23 ms·

How Australia is stubbing out smoking

123 points by happy-go-lucky 10y ago

beedogs 10y ago
I don't miss any of the "joys" of having to deal with cigarette smokers. The streets of Melbourne are no longer littered with butts. Waste bins no longer catch fire from careless half-stubbed cigarettes falling inside. I can walk along the footpaths here without having to smell the acrid stench. I can go to a pub and not have to wash my clothes when I get home to get the smell out. It's incredible. Every country should do it.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > It's incredible. Every country should do it. Yeah, it sure is wonderful to repress a hated minority. How dare they befoul our pristine public spaces with their benighted culture and their foul customs‽ Of course, the victims of your repression might feel a bit differently than you do.
  - sanswork 10y ago
    Smokers choose to be smokers. Smokers choose to inflict their smoke on others when they smoke around other people. Smokers make excuses for not dealing with their butts properly(oh they didn't provide an ashtray so it's not my fault).
    - refurb 10y ago
      Smokers choose to be smokers. Cigarette's are addictive. They choose to smoke as much as an alcoholic chooses to drink or a heroin addict chooses to shoot up.
      - sanswork 10y ago
        Show me the dangerous side effects when a smoker quits smoking and I'll allow you to include it in the addictive category of alcohol and heroin.
        Clubber 10y ago
        What difference does that make? I've read where tobacco is one of, if not the most addictive substances. I think you just have no empathy for people addicted to tobacco because you've been subjected to a relentless barrage of anti-tobacco propaganda over decades.
    - angry_octet 10y ago
      That is as fallacious as saying 'people choose to be crackheads'.
  - vacri 10y ago
    Diddums.
  - tallanvor 10y ago
    You aren't born a smoker. There's nothing in your genes that says you have to smoke, and there's no medical conditions that would prevent someone from smoking. As such, smokers can avoid feeling repressed simply by quitting smoking, and they can save money and improve their health in the process.
    - angry_octet 10y ago
      A typically insensitive comment from someone who has never had a serious addiction.
    - wtbob 10y ago
      > smokers can avoid feeling repressed simply by quitting smoking What gives you the right to oppress people for the behavioural choices? What gives you the right to tell someone that his health is more important than his happiness? I don't believe that you have that right.
      - Mao_Zedang 10y ago
        What gives you the right to smoke near people who arent smokers.
      - soundwave106 10y ago
        In this case, this behavior choice affects me personally. Back when I played in bands, one of the aspects I hated about it was playing in the bars that allowed smoking. That very habit you are talking about caused my clothes and hair etc. to stink of tobacco smoke after the gig. Instruments would likewise smell like an ashtray and have to be aired out. I'm sure that wasn't good for my lungs, either. I no longer play out, which means thankfully I can avoid any establishment that still allows smoking. I value my health and happiness too; second hand smoke isn't very healthy, and stuff that stinks of tobacco doesn't make me very happy.
  - beedogs 10y ago
    You need to get over yourself.
    - dang 10y ago
      You've been posting many unsubstantive and/or uncivil comments to HN. That breaks the site guidelines and eventually gets your account banned. Please up your game when commenting here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
sien 10y ago
The cost of smoking in Australia is probably the main thing that has cut smoking rates. At $20+ a pack smoking is so expensive. It's also worth noting that Nicorette is much cheaper than in the US. The moment you start using that you save money in Australia. It's curious that the article doesn't mention e-cigarettes. It's funny how harm minimisation is pushed by academic researchers when it comes to most drugs but isn't discussed that much when it comes to tobacco. They have been pretty much banned in Australia.
- sanswork 10y ago
  I've seen high $30's per pack in pubs around Sydney which really kills the idea of just grabbing a pack for social smoking too.
  - flukus 10y ago
    Before we get into pack sizes, they're about $1 per cigarette.
  - TylerE 10y ago
    That's crazy. I dunno what prices are like in the US (I don't smoke), but really...I mean at that price it'd probably be cheaper to smoke weed...
    - tomcorrigan 10y ago
      It's definitely not. Illegal drugs are also much more expensive in Australia than in many other places in the world. There is a growing problem with black market untaxed "chop chop" tobacco here. The tax increases have made it more and more attractive to both importers and smokers.
      - Trundle 10y ago
        For imported stuff definitely. I wouldn't want to have a coke habit here. Weed seems as cheap as anywhere else though.
      - 10y ago
bruce_one 10y ago
I had a conversation with friends who live in LA yesterday about the fact that they thought smoking is more prevalent in Melbourne than in the LA. Amused by the timing :-) (If I'd guessed, I would've assumed smoking was less prevalent in Melbourne (because of the reasons mentioned in the article, but mostly the cost), although I've not actually paid enough attention to compare.) (We all agreed it seemed more common in Europe, very vaguely speaking.)
- jpgvm 10y ago
  Most smokers in Melbourne CBD are Asian immigrants (anecdotally). I think it's culturally hard for them to give it up, which is a real shame as I hate walking through clouds of smoke on Little Bourke St. Not sure what can be done about it though, banning it outright I think is too far as it's an assault on people's personal freedoms but I would like to see a ban on smoking on the street/public places. I don't want to be secondary smoking the stuff, it smells awful and probably does a decent chunk of damage if you are walking through it every day though that is unsubstantiated, I haven't read any studies on secondary smoking. Atleast most smokers here seem responsible when disposing the butts. Silver lining I guess.
  - exodust 10y ago
    Can confirm truth of that. Chinese neighbours on either side of me smoke, and I only ever see young Asian people smoking at the back of my building here in Melbourne. My annoying neighbour smokes on his balcony every day and the smell drifts into my apartment. Still figuring out what to do about that if anything.
- bluGill 10y ago
  Note that the story was from the BBC and compared Europe to Australia. I didn't see anything about US numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if the US had similar numbers to Australia. I suspect not though - in the "deep south" of the US smoking is still common, so if we have lower numbers here it is because the rest of the country has low enough smoking rates to balance out that part of the country.
bhalperin 10y ago
These kinds of efforts seem to be having great success not just in Australia but at least in the United States[1] as well. What I don't understand is -- why isn't a similar education, advertising, and taxation effort being made with alcohol? The negative externalities associated with alcohol are mind-boggling[2]. [1] http://www.vox.com/a/teens http://www.vox.com/a/teens [2] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/05/prohibition_lite_the_war_on_drugs_has_been_a_failure_but_the_war_on_alcohol.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
- snogglethorpe 10y ago
  The most obvious difference is that alcohol isn't directly harmful to other people, whereas smoking is... This attribute basically makes it very difficult for people to adopt a "well it's their choice, I'll let them dig their own grave" attitude in regard to smoking.
  - imesh 10y ago
    Except that second hand smoke isn't really that bad. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#5d03f087623f http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-fi...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - crazy2be 10y ago
      That does not match the scientific consensus [1]. You'll have to do better than a single study, summarized in a Forbes article, if you want to make that claim. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking
      - Clubber 10y ago
        From your link. >Most of the research has come from studies of nonsmokers who are married to a smoker. Those conclusions are also backed up by further studies of workplace exposure to smoke I suggest you don't marry a smoker, or work in a bar where they allow smoking. Otherwise, you'll be fine. You'll probably be fine either way. The increased risk is minimal (1-4%?) and requires years and years of constant exposure.
legostormtroopr 10y ago
This is one of the reasons why people in Australian were explicitly concerned by the now dead Trans-Pacific Partnership. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-05/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-pact-detail-released/6917292 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-05/trans-pacific-partners...
- tomcorrigan 10y ago
  Their concerns were misplaced and the outcome lawsuits against the Australian government (they won every time) show how ridiculous the scare campaign about ISDS was.
