
How Australia is stubbing out smoking - happy-go-lucky
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38733502
======
bamboozled
Aside from the health and economic benefits, the other major benefit worh
noting is environmental.

In Europe I find it really hard to watch people _constantly_ throwing
cigarette butts down storm water drains, into canals and doing other
disgusting things, like stubbing the butts into the sand on the beach or into
the soil of a river bank. I find it highly disturbing how un-aware people are
about the damage being done to fragile eco-systems.

I remember walking around Rome not long ago just thinking how disgustingly
dirty the city was (I love Rome btw), there was little flower gardens just
over flowing with butts, butts accumulating in gutters etc.

I actually felt anxiety about it raining just knowing where it was all headed.

So yeah, it would be cool to see this happen in other places around the world.

~~~
narag
_I actually felt anxiety about it raining just knowing where it was all
headed._

You people scare me. Honestly. I'm not joking. What I can feel anxiety for:
thinking that people can start a fight for a butt on the floor.

Making people feel guilt for using the wrong trash container, or leaving the
tap open for too long. Life's too short for that crap, IMHO.

It makes me think of Demolition Man. I believed it was over the top comedy
when it was released. Now I'm not taking it as a joke anymore.

Edit: I should not need to say this. But... I don't smoke. Also I don't
approve people littering if they can avoid it.

~~~
elahd
Honestly, you should feel guilty. Recycling is easy; so is looking for a
garbage can.

Our resources are limited. No use squandering them because "yolo".

~~~
narag
"You"? It seems you didn't understand my previous comment. Fine. I really
don't know how to explain the concept much better. It's something about not
putting absolute ideas over people, including oneself. That's not to say
despising common interest, but just having a little common sense.

Let me share an old story of my hometown. Public water supply pipes are a
disaster in the area. I saw an official report that showed that the waste was
between 20% and 40%. So, even if this is the spanish province with the most
rain, we suffered from restrictions most summers. No current water from 10 PM
to 10 AM.

Now two infuriating (for me, at least) cases: one nearby village spent a hefty
sum repairing the pipes, so no more leaks, and a family here that installed a
reservoir in the roof to have water after 10 PM. Please notice that cutting
the supply is not intended to make people consume less (they do _more_ since
water is kept in buckets for the night), but to reduce the leaks to half (half
time pressurized pipes).

The family was fined because they were not "solidary" with their neighbours.
The rest of councils of the area made a big noise and demanded the village
that had invested in infrastructure, and thus attacked the root problem, to
put restrictions in place.

You might think that these stories have nothing to do with the current
conversation. Maybe I should have written about the fines for not recycling
while there were not recycling facilities, so everything ended in the same
dumpster, or the golf fields that sucked tons of water, I don't know.

My point is what I wrote above: beware of this kind of absolute idea when they
stomp over people or common sense. Do what you reasonably can to make the
world a little better, but don't put the responsability to save the world on
your shoulders, that's not healthy.

------
sien
The cost of smoking in Australia is probably the main thing that has cut
smoking rates. At $20+ a pack smoking is so expensive.

It's also worth noting that Nicorette is much cheaper than in the US. The
moment you start using that you save money in Australia.

It's curious that the article doesn't mention e-cigarettes. It's funny how
harm minimisation is pushed by academic researchers when it comes to most
drugs but isn't discussed that much when it comes to tobacco. They have been
pretty much banned in Australia.

~~~
flukus
And it's a regressive tax that mostly punishes the poor for smoking. Not to
mention the ridiculous prices of alcohol. It's no wonder meth is exploding in
popularity.

It's an easy way to evaluate the real priorities of politicians though. If
cost of living issues were really their number one priority then these sin
taxes would be the first to go.

~~~
chris_wot
It certainly is a regressive tax, but is it really punishing someone if you
make it more expensive to legally purchase something that only damages or
kills them, is highly addictive and that only places an overall burden on
society? After all, despite its flaws we in Australia have a great, free
healthcare system, with an extensive quit smoking program. We tend to find
that adequate and free government health services mean that the poorest in our
society are looked after far better than in a society that has cheap booze and
cigarettes and an incredibly expensive healthcare system.

I guess it depends on the priorities of your wider society. I think ours is
pretty right, personally.

~~~
flukus
Depends on how the calculations are done but it can be shown to save money
overall. Smokers have a tendency to die much younger and more rapidly which
saves the health and welfare budget a tonne, smokers are certainly aren't
causing the population aging.

Aside from that there's the general problems you always have with prohibition,
people will use other substances on the black market, many of which will be
worse.

~~~
kirrent
While it's technically true I've always hated this argument. Yes, smokers are
without doubt cheaper for the healthcare system because they die earlier and
faster. It's completely missing the point though, because the entire reason we
have our healthcare system is to provide a long and high quality life for the
population. Someone dying earlier may be cheaper, but it's also a failure.

