11 replies to this topic

[DKO]

The Tasmanian Government is considering ruling out banning tobacco sales to people born after 2000, in the wake of a vote in the state's Upper House last night.
Legislative Council member Ivan Dean wants to make it illegal for people born after 2000 to buy tobacco once they turn 18 - meaning they would never legally be able to buy cigarettes.
http://www.abc.net.a...016?section=tas

Now I don't smoke but I disagree with totally banning cigarette sales. If you want to smoke it's your choice, especially if someone is already a smoker they shouldn't have to quit.
But this is a decent in-between option in my opinion. Of coarse it's not perfect and younger generations will still get older generations to buy them cigarettes if they want to smoke but it does help phase them out over time.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Yeah it kind of smacks of the worst of the nanny state.

[and then]

I'm amazed they would forgo the taxes.  If they were banned in most countries there would be a HUGE revenue hole to fill from another source.  Never mind that an equal or larger healthcare burden would be helped tremendously.

[WoIverine]

When you ban something, people want it more. Continue the anti-smoking ad campaigns, make it increasingly difficult to smoke in all public venues, maybe even give out citations which hit peole's wallets. Propaganda campaigns are far more successful than bans. Majority of people believe everything they see, or hear thanks to TV and radio. Marginalize smoking until it eventually dies, or the companies go bankrupt. Eventually, no one will even care anymore.

Edited by Spid3rCyd3, 23 August 2012 - 09:41 PM.

[psyche101]

Wow, that is a dumb idea. It is amazing people are paid to come up with stupid options like this.

[chopmo]

WoIverine, on 23 August 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

When you ban something, people want it more. Continue the anti-smoking ad campaigns, make it increasingly difficult to smoke in all public venues, maybe even give out citations which hit peole's wallets. Propaganda campaigns are far more successful than bans. Majority of people believe everything they see, or hear thanks to TV and radio. Marginalize smoking until it eventually dies, or the companies go bankrupt. Eventually, no one will even care anymore.

Woah there commie. If I wish to enjoy a tabacco product I will. what they need to do is bugger off the chemicals and tax and make it a luxery not a necessiety like it is pushed by the government. Like it or not, without us smokers your health budget is shot to ****. Think about that next time you decide to snear at an Australian smoker.
WARNING WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING TO THE TABACCO INDUSTRY IS COMUNISM AND ILLEGAL

I find it hard to believe as a country we try piggyback america as much as possible but when it comes to marijuana and tabacco. Australian government is stuck with Richard Nixon mindset. If they really want to make a difference to health stop allowing the importation of herion and meth from asia/middle east.

[Rlyeh]

chopmo, on 10 December 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

WARNING WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING TO THE TABACCO INDUSTRY IS COMUNISM AND ILLEGAL

What law says it is your right to smoke?

Legalize euthanasia and let you get it over and done with.

[BonecrusherPotlessjinxpotl]

A cigarette and a pint is considered a rite of passage for some young males.
Something to make the transition between a teenager and an adult to run more smoother.
However if political correctness continues to run rife it might scar some people.
You need these little habits like smoking to calm you down and get through the rat race.
To make smoking illegal after a certain age is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard.
Who's to say this brand of zeal won't branch out in other countries.
I don't actually qualify for this but even so I'm glad I don't live in Tasmania.

[chopmo]

Rlyeh, I would perfer to smoke homegrown clean tabacco tbh, I hate the idea of the chemicals they put in it then will charge me worse than murders and rapeartists for making cleaner tabacco for personal use. Before you speak of lisences, it is a minimum requirement that you produce over $350,000 worth of tabacco per month and pay tax on it because it is above "personal" usage before they will grant you a personal tabacco growing lisence.

TBH what right is it of yours to tell me how to live? have fun in your malaria infected/flurinated water and your microwave food... *Snip*
:|

Edited by kmt_sesh, 13 December 2012 - 04:18 AM.
Deleted unnecessary taunt

[Rlyeh]

chopmo, on 13 December 2012 - 01:07 AM, said:

Rlyeh, I would perfer to smoke homegrown clean tabacco tbh

And get cancer all the same.

Quote

I hate the idea of the chemicals they put in it then will charge me worse than murders and rapeartists for making cleaner tabacco for personal use. Before you speak of lisences, it is a minimum requirement that you produce over $350,000 worth of tabacco per month and pay tax on it because it is above "personal" usage before they will grant you a personal tabacco growing lisence.

qq

[psyche101]

Rlyeh, on 11 December 2012 - 06:54 AM, said:

What law says it is your right to smoke?

Telling the people "You cannot do this" tends to backfire a lot, going all the way back to Prohibition. What has worked is high prices and vivid campaigns.

I love the smell and taste of smoke. I used to be a 40-pack (one pack of forty cigarettes a day) a day habit. I gave up when I was outside one morning in the garden and my son looked at smoke rising from my cigarette in the morning sunlight and thought it looked cool. One needs that level of motivation, to be disgusted in ones self for ones own actions. I gave up that morning. I put that smoke out, and went and bought tablets to help me quell the addiction. I truly was disgusted in myself for offering that influence.

I still sneak one in at the pub though. In peace and quiet. It's bad I know, I cannot help it. It tastes good.

Rlyeh, on 11 December 2012 - 06:54 AM, said:

Legalize euthanasia and let you get it over and done with.

I wish they would. People should not be forced to suffer when they do not want to.

Or hey, one can suck on a tailpipe for some carbon monoxide as well!

I have a sense of humour about it, but I do not think this is the right way to go about something. What about tourism? Would it not be affected adversely by a ban like this?

Edited by psyche101, 13 December 2012 - 05:09 AM.

[shaddow134]

Telling people not to do something just encourages the opposite action.I can't help thinking that when they pass this law that it will just totally swamp their legal system.

http://www.dailymail...s-light-up.html