  - kirrent 10y ago
    I certainly think the concerns were misplaced, but wasn't the Phillip Morris case dismissed because they were found to have a lack of standing, having reincorporated in Hong Kong specifically to make use of the ISDS provision? While I can't see how the tobacco companies could prevail in any case, history has yet to furnish us with a proper example.
    - tomcorrigan 10y ago
      You are correct about the HK case. However there weren't many observers who though Phillip Morris stood a chance. The lawsuit was much more about signalling to other countries considering plain packaging than actually overturning the laws in Australia. There is still a pending WTO arbitration which is also expected to be decided in Australia's favour. See also the outcome of Phillip Morris v Uruguay
  - djmdjm 10y ago
    Not really, the Australian govt's ISDS case wins were largely because the tobacco companies were found to have little business standing to launch their cases from the (few) jurisdictions with who Australia has ISDS-ful treaties. The Phillip Morris case, launched from venue-shopped Hong Kong is an example - the arbitration tribunal refused to hear the case for this reason: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/australia-wins-international-legal-battle-with-philip-morris-over-plain-packaging https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/austr... The TPP would drastically increase the number of nations with reciprocal ISDS agreements. In particular it would have included the US, where many/most of the the tobacco companies are domiciled. Why the TPP would probably have not included retrospectivity, it could have frustrated any future efforts.
JauntyHatAngle 10y ago
As a German-Australian, and ignoring that this is anecdotal, but I've often noted the big difference in levels of smoking when I visit German cities vs Australian ones. Smoking just isn't popular in Australia among my age group (late 20's), where it is still way more common in Germany. Young people just don't seem interested in Australia outside of having a smoke with a beer at a party, it's very much perceived as something poorer people do, and is not considered classy at all. So yeah, compared with other countries that I've visited, smoking is seen quite differently here and seems like its well on the way out. It'll be interesting to see if it rebounds in future generations though.
- hackits 10y ago
  Did you notice any major price difference compared to Australia vs Germany? Consider buying a pack of cig's is damn expensive, not mentioning alcohol too here in Auz.
  - JauntyHatAngle 10y ago
    > Did you notice any major price difference compared to Australia vs Germany? Consider buying a pack of cig's is damn expensive, not mentioning alcohol too here in Auz. Yes, huge difference. But alcohol also has a huge difference in price, but that doesn't stop Australians from drinking a ton. (Though its not as a big a difference as smoking).
- ehnto 10y ago
  The price is one thing, but there is a huge stigma attached now. There has been a long winded information campaign for decades, and it is impossible to ignore the health effects when they are litterally and grotesquely displayed on the pack. Amongst friends my age, mid to late 20s, most of those who smoke have to do so separated from the group outside as well, as you are not allowed to smoke indoors. So people simply don't. There are enough barriers to make social smoking less prevelant and then if you are by yourself it is harder to justify the health cost and monetary cost. To smoke a pack a day here you would have to spend $300 a fortnight.
- mcbridematt 10y ago
marcus_holmes 10y ago
One aspect that the article doesn't mention is the racial/immigrant aspect. White people are quitting in droves for sure, but Asians still seem to smoke a lot. I have no numbers here (are they even collected?) but anecdotally it's unusual for white people to smoke in their own homes, but common for Asian families here. Note that this is different from the "poorer end of society" mentioned in TFA - race is not an indicator of affluence or social standing in Australia.
- hug 10y ago
  I'm going to go out on a limb and say this that I think this is a cultural bias, not a 'racial' one. Anecdotally, the number of college-aged Asians you walk past in the street that are smoking is much higher than the number of college-aged caucasians. I won't pretend to know which portion of which demographic is immigrant or not, but Melbourne imports absolutely huge numbers of international students, a large portion of whom come from Asian countries and who have grown up in a country where smoking is not the social-taboo it is among millennial Australians. Among older generations, I don't see the same marked divide. Older Australians smoke much more frequently than their younger counterparts. As a side note: I don't know a better way to separate out Australian-born "Australians" who may be of any race, including Asian, from "international students from Asia", so if any of my phrasing comes across smelling even slightly offensive please let me know.
  - marcus_holmes 10y ago
    you're probably right, in that this is probably not a race thing, but a culture thing. My bad
- thisrod 10y ago
  There is a reason for this: it's getting to be so hard to sell cigarettes in Australia that the tobacco companies have stopped trying, and they're going after the Indonesians and Timorese instead. Four Corners reported on it a few years ago.
jasonlingx 10y ago
Seems like increasing the age limit every year would be an easy way to wipe out smoking. Why are there no countries doing this though?
- barryvan 10y ago
  The Tasmanian parliament is considering exactly this -- banning smoking for anyone born after 2000.
  - brokenmachine 10y ago
    Is that actually making any progress? The only information that I could find just said that it was being considered, and that was from July 2016.
  - spangry 10y ago
    This sounds like an insanely bad idea. While the goal is admirable (eliminating smoking once and for all), without strong enough social norms in place discouraging smoking, all this will do is create another lucrative black market drug (much like what happened when the US prohibited alcohol from 1920 to 1933).
    - jay_kyburz 10y ago
      No really, when they banned alcohol in 1920, it was for everybody, and everybody already drank alot. Somebody born after 2000 has never bought thier own cigarettes.
      - flukus 10y ago
        Someone born in 2000 has probably never bought there own weed, but plenty still will.
    - rmccue 10y ago
      There are already strong social norms in Australia against smoking, partially because of these laws. (See other comments in this thread.)
aaron695 10y ago
> How Australia is stubbing out smoking By massive invasions on basic human rights. There are also many campaigns that don't, but many do and they are the most effective.
- foxrob92 10y ago
  How is it a "massive invasion on basic human rights"?
  - aaron695 10y ago
    It's basically applying the drug war to cigarette smokers. It's using the police and state to use force to deal with people who are doing no harm to anyone but at best themselves. I think this breaks basic human rights.
    - sanswork 10y ago
      They are doing harm to others. Second hand smoke is a serious concern that has lead to many deaths of non-smokers.
    - brokenmachine 10y ago
      > doing no harm to anyone but at best themselves Secondhand smoke is disgusting, and so dangerous that it has been proven to kill thousands of non-smokers [1]. I'd call causing death, "harm". Also smoking in private is still legal, unfortunately. Hardly a "human right". [1] "Since 1964, approximately 2,500,000 nonsmokers have died from health problems caused by exposure to secondhand smoke." - https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/ https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... - Stats from the US, from the first google result I came across.
      - thomasthomas 10y ago
        > unfortunately !? some people want to control what they do with their own bodies and not be slaves to the state. gtfo
wtbob 10y ago
I honestly think that things like $40 packs of cigarettes are pure bigotry (the only politically-acceptable bigotry at the moment). It's kicking a man when he's down. But then, I believe that cigars & pipes are an essential part of the good life. Can you imagine a world in which C.S. Lewis & J.R.R. Tolkien didn't head down to the Eagle & Child to enjoy a pot of ale and a few good pipes together?
- sanswork 10y ago
  Yes and it'd certainly smell a lot nicer and involve a lot less drooling on themselves.
- otikik 10y ago
  > It's kicking a man when he's down. My father in law has had problems on his lungs and heart since I know him. I married my wife 6 years ago. His father was hospitalized at the time (again). He was exceptionally discharged from the hospital to attend the wedding, and went back there the next day. You know what he did while he was there? Distribute cigars. And smoke them. He recently died of pulmonary and heart-related problems. He was 60, but doctors said that his lungs and heart looked like 90. Months before he died, blood was failing to reach his feet, so they gradually had to cut them down: first the toes of one foot. Then the other's. Then a whole foot. Then the other, and part of the leg. It was at this point when his mind started to crack. He started saying that he wanted to die. The last 3 years of his life, he spent 90% of his time at hospitals. At the end, he was a shadow of himself, physically and mentally. At least he could meet his only grandchild once, before he passed away. That is being down. You don't want to be there. Before you get there, anything that deviates you from that path, kicks or whatever else, is a good thing in my view.