~~~
Trundle
The entire reason we have our healthcare system is so that a long and high
quality life is an option for the population. It seems pretty apparent to me
that most people aren't optimising for either though. No reason to get
paternalistic with it.

~~~
dbaupp
Smoking imposes one person's choice on many others, in terms of length and
quality of life, via the negative effects of passive smoking (and also just
day-to-day---I personally _hate_ having to suffer through someone's acrid
fumes). If people smoked without releasing the byproducts into the air
everyone else breathes, this argument would make more sense. But even then,
there's massive money and expertise behind advertising (etc.) for getting
people hooked, against what may be their "actual" preferences.

~~~
flukus
Everyone releases stuff into the air that effects others, from perfume to car
exhaust to barbecues. Why is your car exhaust ok but not my cigarette smoke?

~~~
sanswork
If you wanted to run your exhaust next to me in a restaurant I'd complain
about that.

If your exhaust pipe was pointed at my face on the sidewalk again I'd
complain.

A lot of offices have gone to perfume/cologne free because it is offensive to
a lot of people.

Of course you still have to smell the person who just finished a smoke outside
which is far worse than even the most liberal applier of perfume.

~~~
flukus
> If you wanted to run your exhaust next to me in a restaurant I'd complain
> about that.

That's fine, I'm not a fan of smoke in restaurants or indoors anyway. It's
already banned here.

> If your exhaust pipe was pointed at my face on the sidewalk again I'd
> complain.

This is exactly what cars are doing on the sidewalk. It's not like the
emissions travel in a straight line. No one is blowing smoke directly at you
either.

> A lot of offices have gone to perfume/cologne free because it is offensive
> to a lot of people.

Never heard of this.

~~~
sanswork
>This is exactly what cars are doing on the sidewalk. It's not like the
emissions travel in a straight line. No one is blowing smoke directly at you
either.

This is wrong go walk on a sidewalk near a smoker and you'll see them blowing
clouds which go in peoples faces as they walk by and leaving clouds in the
faces of people walking behind them. This isn't an issue of being in the
vicinity of the smoke it is having to walk through the cloud of it.

Go outside an office building around 9, 10:30 or lunch time and you'll often
have to walk through a large cloud as all the smokers hang out to get in their
smokes.

Smokers are in general super inconsiderate about their additions effect on
other people in public.

>Never heard of this.

Google scent free office or fragrancy free office it's not uncommon these
days.

~~~
flukus
> This is wrong go walk on a sidewalk near a smoker and you'll see them
> blowing clouds which go in peoples faces as they walk by and leaving clouds
> in the faces of people walking behind them. This isn't an issue of being in
> the vicinity of the smoke it is having to walk through the cloud of it.

The only difference is the visibility, just because you can't see car exhaust
doesn't mean it's not there.

> Go outside an office building around 9, 10:30 or lunch time and you'll often
> have to walk through a large cloud as all the smokers hang out to get in
> their smokes.

Yes, because it's about the only area left to go for a smoke. It's an effect
of banning it everywhere else, not smokers being inconsiderate. If there was a
nice out of the way area where smoking was allowed then people would go there.

~~~
sanswork
>The only difference is the visibility, just because you can't see car exhaust
doesn't mean it's not there.

The only difference is proximity as I already mentioned.

>If there was a nice out of the way area where smoking was allowed then people
would go there.

There are lots of out of the way areas in most cities for people to go smoke.
But still you'll find them huddled outside the entrances to buildings or as
close as they are allowed to be.

As I said. Smokers are selfish and will try to justify every negative impact
of their addiction on others. They aren't being inconsiderate about smoke
you're forcing their hand. They don't want to litter but it's your fault for
not providing ash trays, etc, etc.

I smoked for 20 years and I've heard countless reasons from smokers for being
inconsiderate but they all basically boil down to selfishness.

~~~
flukus
> I smoked for 20 years and I've heard countless reasons from smokers for
> being inconsiderate but they all basically boil down to selfishness.

That explains it. Ex smokers always rant about smokers as a way to deal with
the cravings they still have. This isn't about the smell of smokers, it's
about you wanting a cigarette when you smell them.

~~~
sanswork
>Ex smokers always rant about smokers as a way to deal with the cravings they
still have.

No cravings here.

>This isn't about the smell of smokers, it's about you wanting a cigarette
when you smell them.

Definitely not. The smell is enough to make me gag when I'm stuck around a
bunch of smokers. I look back on my years of smoking embarrassed to know how
badly I certainly smelled that whole time. It really is a disgusting
addiction.

None of that changes anything I've said though. But given that you've switched
to deflection now I think we're done here.

------
dcw303
As an Australian who has been living abroad for the better half of a decade,
I've noticed ever increasing prices and ever restrictive policies every time
I've been back.

Being a _very_ occasional social smoker who should probably quit anyway it
hasn't bothered me, but I did find it just a bit ludicrous when I tried to buy
a pack at Safeway. The exchange went something like this:

    
    
      me: Give me a pack of Peter Stuyvesants, ah, um, I think the light ones in the blue colored pack.
      staff: They don't have colors anymore. We can't show you the packet. You have to tell us which ones.
      me: Really? Ok, fine. Well, just give me the 8mg low tar ones, whatever they're called.
      staff: They don't have mg measures on the packets any more.
      me: So how do I know which ones are the light ones?
      staff: You just have to know.
    

I eventually picked one of the packs at random. Not what I'd call the best
harm minimisation strategy.

