It is about respect, and that's a given but I don't think it exists on either side, and I actually think smokers are more considerate of non-smokers than vice versa. The majority of smokers that is, of course there are some complete fucktards out there. I know I'm always conscious of the direction of non-smokers when smoking and if there are children, people eating, pregnant people or whatever. I don't think it's reciprocated though because a friend who needed a couch for a week or so recently asked me not to smoke in my own house. My house and I was doing them a favour in the first place. AND moving myself to the other side of the room to smoke.
Actually, the taxes on cigarettes doesn't come close to covering what Australian medicare spends in smoking related health care. This has been well documented.
Having said that, if we are to look at the issue of healthcare, obesity, high risk sports, alcohol and other substances all cost medicare and, in turn, our taxes. I think it would be hard to find anyone in the community whose lifestyle choices do not impact on the eventual cost of their healthcare. So this being the case, I am not for denying health care to anyone, irregardless of their lifestyle choices. We're a community and our underlying compassion and care of one another is important.
I don't mind the idea of a weighted contribution system though and you will find the private healthcare providers do this, I don't mind the medicare system doing the same. I was knocked back for an income protection insurance policy because I admitted to using pot in the previous 12 months - and I'm a non smoker.
The OPs original issue is one of smokers needing to respect the rights of those around them. The same as drink driving is illegal because of the damage you do to innocent parties, I agree, second hand smoke and the inability of certain smokers to understand that they do no have the right to pollute others' clean air is what does their cause the greatest harm. I am all for smokers rights - especially those I know who make an effort to minimise the harm to non smokers.
It's all about respect - from both sides.
I believe that taxes do cover well and truly more than just what the gov pays in smokers medical costs... a lot of the socalled documentation readily available whilst not incorrect as such is , I will however hunt down the information that led to that discussion, it was based on information received from the health minister and the source that I heard it from is very reliable and knowledgable, he's not one for saying stuff like this with no factual basis. But like I said I will talk down him in order to get his more detailed info that I don't have
I don't mean to offend anyone, a lot of what I say should be taken with a grain of salt... that said for most of you I'm a stranger on a computer on the other side of the world, don't give me that sort of power!
The above website shows some interesting information on the economics of smoking.
I believe smokers - or their health insurance provoders - should be able to sue the tobacco companies for the cost of medical treatment and early death. No other product gets such a free ride in our legal systems.
Look at what has happened to the companies who produced products containing asbestos or other harmful products or other dangerous goods that have harmed consumers. Tobacco companies should suffer the same fate.
No, look smokers under a certain age (which is rapidly rising) knew what they were getting into... another part of Friday nights conversation. It's fine to say that if you started smoking all that time ago before we knew smoking was bad - long time ago now. But smokers who took up the habit well aware of the health risks shouldn't be able to sue tobacco companies for their owned informed decision
I don't mean to offend anyone, a lot of what I say should be taken with a grain of salt... that said for most of you I'm a stranger on a computer on the other side of the world, don't give me that sort of power!
No, look smokers under a certain age (which is rapidly rising) knew what they were getting into... another part of Friday nights conversation. It's fine to say that if you started smoking all that time ago before we knew smoking was bad - long time ago now. But smokers who took up the habit well aware of the health risks shouldn't be able to sue tobacco companies for their owned informed decision
Yes, I agree that is is an informed decision and I really do not have a lot of sympathy in general for people who have smoking related illness - but do sympathise with individuals, we do all make mistakes that we ultimately have to pay for/live with or in than case die from. But I have no sympathy at all for tobacco companies and firmly believe they should be hounded out of business.
What other product, when used exactly to the manufacturer's specifications goes on to kill the majority of its users? This is the point. People often compare tobacco with fast food - and I am no defender of the fast food industry - but there is a safe level of consumption of their products - the same with alcohol and other substances. Tobacco companies knowingly produce a product which kills and went to great length to hide the proof of this for decades.
The fact big tobacco companies make billions annually from their products, to my mind, means they should be open to litigation for the effects of these products. I would have sympathy for them if they honestly did not know the harm their products did, and at one time this was the case. But as they move from one dying market into other new markets, using thew same practices that worked so well in the former, they lose all right to claim immunity from litigation by using the 'informed choice' argument. They are scum drug dealers in suits.