  - Clubber 10y ago
    How about prison for people caught smoking cigarettes? Societies do it for drug users. Whatever it takes, right? /s
    - otikik 10y ago
brokenmachine 10y ago
I'm in Australia and although I'm very happy these laws have come in, I would love to get some actual statistics on how many people have actually been fined for smoking where they are not allowed to. I have never seen anyone fined for smoking in any of the places where it isn't allowed (sporting fields, bus stops, etc), and I see people smoking at these locations literally every single day - especially at bus stops. The whole legislation seems to be "smoke and mirrors". I'm in NSW, and there is a NSW Health website where you are meant to report places to investigate. I have done so about a couple of locations where people smoke where they're not meant to, and nothing has happened. People continue to smoke at those locations regularly. You never get a case number, or any indication whatsoever that anything has been done at all. Police do not enforce smoking bans, and will readily admit that their policy is not to. Even places as famous as the Manly Beach corso, where smoking is banned, have smokers there every day. Rangers there do nothing, and as I said police do nothing. I have spoken to a ranger on the only occasion I have actually seen one there, and he said that he "usually gives a warning". When pressed, he admitted that he had never actually fined anyone. Another glaring and infuriating omission to the smoking situation in Australia is in apartment blocks. My neighbour continues to smoke regularly, which comes right into my living room. Apparently I have no right to fresh air in my own living room, and have been told as much by the police. Smoking is not permitted within 4m of outdoor public eating areas, but my living/dining room is closer than 4m to my neighbor's balcony, yet I have no protection there. Why are the rights of smokers to smoke taken more seriously than the non-smoking majority's right to not inhale secondhand smoke? These laws need to have actual teeth, and be enforced. Addicts cannot be relied upon to do the right thing, or apparently even the bare minimum required by law.
- SyneRyder 10y ago
  While I don't think I've seen anyone fined, I've definitely seen people 'moved on' by police in Perth for smoking in the city center (at Forrest Place). I've also seen social pressure in Perth, people asking smokers nearby to put their cigarettes out even in areas where smoking is allowed. I'm a non-smoker and appreciate the cleaner air, but I find the bans weird when the city also allow pop-up flame grilled chicken vendors in the same space, putting out far more smoke than any smokers ever did.
- 10y ago
spangry 10y ago
I think the laws that only permit outdoor smoking (a certain distance away from entryways/exits), have been so effective because of the social incentives they create. Speaking as an ex-smoker, having to go outside a bar to smoke with the rest of the smoking leper colony, while all your friends are inside having fun without you, is a very powerful social motivator. I honestly feel that this, more than anything else (increased price, graphic health warnings on packets etc.), has been the major contributor to lowered smoking rates. As an aside, I really don't agree with the popular notion that increasing excise (tax) on cigarettes contributes very much to declining rates of smoking. The demand for cigarettes is highly inelastic (i.e. consumers are not very sensitive to changes in price). Heavy taxation of goods with inelastic demand simply results in higher revenue for the government and, eventually, the formation of black markets. Same goes for fuel excise btw: although the (hilarious) justification given is 'road maintenance/user-pays', it is coincidentally another good with highly inelastic demand (making it a pretty efficient tax-base, up to a point). And fuel is such a poor proxy for 'road damage' anyway. EDIT: Also the argument that smokers cause the (public) health-care system to incur additional costs is pretty suspect. Although he's an ultra-right wing nut, and was practically booed off the stage when he made this point, I think Nick Minchin (former leader of the opposition in the Senate) was right when he suggested heavy smokers cost the public health-case system less overall: they tend to die quickly from an acute disease (e.g. lung cancer) at a relatively young age. This means they die before they hit that 'old age' when individual health-care costs sky-rocket.
- stephen_g 10y ago
  Those laws banning smoking indoors at public places (and also in outdoor eating areas at cafes and restaurants in my state) are also wonderful for non-smokers. You sort of take it for granted until you visit somewhere without the laws and remember just how obnoxious cigarette smoke is!
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
bamboozled 10y ago
Aside from the health and economic benefits, the other major benefit worh noting is environmental. In Europe I find it really hard to watch people _constantly_ throwing cigarette butts down storm water drains, into canals and doing other disgusting things, like stubbing the butts into the sand on the beach or into the soil of a river bank. I find it highly disturbing how un-aware people are about the damage being done to fragile eco-systems. I remember walking around Rome not long ago just thinking how disgustingly dirty the city was (I love Rome btw), there was little flower gardens just over flowing with butts, butts accumulating in gutters etc. I actually felt anxiety about it raining just knowing where it was all headed. So yeah, it would be cool to see this happen in other places around the world.
- Shivetya 10y ago
  why cannot the filters be mandated to be quickly biodegradable? We can make shipping peanuts from corn and they dissolve in water, why not the filters?
  - conception 10y ago
    Those peanuts also desolve in your mouth.
    - chei0iaV 10y ago
      Free popcorn?
  - NTripleOne 10y ago
    Even better, get rid of filters entirely. They're the only part of a rollie that isn't biodegradable - the rest being plant matter (the tobacco) and other plant matter (paper). The taste is far better without one too, less airflow restriction, and I vaguely recall something about filtered cigs being potentially more dangerous than unfiltered ones - something to do with all the nicotine being 'stolen' by the filter (due to it settling in with the tar-resin stuff that builds up in the filter or whatever), leading people who smoke filtered fags & rollies to actually smoke more to get the "hit" they were looking for, to the point where any benefit the filter provided in the first place is completely nullified and even beyond.
dcw303 10y ago
As an Australian who has been living abroad for the better half of a decade, I've noticed ever increasing prices and ever restrictive policies every time I've been back. Being a very occasional social smoker who should probably quit anyway it hasn't bothered me, but I did find it just a bit ludicrous when I tried to buy a pack at Safeway. The exchange went something like this: me: Give me a pack of Peter Stuyvesants, ah, um, I think the light ones in the blue colored pack. staff: They don't have colors anymore. We can't show you the packet. You have to tell us which ones. me: Really? Ok, fine. Well, just give me the 8mg low tar ones, whatever they're called. staff: They don't have mg measures on the packets any more. me: So how do I know which ones are the light ones? staff: You just have to know. I eventually picked one of the packs at random. Not what I'd call the best harm minimisation strategy.
- therein 10y ago
  And if the Safeway has a pharmacy, they wouldn't be allowed to sell tobacco products even in their storefront. At least in California.
  - rmccue 10y ago
    Pharmacies are typically separate to supermarkets in Australia (potentially legally so). Tobacco products are sold at a different counter in the supermarket though (since they have to be served by a person).
- craigds 10y ago
  Why can't they show you the packets? That's crazy...
  - aembleton 10y ago
    Because they might be attractive to teenagers. They're not shown anymore in the UK either.
    - vilmosi 10y ago
contingencies 10y ago
Aussie living in China, ex-smoker. Every time I went back I used to always take a bunch of cigarettes to sell to people at cut rates, specifically because they are so expensive in Australia. This year I couldn't even find anyone to buy them! Won't be bothering in future. I strongly support the progressive anti-smoking policies in Australia, but I do think the nanny statism has come a bit far in other areas. For example you can't catch a taxi or go to the (now 100% non-smoking) pub with a child. What the hell? Makes it really hard to stop for a drink when you are carrying a kid and walking to the nearest mass transit facility in the stinking hot summer sun, because you can't catch a taxi. Come on, people take buses without seat belts all the time ... it's off the charts stupid to ban young families from the use of taxis!
