Tassie pushes to ban cigarette sales to anyone born after the year 2000.

[Busty St Clare]

TASMANIA'S upper house is calling for a ban on cigarette sales to anyone born after the year 2000.

The state's legislative council has unanimously backed a motion that would effectively start phasing out tobacco sales from 2018, the ABC has reported.

The ban would begin taking effect once people born in 2000 turned 18.

Independent MP Ivan Dean said the move would stop young people from taking up the habit.

"This would mean that we would have a generation of people not exposed to tobacco products," he said.

The move comes less than a week after the High Court ruled in favour of the federal government's introduction of plain packaging for cigarettes.

Tasmanian health minister Michelle O'Byrne has asked the state's Commissioner for Children to look at the proposal, the report said.

Here

Not a bad idea. If you wanted to eventually ban smoking you have to cut off the demand at the root.

 

[laugh]

had to laugh when i heard some dude interviewed on jjj answer something along the lines of 'i couldn't give a fuck if they (smokes) were packaged in a black packet with the skull and cross bones symbol with the name tumours, id still buy them!'

 

[yagecero]

LOL, Laugh - Have you ever seen these?

Death Cigarettes

And Busty, what about those children who are born to less intelligent parents that don't mind if they smoke - the kind of parents that'll give a cigi to their children? Or, those that choose to smoke under-age as a form of rebellion toward their healthy parents?

 

[Busty St Clare]

Well those kids will still be fucked as adults, especially when their parents eventually die from lung cancer and they can't go to the service station for them.

Of course this isn't going to end all smoking, but it is a healthier first step towards banning tobacco completely. Obviously this is too cruel given the thousands of current smokers who first started when it was advertised and wholesome.

Baby steps.

 

[T. Calderone]

So in theory, it would be alright for my son (born in 1997) to purchase cigarettes once he turns 18. But kids born a few years later would not have the same privilege? What about when they turn 25? I might be missing something but this legislation is doomed to fail.

** scratching head and crushes out cigarette **

 

[Busty St Clare]

They have to set a date somewhere. As each generation of smokers die there will no longer be another to take up the habit.

I'm sure the same thing was said 40 yr ago when the anti smoking campaigns were first introduced. The rate of smokers has consistently fallen from 34% in 1980 to 17% today. In twenty years I'd expect it would be less than 5%

 

[Verybuffed]

I used to smoke Death brand Cigarettes back in the day. We used to pay a lot more for them as well.

You also used to be able to get funny little stickers that you stuck over the existing warning labels.

 

[psytaco]

Am I the only one who is not missing the fact that prohibition doesn't work and that this will just boost a black market for tobacco?

Also, when I was 14 I could buy smokes at plenty of milkbars and service stations. Or I could just find someone older to buy them for me. whats to stop these 18 year olds doing the exact same thing?

 

[Captain Brewster]

So in theory, it would be alright for my son (born in 1997) to purchase cigarettes once he turns 18. But kids born a few years later would not have the same privilege? What about when they turn 25? I might be missing something but this legislation is doomed to fail.

** scratching head and crushes out cigarette **

Yeah, it would be very strange if bloke beside you was a year older, blazing a cigg, then he goes to offer you one, "sorry I was born 2000, it's fucking illegal for me mate."

I think it's a step forward, it does seem a little rough for the people who will have no choice as to if their allowed to smoke. But it has to happen one day.

 

[Busty St Clare]

Am I the only one who is not missing the fact that prohibition doesn't work and that this will just boost a black market for tobacco?

Also, when I was 14 I could buy smokes at plenty of milkbars and service stations. Or I could just find someone older to buy them for me. whats to stop these 18 year olds doing the exact same thing?

Nothing but eventually it there will be no one alive who is allowed to purchase tobacco.

Of course there will be a black market but the percentage of idiots who would be willing to chase down a drug that gives you little to no high would be insignificant.

 

[footscrazy]

I'm not surprised to see this; I've always thought the increasing restrictions on tobacco were leading to an eventual ban.

I expect to see the same arguments here as in any thread where the topic of prohibiton, decriminalisation or legalisation of drugs and their various pros and cons are discussed. I've never smoked and I think it's a pointless and stupid habit, but I support personal choice when it comes to ingesting drugs, though smoking is one that tends to have more affect on other people than most, just given the nature of the ROA leading to passive inhalation. I think restricting smoking in public areas where it can affect other people is a good thing, but I think someone should be allowed to have a smoke in their own home.

Busty has mentioned the stats showing that consumption has dropped and I think that demonstrates the effectiveness of education over prohibition. Campaigns about smoking are not objective, and they're heavily based on scare tactics, but I still think education around smoking has been greatly increased and there is much more factual information in a smoking campaign than in one around drugs. There are several measures in place to help people quit, and in some cases these measures send quite a supportive and understanding message. I'm thinking in particular about those ads on tv which send messages like 'don't give up giving up' which are empathetic to the fact that quitting is hard and cravings are real, and that a lot of people don't quit on their first try - but this doesn't mean you're a bad person, too weak willed or will never quit. This is in stark contrast to campaigns about drugs, which frame users as bad people - criminals, in fact. In terms of media campaigns, there is no empathy for someone who doesn't quit the first time (nor any advice on how to do so), no understanding that quitting an addiction is tough - just constant criticism and fear mongering about evil drugs. I think prohibiting tobacco will eventually force smokers into the latter category - support and compassion will drop as increasingly smokers are just lumped in with the rest of the criminals.

One can only generalise on how this will impact outcomes - there are so many variables, but the stats presented by Busty seem to suggest the former works - smoking rates have dropped. On the other hand, drug use in Australia has stayed constant or increased. It seems ridiculous to me to change from a method were at least some health gains are being made, to one which is demonstrated to be worse than useless.