As smoking rates have steadily declined in Western Countries, they have moved their operations into other markets and generally used the same techniques to sell their product as outlawed in the Western countries. As corporation, they have no moral compass, they have exploited people for far too long with complete immunity and then declare war on governments and groups who have tried to inform the public or regulate their products.
I have no problem if someone wants to smoke with them growing their own. Pot users have been doing it for ages - and this should be legal too. Cut the corporation out of the loop. Make it legal to grow pot or tobacco plants in your own yard for personal use - what we put into our bodies is our choice, but I just don't think is it right that massive corporations get rich on the misery they breed. If we replaced the word tobacco with heroin in the above argument, people see things far differently - yet heroin kills a fraction of the people tobacco kills.
PS. I sypathise with you being told what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own home. I'd have kicked your guest's arse to the curb. If someone willingly enters the house of a smoker, they have no right whatsoever to complain about you smoking in your own house.
Doesn't take much rationalization....if someone is smoking in their backyard, and the smoke is blown in the direction of people in the yard next door, those people suffer.
And people "suffer" the noisethe neighbor's kids make, the sound of the leaf blower, the smell of Mrs. Neighbor's bad cooking, and the horrible color they decided to paint their house. It's called living in a society. We all need to tolerate each other's presense. Someone smoking in the next yard over poses NO health risk. Therefore, this law would be about people trying to cut out any human behavior around them that they consider slightly annoying. That is ridiculous.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Doesn't take much rationalization....if someone is smoking in their backyard, and the smoke is blown in the direction of people in the yard next door, those people suffer.
And people "suffer" the noisethe neighbor's kids make, the sound of the leaf blower, the smell of Mrs. Neighbor's bad cooking, and the horrible color they decided to paint their house. It's called living in a society. We all need to tolerate each other's presense. Someone smoking in the next yard over poses NO health risk. Therefore, this law would be about people trying to cut out any human behavior around them that they consider slightly annoying. That is ridiculous.
No, second hand tobacco smoke does have a health effect - no matter how small. Remember, it only takes one asbestos fibre to cause methothelioma and even light smokers and passive smokers (second hand smoke) can get lung cancer and the other negative effects. When I was playing in a band in pubs and clubs before bans on smoking, i used to often have bouts of respiratory illness, increased allergies and used to get a lot more colds - my doctor put it down to second hand smoke. I chose not to smoke yet suffered because of those who did. Even today, ten years after my last gig, if I open my guitar case it smells of tobacco smoke.
If your smoke is bowing into your neighbour's house, you should take steps to stop it. The other points you mention are not the same thing, and in most places there are noise rules - what time you can create noise, how loud it can be - some councils and estates will dictate the colours you may paint your house. We live under a pile of regulations - most for the common good.
I believe myself to be a good neighbour and try as hard as I can to make sure my actions have as little an impact on my neighbours. If you are a smoker and you smoke is going into your neighbour's property, what is so hard about being a good neighbour and trying to stop it happening? My wife and one of my kids is asthmatic. If smoke from next door (both sides are smokers) was affecting my family to a point the health of my wife and kids was an issue, it be sure to say something (politely) and given the quality of my neighbours, I have no doubt in my mind they'd try their hardest to make sure that their actions did not affect my family. It's part of being a good neighbour and works both ways - I have been asked to stop my dog barking, and it was done politely and we managed to work it out.
Doesn't take much rationalization....if someone is smoking in their backyard, and the smoke is blown in the direction of people in the yard next door, those people suffer.
And people "suffer" the noisethe neighbor's kids make, the sound of the leaf blower, the smell of Mrs. Neighbor's bad cooking, and the horrible color they decided to paint their house. It's called living in a society. We all need to tolerate each other's presense. Someone smoking in the next yard over poses NO health risk. Therefore, this law would be about people trying to cut out any human behavior around them that they consider slightly annoying. That is ridiculous.
Second-hand smoke is more than a slight annoyance.
I would have thought that from a neighbouring property it would take a lot of smoke to have an affect second hand, it's not like it's being blown directly into your breathing area, the effects of smog pollution in most cities would be as strong if you're over a fence and am guessing what 10-15 metres away?
