BAN IN FAGS IN VICTORIA?

[Roverlord off road spares]

Heard the radio news this morning about a push to have the sale of cigarettes banned in Vic.:eek:
Wow a return to prohabition.
I can see the mafia gangs bringing in boot legged cigarettes from SA and NSW, and border guards with Machine guns.. The Murray river with gun boats looking for smugglers.

They will probably ban cigarettes and then legalise Hooch instead.
Gaols filled with convicted smokers.
Who comes up with these ideas:confused:

[Eevo]

cant wait til its banned in SA

[Homestar]

I would imagine it is an idea some brainiac was paid to come up with, but I can't see any government having the balls to implement it. Even though smokers are in the minority, it would be political suicide to bring in such a law...

[mike_ie]

I would imagine it is an idea some brainiac was paid to come up with, but I can't see any government having the balls to implement it. Even though smokers are in the minority, it would be political suicide to bring in such a law...

AFAIK, tobacco has been completely banned in Bhutan since 2010 or 2011, and yep chucking people in jail is exactly what they are doing, if you're caught with more than x grammes of tobacco. I was offered a job there last year, and there was big uproar as to whether foreigners could get chucked in jail for having a cigarette or two...

I guess the question is if you agree with it or though. I'm all for personal freedoms and all, but I've never seen one good thing come of smoking, only illness, premature deaths, and enormous medical bills every year that are generally footed by the taxpayer...

[Ferret]

Bans never work. You have to convince people by argument and carrots not with threats.

[BMKal]

Personally I wouldn't have an issue with any government which does ban tobacco. ;)

If they are all so convinced of how bad the stuff it for you (and it is) - then far better to ban it than the current hypocritical position of telling us all it's bad for you - but raking in billions in revenue from it at the same time.

And that's coming from a smoker :D (only just though - I'm almost off the bloody things. To me, a ban would only make it that much easier to give them right away). :twisted:

[mike_ie]

Bans never work. You have to convince people by argument and carrots not with threats.

I'd say that bans never eliminate a problem, but they certainly reduce it, particularly if it's going to hit you in the pocket. Point in case, smoking bans in pubs and restaurants. I'm not sure how it was here when it was introduced, but publicans went nuts in Ireland, said it would impact their sales, etc, and a few ignored the new ban. Couple of €5000 fines later, and everyone was happy go go along with it.

<edit>


If they are all so convinced of how bad the stuff it for you (and it is) - then far better to ban it than the current hypocritical position of telling us all it's bad for you - but raking in billions in revenue from it at the same time.

Well yeah, that's another issue :D Most governments would be cutting their own throats financially, considering how much cigarettes bring in in tax each year.

I know my own reasons for not objecting too much if a smoking ban was implemented - grew up in a house where both parents smoked, price of cigarettes each day came before food was bought, so on and so forth, but it's interesting to hear a smoker say the same thing....

[BMKal]

Know where you're coming from Mike. I also grew up in a house where smoking was the norm - inside the house and in the car etc and my own house was the same for many years. I gave up smoking in the house years ago and never smoke in a car if there's someone else in it with me any more either.

After a recent health scare - I've finally decided to make the effort and get right off them. I'm down from a packet a day (often more) to about a packet a week now - but still haven't been able to get right off the bloody things. Working on it though. ;)

They all said the same thing here when smoking bans in pubs and restaurants were first proposed - and it all came to nothing. I really don't think that the business of either has been negatively impacted. In fact, I've read somewhere that for at least restaurants, business in many may have actually improved. I've never smoked in a restaurant in my life - I would never smoke around people eating, but that's just me. But I must admit to missing a fag with a beer at the bar of the local pub though. Probably helped me if I'm honest, as I now rarely go to pubs either.

Was in Shanghai a few weeks ago and we went to a rather flash restaurant with a large group one night - mostly Australians and a few local people we were doing business with. Was quite surprised to see that smoking at the dinner table was "accepted" - even "expected" where we were. Probably more than 50% of the group that I was with was smoking. And while I have never smoked in a restaurant in any case, I'm happy to say that, even though we were inside the restaurant for a few hours, I wasn't even tempted to light one up, nor to go outside for one.

I suppose the thing that I've been most pleased with in my life recently - my son was also a smoker (of about 5 years) and after my recent health scare, he gave them up immediately and hasn't had one since. If there is one positive to come out of what happened to me - that is the best one that I could have hoped for. ;)

[Homestar]

Just to clarify my position, I am completely anti smoking but I wouldn't vote for a government that would ban it on the grounds it could be used as the start to ban more things that are bad for us, or are believed to be bad for us. Alcohol could be next, then things like motor bikes, bull bars for you 4WD etc.

Banning things is not the way to make people stop using them...

[Eevo]

Banning things is not the way to make people stop using them...
current methods arnt working.

[mike_ie]

Just to clarify my position, I am completely anti smoking but I wouldn't vote for a government that would ban it on the grounds it could be used as the start to ban more things that are bad for us, or are believed to be bad for us. Alcohol could be next, then things like motor bikes, bull bars for you 4WD etc.

Banning things is not the way to make people stop using them...

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree, for the most part. It's just for me, all of the things you mention have a positive side, with a risk element attached. Whereas with smoking, there are NO positives, with most smokers wishing that they had never taken it up in the first place.

Imagine introducing a drug more addictive than heroin to the western world in the 21st century, instead of the 15th. It would be on the list with every other Class A drug there is. It's only because it's an established drug that the government makes money off that it's accepted.

[Homestar]

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree, for the most part. It's just for me, all of the things you mention have a positive side, with a risk element attached. Whereas with smoking, there are NO positives, with most smokers wishing that they had never taken it up in the first place.

Imagine introducing a drug more addictive than heroin to the western world in the 21st century, instead of the 15th. It would be on the list with every other Class A drug there is. It's only because it's an established drug that the government makes money off that it's accepted.

I agree with your point 100% on that, but I don't trust any government not to expand these sort of laws to include other things.

[Disco44]

I am now a non smoker after many years of smoking.But I am not "there's nothing like a reformed smoker" type, to me they are a pain in the arse. I know how hard it is to give away and as I said those preaching to you don't help.
As long as our Governments take taxes from smokers I consider that they should have some rights,but do they?

[slug_burner]

I'd be happy for cigarettes to be untaxed as long as we can keep a record of smokers and not provide them with free medical treatment for smoking related disease.

[Eevo]

Imagine introducing a drug more addictive than heroin to the western world in the 21st century, instead of the 15th. It would be on the list with every other Class A drug there is. It's only because it's an established drug that the government makes money off that it's accepted.

zing!

same with alcohol, that would be banned too

[billy bob]

Maybe it's one of these knee jerk reaction things.
A fire is started from a discarded cigarette butt. So the
government goes right lets ban cigarettes.

Personally i think it's a great idea

[mike_ie]

zing!

same with alcohol, that would be banned too

Alcohol in moderation has been proven to be good for you though...

[Eevo]

Alcohol in moderation has been proven to be good for you though...
yes and alcohol in larger amounts leads to many bad things.

[mike_ie]

yes and alcohol in larger amounts leads to many bad things.

Of course, no disagreement there. As with fatty food, red meat, off roading, motorbikes, fast cars, rock climbing, paragliding, so on and so forth. All good, with risk attached in some way shape or form if taken too far.

Difference being, smoking is on that very very short list of things that has NO reward whatsoever, but rather a very long list of almost certain negatives to both the user and society as a whole, but to the best of my knowledge is the only one that's legal.

[superquag]

... Or you could all but tax them out of existance... add another $20 per packet for starters. maybe $50.
That way, only the dedicated smokers would continue, a revenue windfall to the Health System. (Did'nt I mention that?- all taxes to go there instead of the Pollie's Retrement Funds...) AND, as a side-benefit, the drug cartels in Australia would find it more profitable to traffic nicotine than cocaine... thereby keeping the black economy happily feeding the super- luxury car/house/luxury ocean yachts moored in Botany Bay/Audio-Visual etc vendors... all of whom DO pay tax on their profits... as well as reducing the evil effects of hard drugs on our vulnerable population.

Since tobacco is grown in Oz, there's another avenue for the villains to invest in, agriculture - and their splashing about of cash would go a long way to re-vitalize small country towns...

If the taxes on expensive boozes were also lifted.... the crims would be paying us again, as they celebrate.

A bit of lateral thinking is required. - Mind you, putting a massive tax on LYING in parliament and the Press-Release, would solve many moral and Fiscal short-falls.... :angel::angel::angel:

[BMKal]

.............. smoking is on that very very short list of things that has NO reward whatsoever, but rather a very long list of almost certain negatives to both the user and society as a whole, but to the best of my knowledge is the only one that's legal.

Marriage is still legal, isn't it ? :wasntme:

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I'm not going to read all the pages, but IMHO ban the sale of cigs by all means, prohibit smoking inside buildings, restaurants or in the car with kids, even enforce plain packaging is O.K. but whatever you/they do, don't criminalise it. Nothing good comes from criminalising people for being addicted to any substance.

Sure criminalise them for committing crime, but not for the smokes.

Just my 2¢ worth.

Diana

[superquag]

If all you smokers want an insight in to how well you've been suckered into this habit....