This is not to mention that prohibiting smoking runs the risk of only increasing their 'cool' factor.

 

[Busty St Clare]

Illicit drug use sits under 10% of the population. If we are to use that as our model then prohibition will almost half the current rate of consumption.

 

[footscrazy]

I wont argue with that. Prohibiting tobacco will no doubt prevent some people from experiencing the harms related to its use. Tobacco is one drug where the harms from using it are severe even without considering harms that may be imposed if it was made illegal. My post wasn't great as I've focused on one issue without grounding it within the reality of the situation so I'll clarify by saying, I think this is anything but a simple or clear cut decision, and there's many issues to consider. Reducing harms in one area may increase them in another. I think approaching this health issue with the 'magic bullet' approach of prohibiton masks the intricacies of the situation, and prevents or retards any novel and more effective developments in harm reduction. With an issue as complex as this, I don't think it's enough to say that the ends justifies the means.

 

[yagecero]

Well those kids will still be fucked as adults, especially when their parents eventually die from lung cancer and they can't go to the service station for them.

Of course this isn't going to end all smoking, but it is a healthier first step towards banning tobacco completely. Obviously this is too cruel given the thousands of current smokers who first started when it was advertised and wholesome.

Baby steps.

I agree with what you're saying 100% but my perspective is slightly different given that I fit the description of having ignorant parents that didn't really mind too much if I smoked. The absurd thing is I'm incredibly addicted to cigarettes, even though I completely understand the dangers involved, and would also agree from first hand experience that nicotine offers next to no positive reward (other than satisfying the addiction once it has taken hold).

My argument is related to the sociocultural aspect of the suggested amendment to the law. How much is someone to blame for their addiction to a substance, especially if their life has been saturated by experience with said substance?

If I take myself as an example in relation to nicotine, I've been exposed to it since conception. And then, during childhood and adolescence, cigarettes were an entirely "normal" part of life as I perceived it. This led to me stealing cigarettes from my parents, and after being caught, having them buy them for me.

I'm aware of how stupid my actions are today (and how stupid my parents' were in the past), but still, I have been unsuccessful in my attempts at quitting.

I think it's ridiculous that such an addictive and dangerous substance is legal. But the fact that it IS legal and HAS BEEN for an awfully long time means that we have an entrenched sociocultural reality to rebuild.

I wont argue with that. Prohibiting tobacco will no doubt prevent some people from experiencing the harms related to its use. Tobacco is one drug where the harms from using it are severe even without considering harms that may be imposed if it was made illegal. My post wasn't great as I've focused on one issue without grounding it within the reality of the situation so I'll clarify by saying, I think this is anything but a simple or clear cut decision, and there's many issues to consider. Reducing harms in one area may increase them in another. I think approaching this health issue with the 'magic bullet' approach of prohibiton masks the intricacies of the situation, and prevents or retards any novel and more effective developments in harm reduction. With an issue as complex as this, I don't think it's enough to say that the ends justifies the means.

This is an excellent post. The question, at least for now - while there are still quite a few smokers - is not as simple as an attempted ban, no matter how protracted and drawn out.

This bullshit exists. So we have to work from the perspective of the bullshit, not just pretend that nobody smells of it.

 

[Divine Moments]

The burden smoking places on the healthcare system is enormous - a cost that every taxpayer pays, and a cost paid by everyone who has decreased access to healthcare due to hospitals filling to capacity and waiting lists stretching beyond reasonable levels. I'm not addressing this at anyone in particular, but I think it's short-sighted to lump the right to use all drugs together. There are some which, even if used to the extent that tobacco is, would cause far less (or others potentially more) problems for society. Arguing for personal liberties becomes a self-defeating cause when those liberties would infringe on others' liberties. I think a sort of utilitarian libertarianism is far more valid than simply arguing for people to have the right to do whatever they want.

 

[webbykevin]

So lets go the whole hog and ban sugar and fat because of the obese people. while we're at it lets ban motor sports because it promotes unsafe driving and excessive fuel consumption, oh and lets ban cattle farming because it wrecks the topsoil, and Dr's are no longer allowed to define every emotion as a mental illness, no more ritalin, boxing is out too... and beer, gambling, swimming in the sea because of sharks and all that money we waste on lifeguards.....where do we stop.

Maybe we could make war illegal, imagine that.

 

[laugh]

Maybe we could make war illegal, imagine that.

That would be fucked...for the economy

 

[OPP]

Here

Not a bad idea. If you wanted to eventually ban smoking you have to cut off the demand at the root.

That's not cutting off demand. It's cutting off supply.
So what happens to the kids that start smoking at 14 illegally (who starts smoking at 18?????)???
I can see why they are trying to do it but it will just make people obtain tobacco illegally.
Are police going to ask people for ID whenever they are smoking???

 

[Divine Moments]

So lets go the whole hog and ban sugar and fat because of the obese people. while we're at it lets ban motor sports because it promotes unsafe driving and excessive fuel consumption, oh and lets ban cattle farming because it wrecks the topsoil, and Dr's are no longer allowed to define every emotion as a mental illness, no more ritalin, boxing is out too... and beer, gambling, swimming in the sea because of sharks and all that money we waste on lifeguards.....where do we stop.

Maybe we could make war illegal, imagine that.

That's quite a misrepresentational reductio ad absurdum you've used there. I always thought the fallacious 'slippery slope' argument was the government's favourite... The fact is that not everyone is a complete moron and in real life lines are drawn. People are perfectly capable of saying they'll allow one thing and not another. Your points are just irrelevant strawmen which have nothing to do with this discussion. Nobody would ban fat or sugar - they are vital to life, unlike recreational drugs.

 

[shimazu]

vaporizers are the future

how can you advocate for marijuana laws being relaxed yet try to ban tobacco at the same time?