an implement, controlled by a drunk, or a drug addict, hit them than have ever been hurt by a bit of tobacco.>

Have they indeed?

2011 road deaths: 1292. Over a third are drug or alcohol related.

Average number of homicides averages near 300. Over 80% of these are drug or alcohol related.

Harmless old tobacco kills about 15000 a year, or about twenty times the number killed by other drug and alcohol attributable road deaths and homicides.

One can't help but wonder about smoking "related" deaths. It is a bit like so many doctors bury their mistakes, which quite often become smoking related casualties.

Fester do you have any statistics on how many people are attacked by nicotine crazed idiots, as distinct from those attacked by drunken thugs? Let me know won't you.

Bottom line is that we all have to go at some time. If smokers beat the average by a bit, who really cares? Would any of that 15000 failed to shuffle off the perch if they had never smoked?

Hasbeen,what I can speculate on is that were people smoking e-cigarettes instead, your assertion would very likely be true. Yet governments ban them because they are so dangerous. In a recent study claiming harm from e-cigarettes, the researchers showed that e-cigarettes caused airway constriction. Hardly a surprise as nicotine acts on nicotinic receptors and causes muscle constriction. Also, the response tends to reduce through prolonged exposure to nicotine, and surprise, surprise, the study only looked at the immediate effect on non-smokers. My own view is that government is more interested in the profits of the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries than the health of smokers.

While I don't think any section of the population should be ostracised I also am selfish enough to want a smoke-free environment at least for most the time. The end of smoking in restaurants, buses, planes etc could not come soon enough. It has nothing to do with wowserism because if smoking wasn't harmful to others or the smoke did not aggravate no-one would care about smoke filled rooms (other than perhaps the smell which stays with you until the next wash).

However we all live in the real world, smoker designated areas on campus or elsewhere would seem to be the obvious solution, as long as it isn't a Claytons exercise with smoke drifting from the smoking area into the non-smoking. Remember the ridiculous divides in some clubs many years ago.

I for one would like to see smoking stopped altogether but it is not going to happen any sooner than winning the lottery, so it comes down to making adeqaute provision for smokers with the least inconvenience or imposition on others as possible.

(Reminds me of the IT Crowd episode where the smokers were outside in a Soviet inspired Concentration Camp-it was a funny take on the problem)

See I have never smoked cigarettes, but they really don't bother me. I actually side with the smokers. It must be a libertarian thing for me. I actually miss the smell of smoke in my clothes in the morning reminding me of a great night out.

I know it's harmful, but what isn't these days. Are they going to ban peanuts and peanut butter? That will potentially kill children quicker than smoking around them.

Smoke away. That'll help keep my taxes down.

Idiotic policies forced upon us by non-smoking moron bureaucrats kill way more people than all cigarettes put together.
Now, what are they going to do about that ?

What idiotic policies? What moron non-smoking bureaucrats? What deaths? Smoking kills about 5 million people a year. That would wipe out Australia inside five years. Few argue that tobacco is a big killer, in no small part because big tobacco spent decades unsuccessfully trying to prove otherwise: Its best and brightest statistical distortionists now sell their talents to the AGW denialist lobby.

So what of Hon Lik's sucky sucky wonder: You get your nic fix with about as much damage as a cup of coffee. That has big t, big p and big brother very concerned about their tobacco addiction cash cow. Big t wants to bring the old gang back together and start a scare campaign: Very hard as the non-nicotine ingredients in e-cigarettes are commonly used food and pharmaceutical additives.

What idiotic policies? What moron non-smoking bureaucrats? What deaths?
Fester,
You can't be serious ? You're not a Greenie !

Blame them and you empower them, i. More than 5 million deaths a year? Is that net or gross? Many initiatives save lives: Would you rather no vaccination, sewers or treated water? How many more would die without such?

Abuse by power brokers in the role of public guardians is the reason for the ridiculous bans of e-cigarettes. Used to enforce a wide range of public health measures, such power brings a substantial benefit. But in all the cases I can think of, the power has only been wielded where the problem is apparent and the solution well proven. With e-cigarettes, the bans have been made without there being evidence of harm. Given the very apparent danger of tobacco, the act to ban e-cigarettes would seem to be an act of public harm. It would seem to provide benefit only to big t and big p, not to mention the protection of excise revenue.