Intelligent Manipulation – *Edward Bernays | Doc4: Web, Print and Branding (http://www.doc4design.com/articles/intelligent-manipulation/)

Dr. Carolyn Dean MD -- Death by Propaganda, Part 1 (http://www.newswithviews.com/Dean/carolyn33.htm)

Disclaimer:- I'm one of those generally insufferable ex-smokers who can't stand the smell of smoke or the residues... with only a little sympathy for those claiming to give up.
- NOT favourably disposed to the likes of Bernay who've made it expensive & difficult us...:mad:

[superquag]

Marriage is still legal, isn't it ? :wasntme:

You are a VERY brave man....
- Perhaps the health scare has unbalanced your mind... :p:p:p

[disco2_dan]

As a reformed smoker of just over 2 years and former smoker of 15, I see both sides of the argument, it's almost communism (socialism) when a government tells you what u can and can't do, I agree with an earlier statement of recording who smokes and they don't receive free medical for smoke related illness that's fair, but banning or criminalising smoking won't work either it will just drive it underground like other drugs, I don't personally know what the answer is but I do like going to pubs/restaurants and not having to breath in second hand smoke, when I was a smoker however I was outraged that I would no longer be able to smoke in pubs/clubs, I do like the idea Tasmania has legislated that any one born on or after the year 2000 Won't ever be allowed to buy cigarettes I think that's probably a step in the right direction, it's a very touchy subject as where do we draw the line over who can do what? There is already enough things that people are trying to stop us doing that to me seems like our freedoms are being taken away, I guess this is just another one of those things be it one that has no genuine bennifate to any one or thing other then corporate and government entities...

[steane]

I don't smoke but I'm more than a little over living in the PC centre of the world and this would just be another step in that direction. I'm tired of hearing what the do-gooders think. Really tired of it.

If a person wants to spend $20 to buy a packet of smokes then let them. If it kills them then so be it.

At least they will still have the right to make that choice. If that right was ever to go, then I'm not sure we'll be living in a better place.

[Eevo]

If it kills them then so be it.

At least they will still have the right to make that choice

and what about other peoples right to not breath 2nd hand smoke?

[vnx205]

Let them smoke as much as they like, just so long as they don't exhale. :D:D:D

[Bigbjorn]

... Or you could all but tax them out of existance... add another $20 per packet for starters. maybe $50.
That way, only the dedicated smokers would continue, a revenue windfall to the Health System. (Did'nt I mention that?- all taxes to go there instead of the Pollie's Retrement Funds...) AND, as a side-benefit, the drug cartels in Australia would find it more profitable to traffic nicotine than cocaine... thereby keeping the black economy happily feeding the super- luxury car/house/luxury ocean yachts moored in Botany Bay/Audio-Visual etc vendors... all of whom DO pay tax on their profits... as well as reducing the evil effects of hard drugs on our vulnerable population.

Since tobacco is grown in Oz, there's another avenue for the villains to invest in, agriculture - and their splashing about of cash would go a long way to re-vitalize small country towns...

If the taxes on expensive boozes were also lifted.... the crims would be paying us again, as they celebrate.

A bit of lateral thinking is required. - Mind you, putting a massive tax on LYING in parliament and the Press-Release, would solve many moral and Fiscal short-falls.... :angel::angel::angel:

I don't think tobacco is still grown overtly as a commercial crop in Australia. The several Qld. tobacco growing regions stopped years ago.

When I worked at Social Security long ago, one readily noticed that most of the clients had a packet of ciggies or tobacco in spite of their low income status. Essentials of life came first. Booze, tobacco, TAB, pokies, then rent, food, clothes.

[inside]

If a person wants to spend $20 to buy a packet of smokes then let them. If it kills them then so be it.
That's a rather simplistic view. What about the cost to the tax payer? The cost to treat smoking related illness must be huge, couldn't this money be used for better causes than treating self inflicted lung cancer? Why should I have to pay for this?

What I think will happen is they will move to only sell cigarettes in chemists and you must have a subscription to purchase. Smoking will be treated like an addiction that is managed through your GP.

[Chops]

Humm,, oh well, guess I'll light another fag whilst reading this.

As a smoker, and I'm sure there's an aweful lot of us out there,, "What about MY rights?" as a person, who just happens to smoke.
I'm sure my grand parents, my father and uncles fought in wars so we could have the right to do with "our lives", as we want.
And I don't need a lecture on how bad smoking is for you either thanks, both my parents died in my arms, so I get it. But it still never ceases to amaze me how it is that there's quite a few very old people who smoke like chimnies, and are still kicking around (an aunt of mine for one). Mum died of lung cancer,, funny that, she never smoked, and like the rest of our families, was rarely smoked in front of, they always went out to the balcony or veranda. Dad never smoked in the car with anyone on board, so how'd she cop it.
I've tried to give up, succeeded once, for two years even, but mates,, ahh, what can you do(??). I'll give up again, Leeanne did last year, and I will eventually follow suite.
By all means, ban it in public places etc, I think that's fair, but altogether,,, that's just way out of line. Personally, I think there are too many other things that need addressing by our leaders first.

Good luck in your quest BMKal

[Lotz-A-Landies]

A couple of other points, non-smokers are not the ones who pollute our streets and other public places with toxic used cigarette butts.

However, reading some of the posts, if we do reduce the cost of smoking related ill health perhaps we could spend some of the savings on spelling education in schools! :angel: :wasntme:

[Grumbles]

It's not about cigarettes - it is about choice. Yes - it may well cost to give people the choice to smoke or not but that is what a democracy is all about. The non smokers who advocate a ban seem to think it is about peoples health when it is not. What happens if cigarettes are banned? The nanny state petitioners are going to fasten on to something else to ban and that something may be a thing that affects the non smokers and removes a choice from them. Who will cry the loudest then?

[ATH]

I'm an ex smoker, very heavy smoker, well over 3 of the old packets of 20 a day.
My Dad died of emphysema and bronchitis when I was nearly 15 and him just 52 and I still took it up.
He had spent the last 12 years of his life in and out of hospitals where him and all the others used to take a deep breath of oxygen and then a puff of a fag while in their wheel chairs.
I hate the stink of the bloody smoke but like the smell of an unlit cigarette!
Gave it up cold turkey well over 35 years ago now but strangely still at times find myself feeling for my smokes when sitting at home watching the box!
It is definitely the most addictive drug you can possibly ingest with more info about of it's rotten affects and yet a young rellie has a partner of nearly 30, who has just taken it up.:o
What sort of total idiot is he? I told him so at Christmas and he has avoided us since which is great.:p
No smoking in pubs is great but it's allowed just outside the doors and the smokers just love to stand right outside so we can all benefit from the stink.
Still legal so we have to put up with it but I like others would hate in our nanny states to have it banned entirely as for sure our weak useless pollies would pick off all our pleasures eventually.
Carry on smoking fellas, just don't think you're coming on any runs I organise for the rest of us.:D
AlanH.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

It's not about cigarettes - it is about choice. Yes - it may well cost to give people the choice to smoke or not but that is what a democracy is all about. ...<snip>Who lives in a democracy???? :confused:

I sure don't, I don't have a right to free speech except for certain limited political subjects and not as far as the law on sedition. If I vote for a politician based upon their platform and they do the oposite I have no right to force them to follow their original platform. I don't have a right to do many and varied so called freedoms, I can't catch the number and size of fish where ever I want to fish. I can't ride my horse into a national park.

It goes on and on, banning smoking is no different to banning cocaine or assault weapons.

[benji]

I totally agree with you Chops. We value living in Australia because we do have the right to make those choices. I wish more smokers were like you though as some do not care the slightest about a child in a pram passive smoking, or my wife when she was breast feeding!!!

I've sold smokes for 5 years now, and seen a few changes along the way. People who are smoking couldn't care less what their packets look like, the only thing that matters is cost. I'd like to see them go up to $1 each, and $1 per gram for rollies, put a medicare levy on them, and (like the Tassie solution) ban anyone after 2000.

I only wish smoking was banned years ago though, then I may have got to know my grandfather - not going to happen now - thanks Phillip Morris, Imperial Tobacco and British Amercan.

[BMKal]

You are a VERY brave man....
- Perhaps the health scare has unbalanced your mind... :p:p:p

Nah ............ it's been unbalanced for years. Just ask SWMBO. :p

[V8Ian]

When the durries are gone we can ban beer, wine and spirits; then all private motor vehicles, then sports, commercial TV and radio and internet and all house paint that's not white and..............................

What tosser came up with this stupid plan?

[V8Ian]

The growing of tobacco has been banned in this country. Many of the old tobacco farms around Mareeba have turned to coffee, until that's banned too.

[Ralph1Malph]

Yep, Alcohol will be next. We think. Oh, they've already started - Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/industry-revolts-as-federal-health-agency-proposes-ban-on-discount-booze/story-e6frg6n6-1226494990848)

It only takes one single issue zealot to raise a frenzy. Who knew gambling was so bad until ol' mate wanted it banned. Remember the internet, one or two protagonists nearly had that banned to. Surely it's not that bad. Fast food is on a knife edge too, kids shouldn't be eating it, therefore it should be banned.

It's the thin end of the wedge. It's not about whether some things are good or bad for us, it's about the choice that democracy brings.

Here's my take.
I believe soccer accounts for much of the sports violence we have in this country, ergo, it should be banned, it just causes social unrest. Can't happen? Of course it can, someone important just has to jump on the bandwagon.

I mentioned many posts ago, my thoughts on Bali. More Aussies are killed there than Afganistan. Seems a perfect target for banning, afterall, it's only choice that makes one go there. There is no logical reason to go there. Think of the savings in repatriation, consular costs, bad press etc.

I wonder how close Mr H Scruby came to having 4WD banned in Sydney streets?