~~~
oliwarner
> Not what I'd call the best harm minimisation strategy

At some point in your life, a tobacco company has marketed something at your
in such a way that they've conveyed a mistruth; they lied to you. Shocking, I
know.

"Light" cigarettes are not better for you. There is no "harm minimisation".

Tar and nicotine are a "measured" by percentage of puff multiplied by the
expected number of puffs in the burn duration. Cigarettes are "lightened" by
adding perforations in the filter tip so the smoker inhales air at the same
time. This lowers the concentrations of smoke, lowering the measurements
above.

The industry standards for "light" and "ultralight" are just boundaries around
tar measurements.

The problem is the "burn duration" used to calculate all this is normalised at
a static rate and not at real flow. It's basically a made up length of time
based on the observation of lighting a cigarette and letting it burn down.
There's less airflow through the tobacco in a light cigarette, so it burns a
lot slower. Its smoker gets more drags.

The amount of tobacco and nicotine and tar is the same. The amount _delivered_
isn't as appreciably different as a smoker might like.

This is reflected in countless outcome studies. Just as many people die from
smoking light cigarettes.

~~~
zumu
> The amount of tobacco and nicotine and tar is the same. The amount delivered
> isn't as appreciably different as a smoker might like.

If light cigarettes have any amount less tar, then that's still an
improvement.

Anecdotally, I smoked for 8 years and used ultra light cigarettes (1-3mg) as a
tool to cut down and eventually quit.

~~~
oliwarner
Also an ex-smoker. I don't think the psychology or physiological methods of
breaking addiction are that clear or consistent for populations. Feeling like
you were getting less might have been the progress _you_ needed, irrespective
of your actual blood-nicotine levels.

Conversely, I dicked around with various NRTs, various actual doses but
nicotine cravings and the _fear_ of even worse cravings kept me returning to
cigarettes. To quit, I had to go cold turkey. It was the psychological and
physical finality that let me let go.

For me the finality was important. I'd read a fair amount about breaking
addiction and people describing it as the most traumatic thing in their life
and that's a narrative that's very commonplace in quitting services, NRT
products. It makes quitting a very scary prospect. Moreso to an anxious, risk
averse guy in his late 20s. In reality, even cold turkey is only horrible for
a short amount of time. A couple of weeks... Which is _nothing_ for the
lifetime and quality of life you regain.

I reflected on fear-of-quitting a month after my last cigarette.
[https://thepcspy.com/read/breaking-the-
habit/](https://thepcspy.com/read/breaking-the-habit/)

Anyway, my point above is that in terms of actual damage done, a cigarette is
a cigarette. There may be slight variances and you can trick yourself into
_thinking_ different things, but physiologically, the same stuff happens.

------
JauntyHatAngle
As a German-Australian, and ignoring that this is anecdotal, but I've often
noted the big difference in levels of smoking when I visit German cities vs
Australian ones.

Smoking just isn't popular in Australia among my age group (late 20's), where
it is still way more common in Germany.

Young people just don't seem interested in Australia outside of having a smoke
with a beer at a party, it's very much perceived as something poorer people
do, and is not considered classy at all.

So yeah, compared with other countries that I've visited, smoking is seen
quite differently here and seems like its well on the way out. It'll be
interesting to see if it rebounds in future generations though.

~~~
hackits
Did you notice any major price difference compared to Australia vs Germany?
Consider buying a pack of cig's is damn expensive, not mentioning alcohol too
here in Auz.

~~~
JauntyHatAngle
> Did you notice any major price difference compared to Australia vs Germany?
> Consider buying a pack of cig's is damn expensive, not mentioning alcohol
> too here in Auz.

Yes, huge difference.

But alcohol also has a huge difference in price, but that doesn't stop
Australians from drinking a ton. (Though its not as a big a difference as
smoking).

------
bhalperin
These kinds of efforts seem to be having great success not just in Australia
but at least in the United States[1] as well.

What I don't understand is -- why isn't a similar education, advertising, and
taxation effort being made with alcohol? The negative externalities associated
with alcohol are mind-boggling[2].

[1] [http://www.vox.com/a/teens](http://www.vox.com/a/teens) [2]
[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/05/prohibition_lite_the_war_on_drugs_has_been_a_failure_but_the_war_on_alcohol.html)

~~~
snogglethorpe
The most obvious difference is that alcohol isn't _directly_ harmful to other
people, whereas smoking is...

This attribute basically makes it very difficult for people to adopt a "well
it's their choice, I'll let them dig their own grave" attitude in regard to
smoking.

