New smoking law

[Tiger74]

It's lonely being a libertarian.

Not really, most here are only against because of impact on other parties.

I think you will find most of the posters so far are only against because of this issue.

For example, I don't give a stuff about people popping e's, as it only effects them. On the other hand ice, coke, and booze have much greater anti-social and violent effects. With regards to weed, I personally think it should be handled similar to booze and smokes. As with booze, supply regulated and sold on restricted terms to limit sales from minors and to ensure none of the stronger strains are available. As with smokes, restrictions of when/where you can smoke to protect others from second hand smoke.

 

[evo]

Not really, most here are only against because of impact on other parties.

I think you will find most of the posters so far are only against because of this issue.

Given that the 3 responses weren't relevant to my response to NYT's post,I kinda gathered that.

Anyway,heres an even more recent victory for the nanny staters.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22989008-661,00.html

 

[Tiger74]

Given that the 3 responses weren't relevant to my response to NYT's post,I kinda gathered that.

Anyway,heres an even more recent victory for the nanny staters.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22989008-661,00.html

This is a MAJOR vote winner for the conservative side of the world, both Libs and ALP advocate it. Personally I'm against, but this was inevitable (idea is people will be too ashamed to ask for the filters to be shut down because they will be admitting to wanting porn).

 

[evo]

This is a MAJOR vote winner for the conservative side of the world, both Libs and ALP advocate it. Personally I'm against, but this was inevitable (idea is people will be too ashamed to ask for the filters to be shut down because they will be admitting to wanting porn).

Yeah,that one I find alot more interesting than the smoking ban.(probably should've started a seperate thread.)Both sides of government always unite on matters like this.

A few years ago I was discussing with a couple of libertine friends what would be the next abstract noun western governments might employ to increase the grip on the populace.

We'd had the 'war on drugs', 'war on tax cheats' and more recently the 'war on terrorism'

Our betting was on the final bastion of true freedom,the internet.The 'war on porn' would be inevitable.Sure enough here it is begining.

It'll be interesting to see what other 'dangers' people will need protecting against in regards to the internet in the future.This seems to me like an extremely slippery slope the government has embarked on.

 

[TigerForce]

I'm all for it as my Dad recently passed away with lung cancer.

I don't mind people smoking as long as it doesn't affect others around them, however this habit's got to stop no matter what.

 

[newyorktiger]

Because prohibition has been so effective with other substances?

I understand the sentiment, but in reality would cause far more problems than it would solve.

Not convinced - why would you want to smoke nicotine when other substances that have some benefit e.g. beer is available. Therte is not redeeming feature of cigarettes that I know of. I'm happy to be told otherwise.

The same argument could be made for meat,or foods high in cholesterol.It's always easier to be against something and call for its ban that one is not involved in themselves.

It ois easier to be against something. true Evo. How do you mean I am not involved? My wife still has the occassional drunken cigarette. I've just seen my insurance premiums double. Private health care costs in this country are out of control. I'd assume they are similar in Oz.

But when the financial consequences to the economy are pretty significant, I think it warrants some consideration. For me, i'd rather the money be spent elsewhere, for eg finding a solution to the water shortage I keep hearing about.

I read an article recently about the economic costs of smoking. I can't find the article, but i remember the numbers being pretty significant.

Think about the medical and scientific talent that's devoted to cancer etc that could be devoted elsewhere

I take your point on civil liberties, and it's something I'm willing to consider. Civil liberties have supposedly decreased in this country due to the Patriot Act, yet cigarette smoking is still legal. Currently I don't see the connection.

 

[evo]

I don't find the economic argument persuasive NYT.Smokers pay substantial extra tax on the product.Extra on health insurance premiums.

An outright ban seems the thin of the wedge to me.As I pointed out earlier ,why couldn't one apply the economic argument to other harmful practices,is it only because smoking is the worst?

i'm just about to give up smoking,but my view on this wont change.

 

[Hayfever]

I don't find the economic argument persuasive NYT.Smokers pay substantial extra tax on the product.Extra on health insurance premiums.

An outright ban seems the thin of the wedge to me.As I pointed out earlier ,why couldn't one apply the economic argument to other harmful practices,is it only because smoking is the worst?

i'm just about to give up smoking,but my view on this wont change.

I wish there was a way smoking could be banned from being taken up by teenagers.

 

[evo]

I wish there was a way smoking could be banned from being taken up by teenagers.

I wish it was christianity. ;D

 

[Hayfever]

I wish it was christianity. ;D

Nice comeback

Seriously one of the saddest sights in life for me is seeing a young girl/woman in her prime with a baby in her arms and a cigarette in her mouth.

 

[Tiger74]

I don't find the economic argument persuasive NYT.Smokers pay substantial extra tax on the product.Extra on health insurance premiums.

An outright ban seems the thin of the wedge to me.As I pointed out earlier ,why couldn't one apply the economic argument to other harmful practices,is it only because smoking is the worst?

i'm just about to give up smoking,but my view on this wont change.

Sorry to say I think you are wrong on both counts Evo.

Firstly, I believe the extra taxes on smokes still fail to recover the full cost of the medical consequences of smoking. As such, non-smokers continue to subsidize this. I am happy to be proven wrong on this one, memory is old and cannot remember the reference.

On the second point however, I am more certain. It is illegal for health funds to discriminate, and private health fund rates are flat. I know this because the PIC for HBA was just on the radio, responding to the fact that their UK parent company is discounting their rates for those who engage in activities to reduce weight. HBA advised that while they would like to do that here, under current legislation it is illegal to differentiate rates between different risk types.