Anyone up on the The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious Drugs, Identity Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2012? I haven't read it but it rabbits on about potentially banning plants that have or can be used for illicit drug making or have trace elements of drug compounds. Apparently it can include many pet cactii, the banksia and even the wattle! It could be a beat up though.

Point is, one man's poison is another man's hobby.
We should all be informed about the dangers of everything bad and allowed to make choices.

Cheers
Ralph

[steane]

and what about other peoples right to not breath 2nd hand smoke?

Where do you breath second hand smoke? I'm not a smoker and I don't come across it very regularly at all. It's already banned in virtually all environments where people gather. If you smell it and don't like it, crank both your legs up and move on a little...

It's what I do when someone farts. I don't stand there and talk about my rights to them...

[mick88]

My workplace has almost forty employees and there are not any smokers. About 30 years ago we had a vote about people smoking indoors and even the smokers voted against it, as they thought it would help them cut down or give up! I do work in the health industry and we get to see the people who are suffering the long term effects of smoking, but really there must be so many less smokers today than there was 20-30 years ago.
If you want to inhale toxic fumes I know it's your right, but why make a Tobacco Company rich, just stick your mouth over the end of a vehicle exhaust and inhale. A Series Landy might do the trick ;)
And before you have a go at me, I did smoke many years ago!

Cheers, Mick.

[steane]

That's a rather simplistic view. What about the cost to the tax payer? The cost to treat smoking related illness must be huge, couldn't this money be used for better causes than treating self inflicted lung cancer? Why should I have to pay for this?

What I think will happen is they will move to only sell cigarettes in chemists and you must have a subscription to purchase. Smoking will be treated like an addiction that is managed through your GP.

Simple is sometimes best.

As part of a free society, paying for 'stuff' that happens to others is what we do. It might not be fair all of the time, but you cannot legislate against all the perceived imbalances in life.

Smoking has gone from being the norm, to being almost unusual now, but let the few that are left sort it out in their own time.

It's the banned drugs that are causing most of the issues now...

[sheerluck]

Where do you breath second hand smoke? I'm not a smoker and I don't come across it very regularly at all. It's already banned in virtually all environments where people gather. If you smell it and don't like it, crank both your legs up and move on a little...

It's what I do when someone farts. I don't stand there and talk about my rights to them...

I love it when someone brings out the smoking=farting line. The biggest difference between the two is that farting only smells toxic!

I certainly don't whinge about my rights when it comes to smokers. The only time I get really tetchy is if people smoke while I'm eating. I really hate smoking, but it is legal, and as steane says if you don't like it then move on by.

[Mick_Marsh]

Heard the radio news this morning about a push to have the sale of cigarettes banned in Vic
Which radio station did you hear that twaddle on? That's a headline worthy of "Today Tonight" or "A Current Affair".
I'm a non smoker and dislike cigarette smoke immensely but surely there are more important things for the lawmakers to do, like, go on an overseas holiday. I hear Mali would be an excellent destination for them.

[Mick_Marsh]

Where do you breath second hand smoke? I'm not a smoker and I don't come across it very regularly at all. It's already banned in virtually all environments where people gather. If you smell it and don't like it, crank both your legs up and move on a little...

It's what I do when someone farts. I don't stand there and talk about my rights to them...
Outside the law courts in Melbourne. I regularly have to run the gauntlet holding my breath as I pass through the pawl of smoke. It's interesting to see the crims and coppers sharing the common activity of grinding butts into the ground.
Quite a few months ago, I said to a copper "Pick up that butt." His reply was not suitable to be typed on this forum.

[DOD DEFENDER]

As a smoker i would like to see it band at some point. BUT you would have to say afew year kick in point. I watched my grandmother die from lung cancer and my father die of a heart attack at 47 and i hope it dont kill me to

[Sleepy]

Yeah I heard it reported on SEN this mornings news too Mick.

But once we got passed the 'exaggerated headline' (wrong thread???), the head of Quit victoria was saying the cigarettes were for sale in x thousand outlets and was too easy to obtain.

I really don't think anyone would progress a ban (Think of the lost taxes and the increase in policing required) but it is a good way to grab everyone's attention.

I suspect they will push for a ban of supermarkets etc selling them and restrict them to specialist cancer....sorry....cigarette outlets.

We could go the whole hog and place the cigarette shops next to cancer hospitals.

Next we should ban Maccas and all fast food.

Can we ban nose picking too....how gross.

Oh and old ladies wearing too much perfume .....gross x 2

Oh and lets ban those low cut jeans that overweight people wear without first looking in the mirror.

Ban 4wd's

Ban internet

Ban Ban ban .......I am sick of this bloody nanny state.

I hate smoking too, but in your own home, away from the kiddies, I don't give a flying fag!

[Ralph1Malph]

I remember a pub ditty from sometime in my past. Not sure who or where it came from but it went something like this::p

Smokers enjoy smoking, it gives them pleasure.
Second hand smoke is the by-product of a smoker's pleasure.
I don't smoke, but it still gets in my hair and clothes, face and nose.
I like to drink beer, it gives me pleasure.
Urine is the by-product of my pleasure.
Perhaps I should drink some beer, stand on a chair, and **** on the hair and clothes, and in the face and nose of the smokers.

I'd love to see someone have the goons to do it!:D

Ralph

[Ranga]

I find it interesting that debates on smoking rarely include the reason for smoking. Personal choice is discussed, but what I find so curious, is why people smoke.

I used to, and still can't work out why I did. Was it to be cool? Was it an escape (from stress, work, thought)?

Take my BIL for instance. We often talk about him giving up, and he's currently about to try again. However, his alternative is to continue/increase smoking e-cigarettes as, and I quote "they're not harmful because they're only nicotine, without all the other chemicals". I think this is debatable, but still the bigger question for me is why smoke e-cigarettes?

There is so much information available these days indicating why not to smoke, it's almost unthinkable that people commence smoking. Ceasing is another issue altogether, as I understand how hard it can be to stop. For me, it was actually quite easy once I realised that I didn't want to smoke any more.

Whenever I consciously or sub-consciously thought of lighting up, I quickly asked myself "why would I light up, when I don't smoke?".

My BIL is quite a victim of fashion. He once told me he doesn't care if he actually looks cool, as long as he thinks he looks cool. And good on him for that, I say. Again, this is a whole other discussion, but I think there are some tangible links to the reason for smoking.

So, I put it to all you smokers and ex-smokers - why did you start, and why don't you want to stop? PS, I'm not really interested in why you want to stop but can't. I've already formed an understanding on that :)

Anyway, as per usual, my confusion reigns supreme. What a remarkeably interesting world we live in! :D

BTW - I think we've failed as humans when we need to ban anything.

[vnx205]

Humm,, oh well, guess I'll light another fag whilst reading this.

As a smoker, and I'm sure there's an aweful lot of us out there,, "What about MY rights?" as a person, who just happens to smoke.
I'm sure my grand parents, my father and uncles fought in wars so we could have the right to do with "our lives", as we want.

Does that mean I have the right to drive on the right hand side of the road in Australia if I decide that is what I want to do with my life? :)

And I don't need a lecture on how bad smoking is for you either thanks, both my parents died in my arms, so I get it. But it still never ceases to amaze me how it is that there's quite a few very old people who smoke like chimnies, and are still kicking around (an aunt of mine for one).

So smoking can't be dangerous because some people do it and survive. If that argument is valid, then Gallipoli can't have been particularly dangerous in the months following April 1915 either, because my great Uncle Stan on my father's side spent quite a bit of time there then and he survived and lived into his eighties. :)

Mum died of lung cancer,, funny that, she never smoked, and like the rest of our families, was rarely smoked in front of, they always went out to the balcony or veranda. Dad never smoked in the car with anyone on board, so how'd she cop it.
I've tried to give up, succeeded once, for two years even, but mates,, ahh, what can you do(??). I'll give up again, Leeanne did last year, and I will eventually follow suite.
By all means, ban it in public places etc, I think that's fair, but altogether,,, that's just way out of line. Personally, I think there are too many other things that need addressing by our leaders first.

Good luck in your quest BMKal
....

[Mick_Marsh]

Yeah I heard it reported on SEN this mornings news too Mick.
SEN!
There you have it.
It's a load of twaddle. Reported by people who make goldfish appear to be a higher life form. (I apologise if any goldfish are offended.)
Enough said.

[Carnut1100]

Banning tobacco would only force it underground, make a huge profit for dealers when they move in,
And criminalise thousands of people.
Taxing it too highly would just increase the amount of bootleg stuff going around.
The current slow squeeze IS cutting tr number of smokers and reducing take up.
Given time it will become a rare sight.

[Eevo]

Where do you breath second hand smoke? I'm not a smoker and I don't come across it very regularly at all. It's already banned in virtually all environments where people gather. If you smell it and don't like it, crank both your legs up and move on a little...
.
my next door neighbour smokes. twice an hour
walking through town
going in and our of clubs/pubs
walking past cafe with outdoor eating
bus stops (not that i catch the bus anymore)

its not banned in public places, like outside where i walk.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

my next door neighbour smokes. twice an hour
walking through town
going in and our of clubs/pubs
walking past cafe with outdoor eating
bus stops (not that i catch the bus anymore)

its not banned in public places, like outside where i walk.In NSW it is now banned inside and outside all government buildings and inside any form of public transport and outside at their stations/stops/warves and in any car when children are also occupants. Also everywhere in all bars, clubs and restaurants, except for outside eating areas.

[Disco44]

The growing of tobacco has been banned in this country. Many of the old tobacco farms around Mareeba have turned to coffee, until that's banned too.

