Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Tasmania considers cigarette ban for anyone born after 2000
Comments
-
southamptonaddick 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 think its a great idea, but I'd hate for it to be extended to the things you mention. It's not just that they are the things I like that make me say that though.Vinnie V. said:Or high cholesterol food?
At least half of all smokers I know, and I suspect it's actually a lot more than that, wish they didn't smoke. Some manage to give up some don't, but you struggle to find people who smoke for positive reasons: Who say's they do it because they like the taste or because it makes them feel good? People do it out of habit and to avoid feeling shitty if they don't.
For most people drinking and eating are different. Of course, there are alcoholics and their are binge-eaters who just can't say no, but they are the minority. Generally speaking, people who drink do so because they enjoy it, people who eat fatty food do so because they enjoy it. It's quite different.
0 -
I do actually enjoy smoking as weird as that may seem.
The only reason I would consider quitting is because of the cost.
0 -
As I already mentioned it will be a success, because it is the law.HarryHutchens said:
Would be surprised if drinking was costing the NHS anywhere near as much as smoking does, but I don't know the numbers either.southamptonaddick said:
What is usually trotted out is how much it costs the NHS.MrLargo said:
I smoke to. Drinking not the same - not as addictive, and virtually harmless in moderation.southamptonaddick 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 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.
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.0 -
Which explains why there are no drugs/guns/prostitutes in the UK.Algarveaddick said:
As I already mentioned it will be a success, because it is the law.HarryHutchens said:
Would be surprised if drinking was costing the NHS anywhere near as much as smoking does, but I don't know the numbers either.southamptonaddick said:
What is usually trotted out is how much it costs the NHS.MrLargo said:
I smoke to. Drinking not the same - not as addictive, and virtually harmless in moderation.southamptonaddick 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 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.
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.0 -
sitting here with my housemate, and we both cracked up at that!!ValleyGary said:now if only they could stop Australians from growing up to be arseholes
0 -
Always the same, a thread about smoking and my beer gets dragged into it.
Why not diesel burning engines, coal fired power stations, airplanes, chemical works, steelworks, farming, the 6billion other people on my planet.
Please leave my 3 match day pints out of smoking threads.0 -
Still no one's attempted to fill the 10 billion tax deficit. Anyone?
0 -
Can't we just put it on the slate?0
-
LOL. I think you know what I am getting at... :-)Stu of Yangzhou said:
Which explains why there are no drugs/guns/prostitutes in the UK.Algarveaddick said:
As I already mentioned it will be a success, because it is the law.HarryHutchens said:
Would be surprised if drinking was costing the NHS anywhere near as much as smoking does, but I don't know the numbers either.southamptonaddick said:
What is usually trotted out is how much it costs the NHS.MrLargo said:
I smoke to. Drinking not the same - not as addictive, and virtually harmless in moderation.southamptonaddick 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 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.
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.
0 -
Stu's got a point though. It won't work, all that will happen is that fags will end up bought on the black market and become like every other illicit substance. The 'war on drugs' has been an absolute, unmitigated disaster - like prohibition on an immense scale. Millions of lives have been lost in this phony war - the only sensible way forward is legalisation and regulation of everything.Algarveaddick said:
LOL. I think you know what I am getting at... :-)Stu of Yangzhou said:
Which explains why there are no drugs/guns/prostitutes in the UK.Algarveaddick said:
As I already mentioned it will be a success, because it is the law.HarryHutchens said:
Would be surprised if drinking was costing the NHS anywhere near as much as smoking does, but I don't know the numbers either.southamptonaddick said:
What is usually trotted out is how much it costs the NHS.MrLargo said:
I smoke to. Drinking not the same - not as addictive, and virtually harmless in moderation.southamptonaddick 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 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.
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.
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Agree totally Leroy, I was mostly referring at the apparent "success" of the pub smoking ban in the UK...Leroy Ambrose said:
Stu's got a point though. It won't work, all that will happen is that fags will end up bought on the black market and become like every other illicit substance. The 'war on drugs' has been an absolute, unmitigated disaster - like prohibition on an immense scale. Millions of lives have been lost in this phony war - the only sensible way forward is legalisation and regulation of everything.Algarveaddick said:
LOL. I think you know what I am getting at... :-)Stu of Yangzhou said:
Which explains why there are no drugs/guns/prostitutes in the UK.Algarveaddick said:
As I already mentioned it will be a success, because it is the law.HarryHutchens said:
Would be surprised if drinking was costing the NHS anywhere near as much as smoking does, but I don't know the numbers either.southamptonaddick said:
What is usually trotted out is how much it costs the NHS.MrLargo said:
I smoke to. Drinking not the same - not as addictive, and virtually harmless in moderation.southamptonaddick 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 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.
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.
0 -
Same and I'll probably try and quit if I ever have Children but for the time being I enjoy it as do most people I know. However if it was banned and I knew I could end up with a criminal record for smoking then I'd give up. I don't love it that much.southamptonaddick said:I do actually enjoy smoking as weird as that may seem.
The only reason I would consider quitting is because of the cost.0