5 million is a constructive lie
but that is how you get new taxes

spin

[i heard this summation..on yes minester]
smoking stat's deaths[uk]..100.000 *A-TRIBUT-ABLE to smoking

so as deaths ATTRIBUTABLE to smoking include/or include according to generic opinion..[rather than real cause]...[we got no proof..of a direct causal link..

so not all lung disease
is attributable..ONLY to smoking toobacco
[ie other micro particulates/and carsonogenic airosols ignored
but definitivly ATTRIBUTED to smoking]..by clever classification..

anyhow the yes minester..said..""4 billion tax revenue
[that finmances one third the health budget

actual tobacco health related costs..[47 million]

so cost=47 mil..4,000,000
...punitive income raising
[..4 billion]..4.000,000,000

500 are said to die per day in uk
[attributed..to die per day..in uk]

these 500 dying each day..cost 47 million [per year]
500 times 365..= 182,500..but the year/rate was said to be 100,000

heck the numbers dont match the spin
revenue raising..yes minester

[oh adverse reaction to perscribed drugs,.[in OZZZZZ]
reported to be 190,000...in australia alone

why no hysteria
re the real deadly diss ease?
docters arrogance..[how much death....*attributable to arrogance?]

Attributable deaths come from comparing groups of smokers and non-smokers, so the harm from tobacco is in addition to all the other factors you mention. Passive smoking is less harmful, which made it harder to prove.

But I am more interested in knowing whether e-cigarettes are less harmful than tobacco. There are no major studies as yet, but there are many e-cigarette users claiming very substantial improvement to their health since quitting the use of tobacco. There is also no likelihood that e-cigarettes pose a passive smoking threat.

noted that that abc news thingy at 6 pm
girly blonde quoted 300 per day die..from smoking
its so neat and clever..one makes up the numbers as they go

the other taxes..it as fast as they can
to give it to the lobby...to make up more clever numbers

but the essential point is
the rates at which smokers and non smokers 'get' cancers
[and die of 'smoking related disease'..is THE SAME*

to wit smoking..isnt a facter
[its insane to claim that pasive smoking
kills..the same ratio's as smoking]

its just an attributable cause..for a new spin statistic
cause the clubs protect their legal drug killing millions[booze..ya cant loose][govt loves you]

now lets tax lollies
and poluters[truckies]
but oh no they will fight back
heck an insane drunk might even glass ya

bhetter we bully smokers
make them feel guilt blame shame
and index their tax[we got our tax without any input]

but others..the 'stakeholderrs get inputs]
be they miners poluters farmers fishure's of men[media]
or just carbon tax collecters or speculaters...financiers lawyers bankers or beuro/roc-rats..

oug

Deaths from cancer may be the same, but smokers have a lower life expectancy: How can that be if smoking is not harmful? Yet the silly pollies would rather you smoke tobacco than an electronic cigarette, which is yet to have a death pinned to it despite its millions of users. What sense is there in banning something when there is no evidence of harm?

i agree with your words..re that e cigarette ban
its insane...its smokeless..it does what it is designed to do
[deliver a hit..of a legal drug]

but mate its so much better putting ciggie butts into sugar gum
and getting huge drug prices [plus govt subsidies]..for lollies

how easy is that
rocks-on...served her legal drug overlords well

but mate lets egsamin...the ATTRIBUTABLE smoking deaths
half are NON smokers!..so that huge 15,000..becomes 7500

i think that is closer to the suicide numbers
that are higher than the road death numbers

many addicted to smoking
are also addicted to booze
so as the insurance industry would point out
there is no direct causal link...what the higher carcinogen?

see we cop hysteria...to get new taxes
the earth is warming/cooling/changing
lets tax one cause of it

there are many roads to cancer
from over eating..to inhaling dust laden air polutants
the kety being...who caused it really..[not just who is attributable]

polititions are just there..to serve their moneyed elite/masters
be they lawyers..cleaning up on cannabis plants being drugs
with one/percent of the population..paying their 'tax' every year..
or be they docters franchised with lawfull drug pads..

thing is bullies..will bully
and shy polititions..dont touch the real criminals

noting once upon a time prostitution
and gambling..was illegal..but the drug pimps
and the money marketeers..selling booze and pokies
tab gambling...and heavey hooking...franchise

well they need...'bigger threats'..
to keep po/ice..courts..govt ammused

and out of..their own business...blaming addicts...
not real the crims..subverting the acts of state
with consistant media spun/lies and nanny taxes