I recently saw a number of people "sharing a cigar" in a restaurant precinct. I just happened to be walking by and had to breath this in, and it was awful.

I don't how people can do this - but one person had a big happy smile on his face.

Just this week, I was diagnosed with Hypothyroidism, which I'd never heard of it and it was a complete shock as I will now be on more medications, from 7 to 8 per week.

I have 3 medical conditions, now 4 (none of my own choice) and yet smokers, think they have some holy right to treatment and take away doctors, nurses and other health services when they end up with severe illness.

I'm now waiting for the time when I get told I have smoking related illness from other smokers in Australia.

Don't hold your breath, NathanJ

>>I'm now waiting for the time when I get told I have smoking related illness from other smokers in Australia.<<

Oh, wait...

Hi Nathan,

As a three-fags-a-day criminal, I realise how similar my behaviour is to the hacking off of the head of an 82-year-old world-regarded, hard-working antiquarian by a bunch of [non-smoking] fascists, and the destruction of the priceless heritage of all of humanity, at Palmyra, Mosul, etc.

I'm trying to cut down, maybe just one in the morning and one at night: legislation to forbid me from smoking in my own yard [I won't smoke inside] might help that along, perhaps policed by an attractive woman living-in, and checking me out at 2 a.m. to see that I'm not smoking in bed. Not so much a nanny, more a 'companion'.

Seriously, there really are more important issues. Get a grip.

Cheers,

Joe

Oh come now Joe, this is obviously not just an issue for NathanJ, but for the wider community, given all the new anti-smoking laws that have been enacted.

NathanJ, I know how you feel with having yet another medical condition that you didn't bring on yourself, but many smokers will tell you they are fine and that emphysema and lung cancer only happen to other people!

Or they will say they know this bloke or that woman who got lung cancer 'when they never smoked in their life'. Then, upon more questions, you find out they lived with a smoker, or they worked on a farm or in an industry with chemicals or other substances that affected their lungs.

As a nurse, believe me I have heard it all...and looked after all the consequences of both active and passive smoking , including peripheral vascular disease, lung disease, mouth and throat cancer and poor wound healing.

I love the first two responses. Poor old Nathan. Thanks for sharing your health problems with us.

Should Australia be constantly adding to a problem that the Labor Rudd and Gillard governments regarded as so serious as to warrant bans?

"..studies have shown that in the Arab-speaking population in Sydney, more than 50% of both males and females smoke, that among the Sydney-based Lebanese community, about 49% of males and 29% of females are smokers, and that male members of the Vietnamese community in Sydney have smoking rates of 53%.4" [www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au]

Maybe one of the experts in multiculturalism and the 'diversity-Australia-has-to-have' could advise?

druggies and drunks stop the average person from seeing a doctor at an emergency ward on weekends.

Hi Runner,

But it makes you wonder why God invented alcohol, or tobacco, or all manner of natural hallucinogenic plants. She MUST have a purpose for all those things.

Then again, She did invent mosquitos and fleas, so She certainly moves in mysterious ways.

Joe

runner,

You are right. It is the 12 hour stretch from 6pm to 6am. Hugely difficult to handle.

Whereas accidents that do not involve alcohol tend to present from lunchtime to six pm.

I feel very sorry for the cigar smokers having to put up with such a disease riddled body walking in their vicinity.

Perhaps you should lock yourself away from these people, for their benefit Nathan, if not your own.

From your constant carping about how dreadful other people are, perhaps you should move to a desert island, where the company may suit you.

ttbn,

Many hospitals public and private at present are at full capacity and are struggling to meet demand.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-20/overcrowded-royal-adelaide-hospital-treats-patients-outside/6710306

From this website: "Ward C3 used to hold mental health patients, but is now being used by 10 in-patients waiting to be discharged.

The ward's re-opening comes after more than a dozen patients at the RAH were treated outside of the emergency department in queued ambulances last night.

Ambulance figures showed all major hospitals were running over capacity overnight."

Smoking related illnesses cost the Australian community approximately 13 billion dollars annually, and this does not include any flow on costs, impacts on business and the flow on effects onto others.

So instead of just taking down people with an illness, recognise that what smokers are doing is essentially "stealing" medical professionals away from people with illness they did not put onto themselves.

Finally - I know you don't have an illness of any type, because if you did, you would not make such "ill" informed comments. You might like to go and talk to parents who have to look after children with a severe illness or disability. You'll then change your attitude.