Yes mate but they also got done by the Taxation Dept. for selling black market tobacco.The flying squad that knocked them all off were financed ,not by the Feds, but tobacco companies because that way they made exorbitant profits from which the feds profited in the way of taxes.Had absolutely nothing to do with health issues at all.When
Joh was in power in Queensland would not do two things (1) tax cigarettes because he maintained that they were the working classes affordable form of recreation ( 2) Would not allow pokies into this state because...well we know why now don't we?
Probably the only two things that I agreed on as I was no Joh fan.

[Chops]

VNX,,
For just about all good, there seems to be some bad too. You can try and turn it around all you want, but we still should have the "Right to choose".

So, your "point #1",
It's all about Your right to choose. If you want to drive on the wrong side, so be it. Mind you, IMO, if you want to do that, you should probably pack up and go to USA. Driving against mainstream traffic in this country could be a tad dangerous. That law or rule was created to help with public safety etc. if public safety is an issue where smoking is concerned, I would be thinking industry has given us more than just smoke to worry about, therefore maybe we should ban that :angel:

Your point #2,
Our forefathers went through incredible pain and suffering, the likes of which we can only attempt to imagine,, to keep "our rights". (but I'm unsure how my aunt relates to that exactly). And as far as I know, it's certainly portrayed in film and stills/pics, when someone was downed, the first thing he got was a smoke.

Wether something is good or bad for us isn't really the argument here, it's all about someone making a descision for you, thus you not having the Right To Choose.
It doesn't matter if the original statement posted is true or false, maybe it's someone's brainstorming to get ratings on TV/Radio, but the thought of loosing your rights,, as in my first post,, it's not right.

[Chops]

In NSW it is now banned inside and outside all government buildings and inside any form of public transport and outside at their stations/stops/warves and in any car when children are also occupants. Also everywhere in all bars, clubs and restaurants, except for outside eating areas.

It's also banned in covered car parks in Albury. The particular one I'm thinking of just has an open car park on top of it,, not sure if your allowed to smoke up there.
I don't have a problem with them doing this as its considered private property, right up untill you have a bingle, then they'll probably tell you it's council responsibility ;), so it has the same status as a smoke free factory/building site.

[mick88]

Dozens upon dozens of bushfires burning all over the East Coast of Australia from Queensland down to Tassie. Twice this week I witnessed people throw lit cigarettes from moving motor vehicles!
Another "hazard" from smoking!



Cheers, Mick.

[Ranga]

Wether something is good or bad for us isn't really the argument here, it's all about someone making a descision for you, thus you not having the Right To Choose.

You're absolutely correct. I think what VNX and others may have been trying to point out, is the whole mountain of things that we don't have the right to choose. Ultimately, there's plenty of chemicals that were legal back during the wars, WW1, WW2 and even Vietnam, but we don't get to choose whether we can have them or not now. We could choose to use heroine, cocaine, marijuana, the chemical compound of what is now MDMA, thalidimide, DDT, Agent Orange, probably explosives that are all deemed illegal these days.

It's similar to other societal fallacies such as free speech. People argue for free speech, but in essence, if free speech were truly part of our society, slander and defamation wouldn't exist. Would that be a good thing?

It's interesting where society (or lawmakers) draw the line. So, what should we have the right to choose? I think this makes a more interesting debate, as does why people choose to smoke. But then again, I admit that I may focus too much on theory, and may not be as pragmatic as I should be.

[Ranga]

Dozens upon dozens of bushfires burning all over the East Coast of Australia from Queensland down to Tassie. Twice this week I witnessed people throw lit cigarettes from moving motor vehicles!
Another "hazard" from smoking!



Cheers, Mick.

Not to mention what other damage discarded butts do to the environment. I often flash my headlights when following people when they do this. Not that is probably does much good, except maybe make them think about what they just did, given it's probably a sub-conscious act for many smokers. Maybe I should get an in-dash camera, and simply send the footage to somewhere. Then again, I maybe infringing on their right to choose to throw the butt out the window. :p

[vnx205]

.... ..... ...

It's all about Your right to choose. If you want to drive on the wrong side, so be it. Mind you, IMO, if you want to do that, you should probably pack up and go to USA. Driving against mainstream traffic in this country could be a tad dangerous. That is the point I was trying to make.

. .... .... ...


In Australia each year about 1,200 people die from road accidents. About 15,000 die from smoking related illness.

So why is it OK for there to be restrictions on my choice to drive dangerously, but not OK for there to be a restriction on my choice to consume a substance that kills about twelve times as many people?

Deaths and disease from smoking - Quit Victoria (http://www.quit.org.au/resource-centre/fact-sheets/deaths-from-smoking)

Deaths in Australia
Research estimates that one in two lifetime smokers will die from a disease caused by their smoking. The most recent estimate of deaths caused by tobacco in Australia is for the financial year 2004-05. Tobacco use caused a total of 14,901 deaths in that year.

Deaths in Victoria
Every year around 3,937 Victorians die from diseases caused by smoking. This estimate is based on data collected between the four years 2002 and 2005.

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in Victoria. On average out of every 1000 deaths in Victoria:

119 are caused by smoking
24 are caused by alcohol (including road deaths caused by drinking)
12 are caused by road deaths (including road deaths caused by drinking)
3 are caused by other drugs, including heroin.

[DiscoWeb]

Banning tobacco would only force it underground, make a huge profit for dealers when they move in,
And criminalise thousands of people.
Taxing it too highly would just increase the amount of bootleg stuff going around.
The current slow squeeze IS cutting tr number of smokers and reducing take up.
Given time it will become a rare sight.

I totally agree.

Lets face it banning or criminalising something does not stop it.

Best example are illegal drugs. We all know they are all readily available in reality. Plenty of costs associated with them both financially and socially but no revenue to the govt to fund the costs associated with them who wins in that ?

What about guns - these are now heavily legislated but we appear to have more shottings and gun crime, focused admittedly on the criminal element, but not eliminated and again available if you want them.

Education about the effects of smoking, increasing the costs of smoking and continuing to make it socially unacceptable is the only way of reducing it my mind.

I use to smoke, never a heavy smoker just the odd one during the day and when i had a few beers, I though i enjoyed it. Had tried and tried to kick it with patches and other aids. One day I woke up, said this is stupid and have not smoked since.

Just my 2c worth.

George

[Lotz-A-Landies]

<snip> ...
What about guns - these are now heavily legislated but we appear to have more shottings and gun crime, focused admittedly on the criminal element, but not eliminated and again available if you want them.
<snip>
GeorgeActually, guns have always been available but semi-automatics and self loading no longer available. The myth hyped by the media is about the increasing shooting deaths, which is not the case you are now far more likely to be stabbed than shot.

[UncleHo]

Yeah! saw a bit on local TV the other night about the gun crime in Aust. then they showed footage (inches) of a US gun dealers rack of mostly assult weapons, like you can really just walk into one in downtown Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane/Adelaide/Perth and buy one :eek::mad::mad::( :censored:

[Lotz-A-Landies]

In Australia each year about 1,200 people die from road accidents. About 15,000 die from smoking related illness.

<snip>

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in Victoria. On average out of every 1000 deaths in Victoria:

119 are caused by smoking
24 are caused by alcohol (including road deaths caused by drinking)
12 are caused by road deaths (including road deaths caused by drinking)
3 are caused by other drugs, including heroin.[/COLOR]And this is not discussing the chronic disability suffered by many smokers from diseases like emphysema prior to or in the absence of any cancers. For these people every breath can be a struggle and like asbestos victims, many emphysema patients are required to carry oxygen bottles to keep themselves alive.

[DiscoWeb]

Actually, guns have always been available but semi-automatics and self loading no longer available.

I know this as my father up until he passed away kept a couple of rifles but had to hand in the semi auto Ruger .22 and a .223 when these tougher laws were introduced.

I was not wanting to get into a gun control debate as I quite like firearms and agree you are more likely to get stabbed than shot.

The point I was trying to make is that over regulation, banning something does not stop people from doing things it just makes then do it on the sly.

People get eaten by sharks and drown regularly but we do not ban swimming.

George.

[sam_d]

The argument sometimes used that the Government will shoot themselves in the foot with lost tax revenue if smoking was banned is a bit of a fallacy.

It is true that Government raises billions in revenue from tobacco sales but the amount raised still falls well short (several billion dollars) of the cost of healthcare to treat diseases and illness directly attributable to smoking.

Once you add non-direct costs (lost productivity at work, fires caused by discarded cigarettes, pollution caused by cigarette butts etc), again, a few more billion dollars, to the bill then the shortfall is even greater.

All these billions of dollars could be used elsewhere or even not be disappearing from your pay packet in the first place.

As an aside, I tried a cigarette once. I was 7 and nearly threw up all over my brother who gave it to me - he was 9 and we'd found a pack of cigarettes in the park. That was the only time I have ever 'smoked'. :)

[Lotz-A-Landies]

<snip> ...

The point I was trying to make is that over regulation, banning something does not stop people from doing things it just makes then do it on the sly.

People get eaten by sharks and drown regularly but we do not ban swimming.

George.Absolutely have to agree with you over the debate/s, it is also a significant debate in the US at present. One current argument posed by one pundit is that there whole volumes of OH&S regulations on the use of ladders, but only about 300 people in the US die because of them. There are 30,000 gun related deaths in the US and no one seems to be able to regulate them, including no controls on gun purchase by individuals who are on FBI terrorist watch lists and Homeland security "No Fly" lists preventing them boarding a plane.