~~~
imesh
Except that second hand smoke isn't really that bad.
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-
fi...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-
link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#5d03f087623f)

~~~
crazy2be
That does not match the scientific consensus [1]. You'll have to do better
than a single study, summarized in a Forbes article, if you want to make that
claim.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking)

~~~
Clubber
From your link.

>Most of the research has come from studies of nonsmokers who are married to a
smoker. Those conclusions are also backed up by further studies of workplace
exposure to smoke

I suggest you don't marry a smoker, or work in a bar where they allow smoking.
Otherwise, you'll be fine. You'll probably be fine either way. The increased
risk is minimal (1-4%?) and requires years and years of constant exposure.

------
spangry
I think the laws that only permit outdoor smoking (a certain distance away
from entryways/exits), have been so effective because of the social incentives
they create. Speaking as an ex-smoker, having to go outside a bar to smoke
with the rest of the smoking leper colony, while all your friends are inside
having fun without you, is a very powerful social motivator. I honestly feel
that this, more than anything else (increased price, graphic health warnings
on packets etc.), has been the major contributor to lowered smoking rates.

As an aside, I really don't agree with the popular notion that increasing
excise (tax) on cigarettes contributes very much to declining rates of
smoking. The demand for cigarettes is highly inelastic (i.e. consumers are not
very sensitive to changes in price). Heavy taxation of goods with inelastic
demand simply results in higher revenue for the government and, eventually,
the formation of black markets. Same goes for fuel excise btw: although the
(hilarious) justification given is 'road maintenance/user-pays', it is
coincidentally another good with highly inelastic demand (making it a pretty
efficient tax-base, up to a point). And fuel is such a poor proxy for 'road
damage' anyway.

EDIT: Also the argument that smokers cause the (public) health-care system to
incur additional costs is pretty suspect. Although he's an ultra-right wing
nut, and was practically booed off the stage when he made this point, I think
Nick Minchin (former leader of the opposition in the Senate) was right when he
suggested heavy smokers cost the public health-case system less overall: they
tend to die quickly from an acute disease (e.g. lung cancer) at a relatively
young age. This means they die before they hit that 'old age' when individual
health-care costs sky-rocket.

~~~
stephen_g
Those laws banning smoking indoors at public places (and also in outdoor
eating areas at cafes and restaurants in my state) are also wonderful for non-
smokers. You sort of take it for granted until you visit somewhere without the
laws and remember just how obnoxious cigarette smoke is!

------
hnmchackleton
This story gives a very one sided view of the situation in Australia.

The decrease in population wide smoking in Australia this century has not been
due to an increase in quitting. It's mainly due to reduced rates of initiation
in young people.

[http://mike.bailey.net.au/2015/10/smoking-prevention-and-
tre...](http://mike.bailey.net.au/2015/10/smoking-prevention-and-treatment/)

People who cannot or do not want to quit are being denied information and
access to reduced harm alternatives so as e-cigarettes.

It's currently illegal to sell nicotine e-liquid in Australia, thanks largely
to hard campaining by a large cancer charity that receives millions on dollars
each year from taxpayers to reduce smoking rates.

Look up 'health facism'. It finds a safe space within the "tobacco control"
arm of public health. Not all public health advocates are humanitarians.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/the-
nazis...](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/the-nazis-
forgotten-anti-smoking-campaign/373766/)

"But according to Proctor, the Nazi ban did manage to do some good for a
subset of the population: German women. Proctor estimates that some 20,000
German women avoided lung cancer deaths, thanks to “Nazi paternalism, which
discouraged women from smoking, often with police force.”

~~~
nikdaheratik
While the story was mostly in favor of Australia's current smoking policy, I
believe it was much more fair to both sides of the story than a claim that
just because the Nazis's didn't like smoking, that means that any other
government that doesn't like smoking is a Fascist dictatorship.

~~~
hnmchackleton
I agree with your assertion but suggest you misunderstood mine.

Well meaning politicians in liberal democracies would do well to consider
carefully before crossing the line between encouragement and coercion when
trying to modify individuals behaviour "for their own good".

Health facism can include appealing arguments like "the State pays for your
healthcare so we can punish you for risky bahviour".

Australia's TGA today rejected an application to permit smokers to legally
purchase a safer source of nicotine (e-liquid for vaping), largely due to
pressure from the same groups patting themselves on the back for what a great
job they've done making life harder for smokers.

------
jtblin
Too bad they don't do that with alcohol... There's advertising for alcohol
everywhere, often associated with sports club which is especially bad for
young people. People drink everywhere even at the beach. There's a real
alcohol problem here and it's a shame they don't spend as much energy fighting
it because in the grand scheme of things, it's even worse than tobacco.

