Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Tasmania considers cigarette ban for anyone born after 2000

The Australian state of Tasmania is considering a ban on cigarette sales to anyone born after the year 2000 in an attempt to create a smoking-free generation.

Discuss.

I think it's a great idea, although no doubt, fraught with difficulties.
«1

Comments

  • Bloody 11 year olds smoking.

    I don't where they get the money from.
  • difficult to enforce certainly at first, but certainly worth a try. Once it's been going for 10-15 years it'll be a lot harder for teenagers to try and pretend they're 30!
  • now if only they could stop Australians from growing up to be arseholes
  • Think that's a really good idea. Governments should be concentrating much more on stopping people from taking up what is obviously a dangerous habit, and concentrating a little less on persecuting established smokers from doing something which has very quickly moved from being almost a social norm to a social taboo in a very short space of time.
  • As a Tasmanian myself I can only applaud the groundbreaking idea.
  • I'll start by saying I smoke.

    Do people also think it's a good idea to do the same thing with drinking?

    Just wondered.
  • Or high cholesterol food?
  • I'll start by saying I smoke.

    Do people also think it's a good idea to do the same thing with drinking?

    Just wondered.

    No.

  • I'll start by saying I smoke.

    Do people also think it's a good idea to do the same thing with drinking?

    Just wondered.

    I smoke to. Drinking not the same - not as addictive, and virtually harmless in moderation.
  • Random thoughts.

    I think if smoking had been 'invented' today, with all the health issues known, it surely would not be legalised. In this country cigs are highly taxed, but how much would be saved in health bills if nobody smoked.

    In Eric Clapton's autobiography he says, of all his addictions smoking was the hardest to give up.

    Not sure alcohol would be legal either if it had been 'invented' today, rather than thousands of years ago. As a very heavy drinker, I certainly wouldn't want it banned and, as has been said, in moderation there are no health issues and in fact it may even be good for you.
  • Sponsored links:


  • MrLargo said:

    I'll start by saying I smoke.

    Do people also think it's a good idea to do the same thing with drinking?

    Just wondered.

    I smoke to. Drinking not the same - not as addictive, and virtually harmless in moderation.
    May not be as addictive but is as harmful, lung cancer normally takes years of abuse, one silly night on the town pissed up could be your last.
  • edited August 2012
    Saga Lout said:

    Random thoughts.

    I think if smoking had been 'invented' today, with all the health issues known, it surely would not be legalised. In this country cigs are highly taxed, but how much would be saved in health bills if nobody smoked.

    In Eric Clapton's autobiography he says, of all his addictions smoking was the hardest to give up.

    Not sure alcohol would be legal either if it had been 'invented' today, rather than thousands of years ago. As a very heavy drinker, I certainly wouldn't want it banned and, as has been said, in moderation there are no health issues and in fact it may even be good for you.

    depends what you drink...oranjeboom I’m sure is pretty harmful., if you think how bad it is for your taste buds, just imagine what it’s doing to your insides.
  • Great idea. Handing over the regulation of addictive drugs to criminals has a long history of working out great. For the criminals.
  • Great idea
  • Jints said:

    Great idea. Handing over the regulation of addictive drugs to criminals has a long history of working out great. For the criminals.


    Ding ding ding.

    Just look at our current "war on drugs" if that's not enough, what about prohibition in the states.
  • It will work, as does anything you are forced to do by governments. There will also be criminals getting involved as Jints says. And then they will make drinkers the next target, slowly, the way they have with smokers, and once the majority have brainwashed into thinking it's evil, they will ration it initially, and then bring in more legislation like that proposed in Tasmania. Fatty foods will follow. Divide and conquer, that's what our "masters" have done for years. As the Manics once sang, tolerate this and your children will be next...
  • Anyone got a light?
  • Would they not just go to the next town / state and buy them? It's like if London banned them you'd just go to Dartford or Calais.
  • It is an island NA. Not impossible, but more difficult.
  • MrLargo said:

    I'll start by saying I smoke.

    Do people also think it's a good idea to do the same thing with drinking?

    Just wondered.

    I smoke to. Drinking not the same - not as addictive, and virtually harmless in moderation.
    What is usually trotted out is how much it costs the NHS.

    I have no idea of actual figures but drink related costs are always quoted as being high.

    Not just long term health issues but also the costs involved on binge drinking etc which then you have to add policing costs as well.

  • Sponsored links:


  • MrLargo said:

    I'll start by saying I smoke.

    Do people also think it's a good idea to do the same thing with drinking?

    Just wondered.

    I smoke to. Drinking not the same - not as addictive, and virtually harmless in moderation.
    What is usually trotted out is how much it costs the NHS.

    I have no idea of actual figures but drink related costs are always quoted as being high.

