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.