Lol Loudmouth.....I loved your comments about the 'she' God to Runner :)

"From your constant carping about how dreadful other people are, perhaps you should move to a desert island, where the company may suit you."
Gee Hasbeen, that is the pot calling the kettle black if ever I have heard one!
I assumed you already lived on a desert island....

Yep...I reckon hot tar and burning torches, Nathan.

But when you can scrape a posse together, don't take a route where the traffic's busy - all that carbon monoxide could do you an injury.

Oh and don't forget these blighters hogging medical facilities..they'll have to be dealt with too!

"Alcohol and prescription drugs including common painkillers are causing more ambulance calls in Victoria than illegal drugs such as heroin and ice, new data reveals.

Victorian paramedics attended about 45 patients a day because of alcohol in 2013-14, compared to an average of four people daily for crystal methamphetamine, the drug also known as ice.

The second most common class of drugs responsible for ambulance calls was benzodiazepines; tranquilisers commonly prescribed by doctors to relieve stress and anxiety and to help people sleep. Benzodiazepines, which include Valium and Xanax, led to about 11 calls per day."

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/alcohol-prescription-drugs-beat-illegal-narcotics-for-most-ambulance-calls-20150816-gj07wk.html#ixzz3jzzE8bva

And when you've finished with them, I expect you and your comrades to picket the likes Of McDonalds et al - and every aisle in the supermarkets that stocks junk food - and harass anyone you see buying the crap and ingesting it.

There are so many avenues of delight to bash in modern Australian consumer society - why limit yourself to targetting smokers?

Poirot,

For a person to have four illnesses, it was not something I was ever expecting, along with other people worldwide forced into something they didn't want - illness.

With many smokers, there is a 'belief' (despite pictures/warnings etc) they feel there is no problem and they will never be affected in any form. Both of my parents though, used to be smokers and one was in the process of going through a heart attack whilst driving and collapsed in a local GP clinic and had to go to hospital.

Afterwoods, I was told, by one of my parents they wished they had listened to me earlier, as I had been trying to get my parents to give up smoking since childhood.

Smoke from cigars, cigarettes, and pipes harm humans in many ways, including flow on affects to unborn children. Also inhaling secondhand smoke, can be harmful to passers by. That's because the smoke that burns off the end of a cigar or cigarette contains very harmful substances.

So the "deniers" of this issue (in terms of smoking) very quickly focus on something else and don't realise the damage put onto others. Yes health across the board is needed, but I'm sure too many people will want to "avoid" that as well.

Nathan,

What? I don't have any illnesses? Might it just be that I don't feel the need to tell everyone? You know nothing about me, and never will. Some things are personal. Oops, sorry: you don't think so, do you?

We would do well to remember that cigarette smokers currently pay an absurd amount of tax, forcing those on lower incomes to smoke rollies which are both heavier on tar and heavier on the lung.

I am not aware of exactly how much tax is being collected but I wouldn't be surprised if it well exceeds the cost of any medical services that they require, but perhaps someone informed can enlighten us.

However, it also wouldn't surprise me if the majority of the cigi taxes went into the consolidated revenue of the PolitTicks, and not to medicine and cigi disease research were arguably it should be going to.

If that is the case, you can hardly blame smokers for clogging up the medical system when they have already paid their dues several times over.

Thereafter, I am personally in favor of smoking venues where smokers can enjoy themselves like everyone else, provided suitable tech systems for ventilation and filtration are fitted. Perhaps membership could turn on appropriate legal waivers being signed in advance.

Another thing that I do not know is whether or not the old smokers' adage is true or not?

"That results from the morgue show that the lungs of a smoker living in rural areas looks better than a non-smoking city dwelling smog sucker."

nathan,

I was referring to this point that you raised:

"So instead of just taking down people with an illness, recognise that what smokers are doing is essentially "stealing" medical professionals away from people with illness they did not put onto themselves."

And I was making the point that there are myriad behaviours necessitating care from medical professionals - behaviours that aren't forced on people - that are lifestyle choices.

Why single out one behavioural choice and label it ".... "stealing" medical professionals away from people with illness they did not put onto themselves."?

One more thing, Nathan.

While I'm sympathetic to you for coping with multiple medical conditions, I'd advise you to get on with your lfe and stop resenting other people having access to the self same medical expertise as you enjoy.

