Will the New Tobacco Tax stop you from buying Tobacco to mix with your Marijuana?

[aero]

You completely miss the point of HR, HR assumes people will engage in a particular behaviour whether it is dangerous or not and aims to inform these people of the safest way to engage in a behaviour that isn't neccessarily inherently safe. Telling people NOT to do something is not harm reduction, you are not attempting to reduce the harm associated with smoking, you are attempting to tell people not to smoke all together.

Errr isn't that harm reduction?

Smokeing causes cancer... Period.

Other drugs can be used safely with no ill effects.

That's the difference. One kills regardless of 1 or 1000 ciggarettes. There is NO safe way to smoke.

Defending something thats deadly is irresponsible. We should not promote smokeing. Tolerate it yes, promote no. A DOC thats deadly is stupid.


We can't HR it as it's not possible. The HR is to stop smokeing alltogether.

This isn't a "I'm so cool i smoke" club. It's about the application of safe drug takeing. Smokeing is in no way ever safe.

 

[drug_mentor]

^ Your a fucking wanker mate really, sorry to turn it into that but it is that simple.

Harm REDUCTION is about reducing harms not eliminating them. Harm reduction assumes people will take risks in life because risks make life more enjoyable, it aims to equip them with the knowledge to undertake these activities with the MINIMAL RISK POSSIBLE WHILE STILL DOING IT.

You could argue smoking dope is in no way safe ever by the same token because all smoke does damage instantly. An addiction to tobacco is NEVER safe, having a couple ciggies on the sly is no worse for you than any other drug occassionally, i may even go as far as to suggest it could be less harmful than many. I don't believe nicotine is neurotoxic? Could be wrong but I doubt it is as much as say, meth. How many fucking cigarettes does it take to get cancer? Wonder if you would like to see what happens to anyone who goes through a similar amount of shots of dope, lines of charlie, ecstasy tablets, cones, sleeping pills, you fuckign name it. I am guessing any substance abused to that level is going to cause problems, and all recreational drugs have abuse potential, and they all have addicts, it doesn't mean its practical or fair and its certainly not smart to slug these marginalised people with increased costs.

I wouldn't really say there is any "safe" way to inject street drugs of unknown purity. The fact is it is a downrigh risky behaviour that will kill you long before smoking more often than not. We aren't on here telling people not to shoot street drugs though, because that isn't HR. We tell them the safest way to engage in a dangerous activity.

Also, it is pretty well documented that the cost of drugs to addicts is a direct harm caused to the user and society. Why in the fuck do you think they are starting to prescribe addicts free heroin? It isn't because the heroin is good for them (although it is definately not AS unhealthy as tobacco) it is because the less it costs the addict the less impact there is on other people. That article clearly illustrates a way in which smokers paying more for cigarettes affects even those who don't smoke. I don't give a shit if you personally think smoking should be banned, but for you to come on bluelight and tell me that is harm reduction pisses me right off.

 

[aero]

1 ciggarette is not equal to 1 shot of dope. You can't argue that just because you think 1 ciggarette is ok it is. It's documented that it isnt. And as for drugs they are safe if 'used' correctly. If someone is harmed by cut in a shot of dope it's not the dope that created harm.

You can take any recreational drug on the planet and compare it with smokeing. See which is safer.

Just because you can swim with sharks doesnt make it safe. The same applies to smokeing. Your just kidding yourself if you think it's ok to do more than other drugs.

 

[drug_mentor]

^ Really, so neurotoxicity caused by amphetamines and cardiotoxicity caused by cocaine aren't real harms? I suppose when heroin addicts steal your TV because they are withdrawing and can't afford a fix this isn't real harm? Bad acid trips? Depression and anxiety brought on by marijuana? None of these sound like harms to you? Granted some of them are factors of abuse like heroin withdrawal, people can do everything right in regards to set and setting and still have a bad trip. Meth destroys brain cells, as does alcohol, that is a factor of use not overuse. Cocaine fucks your heart like nothing else, that means yes just a line or two is causing some harm.

To you comment about cuts in dope, dope kills WAY more people than the cutters ever did and while it is true if dope was never cut and of known purity a lot of those deaths wouldn't of happened. I guaran-fucking-tee you if you make pure vials of diamorphine available to people right now someone is going to die as a result, that is a harm caused by the drug.

To state what you just did really does prove your lack of intelligence and your total bias on this topic. The truth is tobacco is one of the most harmful substances out there to be addicted to, if you are not addicted and use it infrequently there probably aren't any more harms associated with it than anything else, arguments could probably be made there are less than most, ESPECIALLY if you factor in the current illicit market drugs are traded in.