- jamesrcole 10y ago
  > For example you can't catch a taxi or go to the (now 100% non-smoking) pub with a child. I don't understand about the taxi. What do you mean? Regarding the pubs, I live in Queensland and have never seen a 100% non-smoking pub. They always have a dedicated smoking area.
  - imron 10y ago
    Depending on the age of the child, the child may be required by law to use a child safety seat. Taxis typically don't come with such seats and so they will refuse to carry you.
    - angry_octet 10y ago
      In most states taxis (but not uber) have an exemption, QLD is just a massive pain in the arse. Logically the market should evolve to allow requesting a car with seats but no.
  - taneq 10y ago
    Maybe they're talking about a child young enough to need a booster seat? They recently raised the age below which children require a booster seat to 7 years.
ensiferum 10y ago
Good riddance. What really bugs me is that why is every smoker an idiot throwing the cigarette butts everywhere? I really despise that behavior.
jtblin 10y ago
Too bad they don't do that with alcohol... There's advertising for alcohol everywhere, often associated with sports club which is especially bad for young people. People drink everywhere even at the beach. There's a real alcohol problem here and it's a shame they don't spend as much energy fighting it because in the grand scheme of things, it's even worse than tobacco.
- village-idiot 10y ago
  I agree with you that alcohol abuse is a problem, but it does seem to me like a different take would be required to reduce binge drinking. Two things stand out: 1) Alcohol branding and brand identification is extremely common and deep seeded in the West. It'd be a very hard cultural sell to drop alcohol branding. 2) A lot of alcohol is consumed in bar specific pints, not the packaging it's sold in.
  - willemmali 10y ago
    Off topic, but "deep seeded" is a pretty great eggcorn (word/phrase that sounds like another word/phrase, is quite different but still approximates the meaning of the original). It's like "deep seated" with a reproductive twist.
- wycx 10y ago
  I would rather see an end to sports betting advertising before alcohol. At least the alcohol advertising is not integrated into sports tv coverage.
  - exodust 10y ago
    What do you mean "not integrated"? Alcohol advertising is present in the most popular sport in Australia, AFL football.
    - wycx 10y ago
      I can't say anything about Channel 7, but during the Foxtel coverage, during every pre-match, and Friday and Saturday post-matches they have to cross to a man from the betting company to give them the odds for other games in the round etc. I don't see them cross to someone from CUB or Lion Nathan to give the beer update.
wavegeek 10y ago
What we have here now is effectively prohibition with all that entails i.e. a huge black market.For people on average incomes, tobacco is now in effect an illegal drug. The official stats on smoking exclude the black market and greatly understate smoking rates.
- jest3r1 10y ago
  A third of cigarettes sold in Ontario are contraband, study suggests: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/01/23/a-third-of-cigarettes-sold-in-ontario-are-contraband-study-suggests.html https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/01/23/a-third-of-ci...
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  This - and so much this. I understand the urge to reduce smoking. I find it weird that prices are so high because I think it encourages a black market. Black markets are somewhat dangerous, as there aren't the quality controls in place. The other option seems to be to switch to nicotine gums most of the time, which carry their own health risks. I find it even more appalling considering the dismal rates at which people actually succeed dropping the habit, which is something like 6%. For those already smoking, it might seem hopeless. I support some tax on them, even though I smoke, but I wish they'd save the highest price at least until we are better equipped to handle the addiction part of it.
hnmchackleton 10y ago
This story gives a very one sided view of the situation in Australia. The decrease in population wide smoking in Australia this century has not been due to an increase in quitting. It's mainly due to reduced rates of initiation in young people. http://mike.bailey.net.au/2015/10/smoking-prevention-and-treatment/ http://mike.bailey.net.au/2015/10/smoking-prevention-and-tre... People who cannot or do not want to quit are being denied information and access to reduced harm alternatives so as e-cigarettes. It's currently illegal to sell nicotine e-liquid in Australia, thanks largely to hard campaining by a large cancer charity that receives millions on dollars each year from taxpayers to reduce smoking rates. Look up 'health facism'. It finds a safe space within the "tobacco control" arm of public health. Not all public health advocates are humanitarians. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/the-nazis-forgotten-anti-smoking-campaign/373766/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/the-nazis... "But according to Proctor, the Nazi ban did manage to do some good for a subset of the population: German women. Proctor estimates that some 20,000 German women avoided lung cancer deaths, thanks to “Nazi paternalism, which discouraged women from smoking, often with police force.”
- nikdaheratik 10y ago
  While the story was mostly in favor of Australia's current smoking policy, I believe it was much more fair to both sides of the story than a claim that just because the Nazis's didn't like smoking, that means that any other government that doesn't like smoking is a Fascist dictatorship.
  - hnmchackleton 10y ago
    I agree with your assertion but suggest you misunderstood mine. Well meaning politicians in liberal democracies would do well to consider carefully before crossing the line between encouragement and coercion when trying to modify individuals behaviour "for their own good". Health facism can include appealing arguments like "the State pays for your healthcare so we can punish you for risky bahviour". Australia's TGA today rejected an application to permit smokers to legally purchase a safer source of nicotine (e-liquid for vaping), largely due to pressure from the same groups patting themselves on the back for what a great job they've done making life harder for smokers.
hnmchackleton 10y ago
This story gives a very one sided view of the situation in Australia. The decrease in population wide smoking in Australia this century has not been due to an increase in quitting. It's mainly due to reduced rates of initiation in young people. http://mike.bailey.net.au/2015/10/smoking-prevention-and-treatment/ http://mike.bailey.net.au/2015/10/smoking-prevention-and-tre... People who cannot or do not want to quit are being denied information and access to reduced harm alternatives so as e-cigarettes. It's currently illegal to sell nicotine e-liquid in Australia, thanks largely to hard campaining by a large cancer charity that receives millions on dollars each year from taxpayers to reduce smoking rates. Look up 'health facism'. It finds a safe space within the "tobacco control" arm of public health. Not all public health advocates are humanitarians. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/the-nazis-forgotten-anti-smoking-campaign/373766/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/the-nazis... "But according to Proctor, the Nazi ban did manage to do some good for a subset of the population: German women. Proctor estimates that some 20,000 German women avoided lung cancer deaths, thanks to “Nazi paternalism, which discouraged women from smoking, often with police force.”
exodust 10y ago
The thing I hate about the anti-smoking advertising is that it's blanket coverage. The "Shock and awe" is broadcast far and wide for all to see, whether you smoke or not. From cinema screens to small screens to billboards. I was driving behind a bus and had to stare at a larger than life cancerous growth being operated on. I don't even smoke, so why must my field of view be contaminated by this horrible imagery? Everyone must suffer the offensive ads because a few people smoke. Way to go Australia. Bring back the ladies underwear ads for buses please, I'm trying to concentrate!
Walf 10y ago
It doesn't work on everybody, though. Friend witnessed someone asking for a "pack o' dyin' Bryans, thanks." http://imgur.com/HNDvjAJ http://imgur.com/HNDvjAJ
cpursley 10y ago
A big change I've seen in the US is the "class" aspect of smoking. Smokers (outside of a bar environment) in the US come across as lower class, at least among white folks (can't speak for others). Not sure how this came about, but it's effective and one of the reasons I never picked the habit up from my parents.
perilunar 10y ago
I fully support people's right to smoke (or to use any drug), but I do find it odd that companies can legally sell such a dangerous and addictive substance. The solution would be to criminalise the sale of tobacco, but make it completely legal to grow your own. Same for pot or any other drug.