You wrote:

"I have 3 medical conditions, now 4 (none of my own choice) and yet smokers, think they have some holy right to treatment and take away doctors, nurses and other health services when they end up with severe illness.'

My adult daughter developed diabetes (Type 1) at ten years old. That is not a condition linked to lifestyle, but the result of an auto-immune reaction that destroyed the insulin producing cells in her pancreas.

She's now 33 and does four insulin injections a day...every day....plus a whole regime of diet, exercise and insulin adjustment.

I've never heard her begrudge anyone else medical attention. She's grateful to live in a society where she can ably manage her condition.

Get on with your life, Nathan. Stop worrying about what other people receive and why they receive it - and take the time to appreciate the care you receive in a very fortunate society.

ttbn,

About two years ago I attended a meeting on public transport. As I cannot drive (with Epilepsy) and having public transport services cut off (I spoke at the meeting on this) and I was covered on Channel 7 news the following evening.

A woman also spoke and I found out, she had Epilepsy, which she got a lot later in life (out of surprise) and then couldn't drive. She then had to work from home and said she felt "trapped in her own home" as a result. She has no public transport in the newer housing estate area she lives in. She had her name and comments printed in our local newspaper.

Also one day when I got a phone call from a health department representative wanting to undertake a survey, she was a bit surprised to find out I had a bone density condition (when I'm only aged in my mid 30's). I explained this was linked to a (previous epilepsy medication I'd taken since about 8 years of age) and was found at about 27 years of age (to be allergic to) giving me low levels of calcium.

It's not a shameful thing to talk about health conditions, and the fact that I had some sort of 'something' to do it, is not a crime.

If people don't talk about health more, politicians will "keep" pathetic health policies in place, including smoking, without thinking about the impacts, because it's all too silent.

Good on you NathanJ for standing up for yourself.
You started this thread and mentioned you had medical problems in your opening post, so expanding on that information is up to you, and totally appropriate on this forum.

As long as you are aware however, that some on this forum will use any personal information you give about yourself, against you.
We all have our opinions on smoking and smokers, and this opinion forum is one place to air those opinions.

I'm real sorry Nathan to hear about your medical conditions. I really am.
And I'm sorry smokers impose on you in public sometimes as you don't smoke, and in a perfect world you shouldn't have to put up with it.

But an MP posted an article in this forum a few months back and stated that smokers are taxed at 17 times the cost they impose upon society.
So essentially its smokers who are getting ripped off and are helping pay for the treatments of non-smokers health related issues, such as yours.

I smoke. I know its bad for me, I know it can bother others sometimes and I wish I could give up.

But you've got it round the wrong way when you criticise.

If not for smokers, and of governments stealing from them there wouldn't be money to help people like you, so really in some ways you should be grateful to the smokers.

You should thank me.

I know you didn't ask for your medical conditions, and that smokers bring smoking related medical conditions on themselves.

Governments not only profit from my smoking, they also profited from the extensive cigarette advertising in the 80's that helped to get me addicted.

In this way they helped get me addicted and have been stealing from me ever since, to help pay for the new hospital and the new medical equipment and for doctors and nursing staff with sufficient expertise to help people like you.

Did you ever think that maybe people who don't have conditions you suffer from might have a similar ignorant opinion as you do?
Maybe smokers oppose paying for you.
Your medical conditions aren't our fault so why should we pay for you?

How about the government gather up all the money it took from me in tax?
Am I not paying it forward?
As if profiting on helping me get addicted, stealing from me for life off something which may eventually kill me isn't enough?

Just some points you might want to take in.

I offer you best wishes and hope your medical conditions improve.

Step one, quarantine welfare as this will prevent a fair amount of tabbacco and grog from being consumed, not to mention gambling.

Step two, charge people with self inflicted health issues when they see a doctor, even a hospital.

At some point our law makers are going to have to decide what does get funded and what misses out because the revenue can't keep pace with expenditure.

Do we stop supporting those who self harm, or the rest?

This choice will have to be made perhaps sooner rather than later.

Good try Armchair Critic, but I doubt the tax smokers pay on their packs of cigarettes go far enough to pay the huge price of their habit on the health system.

I couldn't find any actual statistics on that, so it is just my opinion.
However, they do save the Government some money in that they generally die younger.

Well, I thought that *Arm Chair Critic* offered a reasoanble indication of what I thought was well the case.