    Not just long term health issues but also the costs involved on binge drinking etc which then you have to add policing costs as well.

    Would be surprised if drinking was costing the NHS anywhere near as much as smoking does, but I don't know the numbers either.

    Binge drinking is not a problem in many countries like it is here, so there has to be a way to control that without banning it. Smoking however, appears to be killing people in a far more even handed way.

    In terms of increased crime that may or may not result from banning smoking - an infrastructure is already in place to combat smuggled tobacco, so although more resources would be needed its hard to see how it would go up exponentially.

    In Tasmania it is just a trial so it will be interesting to see how that works - and I doubt that there will be any other places following suit unless it's a success. If less people take up the habit then there will be less demand for smuggled tobacco from (presumably) mainland Oz.

  • Brilliant Idea.
  • As someone who started smoking aged 13 (now 45) and have been pretty much smoking since (apart from failed attempts to quit) I wish the Govt would just ban tobacco altogether. But we all know that'll never happen.


    After someone on here posting about the Allen Carr book, I went out and got myself a copy recently. Not had the time to sit and read it yet but will be doing so within the next 2 weeks..........................
  • Also smoking related treatment costs the NHS roughly £1.7 Billion a year a quite huge amount of money I'm sure you'll agree. However..............Taxes raised by sales of Tobacco last year was estimated at £10 billion.

    I'm not sure any of us would like to fund the shortfall from a ban.
  • Smokers also die younger so are not a burden on the Nhs in old age.
  • Also with young people standing little chance of getting on the property ladder and so having to rent all their lives. After retirement who's going to pick up those costs.

    Clearly the more people that die young the better off the country will be. Therefore smoking should be positively encouraged. :/
  • MrLargo said:

    I'll start by saying I smoke.

    Do people also think it's a good idea to do the same thing with drinking?

    Just wondered.

    I smoke to. Drinking not the same - not as addictive, and virtually harmless in moderation.
    What is usually trotted out is how much it costs the NHS.

    I have no idea of actual figures but drink related costs are always quoted as being high.

    Not just long term health issues but also the costs involved on binge drinking etc which then you have to add policing costs as well.

    Would be surprised if drinking was costing the NHS anywhere near as much as smoking does, but I don't know the numbers either.

    Binge drinking is not a problem in many countries like it is here, so there has to be a way to control that without banning it. Smoking however, appears to be killing people in a far more even handed way.

    In terms of increased crime that may or may not result from banning smoking - an infrastructure is already in place to combat smuggled tobacco, so although more resources would be needed its hard to see how it would go up exponentially.

    In Tasmania it is just a trial so it will be interesting to see how that works - and I doubt that there will be any other places following suit unless it's a success. If less people take up the habit then there will be less demand for smuggled tobacco from (presumably) mainland Oz.

    It is not just the cost on the nhs drinking causes it is the burden/cost on the emergency services. If you put them all together I would be surprised if drinking doesn't cost more. 'binge drinking' will never stop in this country and I am guessing by the time I hit old age liver abuse will be a big killer
  • edited August 2012

    As someone who started smoking aged 13 (now 45) and have been pretty much smoking since (apart from failed attempts to quit) I wish the Govt would just ban tobacco altogether. But we all know that'll never happen.


    After someone on here posting about the Allen Carr book, I went out and got myself a copy recently. Not had the time to sit and read it yet but will be doing so within the next 2 weeks..........................

    Was me who posted it tango. I was in the same boat mate....never thought i would quit after "quitting" practically every Sunday night for about 5 years.

    Nothing to lose by reading it. It didnt work for me, i quit by patches and becoming obsessed with exercise but i know loads who have used it, read it once and never smoked again even if they had no intention.

    I say the book didnt work for me but to be honest 99% of why i quit successfully is down to reading the book and the messages being in my mind. (not scare tactics just logic and dispelling of all the myths round smoking and also quitting). Wish id read it at 18 and i would never have continued. Feel fitter now in my early 30s than i did in my late teens.

    Good luck...no harm in reading it as you'll have lost absolutely nothing. People are actually scared of reading it in case they end u quitting lol

  • edited August 2012
    Brilliant idea and I wish one of our parties had the cajones to propose the same. All those trying to equate having an occassional pint to having a cigarette...please...do me a favour. Each and every time you spark up you are effecting your health detrimentally and often those around you too. There is no safe level of smoking whereas being a light to moderate drinker is highly unlikely to lead to your premature death isn't it?

    Binge/excessive drinking is a different kettle of fish but let's not confuse the issue by suggesting smoking and having a glass of wine or two are the same thing or suggesting the gov't has some sort of agenda other than protecting our young people from a course of action that is proven to be potentially lethal to them.
  • All they have to do now is cut down their incest rate, learn to read and write and get some sewerage put in and they'll be laughing!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!