~~~
gkya
Well it's arguable that alcoholism has way less direct bad effects on public
than smoking. There's nothing like passive alcoholism.

~~~
collyw
It may be a nuisance but passive smoking has negligible effects on public
health.

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-
fi...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-
link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#66b03ef9623f)

------
brokenmachine
I'm in Australia and although I'm very happy these laws have come in, I would
love to get some actual statistics on how many people have actually been fined
for smoking where they are not allowed to.

I have _never_ seen anyone fined for smoking in any of the places where it
isn't allowed (sporting fields, bus stops, etc), and I see people smoking at
these locations literally _every single day_ \- especially at bus stops. The
whole legislation seems to be "smoke and mirrors".

I'm in NSW, and there is a NSW Health website where you are meant to report
places to investigate. I have done so about a couple of locations where people
smoke where they're not meant to, and nothing has happened. People continue to
smoke at those locations regularly. You never get a case number, or any
indication whatsoever that anything has been done at all. Police do not
enforce smoking bans, and will readily admit that their policy is not to.

Even places as famous as the Manly Beach corso, where smoking is banned, have
smokers there every day. Rangers there do nothing, and as I said police do
nothing. I have spoken to a ranger on the only occasion I have actually seen
one there, and he said that he "usually gives a warning". When pressed, he
admitted that he had never actually fined anyone.

Another glaring and infuriating omission to the smoking situation in Australia
is in apartment blocks. My neighbour continues to smoke regularly, which comes
right into my living room. Apparently I have no right to fresh air in my own
living room, and have been told as much by the police.

Smoking is not permitted within 4m of outdoor public eating areas, but my
living/dining room is closer than 4m to my neighbor's balcony, yet I have no
protection there.

Why are the rights of smokers to smoke taken more seriously than the non-
smoking _majority_ 's right to not inhale secondhand smoke?

These laws need to have actual teeth, _and be enforced_.

Addicts cannot be relied upon to do the right thing, or apparently even the
_bare minimum required by law_.

~~~
kbart
You take _much_ more damage by car and industrial pollution than secondhand
smoke, so there's no need to overreact for neighbor smoking in their property.
Don't get me wrong, I don't smoke and hate when somebody does that beside me,
but all this "ban smoking 10 meter from anywhere" looks pretentious to me --
there are much bigger health hazards living in a city. I see smoking as a
small nuisance, like a cars passing by a window at night and it's a price you
pay for living with a bunch of other people around.

~~~
angry_octet
People are confusing the smell, a signal from the part-per-million sensor on
their face, with getting a harmful dose.

Most people have never had a serious addiction, so they don't understand that
smokers _NEED_ to smoke.

~~~
brokenmachine
I _don 't care_ how you feel about smoking, I _don 't want to be exposed to it
in my living room._ If I can smell it, I'm exposed to it. There is _no safe
level_ of secondhand smoke [1].

I trust peer-reviewed studies over your "feeling" about what is harmful, and
besides, the smell is disgusting, worse than literally any other smell I have
experienced. I don't want that in my living room, plus it gives my partner
asthma attacks. I don't think it's fair that someone should get asthma attacks
because of someone else's addiction.

Nobody needs to smoke anyway. There are many good options for quitting if you
have motivation and willpower.

[1] [https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-
prevention/risk/t...](https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-
prevention/risk/tobacco/second-hand-smoke-fact-sheet#q6)

------
legostormtroopr
This is one of the reasons why people in Australian were explicitly concerned
by the now dead Trans-Pacific Partnership.

[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-05/trans-pacific-
partners...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-05/trans-pacific-partnership-
trade-pact-detail-released/6917292)

~~~
tomcorrigan
Their concerns were misplaced and the outcome lawsuits against the Australian
government (they won every time) show how ridiculous the scare campaign about
ISDS was.

~~~
kirrent
I certainly think the concerns were misplaced, but wasn't the Phillip Morris
case dismissed because they were found to have a lack of standing, having
reincorporated in Hong Kong specifically to make use of the ISDS provision?
While I can't see how the tobacco companies could prevail in any case, history
has yet to furnish us with a proper example.

~~~
tomcorrigan
You are correct about the HK case. However there weren't many observers who
though Phillip Morris stood a chance. The lawsuit was much more about
signalling to other countries considering plain packaging than actually
overturning the laws in Australia. There is still a pending WTO arbitration
which is also expected to be decided in Australia's favour.

See also the outcome of Phillip Morris v Uruguay

------
beedogs
I don't miss any of the "joys" of having to deal with cigarette smokers. The
streets of Melbourne are no longer littered with butts. Waste bins no longer
catch fire from careless half-stubbed cigarettes falling inside. I can walk
along the footpaths here without having to smell the acrid stench. I can go to
a pub and not have to wash my clothes when I get home to get the smell out.
It's incredible. Every country should do it.

