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.