About five years ago, my parents were driving in their car and my father suddenly felt uncomfortable. He went to his local GP clinic straight away and with the doctor, collapsed on the floor. He'd had a heart attack. An ambulance was called.

Both of my parents were smokers since I was born. After the incident - he said to me I wish I'd listened to you earlier. This comes from my childhood. One day about when I was eight - I wore a heart (like I was from the Heart Foundation) and ran outside with my parent's cigarette packet. They ran after me. I threw the cigarette packet onto the roof as I wanted them to give up smoking - right into my adult life.

Currently tobacco kills 5 million people per year worldwide according to the World Health Organisation.

A solution? Have all tobacco products phased out by the time you turn 18 - say in five years time. Existing smokers could continue to use the products.

The other side to this debate however is the Federal Government's addiction to tobacco taxes - read: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-01/government-to-raise-5-billion-from-cigarette-tax-increase/4857244

Then of course there are the multiple government funded anti-tobacco groups - who I'm not impressed with and don't support a ban on smoking, in my view to simply keep themselves going. Certainly no phase out for them - to difficult.

Imagine if my father had the heart attack immediately and died, killing my mother and other road users whilst driving?

All of this, however raises the question for me - do we have a government in Australia that is willing to phase out tobacco products in Australia?

NathanJ, I totally agree with what you are saying.
While I don't think it is a good idea to ban smoking right now, as that would be cruel to all the nicotine addicted people, phasing it out over 5 years is an excellent idea.

That would give all the current smokers plenty of time to give up, and the tobacco driven industries etc time to find other sponsors or products.

However, I have no doubt that all the 'lefties' and 'do-gooders' would be up in arms about smokers 'rights' etc . They will bang on about high-calorie foods and alcohol being next to go. But there are acceptable levels of eating these foods, or drinking alcohol, while NO smoking at all is the only healthy way to go.

Surely the government could raise enough money to cover the losses from tobacco taxes by spending less on smoking-related diseases?

Butt them out people!

I reckon alcohol & other drugs kill more than tobacco ever did.

However I will go along with your ban, but only if alcohol is banned at the same time.

Hell the same people could run both products. Should open a new avenue for people smugglers as Abbott closes that line of business.

I wonder how you'll like the red spittle everywhere, when Ozzies take up chewing betel nut?

Suse, I could be described as one of those 'lefties', 'do-gooders'. Firstly, to state my position, I am vehemently anti smoking, as the sarcasm that follows will testify to.
There is no relationship between smoking, alcohol consumption and fatty foods, although many people in Australia are consumers of all 3, no doubt to their detriment. Therefore we do not need to discuss smoking in the context of alcohol consumption or fatty food consumption, like stamp collecting and Yak hurding are completely separate issues as are the ones you mention and should not be discussed in the same context. If Sir Francis Drake was an Australian living in the 21at century and not an Englishman living in the 16th century and returned home today with a new product to market, namely spin sticks or coughn' nails. After a simple experiment by the authorities, like making monkeys do the draw back until they croak, that would take 60 a day of the 'Sir Francis Special Filters', the baboons would be cactus inside a week. I'm sure after that experiment the Sir Francis Fags would get the same approval as the 'Exploding Dunny Can', none, to be labeled forever "Not Fit For Human Consumption". My opinion on "Smokers Rights" is that they should be afforded the same rights as those that would peddle plutonium to children, none.

Nathan J,
Yes they could phase out tobacco but only if they let people grow their own, there will always be people who will want to smoke but if they ban the sale of tobacco but decriminalise it's use and possession then the habit will be restricted to a few enthusiasts. Marijuana smoking used to be a niche pastime, it wasn't difficult to find if you had the connections but it wasn't ubiquitous like it is now and before it became big business the product was actually better. When I used to smoke it in the 80's and 90's being stoned was a pleasurable sensation, the last time I smoked it in about 2000 one bong rendered me unable to function for about four hours, couldn't stand up or talk, didn't know where I was etc. If tobacco was organically grown by ordinary people instead of big business and passed around like pot used to be then I'm sure there would be better plant strains and better quality products for the enthusiasts to smoke.

Paul , I was being sarcastic when suggesting lefties and 'do gooders' would be upset about banning smoking. It never seems to translate well to online.
Whenever I argued about smoking on this forum before, everyone else ranted about every other 'bad' thing known to man, so I thought I would bring them up first.

I am constantly accused of being one of those terms, even though I'm sure no one really knows what they mean! I sure wouldn't want to be a 'do badder'!

Hasbeen, as I already said. Alcohol is ok in small amounts, so no point banning it, whereas smoking is no good no matter how little you smoke.