Back to smoking, we do live in a country with no constitutionally guaranteed rights and controlled by a series of state or federal laws and regulations. We also have a nationalised health system where the costs of treatment for all citizens is shared by all the taxpayers in the nation.

Under this system, we don't actually have any legal freedom to do what we want to do, we only have such freedoms not expressly defined or banned by specific laws.

This means that at will the government can restrict or ban any activity, including what we put into our body, merely by enacting legislation or beaurocrats imposing regulations so long as they don't infringe any pre-existing law or part of the Constitution.

Prohibition has not prevented people using heroin, smoking canabis or exceeding the speed limit, but laws and interdiction have made it harder to acquire illicit drugs and Police activity and cameras have reduced the rates of speeding. Back to my original post, ban the sale, advertising etc of smoking but don't criminalise smoking. That way people can continue to abuse their body at great cost, but not risk the life changing consequences of a criminal record or gaol, no good comes from criminalising addicts.

[steane]

my next door neighbour smokes. twice an hour
walking through town
going in and our of clubs/pubs
walking past cafe with outdoor eating
bus stops (not that i catch the bus anymore)

its not banned in public places, like outside where i walk.

Lucky you don't live with your neighbour I guess.

I do all of those things (except pubs/clubs on a regular basis) and I can't say I'm being smoked out, or have even really noticed the smokers. Not to the extent that I'd consider it an epidemic needing government regulation (banning).

I guess if pubs and clubs are your thing then really it's a case of "welcome to vice city". Take a deep breath and enjoy your chosen poison.

[Chops]

In Australia each year about 1,200 people die from road accidents. About 15,000 die from smoking related illness.

So why is it OK for there to be restrictions on my choice to drive dangerously, but not OK for there to be a restriction on my choice to consume a substance that kills about twelve times as many people?


Because driving a car any-old-how could kill other people directly.

Smoking is a self inflicted "personal" issue, not a "public" issue.

Please, don't get me wrong, I too know all the facts, and first hand too. I hate the hold that smoking has on me, and will be attempting yet again soon to stop,, and hopefully for good.
I just don't believe it's right for a governing body to "ban" something. If it was a community based safety thing, then yes, whatever it is should be considered. But my smoking only affects me,, I've been asked on several occasions to move/butt out, and I have complied,, it's just good manners and empathy for the thoughts feelings of others,, but it's my body, my life.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

<snip> ... But my smoking only affects me,, I've been asked on several occasions to move/butt out, and I have complied,, it's just good manners and empathy for the thoughts feelings of others,, but it's my body, my life.Marcus

This is where you're wrong, smoking doesn't only affect you. The excise collected on the purchase of cigarettes no longer comes close to the cost of healthcare treating smoking related illness, so the health consequences of smoking are borne by all taxpayers, including me and I have never met you.

Non-smokers do not drop their cigarette butts in the street or start bushfires with them, maybe you don't do those things but other smokers do and that is a cost to everyone including you and me.

I do however understand the problems of beating an addiction, and bare no grudge about the cost to taxpayers of Quit programs to help smokers like yourself and others kick the habit.

Diana

[isuzurover]

Marcus

This is where you're wrong, smoking doesn't only affect you. The excise collected on the purchase of cigarettes no longer comes close to the cost of healthcare treating smoking related illness, so the health consequences of smoking are borne by all taxpayers, including me and I have never met you.

Non-smokers do not drop their cigarette butts in the street or start bushfires with them, maybe you don't do those things but other smokers do and that is a cost to everyone including you and me.

I do however understand the problems of beating an addiction, and bare no grudge about the cost to taxpayers of Quit programs to help smokers like yourself and others kick the habit.

Diana

Not to mention passive smoking... Although these days that is largely limited to the families of smokers.

[JDNSW]

HAving just read this thread, a couple of comments:-

1. Freedom is not the same as democracy. Pure democracy implies the right of 50.1% of the population to make any laws they care to, whether these are to the detriment of the 49.9% or not. Rounding up and shooting the 49.9% may be immoral, and disastrous to the country, but it is not undemocratic. Similarly, freedom of speech is not equal to democracy, although it is very difficult for democracy to work without at least a modicum of this.

2. "Present methods do not work". Actually, the data says they do. Fifty years ago something like 75% of adult males and 20% of adult females smoked. Fifteen years ago it was something like 35% for both male and female. Today it is well below 20% and has been dropping steadily for decades. This is why stiffer regulation of smoking and tobacco has overwhelming public support - even, as several here have noted, by smokers (in the hope it will help them to quit).


But I do not believe that banning tobacco will be any more effective than banning any other drugs, although I do suspect that it will happen eventually, probably in the not too distant future. As to other potential "bans" such as alcohol, I expect that more likely is tougher restrictions, gradually tightening, but never becoming particularly tight until supported by an overwhelming majority.

John

[Landy Smurf]

I personally hope they do ban it but a state cant ban it, it will have to be a national ban.
I suppose my only concern is that could this be the final straw to banning pretty much everything.

[Chops]

Marcus

This is where you're wrong, smoking doesn't only affect you. The excise collected on the purchase of cigarettes no longer comes close to the cost of healthcare treating smoking related illness, so the health consequences of smoking are borne by all taxpayers, including me and I have never met you.

Non-smokers do not drop their cigarette butts in the street or start bushfires with them, maybe you don't do those things but other smokers do and that is a cost to everyone including you and me.

I do however understand the problems of beating an addiction, and bare no grudge about the cost to taxpayers of Quit programs to help smokers like yourself and others kick the habit.

Diana

Uh ohh,, I'm in trouble now,, she called me Marcus :angel:

Yep, I get what your saying, as in, you guys all pay for my healthcare when I'm crook, and I'm sorry for that, and had I been aware of this dilemma when I started smoking at about 10 years of age, and been wise enough to work it out, I wouldn't have started in the first place,,, but, what I'm saying is, my smoking doesn't result in your health problems (which I hope none of you have) but my smoking only directly impaires my health.
And for the record, even as a kid I was against any form of litter-bugging.
When I was in India a coue of years ago, they couldn't understand why I would put my smoke butts in my pocket and take them back to the hotel to dispose of.

[Landy Smurf]

That is the real problem is that I would imagine 95% of smokers start before they are 20 and I would think about 50% start under 15/16, ages where we dont make the most wisest decisions

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Uh ohh,, I'm in trouble now,, she called me Marcus :angel:

Yep, I get what your saying, as in, you guys all pay for my healthcare when I'm crook, and ...He Leeanne :( (sorry about the Marcus assumption)

I truly do understand the problems of addiction, how very difficult it can me to get off the habit and that smoking was the norm when we were young. However in those days we didn't have a universal healthcare system and so in essence it is now a case of he who pays the piper gets to choose the tune, if the Government is paying for the healthcare of all citizens (through our individual tax contributions), then (outside any ethical or moral judgements of preventing unnecessary premature illness and death) it has a responsibility to also help prevent or reduce diseases that place burdens on the health budget. Various restrictions on cigarettes is one, the same could be said about obesity and mandatory healthy foods in schools, hospital canteens and aged care facilities.

Yes your smoking tends not to injure my health if you don't smoke into air I'm about to breathe, but every day I also have to look at dozens of respiratory patients walking/scootering along the corridor outside my office. Then for many years I had to treat untold numbers of respiratory and cancer patients and I can tell you aspirating the muck from some smokers lungs and having them cough, cough, cough all over you will put you off lunch very quickly.

[disco2_dan]

Because driving a car any-old-how could kill other people directly.

Smoking is a self inflicted "personal" issue, not a "public" issue.

Please, don't get me wrong, I too know all the facts, and first hand too. I hate the hold that smoking has on me, and will be attempting yet again soon to stop,, and hopefully for good.
I just don't believe it's right for a governing body to "ban" something. If it was a community based safety thing, then yes, whatever it is should be considered. But my smoking only affects me,, I've been asked on several occasions to move/butt out, and I have complied,, it's just good manners and empathy for the thoughts feelings of others,, but it's my body, my life.


And it is a public issue unless you only smoke in the privacy of your own home, every day I walk down the street and have to breath in second hand smoke, so no it doesn't just effect the person who chooses to smoke it effects anyone near him/her at the time.... I believe if you wana smoke that's your choice, but if I don't want to that's mine, and believe me that's hard when swmbo smokes and I get abused cause she wants to light up in my car and I won't let her, I've now said if she wants to smoke I pull over and she can get out of the car which I love but makes her furious, it's been 25 months since I quit and it's the best thing I've ever done, hardest thing I've ever tried in my life but worth every painful agonising second

[DiscoWeb]

The argument sometimes used that the Government will shoot themselves in the foot with lost tax revenue if smoking was banned is a bit of a fallacy.

It is true that Government raises billions in revenue from tobacco sales but the amount raised still falls well short (several billion dollars) of the cost of healthcare to treat diseases and illness directly attributable to smoking.

Once you add non-direct costs (lost productivity at work, fires caused by discarded cigarettes, pollution caused by cigarette butts etc), again, a few more billion dollars, to the bill then the shortfall is even greater.

All these billions of dollars could be used elsewhere or even not be disappearing from your pay packet in the first place.



sam_d,

Not that cost is a justification.

However the medical, social and other cost associated with smoking would still be very high even if it was banned or made illegal you simply would not collect the revenue associated.

As such the net cost to tax payers is likely to be higher.

I am all for a continued push to limit smoking and ultimately stopping people from making the choice to smoke but if we all did only those things that did not harm us it would be very boring !!!.