 

[MovedToCairns]

agreed, aero your one sided stupidity on a site like this is so contradictory and dumb I am amazed

 

[crazynate:]]

Studies do show that increases in price are one of the most effective means of getting people to quit. This can still be something that people against the tax can acknowledge.

hmm.. I guess I should have said that this is my way to cope with the rise of price in cigarette, i just simply adjust where I spend money and when I have $40 dollars left till payday, I take $5-$10 out for cigarettes...

 

[Jabberwocky]

^^ No, you don't HAVE to give up, I just think that it's a good idea, all you HAVE to do is just pay the costs that your choices are having on society, that is all. $10 billion in 'tangible' costs to society, compared to $6 billion in revenue. It's about right that smokers be expected to contribute to this significant drain on society imho.

what about all us drug users? maybe we should start giving a 10% of the price of whatever drugs we buy and give it to the ambos for when the time comes and we're ODing

 

[aero]

^ Really, so neurotoxicity caused by amphetamines and cardiotoxicity caused by cocaine aren't real harms? I suppose when heroin addicts steal your TV because they are withdrawing and can't afford a fix this isn't real harm? Bad acid trips? Depression and anxiety brought on by marijuana? None of these sound like harms to you? Granted some of them are factors of abuse like heroin withdrawal, people can do everything right in regards to set and setting and still have a bad trip. Meth destroys brain cells, as does alcohol, that is a factor of use not overuse. Cocaine fucks your heart like nothing else, that means yes just a line or two is causing some harm.in.

You think cocaine and meth are more toxic than ciggarettes lol. Your just trying to throw ectremes into the mix. I'm argueing that moderate use of a substance can be safe. Smokeing cannot. Therein lies the nail in this arguments coffin.

 

[aero]

If i smoke meth once a week, will i steal 52 TV's a year? The junkie is hardly a representation of drug users.

 

[bit_pattern]

what about all us drug users? maybe we should start giving a 10% of the price of whatever drugs we buy and give it to the ambos for when the time comes and we're ODing

A fine idea, and if street drugs were regulated then I think such things would need to be factored into the pricing structure, another good argument for regulating other drugs.

The only real problem with that is that I think if we ever did regulate heroin then it would probably involve some sort of "free" heroin scheme for registered addicts, in which case we'd be balancing the cost to society of things like crime etc, against the cost of OD's, therefore it would probably be better to minimise costs to addicts, but at the same time regulating the market would probably lead to less OD's anyway so it would be a win-win situation.

But, yeah, I'm all for regulating and taxing recreational drugs, if pot were legalised I'd fully expect a good 10% tax (at least) to cover costs to the medical and mental health sectors, and for general revenue purposes. Same goes for MDMA or anything else you'd care to mention. I think that would fundamentally be a good thing. Better that than it all being funneled into the pockets of organised criminals, and once regulated and taxed it could probably STILL be provided to the consumer for less than it is today.

 

[bit_pattern]

If i smoke meth once a week, will i steal 52 TV's a year? The junkie is hardly a representation of drug users.

And how many people smoke 20-40 pipes of meth everyday? Nicotine is fiendishly addictive and doesn't lend itself to casual use as with other drugs, because not only is it hella addictive, an addict can function perfectly well in society well maintaining an addiction, whereas most meth or coke users who use everyday will crash spectacularly within a year or two, while opiate addicts barely function in the first place. It's comparing apples to oranges, nothing is quite as insidious as a nicotine addiction in that the VAST majority of addicts use everyday and can function perfectly well right up until their health gives way.

 

[aero]

And how many people smoke 20-40 pipes of meth everyday? Nicotine is fiendishly addictive and doesn't lend itself to casual use as with other drugs, because not only is it hella addictive, an addict can function perfectly well in society well maintaining an addiction, whereas most meth or coke users who use everyday will crash spectacularly within a year or two, while opiate addicts barely function in the first place. It's comparing apples to oranges, nothing is quite as insidious as a nicotine addiction in that the VAST majority of addicts use everyday and can function perfectly well right up until their health gives way.

That's what i'm trying to say. They don't compare. We can't match or quantify one with the other. Ciggarettes are so bad because you can function with them. IMO that's when a drug becomes truly an epidemic.

 

[Sykik]

Just grow your own tabaco and be done with it. I for one am anti-smoking, just because I can see what it has done to my own family.