But, in advance of some solid stats coming out (unless someone can find the post that *A.C.C.* refers to), and for the sake of argument, let's say that a heavy smoker is paying $AU100 per week in tax *52 weeks per annum = $AU5,200 per year + MEDICARE contribution * (say 30 years from the age 20 - 50 before getting sick from it)

= $AU5,200 * 30 + (30 years of MEDICARE contributions)
= $ 156,000 + (30 years of MEDICARE contributions) + the interest that that money has accrued.

I think that's a fair sized contribution even if they end up requiring a battery of tests, chemo and or an oxygen bottle wouldn't you say *Suze?*

Well, like you Dream On, I don't know for sure if that would be the case.

It costs the Government at least $600 per day for hospital admissions and at least $60 per GP admission, and smokers are often affected from their habit very much sooner than 30 years, given they are far more likely to suffer worse colds and flu's and asthma, just to name a few problems, and be hospitalized

Also, the smoker adversely affects all the other humans and animals in their home, and none of them pay the cigarette taxes do they?

I have personally cared for many cases of emphysema and lung cancer in the spouses of smokers. And the children of smokers who smoke within their vicinity are far more likely to be hospitalized with asthma than any other kids.
The first question a doctor asks parents is 'Do you smoke in the home?' SIDS is far more prevalent amongst babies of smokers too.

Where do you stand with the financial consequences for those poor sods?

Hi Suse,

I was sort of 60: 40 on this issue really, but I think you've persuaded me. Thank god for the freedom to express opinions, they sometimes can have a powerful influence. Thank you.

Joe

Dear Nathan,

I'm also sorry to read about your serious illnesses
and hope that you will get things under control.
I wish you well.

Many of our contemporary ailments although
they often can't always be cured, they can be
prevented in many cases.
Unfortunately, modern medical practice focuses
primarily on the treatment rather than the
prevention of disease.
On surgery for failed hearts rather than preventing
the habits that led to those hearts to fail in the first
place.

We've grown accustomed to the idea that we become sick,
and doctors make us well. In all too many cases, however,
the truth is that we make ourselves sick, and doctors can
do little or nothing to make us better.

A prime example of this is tobacco use. The dangers of
smoking are well known, yet millions still smoke. Each
year people spend a great deal of money on cigarettes,
and many die of smoking-related causes.
A fortune is spent on the drug, of which a great deal
goes in taxes. It was for that reason that governments
were slow to take action against the tobacco industry.

Similarly, many people still decline to use seat belts,
even though the practice drastically reduces the chance
of death or serious injury, as well as the fines now
being imposed.

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

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

The message that the medical association is now trying
to get across is that it would be much cheaper, and far
more effective, for individuals and society to make those
changes that would prevent disease from occurring in the
first place.

Anyone who works with indigenous, certain migrants groups and Housos would be very conscious of the vastly higher incidence of smoking and casualness about usage of tobacco in close proximity to children.

Taking indigenous,

"Tobacco smoking is the most preventable cause of ill health and early death among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, increasing the risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, numerous cancers and many other health conditions. The 2003 Australian Burden of Disease Study estimated that tobacco smoking was the leading cause of burden of disease for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, responsible for around 12% of the total burden of disease and injury for this population"

and

"ln 2012–13, two in five (41%) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 15 years and over reported smoking on a daily basis."

and

It was found that there was little statistical difference between the smaking rales between males and females. - Think of the effect of that on incidence of health problems in children and smoking uptake by them.
[ABS, Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey: First Results, Australia, 2012-13]

It is reasonable to assume that similar problems would be apparent with alcohol abuse.

The way ahead is not to sledge smokers but to concentrate on and continue the work that is already being done with the most seriously affected groups such as Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders.

What to do about importing more smokers is a consideration for immigration policy (where the prevailing political correctness will see it shelved).

See here, onthebeach, Thursday, 27 August 2015 1:45:56 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6968&page=1

Dear Nathan,

The following website helps explain the
current status of smokers in this country -
and the given figures by the ABS are interesting.
As are the reasons behind them that are explained.
Also interesting are the various things that
governments have done over the years to change
the attitudes of smokers:

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/tobacco-kff

Hi OTB,

But you're forgetting that tobacco and alcohol are white inventions - any diseases they may cause are only for whites. Blackfellas don't get whitefella diseases.