George

[Landy Smurf]

another point( it probably has already been said) is you may say it doesnt affect anyone else( if you smoke outside by yourself or in a car by yourself etc) but most people have families and even if they do not get any second hand smoke it still affects them as it affects the smoker

[disco2_dan]

And for those who think that their smoking only effects them, how about swmbo's grandparents who both got cancer due to smoking, yet neither have ever smoked but owned a pub where they both worked for 25 odd years, so it's not just your health it's any ones who breathes the smoke who is at risk....

[Sleepy]

The argument sometimes used that the Government will shoot themselves in the foot with lost tax revenue if smoking was banned is a bit of a fallacy.

It is true that Government raises billions in revenue from tobacco sales but the amount raised still falls well short (several billion dollars) of the cost of healthcare to treat diseases and illness directly attributable to smoking.

Once you add non-direct costs (lost productivity at work, fires caused by discarded cigarettes, pollution caused by cigarette butts etc), again, a few more billion dollars, to the bill then the shortfall is even greater.



I am sure you have evidence to back this up Sam, so I wont ask for it.

It aint about shooting ones foot, it's about getting re-elected.

I like you idealism but let's be realistic.

It's only a fallacy if you believe that governments look more than 4 years ahead. If you eliminated smoking today, the reduced incidence of cancer would take years (decades) to show a real return. Australian governments have a proven track record of not looking past the next election. So therefore to ask a politian to give up the income is ....well..... hard to imagine.

Without turning this into a political thread and getting lead role in "The Wrath of Inc." Neither side of our short sighted political posturers would see that as a "win".

[Lotz-A-Landies]

<snip>It's only a fallacy if you believe that governments look more than 4 years ahead. If you eliminated smoking today, the reduced incidence of cancer would take years (decades) to show a real return. Australian governments have a proven track record of not looking past the next election. So therefore to ask a politian to give up the income is ....well..... hard to imagine. <snip>Whether politicians can look past the next election cycle is debatable, but I can tell you first hand that health departments and treasury most certainly look to the immediate, medium term and long term planning needs of the nation.

Whether the politicians will fund it or give a budget guarantee outside the current fiscal year is another problem.

[Chops]

Hehe,, Leeanne won't ever write anything on here,, it's hard enough to get her to check out a trip report, let alone write anything :D

[Mick_Marsh]

Where do you breath second hand smoke? I'm not a smoker and I don't come across it very regularly at all. It's already banned in virtually all environments where people gather. If you smell it and don't like it, crank both your legs up and move on a little...

It's what I do when someone farts. I don't stand there and talk about my rights to them...Outside the law courts in Melbourne. I regularly have to run the gauntlet holding my breath as I pass through the pawl of smoke. It's interesting to see the crims and coppers sharing the common activity of grinding butts into the ground.
Quite a few months ago, I said to a copper "Pick up that butt." His reply was not suitable to be typed on this forum.
Ran the gauntlet again today.

On the railway platform a few smokers having their last desparate puffs as the train approaches. The really inconsiderate ones draw in a deep breath, drop the cigarette between the platform and the carriage, and then exhale as they walk down the aisle.

Outside the front doors at work lunchtime. They gather in the bus shelter. The bus shelter has a "NO SMOKING" sign. I'm amazed how many smokers can't read. I was against the slogans being printed on the cigarette packets. Useless. The money would have been better spent putting smokers through literacy programs.

And again on the railway platform waiting for the train to go home. There are several "NO SMOKING" signs on the platform. When I asked a PSO to get the smoker to move up the platform away from the "NO SMOKING" sign, the PSO just asked to see my ticket and, after presenting said ticket, the PSO walked away.

Now, I'm sure there are very few inconsiderate smokers, but why is it I manage to cross paths with every one of them?

Oh, I worked with a chain smoker back in the bad old days when it was ok to smoke in the workplace. He often reminded me it was his right to smoke but failed to comprehend the concept that I had a right to breathe smoke free air. After many complaints from myself and others, the chain smoker was asked by management to take his drug habit outside.

[Mick_Marsh]

The argument sometimes used that the Government will shoot themselves in the foot with lost tax revenue if smoking was banned is a bit of a fallacy.

It is true that Government raises billions in revenue from tobacco sales but the amount raised still falls well short (several billion dollars) of the cost of healthcare to treat diseases and illness directly attributable to smoking.

Once you add non-direct costs (lost productivity at work, fires caused by discarded cigarettes, pollution caused by cigarette butts etc), again, a few more billion dollars, to the bill then the shortfall is even greater.

All these billions of dollars could be used elsewhere or even not be disappearing from your pay packet in the first place.

As an aside, I tried a cigarette once. I was 7 and nearly threw up all over my brother who gave it to me - he was 9 and we'd found a pack of cigarettes in the park. That was the only time I have ever 'smoked'. :)
I remember hearing on the radio the statistics showed smokers tend to go quicker than the aged so health spending on smoking related diseases was actually less than spending on aged care.
I usually listen to RN so is could have been reported on The Science Show, The Health Report, Late Night Live, Background Briefing or Ockham's Razor.

[Landy Smurf]

I doubt the new plain packaging have had a big affect but I can tell you first hand I have had people change their minds when they see the smokes

[Lotz-A-Landies]

<snip> ...
Outside the front doors at work lunchtime. They gather in the bus shelter. The bus shelter has a "NO SMOKING" sign. I'm amazed how many smokers can't read. I was against the slogans being printed on the cigarette packets. Useless. The money would have been better spent putting smokers through literacy programs.

And again on the railway platform waiting for the train to go home. There are several "NO SMOKING" signs on the platform. When I asked a PSO to get the smoker to move up the platform away from the "NO SMOKING" sign, the PSO just asked to see my ticket and, after presenting said ticket, the PSO walked away.

Now, I'm sure there are very few inconsiderate smokers, but why is it I manage to cross paths with every one of them?
<snip>Hi Mick

In NSW it's now illegal to smoke at the station or outside it, at the bus stop or anywhere on hospital grounds and now on the street out the front of government buildings including hospitals. It is not worth the grief asking any smoker to leave the campus, including my sitting outside on the lawn in the front driveway, then having smokers come up next to me and light up then my getting a tirade of abuse for asking them to move away.

Many smokers don't need literacy programs, they need obedience training! :mad:

[Eevo]

Hi Mick

In NSW it's now illegal to smoke at the station or outside it, at the bus stop or anywhere on hospital grounds and now on the street out the front of government buildings including hospitals.

illegal in SA too but it still happens.
inconsiderate :censored:'s

out of my top 10 things i hate in this world, smokers are number 1.

[Landy Smurf]

I was quite glad they brought that in I hate the railway stations and bus stops when people are smoking. It is a shame smoke lingers so much

[Landy Smurf]

completely off task but when replying then this message came up. why?
0.Landy Smurf, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons: - Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system? - If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Smurf Rover

The fact that you posted this time suggests it's only a temporary glitch.

Diana

[Mick_Marsh]

completely off task but when replying then this message came up. why?
0.Landy Smurf, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons: - Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system? - If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation
Yeah. I've had that too.
A few 0's and 1's lost in the ether I would say.

[Landy Smurf]

I tried posting it a few time refreshed the page but the only way i could do it was by opening it in a new tab. I was thinking oh crap I dont remember doing anything that I shouldnt have....well anything major :)

[EchiDna]

I'm all for "user pays" under medicare for treatment required due to poor decision making on the part of the user. Drink and drug driving, smoking etc would all soon come with too heavy a burden - can you imagine if what would happen if you caused an accident while drink driving and then got the full cost of the medical treatment, emergency services etc etc, instead of merely the ambo coming at "cost" and everything else free? the potential of losing your licence or coping a fine pale into insignificance....

same goes for smokers, make them pay for their own treatment, give a list of common costs on the side of the packet e.g. (made up numbers) lung cancer treatment drugs @ $1500 a month, lung transplant @ $250,000 installation cost, hospital stay @ $400 a night, specialist medical treatment @$220 per appointment.... then see how long your filthy habit is really impacting your life.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I'm all for "user pays" under medicare for treatment required due to poor decision making on the part of the user. ...<snip>The problem is that all too often the perpetrators of drink and drug driving accidents don't have a penny to bless themselves with, so the victims would be the ones out of pocket.

Perhaps we should start a health insurance scheme, paid for by a surcharge on the smokes and alcohol sales. Then all the costs associated with smoking and alcohol related illness and crashes will be paid for out of the health insurance fund, not out of Medicare. Hospitals will charge the S&A Health Fund for the treatment based upon a non-medicare private patient. If the fund can't cover all the associated costs then the surcharge rises, but likewise if there is money left in the scheme at the end of a period (say 10 years) then the surcharge is reduced.

[mools]

We should tax idiots heavily, they cost the country dearly. Fat people, sunbathers...

People who run marathons and need medical assistance should be refused treatment, afterall there's no need to be doing that is there?

Persons with hereditary deseises or birth defects, tax them too because no doubt they'll want a handout sooner or later. Better still get the money from their parents upfront prior to birth for any special care that their offspring may require in the future. We'd soon see a drop in the number of people with disabilities draining our economy of resources. Just imagine no deaf people, no blind people, no more downs syndrome.....

In fact tax anyone without blond hair and blue eyes (just a personal preferance).....

see where it's heading?

FFS what a load of rubbish.

Thethin end of a thick wedge as I see it.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Glad I won't live long enough to see a carbon tax on the air I exhale!

Or will i? :o

[EchiDna]

We should tax idiots heavily, they cost the country dearly. Fat people, sunbathers...