I still have problems with suing a tobacco company, not because it doesn't suck that people get sick, but because you can't choose to put what you know is a poison into your body and then turn around and blame someone else when you get sick. I'm not saying the tobacco companies are good guys, but it's the choice that most smokers of our time made with full disclosure. If you choose to buy a car that didn't have airbags you can't get mad at anyone by yourself at the result (less an issue now but the first comparison that popped into my head).
In the western world at least, nobody is being forced to smoke and nobody is having the health consequences delibrately hidden from them.
Also at that point did want to kick them out, my house, my rules and they're here because they have nowhere else :?
I don't mean to offend anyone, a lot of what I say should be taken with a grain of salt... that said for most of you I'm a stranger on a computer on the other side of the world, don't give me that sort of power!
Doesn't take much rationalization....if someone is smoking in their backyard, and the smoke is blown in the direction of people in the yard next door, those people suffer.
And people "suffer" the noisethe neighbor's kids make, the sound of the leaf blower, the smell of Mrs. Neighbor's bad cooking, and the horrible color they decided to paint their house. It's called living in a society. We all need to tolerate each other's presense. Someone smoking in the next yard over poses NO health risk. Therefore, this law would be about people trying to cut out any human behavior around them that they consider slightly annoying. That is ridiculous.
Second-hand smoke is more than a slight annoyance.
Second hand smoke out doors from another yard is NOT dangerous to anyone. It is literally worse for your health to walk down a city street and breathe air. So yeah, what we're talking about here is merely a smell that bothers some people... and they decide it's bad for their health - it's a false argument.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
If you choose to buy a car that didn't have airbags you can't get mad at anyone by yourself at the result (less an issue now but the first comparison that popped into my head).
In the western world at least, nobody is being forced to smoke and nobody is having the health consequences delibrately hidden from them.
Also at that point did want to kick them out, my house, my rules and they're here because they have nowhere else :?
The point with the car highlights the difference with tobacco companies. If used properly that car does not kill, it is the accident that kills - either through negligence, misuse or just plain bad luck. If that car however was defective due to a design or manufacturing fault - especially if the company knew about it, then they'd be sued, the car withdrawn from sale and modifications made to existing models. And we see this regularly when models are recalled. Look at the issues Toyota had in the USA a couple of years back.
Tobacco companies still use persuasive methods to encourage young people to smoke in the Western world. From sponsorship, to product placement and other less than honest means, they create a desire in certain niche markets - and young people is one of them. If you count the number of leading roles in movies where the character is a smoker, it is far higher than the instance in the general public. There has been plenty written of kickbacks and sponsorship from the tobacco lobby to ensure certain stars play smokers in movies. This is why they're kicking up such a fuss over plain packaging - they know the artwork and labelling of the box plays a role in smoking take up rates. The same fuss they made over not being allowed to advertise on TV, then movies, magazines and newspapers and then sports and arts sponsorship.
Part of the problem is that many retailers are still happy to sell tobacco to minors. I've seen it often enough and the kids know which retailers will do it. A part solution is to make tobacco only available in licensed venues. If you could only purchase tobacco from a liquor store and a serious offence to supply tobacco to minors, you'd fin a lot less getting into the hands of minors - these guys have far too much to lose to make a few bucks out of selling smokes to kids. In the old days we'd have no problem buying beer at the age of 15 from the local liquor store but just saying, "Damn, sorry, I left my ID at home/work/ in the car" etc - try and do that now.
But do you think the fact that it is now harder to buy alcohol when you're a minor actually stops you doing it? of course not. The car thing was a bad example but the point was that we all know what we're getting into, and whether or not it's where the marketing is targeted you cannot blame the tobacco companies for stores that sell to under 18s.
Keeping that in mind if everything was done to the letter of the law - will never happen you cannot stop kids smoking or drinking - then people buying cigarettes would be adults making an informed decision - why should that be anybody elses responsibility
I don't mean to offend anyone, a lot of what I say should be taken with a grain of salt... that said for most of you I'm a stranger on a computer on the other side of the world, don't give me that sort of power!