Seriously. I've heard of people arguing this way. Coke can't give Blackfellas diabetes, only to whitefellas, because it's a whitefella product. So when people get crook, it's a surprise, a mystery: 'how did that happen' ?

OF COURSE, we all get sick in similar ways, and for similar reasons. We're not different biological species.

But across the hundreds of Indigenous health organisations in the country, what's the bet that the (usually unqualified) Indigenous health workers are spreading this message ? As well as the notion that disease comes from being spelled, or sung, and that somebody else has caused it, deliberately and malevolently, so the job is how to find out who they are.

Western medicine works only for whitefellas, it means nothing to real people, to the healers, the ngunkeris, the elders, who really KNOW why people get sick, and it's got nothing to do with that whitefella mumbo-jumbo science stuff. Whitefellas know nothing, they have no secrets, they are oblivious to real knowledges.

Problem: meanwhile, with all the knowledges of the elders and healers and thousands of health workers, Indigenous people are the sickest in the country. Please explain.

Joe

Joe (Loudmouth),

I am an optimist. Which is why I said, "continue the work that is already being done with the most seriously affected groups such as Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders".

I imagine that the lion's share of any reduction in smoking is probably more attributable to youth participating in sports eg footy, going on with their education and so on.

You are right about the whitefellas stuff and it applies particularly to the rubbish middens(sic).

...We would do well to remember that cigarette smokers currently pay an absurd amount of tax, forcing those on lower incomes to smoke rollies which are both heavier on tar and heavier on the lung.

Don't you just love it when they play the victim card, forcing them. Also Dream on there are many like myself who don't smoke, pay into Medicare but are deemed to earn too much to bulk bill. Work that out!

If smoking is so bad and kills people then surely its cheaper than keeping fitness nuts who need multiple knee and hip replacements as well as ongoing medication into their nineties. Just a thought.

Hi Runner,

That may be fine for heavy smokers who are also devout believers, they're going to live forever surrounded by choirs of angels - but what about us agnostics and atheists ? This is our one and only life, we need to stretch it out as long as possible, then that's it. Where's your compassion ?

Cheers,

Joe

I thought that was one of the more astute comments that I have heard *Runner* make, and to carry it forward:

*Suze*

Contrary to what you have said, the guvment does not pay a cent. The people who pay are those who pay Medicare. And of those people, the people who earn more pay for those who cannot afford to pay at all and also those who can only make a partial contribution.

*Foxy*

A very interesting link with a vast array of information, however I was unable to deduce what constitutes the entire tax burden upon smokers as even the tax section only referred to excise hikes but didn't actually say what the total was or what the start point was. (Bear in mind though that I may have missed something as I raced through the info quite quickly)

*RehTub*

How much you earn as far as I understand it has no bearing on whether or not you are bulk billed as whether or not a Dr even sees you, let alone bulk bills you, is entirely at the discretion of the treating Dr.

Some Drs though have a practice policy of bulk billing concession card holders but do understand that whether or not they do is entirely a matter for them and not a regulatory requirement.

As for my point about "rollies," it is an unfortunate fact that in some regards putting up the price may well have reduced the total number of smokers and overall consumption a little, but it is also true that particularly in the case of lower income earners that they are FORCED economically to buy a form a nicotine that is arguably more harmful than others.

*Suze & Everyone* whilst we haven't as yet got to the bottom of exactly how much above and beyond their own medical costs smokers are paying in tax, it appears increasingly likely that they most certainly are paying a huge impost, part of which though may go to those that they effect by passive smoking, or does it?

As for plain packaging, I can tell you what I do with it (I smoke 2 or 3 a day + or minus a bit and the rest of the time I chew gum at $22 - $30 a packet if you can believe that)

As soon as I have a pack, I simply take the gangrenous feet, eyeballs, cancer dead cadavers etc covered packet, remove the contents and place it it one of my fancy and attractive containers which I acquired from JOYNT VENTURE and promptly bin all of the fancy printed warnings etc.

(And JV tell me that their sales of such paraphernalia jumped significantly since the new policies first came in.)

But to come back to *Runners* point and if I don't misunderstand, *Runner* is pointing out that as smokers incur additional health costs, why shouldn't other activities which also increase health costs equally be subject to some additional specifically targeted tax?

After all, if you look at the exclusions in insurance policies you will no doubt note that certain considered to be high risk activities are totally excluded i.e. if you want to engage in those kind of activities then let the consequences of same be entirely on ones own head - e.g. motor bike riding in Bali.