People who run marathons and need medical assistance should be refused treatment, afterall there's no need to be doing that is there?

Persons with hereditary deseises or birth defects, tax them too because no doubt they'll want a handout sooner or later. Better still get the money from their parents upfront prior to birth for any special care that their offspring may require in the future. We'd soon see a drop in the number of people with disabilities draining our economy of resources. Just imagine no deaf people, no blind people, no more downs syndrome.....

In fact tax anyone without blond hair and blue eyes (just a personal preferance).....

see where it's heading?

FFS what a load of rubbish.

Thethin end of a thick wedge as I see it.

you are drawing a very, very, very long bow by calling my comments akin to nazism and including anyone and everything with a problem... I'm talking about people who consciously make the choice of making themselves a burden on the rest of society, not people who were born with a defect or suffered in an accident or war or whatever else. Quite simply medicare could do the same as private health care already does - we pay up to $15k per annum for the treatment of X, anything above that, user pays.

I'm sure you (like everyone else) hates paying high taxes? guess where a fair portion of medicare is going - to treat diseases of choice rather than disease of affliction... in turn this unnecessary burden on the system prevents other "real" afflictions from being treated more quickly and sucks up time and resources that could be better used on research into solutions for real problems like malaria, aids, skin cancer....

oh and by the way, marathons, triathlons and the like come with event medical insurance so that definitely is a user pays scenario ;-)

[EchiDna]

The problem is that all too often the perpetrators of drink and drug driving accidents don't have a penny to bless themselves with, so the victims would be the ones out of pocket.

Perhaps we should start a health insurance scheme, paid for by a surcharge on the smokes and alcohol sales. Then all the costs associated with smoking and alcohol related illness and crashes will be paid for out of the health insurance fund, not out of Medicare. Hospitals will charge the S&A Health Fund for the treatment based upon a non-medicare private patient. If the fund can't cover all the associated costs then the surcharge rises, but likewise if there is money left in the scheme at the end of a period (say 10 years) then the surcharge is reduced.

Under my system, victims wouldn't pay for themselves, medicare would. Just the perpetrators get the joy of paying for themselves either through work for the dole or a higher rate of tax to pay off their debt.

As for your second suggestion, I thought this was part of the justification for all the tax that is already on cigarettes and alcohol? its a "voluntary" additional contribution to the costs directly associated with the use of said product. Still, I guess the real cost of cigarettes would probably be significantly higher than it is now!

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Why should victims and us non-smoking non-drink driving taxpayers have to pay through Medicare?

Just to clarify victims of drink/drugged driving get their care through a Traffic Accident Commission fund accumulated from the greenslip payments, but once again why should non-smoker non-drink/drug drivers have to pay for the care of victims of irresponsible people.

My system, is a compulsory surcharge on the sale of every pack of smokes and every container of alcohol (with a reduction in the excise) and the fund created has to pay for all the care, treatment and repair of all smoking/alcohol related illness and drink driving crashes, without dipping into Medicare or TAC for one cent. If the surcharge doesn't have enough funding the surcharge rises until it does, even if a pack of smokes costs $50.

Black market sales of smokes and alcohol is a minimum gaol sentence of 10 years, imprisonment paid for by the surcharge.

[mools]

EchiDna,

No mate I'm not 'drawing a long bow' as you put it, I'm taking your argument and extrapolating it to its logical end point, to the thick end of the thin wedge I described.

You don't like that because it makes you feel uneasy. The reason you feel uneasy about it is because you are most probably not a nazi or you are a nazi in denial. You should think more clearly before you voice your opinion, you have not thought your argument through sufficiently, having gone off 'half cock' you are trying to deflect your embarrassment on to me for pointing that out to you.

Relax, read your post then read mine then read your response, you will see what I'm taking about. You have muddied your own water, so to speak.

BTW where do you stand on the taxation of idiots ;)

Ian.

[vnx205]

I'm taking your argument and extrapolating it to its logical end point, to the thick end of the thin wedge I described.
.... .....


The "thin end of the wedge" or "slippery slope" argument is a common fallacy.

The Skeptic's Field Guide: Slippery Slope (http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/2012/08/slippery-slope.html)

The slippery slope fallacy assumes without evidence that if we take a particular step which in itself doesn’t cause a problem, it is nevertheless the first in a series of steps that will lead inevitably to some undesired outcome. This fallacy in reasoning is often called the “thin end of the wedge” argument. An example might be the view that if marijuana is decriminalized, then this will inevitably lead to decriminalization of harder drugs. Or: “If we allow simulated depictions of sex on TV after 9.30pm, it won’t be long before such things are depicted early in the evening when young children are watching.”

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope (also known as thin end of the wedge - or sometimes "edge" in US English - or the camel's nose) is an informal fallacy.

[V8Ian]

I'm talking about people who consciously make the choice of making themselves a burden on the rest of society

Parachutist, rock climbers, anyone involved with motorsport, mountaineers, bushwalkers, off road drivers, the list could be endless. A political manoeuvre to abolish Medicare by stealth?

[mools]

/08/slippery-slope.html]

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)

In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope (also known as thin end of the wedge - or sometimes "edge" in US English - or the camel's nose) is an informal fallacy.

Quoting Wikipedia eh? Camels toe more like. Informally, so to speak.

[tony66_au]

The problem is that all too often the perpetrators of drink and drug driving accidents don't have a penny to bless themselves with, so the victims would be the ones out of pocket.

Perhaps we should start a health insurance scheme, paid for by a surcharge on the smokes and alcohol sales. Then all the costs associated with smoking and alcohol related illness and crashes will be paid for out of the health insurance fund, not out of Medicare. Hospitals will charge the S&A Health Fund for the treatment based upon a non-medicare private patient. If the fund can't cover all the associated costs then the surcharge rises, but likewise if there is money left in the scheme at the end of a period (say 10 years) then the surcharge is reduced.

A voice of sanity amongst the haters I see!

The issue is this, The Government already taxes the bum off smokes and although im not fussed with another rise in the price of ciggies I dont trust the Federal Government to do the right thing with the extra revenue.
And they already raise billions on Tobacco as it is and claim that it is still not enough.

Your idea smacks of common sense and lateral thinking which is in direct odds to politics and policy lol

Something else that nobody has mentioned yet is that when I shop around for private health insurance ever few years I noted that the premiums for smokers versus non smokers is fairly different and a fair whack higher so we are already paying more, being taxed more as well as being vilified and socially ostracized.

And the fact that people go out of their way to "Hate" smokers beggars belief, Do they also discriminate against ethnicities who smell different due to their diets? Or fat people who sweat?

There has been a rise in counter culture against smokers for over 20 years now because its easy and sanctioned with reasoning such as "I hate the smell" or "They cost too much in healthcare" blah blah blah.

Why not narrow it down a touch and focus on bad manners instead, as a smoker who ignores the law has bad manners and is inconsiderate not because they are a smoker but because they are lacking in social graces.

Perhaps a national education campaign on Manners and social graces is in order?

We can re-educate militant smokers and anti smokers, Drunks who pee where they want and when they want.

Anti smokers who spit on smokers, bad and inconsiderate drivers, Crappy parents and the list goes on and on and on.

My name is Tony and im a smoker, a great parent and a considerate person.

I am no less a good member of society because I smoke and probably better because I rarely drink.
I am at odds with society because I like to drive fuel guzzling cars and I practice old fashioned common sense parenting and my friends will tell you im a good bloke who would give you the shirt off my back even if it smells like ciggies lol

And for what its worth I dislike the smell of ashtrays too and have issues with people smoking wherever they want because its inconsiderate.

[EchiDna]

EchiDna,

No mate I'm not 'drawing a long bow' as you put it, I'm taking your argument and extrapolating it to its logical end point, to the thick end of the thin wedge I described.

You don't like that because it makes you feel uneasy. The reason you feel uneasy about it is because you are most probably not a nazi or you are a nazi in denial. You should think more clearly before you voice your opinion, you have not thought your argument through sufficiently, having gone off 'half cock' you are trying to deflect your embarrassment on to me for pointing that out to you.

Relax, read your post then read mine then read your response, you will see what I'm taking about. You have muddied your own water, so to speak.

BTW where do you stand on the taxation of idiots ;)

Ian.

As it happens I currently live in a country with a limited public healthcare system as such and people use their super (granted super is a greater proportion of income than in oz) to fund their own medical costs. If you run out, you die or borrow money to pay for it - so people buy top up private health care packages and therefore self insure. Its not perfect, but its better than most systems.

I assume an idiot is anyone that doesn't agree with you? or your extrapolated interpretation of anything they say?

You think calling me a nazi in denial isn't a personal attack mate? really? :nazilock:

[EchiDna]

Parachutist, rock climbers, anyone involved with motorsport, mountaineers, bushwalkers, off road drivers, the list could be endless. A political manoeuvre to abolish Medicare by stealth?

Most of them either die in the event of a malfunction or they have insurance of their own against the potential outcomes. I guess a brain dead base jumper is potentially a good source of high quality lungs for a smoker who destroyed his own ;-)

For what its worth, medicare is a great system despite what plenty of people think of it. It provides to anyone and everyone from all forms of sickness, disease, injury or whatever - yes some services come with a waiting period, but guess what, at least you can get the service unlike in most places of the world.

Australia really is a land of privilege but too many don't see this or abuse the system for all they are worth to the detriment of everyone else, just because they can.

[JDNSW]

........