But do you think the fact that it is now harder to buy alcohol when you're a minor actually stops you doing it? of course not. The car thing was a bad example but the point was that we all know what we're getting into, and whether or not it's where the marketing is targeted you cannot blame the tobacco companies for stores that sell to under 18s.
Keeping that in mind if everything was done to the letter of the law - will never happen you cannot stop kids smoking or drinking - then people buying cigarettes would be adults making an informed decision - why should that be anybody elses responsibility
No it didn't stop us, just made it more difficult and lead to a few nights where piss ups were cancelled due to lack of alcohol. But we rarely had problems getting booze in the mid 80s.
I agree with personal responsibility but government has made plenty of decisions that they decide to step in and 'save us from ourselves'. Why can't I buy an ounce of pot from a store? Because someone decided we can't be trusted with it and made it and other drugs illegal. The government really can't have it both ways. Big tobacco is a drug cartel, getting rich off a dangerous product. They should be held accountable for the effects of their products if they are not to be made illegal like the other substances. As I previously said, tobacco users should grow their own, or like most pot users around here do, know someone with a few plants growing under lights or in their back yard and supplying their friends for a few extra bucks.
Generally young people feel they will beat the odds and be the smoker who dies at the age of 90 from old age. Cigarette companies exploit this sense of invincibility we tend to have when we are young and have most people addicted before the realisation kicks in. Remember the "Anyhow... have a Winfield" adverts aimed at a younger audience in the 80s suggesting, 'Who cares what they're saying about the ill effects of our project, just have another smoke". Tobacco companies pay a lot of money to psychologists, advertising gurus and in bribes to ensure their products remain popular. The Liberal Party (Aussie Republicans) accept millions form them and then oppose or water down most anti-smoking legislation.
It is only through the tightening of regulation on tobacco companies that smoking rates have declined. If government has not stepped in we'd probably still have smoking rates in the 70% range.
I repeat, I'm fairly libertarian when it comes to drug use (of all kinds) and am very critical of the so called 'war on drugs'. Provided your use does not harm others and you are not mislead into using the product and are of an age where you can make an informed decision, then your personal choice is to be respected. I just think it is hypocritical of tobacco companies to portray themselves as anything other than drug cartels, and I believe they should be liable for the effects of their products.
I watched my grandmother die what can only be described a slow torturous death from her 25 a day habit. My grandfather who never smoked died of smoking related cancer some 5 years ahead of her - he hung on for two weeks in intensive care after massive surgeries before his body gave up. His final words to my father were, "This is a terrible way to go."
But you know there is a reason - aside from the proven failings of prohabition - that smoking is not and will not be banned, because the government love it. in the past 10 years cigarettes have doubled in price and all of that is tax. Do you also think we should be able to sue them as a result?
not really related but awful that your grandparents went like that
I don't mean to offend anyone, a lot of what I say should be taken with a grain of salt... that said for most of you I'm a stranger on a computer on the other side of the world, don't give me that sort of power!
But you know there is a reason - aside from the proven failings of prohabition - that smoking is not and will not be banned, because the government love it. in the past 10 years cigarettes have doubled in price and all of that is tax. Do you also think we should be able to sue them as a result?
not really related but awful that your grandparents went like that
I don't advocate a ban, governments have tobacco stains on their hands and they need the revenue - for at least as long as it takes the current crop of smoking related illnesses to work their way through the health system.
The government protect the tobacco and alcohol industries.
The reason people cannot sue tobacco companies is because of legislation, they are being protected by government. Case in point: It is illegal to grow your own tobacco! It's illegal to grow pot. Who benefits from that decision?
I'm not for that... with the amount it costs me to fill my body with poisonous chemicals believe me Í'd rather grow it. I just think that we shouldn't be able to blame the companies for the illnesses. which we seem to have covered again and again also seem to have hijacked this thread... so we may just have to agree to differ on that.
Ironic the sides of the arguement we seem to be on as I get the impression - don't know why - that you are a non-smoker
I don't mean to offend anyone, a lot of what I say should be taken with a grain of salt... that said for most of you I'm a stranger on a computer on the other side of the world, don't give me that sort of power!