~~~
wtbob
> It's incredible. Every country should do it.

Yeah, it sure is wonderful to repress a hated minority. How dare they befoul
our pristine public spaces with their benighted culture and their foul
customs‽

Of course, the victims of your repression might feel a bit differently than
you do.

~~~
sanswork
Smokers choose to be smokers. Smokers choose to inflict their smoke on others
when they smoke around other people. Smokers make excuses for not dealing with
their butts properly(oh they didn't provide an ashtray so it's not my fault).

~~~
refurb
_Smokers choose to be smokers._

Cigarette's are addictive. They choose to smoke as much as an alcoholic
chooses to drink or a heroin addict chooses to shoot up.

~~~
sanswork
Show me the dangerous side effects when a smoker quits smoking and I'll allow
you to include it in the addictive category of alcohol and heroin.

~~~
Clubber
What difference does that make? I've read where tobacco is one of, if not the
most addictive substances. I think you just have no empathy for people
addicted to tobacco because you've been subjected to a relentless barrage of
anti-tobacco propaganda over decades.

------
wavegeek
What we have here now is effectively prohibition with all that entails i.e. a
huge black market.For people on average incomes, tobacco is now in effect an
illegal drug.

The official stats on smoking exclude the black market and greatly understate
smoking rates.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
This - and so much this.

I understand the urge to reduce smoking. I find it weird that prices are so
high because I think it encourages a black market. Black markets are somewhat
dangerous, as there aren't the quality controls in place. The other option
seems to be to switch to nicotine gums most of the time, which carry their own
health risks.

I find it even more appalling considering the dismal rates at which people
actually succeed dropping the habit, which is something like 6%. For those
already smoking, it might seem hopeless. I support _some_ tax on them, even
though I smoke, but I wish they'd save the highest price at least until we are
better equipped to handle the addiction part of it.

------
marcus_holmes
One aspect that the article doesn't mention is the racial/immigrant aspect.

White people are quitting in droves for sure, but Asians still seem to smoke a
lot.

I have no numbers here (are they even collected?) but anecdotally it's unusual
for white people to smoke in their own homes, but common for Asian families
here.

Note that this is different from the "poorer end of society" mentioned in TFA
- race is not an indicator of affluence or social standing in Australia.

~~~
hug
I'm going to go out on a limb and say this that I think this is a cultural
bias, not a 'racial' one.

Anecdotally, the number of college-aged Asians you walk past in the street
that are smoking is much higher than the number of college-aged caucasians. I
won't pretend to know which portion of which demographic is immigrant or not,
but Melbourne imports absolutely huge numbers of international students, a
large portion of whom come from Asian countries and who have grown up in a
country where smoking is not the social-taboo it is among millennial
Australians.

Among older generations, I don't see the same marked divide. Older Australians
smoke much more frequently than their younger counterparts.

As a side note: I don't know a better way to separate out Australian-born
"Australians" who may be of any race, including Asian, from "international
students from Asia", so if any of my phrasing comes across smelling even
slightly offensive please let me know.

~~~
marcus_holmes
you're probably right, in that this is probably not a race thing, but a
culture thing. My bad

------
bruce_one
I had a conversation with friends who live in LA yesterday about the fact that
they thought smoking is more prevalent in Melbourne than in the LA.

Amused by the timing :-)

(If I'd guessed, I would've assumed smoking was less prevalent in Melbourne
(because of the reasons mentioned in the article, but mostly the cost),
although I've not actually paid enough attention to compare.)

(We all agreed it seemed more common in Europe, very vaguely speaking.)

~~~
jpgvm
Most smokers in Melbourne CBD are Asian immigrants (anecdotally).

I think it's culturally hard for them to give it up, which is a real shame as
I hate walking through clouds of smoke on Little Bourke St.

Not sure what can be done about it though, banning it outright I think is too
far as it's an assault on people's personal freedoms but I would like to see a
ban on smoking on the street/public places.

I don't want to be secondary smoking the stuff, it smells awful and probably
does a decent chunk of damage if you are walking through it every day though
that is unsubstantiated, I haven't read any studies on secondary smoking.

Atleast most smokers here seem responsible when disposing the butts. Silver
lining I guess.

~~~
exodust
Can confirm truth of that. Chinese neighbours on either side of me smoke, and
I only ever see young Asian people smoking at the back of my building here in
Melbourne. My annoying neighbour smokes on his balcony every day and the smell
drifts into my apartment. Still figuring out what to do about that if
anything.

------
ensiferum
Good riddance. What really bugs me is that why is every smoker an idiot
throwing the cigarette butts everywhere? I really despise that behavior.

------
cpursley
A big change I've seen in the US is the "class" aspect of smoking. Smokers
(outside of a bar environment) in the US come across as lower class, at least
among white folks (can't speak for others). Not sure how this came about, but
it's effective and one of the reasons I never picked the habit up from my
parents.