123 points by happy-go-lucky 10y ago

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

wtbob 10y ago
> It's incredible. Every country should do it. Yeah, it sure is wonderful to repress a hated minority. How dare they befoul our pristine public spaces with their benighted culture and their foul customs‽ Of course, the victims of your repression might feel a bit differently than you do.
- sanswork 10y ago
  Smokers choose to be smokers. Smokers choose to inflict their smoke on others when they smoke around other people. Smokers make excuses for not dealing with their butts properly(oh they didn't provide an ashtray so it's not my fault).
  - refurb 10y ago
    Smokers choose to be smokers. Cigarette's are addictive. They choose to smoke as much as an alcoholic chooses to drink or a heroin addict chooses to shoot up.
    - sanswork 10y ago
      Show me the dangerous side effects when a smoker quits smoking and I'll allow you to include it in the addictive category of alcohol and heroin.
      - Clubber 10y ago
        What difference does that make? I've read where tobacco is one of, if not the most addictive substances. I think you just have no empathy for people addicted to tobacco because you've been subjected to a relentless barrage of anti-tobacco propaganda over decades.
  - angry_octet 10y ago
    That is as fallacious as saying 'people choose to be crackheads'.
- vacri 10y ago
  Diddums.
- tallanvor 10y ago
  You aren't born a smoker. There's nothing in your genes that says you have to smoke, and there's no medical conditions that would prevent someone from smoking. As such, smokers can avoid feeling repressed simply by quitting smoking, and they can save money and improve their health in the process.
  - angry_octet 10y ago
    A typically insensitive comment from someone who has never had a serious addiction.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > smokers can avoid feeling repressed simply by quitting smoking What gives you the right to oppress people for the behavioural choices? What gives you the right to tell someone that his health is more important than his happiness? I don't believe that you have that right.
    - Mao_Zedang 10y ago
      What gives you the right to smoke near people who arent smokers.
    - soundwave106 10y ago
      In this case, this behavior choice affects me personally. Back when I played in bands, one of the aspects I hated about it was playing in the bars that allowed smoking. That very habit you are talking about caused my clothes and hair etc. to stink of tobacco smoke after the gig. Instruments would likewise smell like an ashtray and have to be aired out. I'm sure that wasn't good for my lungs, either. I no longer play out, which means thankfully I can avoid any establishment that still allows smoking. I value my health and happiness too; second hand smoke isn't very healthy, and stuff that stinks of tobacco doesn't make me very happy.
- beedogs 10y ago
  You need to get over yourself.
  - dang 10y ago
    You've been posting many unsubstantive and/or uncivil comments to HN. That breaks the site guidelines and eventually gets your account banned. Please up your game when commenting here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

sien 10y ago

The cost of smoking in Australia is probably the main thing that has cut smoking rates. At $20+ a pack smoking is so expensive. It's also worth noting that Nicorette is much cheaper than in the US. The moment you start using that you save money in Australia. It's curious that the article doesn't mention e-cigarettes. It's funny how harm minimisation is pushed by academic researchers when it comes to most drugs but isn't discussed that much when it comes to tobacco. They have been pretty much banned in Australia.