*THE SCAM*

But all of this is somewhat mute if the reality is that the PoliTicks are taking the Lion's Share of cigi tax and funneling it into general consolidated revenue and not into Medicare at all.

If that is the case, then higher income earners most certainly are paying for the self inflicted medical harm that some smokers suffer from, but again, why blame the smokers?

They are after all paying more than their fair share (or so it would seem) and if the money is being used for other purposes then that is hardly their fault.

' This is our one and only life, we need to stretch it out as long as possible, then that's it. Where's your compassion ?'

Hi Loudmouth

I was purely trying to point out that in the end smokers might not cost society as much as many make out. As one who believes in eternal life I would much prefer you and all others receive forgiveness from the Only One qualified to do so. For once Dream On interpreted my post correctly.

I did indeed think it was a very valid and astute point *Runner* and one that is often lost and overlooked in the emotive nature that this kind of debate sometimes degenerates into.

As for the emergency departments of hospitals being largely full of junkies and drunks in the after hours, again, I think that the facts are likely on your side on that one and from what a few Dr friends have said it was likely a not insignificant consideration in closing Fremantle Emergency down.

(its an elder care facility now if I am not mistaken with additional resources for the adjacent Alma Street mental health facility.)

However, re:compassion, we must ask ask ourselves how it is that some people have fallen so low (thinking of the serial abusers)

Well, some substances are extremely potent in terms of addiction i.e. the person will be promising "never again" whilst under the influence, but as soon as they straighten up they'll be scratching around looking for more. These people need understanding and medical/psycho social intervention.

A crack down on the sale of synthetic cannibinoids/stimulants is well overdue and a matter about which I have not heard any main stream news for some time.

Dream on, they're not FORCED to do anything, mores a pity I might say. Besides, the additional money you say they are FORCED to folk out for rollies, is yet more that is taken from the family food budget.

Might I remind you that whether they are low or high income earners, responsible parenting should mean they forego the smokes in favor of more responsible items, items which many deprived children not only rely on, but have no real means of providing for themselves.

Luckily for smokers I don't have a say in the matter because I would ban all smoking from all public places full stop.

Not only would this make non smokers worlds a little more comfortable, but it would also boost productivity in many workplaces.

"Luckily for smokers I don't have a say in the matter because I would ban all smoking from all public places full stop."

That can be a dangerous situation, because people smoke inside (say in bed) and their home can burn down and a person can die or be left with severe burns or illness.

Speak to the fire services, they've no doubt seen plenty of it.

So its not just about the seriousness of health.... other areas are affected. So some people need to stop making excuses, because if they had seen these types of impacts on other people they would change their minds.

Getting rid of smoking 100%.... via a phase out date is the best way to go. So say if you are 18 next week, you can't buy anything from a tobacco shop, petrol station or supermarket.

We don't accept food poisoning at food outlets, a cafe or a restaurant (even if they were to have warning signs) so we shouldn't accept the sale of toxic tobacco products - and we know that is 100% correct.

Hi Nathan,

Eventually ban it ? Good luck with that. Imagine the black market possibilities.

Watching a show on SBS last week, I got a good laugh out of one bloke trying to bring what looked like a couple of hundred packets of tobacco into the UK, claiming he was a heavy smoker. He said he smoked a hundred a day, thirty smokes per packet, or three packets. Any rollie-maker knows you can get seventy or eighty fags from a packet. Merchant banker.

They kept him in an interrogation room for hours, and he never asked for a cigarette: no craving, or even a thought for a smoke. Nor did his fingers look even slightly stained.

I hypothetically sat down with him and a packet of tobacco and papers, and rolled one, offering him the packet: my bet is that, hypothetically, he wouldn't have known how to roll a cigarette, or even wanted one. I would have made him smoke the whole packet, or 'thirty'. Thirty cigars, more like.

You'll be happy to know that the lot was confiscated, and later destroyed. The police said.

Cheers,

Joe

PS. I'm really trying to cut down from my three a day. Even for that few, cost is a huge factor.

Nathan when I was a kid we smoked grass clipping rolled in toilet paper so banning tobacco products won't stop smoking and won't stop houses burring down from smoking. Besides, it's quite hard to stop people doing what they please in their own homes and, if they choose to fill their children's lungs full of smoke then unfortunately we can't control that either. But I'm all for having it banned in all public places.