------
jasonlingx
Seems like increasing the age limit every year would be an easy way to wipe
out smoking. Why are there no countries doing this though?

~~~
barryvan
The Tasmanian parliament is considering exactly this -- banning smoking for
anyone born after 2000.

~~~
spangry
This sounds like an insanely bad idea.

While the goal is admirable (eliminating smoking once and for all), without
strong enough social norms in place discouraging smoking, all this will do is
create another lucrative black market drug (much like what happened when the
US prohibited alcohol from 1920 to 1933).

~~~
prawn
But there are strong social norms discouraging smoking. It's gone from looking
like a cool, sociable thing (restaurants, pubs, colleagues at work) to "Look
at those people who can't quit."

People aren't smoking in restaurants. At pubs, they are forced into a dodgy
little area, often near gambling machines. And outside offices, they often
hide around the side near alleys because they are discouraged or embarrassed
about smoking out the front.

~~~
spangry
Precisely! If you check some of my other comments in this thread, you'll see
me putting forward the idea that these social incentives (created by these
laws) are the primary cause of reduced smoking rates over the past decade or
so.

My concern here is over timing. I'm not sure that smoking has been
sufficiently socially marginalised to the point that a black market _would
not_ form if we banned cigarettes. We've seen this already in Australia. The
ATO (where I used to work) has had compliance teams in the field for at least
a decade now dealing with the 'chop-chop' problem (black market tobacco),
which grows larger with every excise increase. In a sense, banning it is the
equivalent of setting excise at some rate approaching infinity per cent.

I don't have any control over what the Tasmanian parliament does, but I really
hope they understand that they only get about 1 shot at this per decade _at
most_. If they pass this law and it turns out smoking is not sufficiently
marginalised, and a black market subsequently forms, they'll spend the next
3-5 years fighting the black markets, another 3-5 debating and eventually re-
legalising cigarettes and then we'll be back to where we are now.

Although it requires a bit more patience, it might be safer to wait a couple
more years as the 'outdoor smoking laws' strengthen social incentives and
norms. They might even be able to come up with additional measures to
accelerate this process.

I agree that we're close to the point where banning cigarettes is feasible.
But whether we've actually past that point...

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "Precisely! If you check some of my other comments in this thread, you'll
see me putting forward the idea that these social incentives (created by these
laws) are the primary cause of reduced smoking rates over the past decade or
so."

I believe it actually works the other way too. If your friend group is
primarily made up of smokers who are forced to go outside the pub/restaurant
etc. multiple times in an evening you might decide to start joining them. I
know a tonne of people who only 'smoke when they drink' for this reason and
many others who started like that and now smoke full-time.

------
exodust
The thing I hate about the anti-smoking advertising is that it's blanket
coverage. The "Shock and awe" is broadcast far and wide for all to see,
whether you smoke or not.

From cinema screens to small screens to billboards. I was driving behind a bus
and had to stare at a larger than life cancerous growth being operated on. I
don't even smoke, so why must my field of view be contaminated by this
horrible imagery? Everyone must suffer the offensive ads because a few people
smoke. Way to go Australia. Bring back the ladies underwear ads for buses
please, I'm trying to concentrate!

------
contingencies
Aussie living in China, ex-smoker. Every time I went back I used to always
take a bunch of cigarettes to sell to people at cut rates, specifically
because they are so expensive in Australia. This year I couldn't even find
anyone to buy them! Won't be bothering in future.

I strongly support the progressive anti-smoking policies in Australia, but I
do think the nanny statism has come a bit far in other areas. For example you
can't catch a taxi or go to the (now 100% non-smoking) pub with a child. What
the hell? Makes it really hard to stop for a drink when you are carrying a kid
and walking to the nearest mass transit facility in the stinking hot summer
sun, because you can't catch a taxi. Come on, people take buses without seat
belts all the time ... it's off the charts stupid to ban young families from
the use of taxis!

~~~
jamesrcole
> _For example you can 't catch a taxi or go to the (now 100% non-smoking) pub
> with a child._

I don't understand about the taxi. What do you mean?

Regarding the pubs, I live in Queensland and have never seen a 100% non-
smoking pub. They always have a dedicated smoking area.

~~~
imron
Depending on the age of the child, the child may be required by law to use a
child safety seat.

Taxis typically don't come with such seats and so they will refuse to carry
you.

~~~
angry_octet
In most states taxis (but not uber) have an exemption, QLD is just a massive
pain in the arse. Logically the market should evolve to allow requesting a car
with seats but no.

------
Walf
It doesn't work on everybody, though. Friend witnessed someone asking for a
"pack o' dyin' Bryans, thanks."
[http://imgur.com/HNDvjAJ](http://imgur.com/HNDvjAJ)

------
perilunar
I fully support people's right to smoke (or to use any drug), but I do find it
odd that companies can legally sell such a dangerous and addictive substance.
The solution would be to criminalise the sale of tobacco, but make it
completely legal to grow your own. Same for pot or any other drug.

------
wtbob
I honestly think that things like $40 packs of cigarettes are pure bigotry
(the only politically-acceptable bigotry at the moment). It's kicking a man
when he's down.

But then, I believe that cigars & pipes are an essential part of the good
life. Can you imagine a world in which C.S. Lewis & J.R.R. Tolkien didn't head
down to the Eagle & Child to enjoy a pot of ale and a few good pipes together?