sanswork 10y ago
I've seen high $30's per pack in pubs around Sydney which really kills the idea of just grabbing a pack for social smoking too.
- flukus 10y ago
  Before we get into pack sizes, they're about $1 per cigarette.
- TylerE 10y ago
  That's crazy. I dunno what prices are like in the US (I don't smoke), but really...I mean at that price it'd probably be cheaper to smoke weed...
  - tomcorrigan 10y ago
    It's definitely not. Illegal drugs are also much more expensive in Australia than in many other places in the world. There is a growing problem with black market untaxed "chop chop" tobacco here. The tax increases have made it more and more attractive to both importers and smokers.
    - Trundle 10y ago
      For imported stuff definitely. I wouldn't want to have a coke habit here. Weed seems as cheap as anywhere else though.
    - 10y ago

bruce_one 10y ago

I had a conversation with friends who live in LA yesterday about the fact that they thought smoking is more prevalent in Melbourne than in the LA. Amused by the timing :-) (If I'd guessed, I would've assumed smoking was less prevalent in Melbourne (because of the reasons mentioned in the article, but mostly the cost), although I've not actually paid enough attention to compare.) (We all agreed it seemed more common in Europe, very vaguely speaking.)

jpgvm 10y ago
Most smokers in Melbourne CBD are Asian immigrants (anecdotally). I think it's culturally hard for them to give it up, which is a real shame as I hate walking through clouds of smoke on Little Bourke St. Not sure what can be done about it though, banning it outright I think is too far as it's an assault on people's personal freedoms but I would like to see a ban on smoking on the street/public places. I don't want to be secondary smoking the stuff, it smells awful and probably does a decent chunk of damage if you are walking through it every day though that is unsubstantiated, I haven't read any studies on secondary smoking. Atleast most smokers here seem responsible when disposing the butts. Silver lining I guess.
- exodust 10y ago
  Can confirm truth of that. Chinese neighbours on either side of me smoke, and I only ever see young Asian people smoking at the back of my building here in Melbourne. My annoying neighbour smokes on his balcony every day and the smell drifts into my apartment. Still figuring out what to do about that if anything.
bluGill 10y ago
Note that the story was from the BBC and compared Europe to Australia. I didn't see anything about US numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if the US had similar numbers to Australia. I suspect not though - in the "deep south" of the US smoking is still common, so if we have lower numbers here it is because the rest of the country has low enough smoking rates to balance out that part of the country.

bhalperin 10y ago

These kinds of efforts seem to be having great success not just in Australia but at least in the United States[1] as well. What I don't understand is -- why isn't a similar education, advertising, and taxation effort being made with alcohol? The negative externalities associated with alcohol are mind-boggling[2]. [1] http://www.vox.com/a/teens http://www.vox.com/a/teens [2] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/05/prohibition_lite_the_war_on_drugs_has_been_a_failure_but_the_war_on_alcohol.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...

snogglethorpe 10y ago
The most obvious difference is that alcohol isn't directly harmful to other people, whereas smoking is... This attribute basically makes it very difficult for people to adopt a "well it's their choice, I'll let them dig their own grave" attitude in regard to smoking.
- imesh 10y ago
  Except that second hand smoke isn't really that bad. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#5d03f087623f http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-fi...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - crazy2be 10y ago
    That does not match the scientific consensus [1]. You'll have to do better than a single study, summarized in a Forbes article, if you want to make that claim. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking
    - Clubber 10y ago
      From your link. >Most of the research has come from studies of nonsmokers who are married to a smoker. Those conclusions are also backed up by further studies of workplace exposure to smoke I suggest you don't marry a smoker, or work in a bar where they allow smoking. Otherwise, you'll be fine. You'll probably be fine either way. The increased risk is minimal (1-4%?) and requires years and years of constant exposure.

legostormtroopr 10y ago

This is one of the reasons why people in Australian were explicitly concerned by the now dead Trans-Pacific Partnership. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-05/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-pact-detail-released/6917292 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-05/trans-pacific-partners...

tomcorrigan 10y ago
Their concerns were misplaced and the outcome lawsuits against the Australian government (they won every time) show how ridiculous the scare campaign about ISDS was.
- kirrent 10y ago
  I certainly think the concerns were misplaced, but wasn't the Phillip Morris case dismissed because they were found to have a lack of standing, having reincorporated in Hong Kong specifically to make use of the ISDS provision? While I can't see how the tobacco companies could prevail in any case, history has yet to furnish us with a proper example.
  - tomcorrigan 10y ago
    You are correct about the HK case. However there weren't many observers who though Phillip Morris stood a chance. The lawsuit was much more about signalling to other countries considering plain packaging than actually overturning the laws in Australia. There is still a pending WTO arbitration which is also expected to be decided in Australia's favour. See also the outcome of Phillip Morris v Uruguay
- djmdjm 10y ago
  Not really, the Australian govt's ISDS case wins were largely because the tobacco companies were found to have little business standing to launch their cases from the (few) jurisdictions with who Australia has ISDS-ful treaties. The Phillip Morris case, launched from venue-shopped Hong Kong is an example - the arbitration tribunal refused to hear the case for this reason: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/australia-wins-international-legal-battle-with-philip-morris-over-plain-packaging https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/austr... The TPP would drastically increase the number of nations with reciprocal ISDS agreements. In particular it would have included the US, where many/most of the the tobacco companies are domiciled. Why the TPP would probably have not included retrospectivity, it could have frustrated any future efforts.