Pubs and clubs are the other laugh with their DOSA areas whereby many smokers, while smoking in these areas also exhale their last drag once back indoors.

But!, and it's the biggest but of all, if you got your wish and banned smoking where would the funds come from to provide your subsidized medication and treatments.

Just like speeding it's a double edged sword I'm afraid.

*RehTub*

whilst you clearly grasp one aspect of the economic issue

(i.e. the huge amount of tax funds that cigi tax gathers (but for what purpose these funds are used remains unclear))

it is surprising to me that you seem to fail to grasp the aspect of "economic coercion" that I refer to. Perhaps it is that you are objecting to my use of the word "forced" but do understand the point that I am making?

But let me break it down for you and for the sake of argument, let's use the example of an unemployed person on an income of say $450 per fortnight.

(whom the guvment have failed in that the economy is screwed coz they've blown their dough and are paying jobs money in interest payments to overseas bankers instead)

(and I note that *Joe LoudMouth* appears to understand quite clearly)

Now, this Mr X is a full time heavy smoker. He used to prefer smoking tailor mades with a great long filter as these don't make him cough as much as rollies.

But that was the all in the past when cigis were affordable.

Currently, Mr X smokes a 2 large packets of rollies which costs him (along with filters and papers) about $Au100 per fortnight.

In the alternative, he would smoke 2 packets of tailors per day at a cost of $25 per packet or $50 per day. $50 per day * 14 days per fortnight = $700 per fortnight.

But Mr X only earns $450 per fortnight, therefore, if Mr X wishes to continue to smoke, he is "FORCED" (economically) to purchase rollies which make him cough and gag far more than standards.

P.S.

There is one exception to my binning of those gross little images on the packets and that is, on special occasions, "Men's Club" will have a gathering, and, those little picis will be dutifully cut out, attached to a pin and cap, and awarded for various meritorious activities to members by the Master of Ceremonies.

HaHaHa

Oh, now, if you want to go all sentimental about it, then the same in principal arguments can be used to ban alcohol as it is every bit the carcinogen that tobacco is and arguably leads to more criminal violence and delinquent behavior.

And it is at that point when the majority of people will simply ignore you as a zealot.

DreamOn,

Alcohol as well ? Christ, you're a kill-joy ! Well, at least I've still got at least one hand.

I don't understand why and how I became a partner in crime, vis-à-vis overseas bankers ? Ah, I see: 'merchant bankers'. No - ask any fan of 'Minder'. See above. Thinking about it - it's either that or watching sunsets.

A packet of tobacco each week would limit Mr X to about ten a day, and still take up to a quarter of his UB. Now you want to take another quarter for his grog ? Oh well, sausages and potatoes again tonight.

Joe

The World Health Summit
of 2013 put out the following points re smoking:

In the 20th Century: 100 Million Deaths (Estimated) and by the 21st century: One Billion Deaths (Projected).

Their presentation is at:

http://www.worldhealthsummit.org/fileadmin/downloads/2013/WHSRMA_2013/Presentations/Day_3/Reddy%20Srinath%20-%20Tobacco%20Control%20The%20End-Game.pdf

The presentation says:

"In 2004, the Bhutanese Government banned sale of all tobacco products– It was the first country to impose such a ban. Violations were severely penalized and owners of shops and hotels can lose their business licenses. There is an imposition of 100% tax on all
tobacco products brought into the country for personal consumption by Bhutanese and foreigners selling tobacco to locals are severely penalized."

It does also say in relation to Tasmania:

"In August 2012, the Tasmanian Legislative Council unanimously passed a motion calling for the sale of tobacco to anyone born from the year 2000 to be banned."

So why do we have overseas countries with stronger policies than Australia? One state's Legislative Council can't make a difference. I would argue both Labor/Liberal parties see tobacco product sales as part of a free market economy.

Bill Shorten's "scare campaign" over a GP tax was nothing short of a farce, when he could have made a strong commitment, to having policies similar to places like Bhutan or even as basic as Tasmania and other countries that are "phasing out" smoking as per the presentation.

People in hospital dying or suffering illness from smoking take away or "steal" services from other patients, who have illnesses none of their own doing - for example areas as simple as bed spaces, as hospitals have "morals" and treat all patients regardless and try to save lives.

Its a pity Labor/Liberal parties don't have many morals at all or do more to save lives.