Yeah non smoker who has never had a single puff of a cigarette. But was quite a heavy pot smoker for a while and was hopelessly addicted to a prescribed morphine based pain killer for 8 months. I'm more intrigued by the hypocrisy surrounding the issue than demonising smokers or non-smokers. I believe in individual rights and respect, just feel it is vastly unfair what the tobacco industry gets away with (lets face it - by bribing politicians) when so many other industries are heavily penalised for their products.
It's been great debating with you, I can happy agree to disagree with you but think in the scheme of it all, we actually share a fair amount of common ground
yeah I think we agree on the vast majority of it, just that where we disagree we're unlikely to change our minds which kind of kills the debate
I don't mean to offend anyone, a lot of what I say should be taken with a grain of salt... that said for most of you I'm a stranger on a computer on the other side of the world, don't give me that sort of power!
However, i do believe the tobacco companies see the writing on the wall. I am told that they are now one of the main owners of legal and medicinal drug companies. That will be interesting to see play out.
It's been great debating with you, I can happy agree to disagree with you but think in the scheme of it all, we actually share a fair amount of common ground
i do have a question, a simple one at that. why smoke?
Easy- most of us started when we were young and we wanted to fit in with friends who smoked. For me it was also back in the day when the Cancer Cowboy rode the plains of our TV screen and the cool and suave TV stars smoked so you wanted to be cool and suave like them too. And then once you got into it- hooked! DUMB!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
what happened to the nice educated rational discussion?
I don't mean to offend anyone, a lot of what I say should be taken with a grain of salt... that said for most of you I'm a stranger on a computer on the other side of the world, don't give me that sort of power!
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,429
what happened to the nice educated rational discussion?
I don't want the government telling me I can't smoke on my own property. It's my property to smoke on. If it bothers someone I would urge them to come and talk to me. I would be happy to smoke on another part of my property.
I understand people aren't always going to be as nice as I would be but I'm sorry, that's too bad. If someone owns property they can smoke on it.
I know this is vitriol but I respect property rights.
Comments
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I believe that taxes do cover well and truly more than just what the gov pays in smokers medical costs... a lot of the socalled documentation readily available whilst not incorrect as such is , I will however hunt down the information that led to that discussion, it was based on information received from the health minister and the source that I heard it from is very reliable and knowledgable, he's not one for saying stuff like this with no factual basis. But like I said I will talk down him in order to get his more detailed info that I don't have
The above website shows some interesting information on the economics of smoking.
I believe smokers - or their health insurance provoders - should be able to sue the tobacco companies for the cost of medical treatment and early death. No other product gets such a free ride in our legal systems.
Look at what has happened to the companies who produced products containing asbestos or other harmful products or other dangerous goods that have harmed consumers. Tobacco companies should suffer the same fate.
Yes, I agree that is is an informed decision and I really do not have a lot of sympathy in general for people who have smoking related illness - but do sympathise with individuals, we do all make mistakes that we ultimately have to pay for/live with or in than case die from. But I have no sympathy at all for tobacco companies and firmly believe they should be hounded out of business.
What other product, when used exactly to the manufacturer's specifications goes on to kill the majority of its users? This is the point. People often compare tobacco with fast food - and I am no defender of the fast food industry - but there is a safe level of consumption of their products - the same with alcohol and other substances. Tobacco companies knowingly produce a product which kills and went to great length to hide the proof of this for decades.
The fact big tobacco companies make billions annually from their products, to my mind, means they should be open to litigation for the effects of these products. I would have sympathy for them if they honestly did not know the harm their products did, and at one time this was the case. But as they move from one dying market into other new markets, using thew same practices that worked so well in the former, they lose all right to claim immunity from litigation by using the 'informed choice' argument. They are scum drug dealers in suits.
As smoking rates have steadily declined in Western Countries, they have moved their operations into other markets and generally used the same techniques to sell their product as outlawed in the Western countries. As corporation, they have no moral compass, they have exploited people for far too long with complete immunity and then declare war on governments and groups who have tried to inform the public or regulate their products.