JauntyHatAngle 10y ago

As a German-Australian, and ignoring that this is anecdotal, but I've often noted the big difference in levels of smoking when I visit German cities vs Australian ones. Smoking just isn't popular in Australia among my age group (late 20's), where it is still way more common in Germany. Young people just don't seem interested in Australia outside of having a smoke with a beer at a party, it's very much perceived as something poorer people do, and is not considered classy at all. So yeah, compared with other countries that I've visited, smoking is seen quite differently here and seems like its well on the way out. It'll be interesting to see if it rebounds in future generations though.

hackits 10y ago
Did you notice any major price difference compared to Australia vs Germany? Consider buying a pack of cig's is damn expensive, not mentioning alcohol too here in Auz.
- JauntyHatAngle 10y ago
  > Did you notice any major price difference compared to Australia vs Germany? Consider buying a pack of cig's is damn expensive, not mentioning alcohol too here in Auz. Yes, huge difference. But alcohol also has a huge difference in price, but that doesn't stop Australians from drinking a ton. (Though its not as a big a difference as smoking).
ehnto 10y ago
The price is one thing, but there is a huge stigma attached now. There has been a long winded information campaign for decades, and it is impossible to ignore the health effects when they are litterally and grotesquely displayed on the pack. Amongst friends my age, mid to late 20s, most of those who smoke have to do so separated from the group outside as well, as you are not allowed to smoke indoors. So people simply don't. There are enough barriers to make social smoking less prevelant and then if you are by yourself it is harder to justify the health cost and monetary cost. To smoke a pack a day here you would have to spend $300 a fortnight.
mcbridematt 10y ago

marcus_holmes 10y ago

One aspect that the article doesn't mention is the racial/immigrant aspect. White people are quitting in droves for sure, but Asians still seem to smoke a lot. I have no numbers here (are they even collected?) but anecdotally it's unusual for white people to smoke in their own homes, but common for Asian families here. Note that this is different from the "poorer end of society" mentioned in TFA - race is not an indicator of affluence or social standing in Australia.

hug 10y ago
I'm going to go out on a limb and say this that I think this is a cultural bias, not a 'racial' one. Anecdotally, the number of college-aged Asians you walk past in the street that are smoking is much higher than the number of college-aged caucasians. I won't pretend to know which portion of which demographic is immigrant or not, but Melbourne imports absolutely huge numbers of international students, a large portion of whom come from Asian countries and who have grown up in a country where smoking is not the social-taboo it is among millennial Australians. Among older generations, I don't see the same marked divide. Older Australians smoke much more frequently than their younger counterparts. As a side note: I don't know a better way to separate out Australian-born "Australians" who may be of any race, including Asian, from "international students from Asia", so if any of my phrasing comes across smelling even slightly offensive please let me know.
- marcus_holmes 10y ago
  you're probably right, in that this is probably not a race thing, but a culture thing. My bad
thisrod 10y ago
There is a reason for this: it's getting to be so hard to sell cigarettes in Australia that the tobacco companies have stopped trying, and they're going after the Indonesians and Timorese instead. Four Corners reported on it a few years ago.

jasonlingx 10y ago

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

barryvan 10y ago
The Tasmanian parliament is considering exactly this -- banning smoking for anyone born after 2000.
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  Is that actually making any progress? The only information that I could find just said that it was being considered, and that was from July 2016.
- spangry 10y ago
  This sounds like an insanely bad idea. While the goal is admirable (eliminating smoking once and for all), without strong enough social norms in place discouraging smoking, all this will do is create another lucrative black market drug (much like what happened when the US prohibited alcohol from 1920 to 1933).
  - jay_kyburz 10y ago
    No really, when they banned alcohol in 1920, it was for everybody, and everybody already drank alot. Somebody born after 2000 has never bought thier own cigarettes.
    - flukus 10y ago
      Someone born in 2000 has probably never bought there own weed, but plenty still will.
  - rmccue 10y ago
    There are already strong social norms in Australia against smoking, partially because of these laws. (See other comments in this thread.)

aaron695 10y ago

> How Australia is stubbing out smoking By massive invasions on basic human rights. There are also many campaigns that don't, but many do and they are the most effective.

foxrob92 10y ago
How is it a "massive invasion on basic human rights"?
- aaron695 10y ago
  It's basically applying the drug war to cigarette smokers. It's using the police and state to use force to deal with people who are doing no harm to anyone but at best themselves. I think this breaks basic human rights.
  - sanswork 10y ago
    They are doing harm to others. Second hand smoke is a serious concern that has lead to many deaths of non-smokers.
  - brokenmachine 10y ago
    > doing no harm to anyone but at best themselves Secondhand smoke is disgusting, and so dangerous that it has been proven to kill thousands of non-smokers [1]. I'd call causing death, "harm". Also smoking in private is still legal, unfortunately. Hardly a "human right". [1] "Since 1964, approximately 2,500,000 nonsmokers have died from health problems caused by exposure to secondhand smoke." - https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/ https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... - Stats from the US, from the first google result I came across.
    - thomasthomas 10y ago
      > unfortunately !? some people want to control what they do with their own bodies and not be slaves to the state. gtfo

wtbob 10y ago

I honestly think that things like $40 packs of cigarettes are pure bigotry (the only politically-acceptable bigotry at the moment). It's kicking a man when he's down. But then, I believe that cigars & pipes are an essential part of the good life. Can you imagine a world in which C.S. Lewis & J.R.R. Tolkien didn't head down to the Eagle & Child to enjoy a pot of ale and a few good pipes together?

sanswork 10y ago
Yes and it'd certainly smell a lot nicer and involve a lot less drooling on themselves.
otikik 10y ago
> It's kicking a man when he's down. My father in law has had problems on his lungs and heart since I know him. I married my wife 6 years ago. His father was hospitalized at the time (again). He was exceptionally discharged from the hospital to attend the wedding, and went back there the next day. You know what he did while he was there? Distribute cigars. And smoke them. He recently died of pulmonary and heart-related problems. He was 60, but doctors said that his lungs and heart looked like 90. Months before he died, blood was failing to reach his feet, so they gradually had to cut them down: first the toes of one foot. Then the other's. Then a whole foot. Then the other, and part of the leg. It was at this point when his mind started to crack. He started saying that he wanted to die. The last 3 years of his life, he spent 90% of his time at hospitals. At the end, he was a shadow of himself, physically and mentally. At least he could meet his only grandchild once, before he passed away. That is being down. You don't want to be there. Before you get there, anything that deviates you from that path, kicks or whatever else, is a good thing in my view.
- Clubber 10y ago
  How about prison for people caught smoking cigarettes? Societies do it for drug users. Whatever it takes, right? /s
  - otikik 10y ago

brokenmachine 10y ago

I'm in Australia and although I'm very happy these laws have come in, I would love to get some actual statistics on how many people have actually been fined for smoking where they are not allowed to. I have never seen anyone fined for smoking in any of the places where it isn't allowed (sporting fields, bus stops, etc), and I see people smoking at these locations literally every single day - especially at bus stops. The whole legislation seems to be "smoke and mirrors". I'm in NSW, and there is a NSW Health website where you are meant to report places to investigate. I have done so about a couple of locations where people smoke where they're not meant to, and nothing has happened. People continue to smoke at those locations regularly. You never get a case number, or any indication whatsoever that anything has been done at all. Police do not enforce smoking bans, and will readily admit that their policy is not to. Even places as famous as the Manly Beach corso, where smoking is banned, have smokers there every day. Rangers there do nothing, and as I said police do nothing. I have spoken to a ranger on the only occasion I have actually seen one there, and he said that he "usually gives a warning". When pressed, he admitted that he had never actually fined anyone. Another glaring and infuriating omission to the smoking situation in Australia is in apartment blocks. My neighbour continues to smoke regularly, which comes right into my living room. Apparently I have no right to fresh air in my own living room, and have been told as much by the police. Smoking is not permitted within 4m of outdoor public eating areas, but my living/dining room is closer than 4m to my neighbor's balcony, yet I have no protection there. Why are the rights of smokers to smoke taken more seriously than the non-smoking majority's right to not inhale secondhand smoke? These laws need to have actual teeth, and be enforced. Addicts cannot be relied upon to do the right thing, or apparently even the bare minimum required by law.