 

[evo]

Sorry to say I think you are wrong on both counts Evo.

Disagree ;D

Firstly, I believe the extra taxes on smokes still fail to recover the full cost of the medical consequences of smoking. As such, non-smokers continue to subsidize this. I am happy to be proven wrong on this one, memory is old and cannot remember the reference.

Well thats true it most likely doesn't recover all of it.And? It's still a better contributer than the tax on hamburgers.

On the second point however, I am more certain. It is illegal for health funds to discriminate, and private health fund rates are flat. I know this because the PIC for HBA was just on the radio, responding to the fact that their UK parent company is discounting their rates for those who engage in activities to reduce weight. HBA advised that while they would like to do that here, under current legislation it is illegal to differentiate rates between different risk types.

I'll take 2nd point under advisement.

 

[Tiger74]

Disagree ;D
Well thats true it most likely doesn't recover all of it.And? It's still a better contributer than the tax on hamburgers.

I'll take 2nd point under advisement.

Actually the tax on hamburgers (GST) may be smaller, but it would be interesting to see how much GST is generated by food.

On the second, it sucks, but the Govt was terrified people with chronic conditions (like high blood pressure) would stay on the public system and not go to private unless they had equality in charges. Personally I think its a crock, and just goes to show how the current band-aid isn't working.

Person rang up AW this morning. Knew two people with an appendix removed (or something like that). One on public paid nothing, the one with private was out of pocket $3k. Under this, why go private? Even those forced to do so because of tax issues, we still can use public when we know we will be out of pocket under the private system. As such, the health fund gets my dollars, but the public system gets my bill. The system ain't working.

 

[1eyedtiger]

Here's my thoughts on these issues.

As I've said on the atheist, I think people should be allowed to do as they please as long as they are not harming others in the process. Smoking in cars when children are present clearly violates that. Children generally do not have any say on whether smoking is permitted or not in a car and are therefore generally defenseless in this regard and should be afforded some protection.

Private health insurance as far as I'm concerned is a con in this country. Even if you do earn enough that you get slugged the extra medicare levy, it would still be cheaper for most people to simply pay the levy than it is for private cover. Not to mention the out of pocket expenses that you are still liable for. Look what happened when the government introduced the rebate for people who have private health insurance. Introduced to encourage more people to take out private health insurance and hopefully reduce the burden on the public system, the private health insurance industry raised their premiums almost immediately by (no points for guessing) the same amount as the rebate (30% I think).

As for a "fat tax", there are many people who haven't a choice in the matter. There are any number of disorders and reasons for being overweight. Smoking on the other hand, is a matter of personal choice.

 

[ssstone]

The tunnels would be better if the fans were operating at their proper capacities. They are designed so you should not be seeing any smog in the tunnel in normal circumstances. Funny I cannot recall ever not seeing smog in that tunnel. Citylink wouldn't be running the exhaust at a lower rate to save on their power bill would they??

try running west to east on any given day(cant recall whether its the domain or burnley} as soon as you are at its lowest point it is stifling .and mazda as for your "other kids" comments,do or have you ever stood behind an unleaded car just after its started? ifso i suggest you research on what a catilyic converter ,which every exhaust on an unleaded car has,actually contains,and at what temperature it needs to achieve to operate.

 

[ssstone]

now as i sit here and enjoy a totally legal product,at my own exspense .i would like to remind all the self rightous nannys on here that another legal product has more affect on thier lives.but smokers are,and will be continued to be villified cause they are an easy target.imagine sitting down to a coffee in an inner city cafe whilist an overweight fat *smile* decides its their right to tell you that you are killing yourself in between mouthfuls of bacon,eggs,sausages and coffee.now imagine you are a lycra wearing moron who thinks it is your birth right to ride your PUSHbike in traffic's way.you argue you are getting fit ,and not contributing to "global warming" yet you ride down innercity roads sucking in more toxins in one ride down burwood hwy,than most of us would be exposed to in a year? see the irony? no of course you cant ,because your morality is sound :

 

[Six Pack]

had a good xmas then, SS?

 

[Rosy]

yet you ride down innercity roads sucking in more toxins in one ride down burwood hwy,than most of us would be exposed to in a year? see the irony? no of course you cant ,because your morality is sound :

I don't really see the irony stoney cos I don't get your point. Is it the weight of someone, what people eat, the smog, the lycra, the bicycles or the conversation?

You come across as somewhat excessweightophobic. People criticising smoking aren't making personal, physical criticism on another person and as has been pointed out medical conditions and various reasons can affect a person's weight. I don't think anyone is telling you not to smoke but they might request you don't smoke in their house or in a car with their kids. I doubt they'd care what you eat or how much you weigh because that doesn't affect them personally or put their health at risk.

I ride my bike on peaceful country roads. :angel:

 

[Six Pack]

Hey rosy, cool new word!

excessweightophobic

 

[poppa x]

Do the healthy vegetarian walkers/cyclists carrot juice drinkers realise that they actually cause more global warming than the smokers driving to work in their cars?

Then lemme give you a lesson in global warming.

1) The largest contributor to global warming is the growth in the human population.
2) People who keep fit live up to 10 years longer than the smokers in their cars.
3) 10 years of extra living requires huge amounts of the earths resources to keep you alive
4) Over 10 years you exhale many millions of tonnes of CO2 just by breathing.

So - although I'm a non smoker - I think the meat eating V8 smokers are actually doing the earth a favour by dying young. It's the other mob who selfishly try and extend their life and in the process are killing the earth and its atmosphere.

Have a nice day