There has been a rise in counter culture against smokers for over 20 years now because its easy and sanctioned with reasoning such as "I hate the smell" or "They cost too much in healthcare" blah blah blah.
....

The rise is not because it is easy, it is because smoking (including second hand smoke) represents by far the largest preventable cause of death and disability in Australia today, as it has for many years, combined with the reduction in the proportion of smokers from a majority of adults to a small and shrinking minority.It is pretty normal for a majority to react against a minority whose actions cost them their health as well as their wallets, and the smaller the minority, the larger the reaction.

John

[Ralph1Malph]

The rise is not because it is easy, it is because smoking (including second hand smoke) represents by far the largest preventable cause of death and disability in Australia today, as it has for many years, combined with the reduction in the proportion of smokers from a majority of adults to a small and shrinking minority.It is pretty normal for a majority to react against a minority whose actions cost them their health as well as their wallets, and the smaller the minority, the larger the reaction.

John

Herein lies the quandry and the reason I among others trotted out the 'slippery slope' argument.:D
Let's assume that smoking is eliminated (doesn't matter how for the discussion). We now have a new 'thing' that 'represents by far the largest preventable cause of death and disability in Australia today'. I don't know what it would be but I am sure there is a list.:eek:

This seems ok until something we like/love/enjoy becomes the 'the largest preventable cause of death and disability in Australia today'.

Rather than the slippery slope argument, let's call it the 'blackspot phenomenen'. You never really eliminate blackspots, everything just shuffles up the list.:angel::p

Ralph

[isuzurover]

...

We now have a new 'thing' that 'represents by far the largest preventable cause of death and disability in Australia today'. I don't know what it would be but I am sure there is a list.:eek:

This seems ok until something we like/love/enjoy becomes the 'the largest preventable cause of death and disability in Australia today'

....

Next on the list would probably be one of: Obesity / Type II Diabetes / Alcohol.

The first two are linked and are both (largely) caused by overeating and/or high sugar intake. However food (and sugar in some form) is essential for life, just that too much of it is bad.

Likewise, there is a safe (and possibly beneficial) level of alcohol consumption. The human body produces ~0.3 standard drinks per day of ethanol itself.

Cigarettes on the other hand have no safe or beneficial level. So on that basis I disagree with your argument. Other substances will not be banned in the same way (not that I think cigarettes necessarily would be banned outright).

[vnx205]

Cigarettes on the other hand have no safe or beneficial level.

That surely is the reason that so many of the "what will they ban next?" arguments are invalid.

Some of the lists of activities that "might be next on the hit list" are normally carried out with so many safeguards, that it takes very bad luck or extreme carelessness for there to be any harm. For example look at the protective gear and precautions that are part of professional motorcycle racing and notice how infrequently rider are killed or even injured.

Most of those other activities can be done with a very low risk of harm, yet the evidence is clear; there is no safe way to smoke. Every cigarette is doing you harm.

[460cixy]

I'm enjoying a cold tinnie and a Winnie gold while I post this. But while we have a government addicted to the taxes raised by tobacco we will always have smokers simple as that.

[tony66_au]

According to the experts everything is dangerous to your health, for a while there Carrots were a low level carcinogen and fish and prawns/shrimps are chockers with heavy metals.
Meat is supposedly bad for you red, white or blue and dairy is dubious.

I'm not fussed if they banned smokes tomorrow but I am fussed with the hipocracy and politics leading sheeples around by the schnozz.

Schools already ban peanut and nut products from lunches and fill kids heads with enviro garbage and waste valuable school time with tree planting, cleaning public area's etc instead of teaching kids to read, write and count.

So wheres the important stuff gone?

As a country we have far more pressing issues at hand than reducing the number of smokers to lower the Medical costs especially when billions of dollars are being spent on stuff that could easily be cut back or stopped like foreign aid.

And this is where I stop contributing and urge you all to look at the big financial picture without going into specifics which lead down a political path lol

43 billion for the NBN

540 million foreign aid to Indonesia

Pink batts, nearly 4 billion inc cleanup of 450 million.

16.2 billion BER program

And thats money already spent folks............

2 Billion to look after a shrinking demographic of Aussies who probably contribute something to the economy before they die of Cancer, Emphysema, Stroke or related illness isnt too much to ask now is it?

[George130]

Lets solve the whole lot in one hit.
You have been born that is a health risk and will result in a minimum of 1 death at some point.
Therefore lets tax all living Ausies at 100% to cover any costs they might cause.
Done

Everyone happy now?

[isuzurover]

Lets solve the whole lot in one hit.
You have been born that is a health risk and will result in a minimum of 1 death at some point.
Therefore lets tax all living Ausies at 100% to cover any costs they might cause.
Done

Everyone happy now?

I instead propose an alternate solution to the both the world's overpopulation and environmental problems, at the same time solving most obesity related health issues.

Once someone's BMI exceeds a certain value (let's set Gina Reinhart or Clive Palmer as the benchmarks) then by law you are euthanased humanely and turned into biodiesel.

We can call it soylent diesel

***note that I am joking...

[sheerluck]

Anyone remember the film Logan's Run (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/)? Maybe the thought of having everyone euthanased at the age of 30 as part of a televised event is the way to go. :angel:

[disco2_dan]

Anyone remember the film Logan's Run (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/)? Maybe the thought of having everyone euthanased at the age of 30 as part of a televised event is the way to go. :angel:

Isn't that what that amazon Indian tribe do? Suicide at 30?

[Lotz-A-Landies]

According to the experts everything is dangerous to your health, <snip>All life is a fatal disease, however why should many pay for the expensive treatment of a self inflicted disease of a few?

[tony66_au]

All life is a fatal disease, however why should many pay for the expensive treatment of a self inflicted disease of a few?

Simply because that's the price you pay for enjoying socialised medicine.

Im sure that many have complained about other minority groups getting free subsidised treatment for things like HIV/Aids, or TB and what about the billions spent in mental health for the growing numbers of Psych patients with Drug induced psychosis from cannabis and amphetamine use?

You can not morally choose who deserves medical treatment and yet it seems we are doing just that.

Where do we draw the line regarding self inflicted health problems? and what is the next target group?

What about Genetic predisposition to respiratory disease? or melanoma's?

The Data exists to break down problem nationalities shown to have certain medical weaknesses and predispositions so why don't we start there?

Im not saying that smoking isnt bad because it is proven to be detrimental but the ethical and moral slope we slide down and the way we do it creates a sub class of human beings who are being singled out unfairly and it is so very very wrong.

That said Humanity as a whole is on a bit of a slippery slope.

[isuzurover]

...

You can not morally choose who deserves medical treatment ...

What fairy land do you live in???? Medical professionals do it all the time. Alcoholics and chronic smokers often end up at the bottom of treatment lists, because the prognosis will be poor if they continue to drink/smoke...

Who would a medical professional choose as the recipient of a lung transplant? An 18yo non smoker or a 50yo who smokes 2 packs a day?

[JDNSW]

What fairy land do you live in???? Medical professionals do it all the time. Alcoholics and chronic smokers often end up at the bottom of treatment lists, because the prognosis will be poor if they continue to drink/smoke...

Who would a medical professional choose as the recipient of a lung transplant? An 18yo non smoker or a 50yo who smokes 2 packs a day?

When my wife was waiting for lungs, smoking was an immediate "off the list". I would be surprised if this was not still the case.

John

[vnx205]

I was under the impression that in some cases at least, the reason or the justification for moving smokers to the bottom of the list was not just because it was a self inflicted illness.

Smokers were not operated on simply because in many cases the chances of the operation being successful were quite small. It makes sense to me that scarce medical resources should used where there is a higher probability of a successful outcome.

[Chops]

I was under the impression that in some cases at least, the reason or the justification for moving smokers to the bottom of the list was not just because it was a self inflicted illness.

Smokers were not operated on simply because in many cases the chances of the operation being successful were quite small. It makes sense to me that scarce medical resources should used where there is a higher probability of a successful outcome.

Smoking does put you at the bottom of the list, just like insurance costs more for smokers.
Dad actually died from bowl cancer, but couldn't be worked on due to the condition of his lungs. In his case, he wasn't refused as such, it's just he was already too stuffed from smoking, and it was agreed he wasn't fit enough to come out of the op successfully.

[tony66_au]

I suspect a large part of the issue with surgery is that people let it get too bad and then end up as emergency patients where they need immediate critical care which is dicky due to the levels of CO2 etc in their bloodstream on top of whatever ails them, I just called a relative who is a Scrub nurse and she basically agreed saying that they are a high risk patient and that putting them under anesthesia right away for any length of time was counter productive and the goal was to stabilise and re-assess after 24 hours and another check of the blood gases.

Its not fairy land, Its horses for courses........

[tony66_au]

BTW 24 hours in Hospital with no smoking and the effects are falling away, 48 hours and your health is on the improve and providing that you have no major damage you can regain pre smoker health in months.

Sadly there are idiots who duck out for a smoke when in hospital even though there is a ban on smoking within the boundaries of all hospitals and this is a true act of stupidity and any bugger who brings someone else ciggies in hospital need a kick in the backside.

[JDNSW]

....
Sadly there are idiots who duck out for a smoke when in hospital even though there is a ban on smoking within the boundaries of all hospitals and this is a true act of stupidity and any bugger who brings someone else ciggies in hospital need a kick in the backside.

My wife spent the last month of her life in the respiratory ward of one of Australia's largest hospitals. During that time I came to know most of the nurses in the ward. All were, without exception, heavy smokers, who had to duck out for a smoke. This despite the fact that three quarters of the patients had smoking related diseases!

John