I for one am all about risks vs rewards.

i.e mdma, reward = 10/10
tobacco, reward = 2/10

I don't get the tobacco high at all, it seems more like something to do, something to consume you.

Clearly we can argue the different risks, but what reward is there for smoking, besides street cred.

Anyway, the cost on the health system is huge, so, tax it. If they started to tax MDMA, i'd be all for that too.

 

[aero]

Just grow your own tabaco and be done with it. I for one am anti-smoking, just because I can see what it has done to my own family.

I for one am all about risks vs rewards.

i.e mdma, reward = 10/10
tobacco, reward = 2/10

I don't get the tobacco high at all, it seems more like something to do, something to consume you.

Clearly we can argue the different risks, but what reward is there for smoking, besides street cred.

Anyway, the cost on the health system is huge, so, tax it. If they started to tax MDMA, i'd be all for that too.

100% agree.

It is like slapping yourself in the face really hard, it gives you a rush but is the reward really worth the punishment.

I don't at all feel like paying taxes to fund a generation of cancer stricken smokers. They should front the bill entirely.

 

[drug_mentor]

Aero, who cares if nicotine is more toxic than cocaine and meth, they are still toxic, you said there is no inherent danger to using them and you are wrong. Also, why do you get to be the judge of whats too toxic? Cocaine, meth and alcohol are all toxic but who gives the slightest shit but tobacco is more toxic so lets ban that eh? Thats just stupid, either you should be able to use toxic substances for your own enjoyment or you shouldn't, its pretty black and white in my view.

 

[bit_pattern]

Well, that is a bit of a straw man D_M, no one is calling for tobacco to be banned, just that tobacco users be expected to pay their fair share. And I think it's a travesty that other drugs aren't regulated so that we don't have an opportunity to price them in a way that the profits get funneled back into the health system in the way that tobacco profits are.

 

[bit_pattern]

Oh, and I menat to mention this last night:

The fact your a reformed smoker really pisses me off too! It was OK when you wanted to do it but now because you have made a change other people should be subject to hgher fees than you or lets be honest if you got your way just plain banned from doing so. Thats a crock of shit mate and it makes you a hypocrite I am sorry to say.

The best thing about quitting is becoming a self-righteous ex-smoker

 

[drug_mentor]

Yeah fine talking about tobacco bans was a bit over the top, its still fucking bullshit how everyone just thinks its fine to slug the smokers over and over again. It is a health issue and it does cost society money but there are many health issues and they don't tackle any of them in the way they have smoking where they just elevate and elevate the cost to the consumer.

You know I do acknowledge smoking does cause more illness and death than anything else out there but its still bullshit we are the only ones expected to be held fully accountable for the medical costs. A packet of cigarettes costs more than 10 times what it did like 20 years ago and its basically all due to tax increases. Alright IF your talking about just pre mixed spirits they charge a bit more for that now than they used to but it pales in comparison to the price difference in cigarettes. They haven't put any big tax hikes on fast food even though we are just about the fattest cunts in the world, they don't add huge amounts of tax onto tuition fees for martial arts and other sports that have a high potential to cause injury.

For me personally, thats a huge part of what really shits me for tax hikes on cigarettes. Fine if you firmly believe in a policy where the level of tax on an activity reflects the potential danger and cost to society, apply this philosophy equally, not just to cigarette smoking because you dislike it.

 

[Sykik]

Can someone who does smoke tell me the relative reward/high and is it worth the amount it costs now?

Also would you be against a MDMA (or other illegal drug) tax if it was made legal to counteract the price on the health system, which could be determined if it was made legal?

 

[bit_pattern]

Well, the tax regime on alcohol is changing, soon a $15 cask of wine will cost more like $40+ and as a current alcoholic that will probably get up my nose a bit tbh, but it is probably long overdue. And, quite frankly, I think a junk food tax is probably overdue, especially if the revenue went into subsidising fresh, healthy food. Relative to increasing fruit and vege prices the cost of junk food has become a lot cheaper. The following is American, but it highlights the problem here as well imo

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/05/19/soda-tax-leonhardt/
Don't know how much this applies to Aus, haven't seen similar figures here, but my gut-feeling is that relative to fresh foods the price of junk food has fallen over the years (I remember when you couldn't get a pizza for less than $20 for instance) while healthy foods have steadily risen. We are going to have a massive explosion in obesity related health problems in the not too distant future that are going to become a real burden on the health system. I think, personally, there is a role for the tax system to correct this imbalance.