I have no problem if someone wants to smoke with them growing their own. Pot users have been doing it for ages - and this should be legal too. Cut the corporation out of the loop. Make it legal to grow pot or tobacco plants in your own yard for personal use - what we put into our bodies is our choice, but I just don't think is it right that massive corporations get rich on the misery they breed. If we replaced the word tobacco with heroin in the above argument, people see things far differently - yet heroin kills a fraction of the people tobacco kills.
PS. I sypathise with you being told what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own home. I'd have kicked your guest's arse to the curb. If someone willingly enters the house of a smoker, they have no right whatsoever to complain about you smoking in your own house.
And people "suffer" the noisethe neighbor's kids make, the sound of the leaf blower, the smell of Mrs. Neighbor's bad cooking, and the horrible color they decided to paint their house. It's called living in a society. We all need to tolerate each other's presense. Someone smoking in the next yard over poses NO health risk. Therefore, this law would be about people trying to cut out any human behavior around them that they consider slightly annoying. That is ridiculous.
No, second hand tobacco smoke does have a health effect - no matter how small. Remember, it only takes one asbestos fibre to cause methothelioma and even light smokers and passive smokers (second hand smoke) can get lung cancer and the other negative effects. When I was playing in a band in pubs and clubs before bans on smoking, i used to often have bouts of respiratory illness, increased allergies and used to get a lot more colds - my doctor put it down to second hand smoke. I chose not to smoke yet suffered because of those who did. Even today, ten years after my last gig, if I open my guitar case it smells of tobacco smoke.
If your smoke is bowing into your neighbour's house, you should take steps to stop it. The other points you mention are not the same thing, and in most places there are noise rules - what time you can create noise, how loud it can be - some councils and estates will dictate the colours you may paint your house. We live under a pile of regulations - most for the common good.
I believe myself to be a good neighbour and try as hard as I can to make sure my actions have as little an impact on my neighbours. If you are a smoker and you smoke is going into your neighbour's property, what is so hard about being a good neighbour and trying to stop it happening? My wife and one of my kids is asthmatic. If smoke from next door (both sides are smokers) was affecting my family to a point the health of my wife and kids was an issue, it be sure to say something (politely) and given the quality of my neighbours, I have no doubt in my mind they'd try their hardest to make sure that their actions did not affect my family. It's part of being a good neighbour and works both ways - I have been asked to stop my dog barking, and it was done politely and we managed to work it out.
Second-hand smoke is more than a slight annoyance.
I still have problems with suing a tobacco company, not because it doesn't suck that people get sick, but because you can't choose to put what you know is a poison into your body and then turn around and blame someone else when you get sick. I'm not saying the tobacco companies are good guys, but it's the choice that most smokers of our time made with full disclosure. If you choose to buy a car that didn't have airbags you can't get mad at anyone by yourself at the result (less an issue now but the first comparison that popped into my head).
In the western world at least, nobody is being forced to smoke and nobody is having the health consequences delibrately hidden from them.
Also at that point did want to kick them out, my house, my rules and they're here because they have nowhere else :?
Second hand smoke out doors from another yard is NOT dangerous to anyone. It is literally worse for your health to walk down a city street and breathe air. So yeah, what we're talking about here is merely a smell that bothers some people... and they decide it's bad for their health - it's a false argument.
The point with the car highlights the difference with tobacco companies. If used properly that car does not kill, it is the accident that kills - either through negligence, misuse or just plain bad luck. If that car however was defective due to a design or manufacturing fault - especially if the company knew about it, then they'd be sued, the car withdrawn from sale and modifications made to existing models. And we see this regularly when models are recalled. Look at the issues Toyota had in the USA a couple of years back.
Tobacco companies still use persuasive methods to encourage young people to smoke in the Western world. From sponsorship, to product placement and other less than honest means, they create a desire in certain niche markets - and young people is one of them. If you count the number of leading roles in movies where the character is a smoker, it is far higher than the instance in the general public. There has been plenty written of kickbacks and sponsorship from the tobacco lobby to ensure certain stars play smokers in movies. This is why they're kicking up such a fuss over plain packaging - they know the artwork and labelling of the box plays a role in smoking take up rates. The same fuss they made over not being allowed to advertise on TV, then movies, magazines and newspapers and then sports and arts sponsorship.