~~~
otikik
> It's kicking a man when he's down.

My father in law has had problems on his lungs and heart since I know him.

I married my wife 6 years ago. His father was hospitalized at the time
(again). He was exceptionally discharged from the hospital to attend the
wedding, and went back there the next day. You know what he did while he was
there? Distribute cigars. And smoke them.

He recently died of pulmonary and heart-related problems. He was 60, but
doctors said that his lungs and heart looked like 90. Months before he died,
blood was failing to reach his feet, so they gradually had to cut them down:
first the toes of one foot. Then the other's. Then a whole foot. Then the
other, and part of the leg. It was at this point when his mind started to
crack. He started saying that he wanted to die.

The last 3 years of his life, he spent 90% of his time at hospitals. At the
end, he was a shadow of himself, physically and mentally. At least he could
meet his only grandchild once, before he passed away.

 _That_ is being down.

You don't want to be there. Before you get there, anything that deviates you
from that path, kicks or whatever else, is a good thing in my view.

~~~
Clubber
How about prison for people caught smoking cigarettes? Societies do it for
drug users. Whatever it takes, right?

/s

~~~
otikik
How about leaving the strawmen in the fields, scaring birds?

------
aaron695
> How Australia is stubbing out smoking

By massive invasions on basic human rights.

There are also many campaigns that don't, but many do and they are the most
effective.

~~~
foxrob92
How is it a "massive invasion on basic human rights"?

~~~
aaron695
It's basically applying the drug war to cigarette smokers.

It's using the police and state to use force to deal with people who are doing
no harm to anyone but at best themselves.

I think this breaks basic human rights.

~~~
alkonaut
As long as I'm paying someones healthcare, I'm not going to allow them to
smoke. If they are going to smoke, then the cost of their cigarettes should
cover their increased medical costs and other costs to society (such as work
years lost, increased sick days).

The fact that I'm directly harmed by cigarette smoke is a minor nuisance
compared to the enormous costs to society.

Also: which human right is it you are referring to here?

~~~
Clubber
>I'm not going to allow them to smoke.

Same can be said for any dangerous activity. Like bicycling? As long as I pay
for health care, I'm not going to allow you to do it. Driving? Hell no! You
need to walk, and you can't use roads or sidewalks near roads. Only the rich
can use roads, we're putting on a driving tax.

~~~
alkonaut
> Same can be said for any dangerous activity. Like bicycling? As long as I
> pay for health care, I'm not going to allow you to do it.

Exactly like bicycling. However, bicycling has positive benefits - it gets
people places (as does driving), it provides excercise etc. So a reasonable
compromise might be requiring a helmet while cycling, which lots of countries
does. That reduces the costs of injuries to a point where it's likely to be
outweighed by the positives.

> Only the rich can use roads, we're putting on a driving tax.

Cars do have very expensive side effects (injuries in car accidents,
pollution, lack of excercise, ...). I pay a 25% VAT on a car. Then I pay a
yearly car tax of $100 year and around $2/mile in fuel taxes. That still is
probably not enough for cars to "pay for themselves".

~~~
Clubber
No comparison to the cost of a bicycle helmet and the taxes levied on
cigarettes. Depending on where you live, how about $50 a week to rent a
government approved bicycle helmet?

It's starts to sound much more unreasonable when you compare the taxes.

~~~
alkonaut
I'm not sure what the costs to society of bicycle accidents vs lung cancer
are, but if the equilibrium was $1000 per pack I wouldn't consider that
unreasonable (although at that price black markets would become an issue)

~~~
Clubber
>but if the equilibrium was $1000 per pack I wouldn't consider that
unreasonable

Ok, so you still haven't solved the problem, you aren't collecting any
revenue, and now you have a pretty serious black market and all the crime,
policing costs, jail costs and bribes that go with it. At what point do you
realize it's bad policy to tax sin and really only succeeds in getting revenue
from predominantly poor people?

1\. You will never get all people to stop smoking. 2\. Any effort to squeeze
down the last 15% or so is the same folly that got us into the drug war. 3\.
The only thing you can reasonably do as a nation is to keep pushing out the
commercials and hope for the best.

Quit taxing the crap out of poor people. Quit acting like smoke is mustard
gas.

~~~
alkonaut
As I said - I'd consider it reasonable but I acknowledge the practical
problems with it. I think prices a pretty good as they are in e.g Australia
and Scandinavia.