Part of the problem is that many retailers are still happy to sell tobacco to minors. I've seen it often enough and the kids know which retailers will do it. A part solution is to make tobacco only available in licensed venues. If you could only purchase tobacco from a liquor store and a serious offence to supply tobacco to minors, you'd fin a lot less getting into the hands of minors - these guys have far too much to lose to make a few bucks out of selling smokes to kids. In the old days we'd have no problem buying beer at the age of 15 from the local liquor store but just saying, "Damn, sorry, I left my ID at home/work/ in the car" etc - try and do that now.
Keeping that in mind if everything was done to the letter of the law - will never happen you cannot stop kids smoking or drinking - then people buying cigarettes would be adults making an informed decision - why should that be anybody elses responsibility
No it didn't stop us, just made it more difficult and lead to a few nights where piss ups were cancelled due to lack of alcohol.
I agree with personal responsibility but government has made plenty of decisions that they decide to step in and 'save us from ourselves'. Why can't I buy an ounce of pot from a store? Because someone decided we can't be trusted with it and made it and other drugs illegal. The government really can't have it both ways. Big tobacco is a drug cartel, getting rich off a dangerous product. They should be held accountable for the effects of their products if they are not to be made illegal like the other substances. As I previously said, tobacco users should grow their own, or like most pot users around here do, know someone with a few plants growing under lights or in their back yard and supplying their friends for a few extra bucks.
Generally young people feel they will beat the odds and be the smoker who dies at the age of 90 from old age. Cigarette companies exploit this sense of invincibility we tend to have when we are young and have most people addicted before the realisation kicks in. Remember the "Anyhow... have a Winfield" adverts aimed at a younger audience in the 80s suggesting, 'Who cares what they're saying about the ill effects of our project, just have another smoke". Tobacco companies pay a lot of money to psychologists, advertising gurus and in bribes to ensure their products remain popular. The Liberal Party (Aussie Republicans) accept millions form them and then oppose or water down most anti-smoking legislation.
It is only through the tightening of regulation on tobacco companies that smoking rates have declined. If government has not stepped in we'd probably still have smoking rates in the 70% range.
I repeat, I'm fairly libertarian when it comes to drug use (of all kinds) and am very critical of the so called 'war on drugs'. Provided your use does not harm others and you are not mislead into using the product and are of an age where you can make an informed decision, then your personal choice is to be respected. I just think it is hypocritical of tobacco companies to portray themselves as anything other than drug cartels, and I believe they should be liable for the effects of their products.
I watched my grandmother die what can only be described a slow torturous death from her 25 a day habit. My grandfather who never smoked died of smoking related cancer some 5 years ahead of her - he hung on for two weeks in intensive care after massive surgeries before his body gave up. His final words to my father were, "This is a terrible way to go."
But you know there is a reason - aside from the proven failings of prohabition - that smoking is not and will not be banned, because the government love it. in the past 10 years cigarettes have doubled in price and all of that is tax. Do you also think we should be able to sue them as a result?
not really related but awful that your grandparents went like that
I don't advocate a ban, governments have tobacco stains on their hands and they need the revenue - for at least as long as it takes the current crop of smoking related illnesses to work their way through the health system.
The government protect the tobacco and alcohol industries.
The reason people cannot sue tobacco companies is because of legislation, they are being protected by government. Case in point: It is illegal to grow your own tobacco! It's illegal to grow pot. Who benefits from that decision?
Ironic the sides of the arguement we seem to be on as I get the impression - don't know why - that you are a non-smoker
It's been great debating with you, I can happy agree to disagree with you but think in the scheme of it all, we actually share a fair amount of common ground
Respectful and logical! ...imagine that.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Cuz I dont want to turn into one of you.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9ySCcnoo3c
I only miss cigarettes when I dream about them, but when I do I wake up thinking for sure I've just had a smoke...
I'm sorry- where were we? Ah yes, a serious discussion...
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I don't want the government telling me I can't smoke on my own property. It's my property to smoke on. If it bothers someone I would urge them to come and talk to me. I would be happy to smoke on another part of my property.
I understand people aren't always going to be as nice as I would be but I'm sorry, that's too bad. If someone owns property they can smoke on it.
I know this is vitriol but I respect property rights.