SyneRyder 10y ago
While I don't think I've seen anyone fined, I've definitely seen people 'moved on' by police in Perth for smoking in the city center (at Forrest Place). I've also seen social pressure in Perth, people asking smokers nearby to put their cigarettes out even in areas where smoking is allowed. I'm a non-smoker and appreciate the cleaner air, but I find the bans weird when the city also allow pop-up flame grilled chicken vendors in the same space, putting out far more smoke than any smokers ever did.
10y ago

spangry 10y ago

I think the laws that only permit outdoor smoking (a certain distance away from entryways/exits), have been so effective because of the social incentives they create. Speaking as an ex-smoker, having to go outside a bar to smoke with the rest of the smoking leper colony, while all your friends are inside having fun without you, is a very powerful social motivator. I honestly feel that this, more than anything else (increased price, graphic health warnings on packets etc.), has been the major contributor to lowered smoking rates. As an aside, I really don't agree with the popular notion that increasing excise (tax) on cigarettes contributes very much to declining rates of smoking. The demand for cigarettes is highly inelastic (i.e. consumers are not very sensitive to changes in price). Heavy taxation of goods with inelastic demand simply results in higher revenue for the government and, eventually, the formation of black markets. Same goes for fuel excise btw: although the (hilarious) justification given is 'road maintenance/user-pays', it is coincidentally another good with highly inelastic demand (making it a pretty efficient tax-base, up to a point). And fuel is such a poor proxy for 'road damage' anyway. EDIT: Also the argument that smokers cause the (public) health-care system to incur additional costs is pretty suspect. Although he's an ultra-right wing nut, and was practically booed off the stage when he made this point, I think Nick Minchin (former leader of the opposition in the Senate) was right when he suggested heavy smokers cost the public health-case system less overall: they tend to die quickly from an acute disease (e.g. lung cancer) at a relatively young age. This means they die before they hit that 'old age' when individual health-care costs sky-rocket.

stephen_g 10y ago
Those laws banning smoking indoors at public places (and also in outdoor eating areas at cafes and restaurants in my state) are also wonderful for non-smokers. You sort of take it for granted until you visit somewhere without the laws and remember just how obnoxious cigarette smoke is!
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

bamboozled 10y ago

Aside from the health and economic benefits, the other major benefit worh noting is environmental. In Europe I find it really hard to watch people _constantly_ throwing cigarette butts down storm water drains, into canals and doing other disgusting things, like stubbing the butts into the sand on the beach or into the soil of a river bank. I find it highly disturbing how un-aware people are about the damage being done to fragile eco-systems. I remember walking around Rome not long ago just thinking how disgustingly dirty the city was (I love Rome btw), there was little flower gardens just over flowing with butts, butts accumulating in gutters etc. I actually felt anxiety about it raining just knowing where it was all headed. So yeah, it would be cool to see this happen in other places around the world.

Shivetya 10y ago
why cannot the filters be mandated to be quickly biodegradable? We can make shipping peanuts from corn and they dissolve in water, why not the filters?
- conception 10y ago
  Those peanuts also desolve in your mouth.
  - chei0iaV 10y ago
    Free popcorn?
- NTripleOne 10y ago
  Even better, get rid of filters entirely. They're the only part of a rollie that isn't biodegradable - the rest being plant matter (the tobacco) and other plant matter (paper). The taste is far better without one too, less airflow restriction, and I vaguely recall something about filtered cigs being potentially more dangerous than unfiltered ones - something to do with all the nicotine being 'stolen' by the filter (due to it settling in with the tar-resin stuff that builds up in the filter or whatever), leading people who smoke filtered fags & rollies to actually smoke more to get the "hit" they were looking for, to the point where any benefit the filter provided in the first place is completely nullified and even beyond.

dcw303 10y ago

As an Australian who has been living abroad for the better half of a decade, I've noticed ever increasing prices and ever restrictive policies every time I've been back. Being a very occasional social smoker who should probably quit anyway it hasn't bothered me, but I did find it just a bit ludicrous when I tried to buy a pack at Safeway. The exchange went something like this: me: Give me a pack of Peter Stuyvesants, ah, um, I think the light ones in the blue colored pack. staff: They don't have colors anymore. We can't show you the packet. You have to tell us which ones. me: Really? Ok, fine. Well, just give me the 8mg low tar ones, whatever they're called. staff: They don't have mg measures on the packets any more. me: So how do I know which ones are the light ones? staff: You just have to know. I eventually picked one of the packs at random. Not what I'd call the best harm minimisation strategy.

therein 10y ago
And if the Safeway has a pharmacy, they wouldn't be allowed to sell tobacco products even in their storefront. At least in California.
- rmccue 10y ago
  Pharmacies are typically separate to supermarkets in Australia (potentially legally so). Tobacco products are sold at a different counter in the supermarket though (since they have to be served by a person).
craigds 10y ago
Why can't they show you the packets? That's crazy...
- aembleton 10y ago
  Because they might be attractive to teenagers. They're not shown anymore in the UK either.
  - vilmosi 10y ago

contingencies 10y ago

Aussie living in China, ex-smoker. Every time I went back I used to always take a bunch of cigarettes to sell to people at cut rates, specifically because they are so expensive in Australia. This year I couldn't even find anyone to buy them! Won't be bothering in future. I strongly support the progressive anti-smoking policies in Australia, but I do think the nanny statism has come a bit far in other areas. For example you can't catch a taxi or go to the (now 100% non-smoking) pub with a child. What the hell? Makes it really hard to stop for a drink when you are carrying a kid and walking to the nearest mass transit facility in the stinking hot summer sun, because you can't catch a taxi. Come on, people take buses without seat belts all the time ... it's off the charts stupid to ban young families from the use of taxis!

jamesrcole 10y ago
> For example you can't catch a taxi or go to the (now 100% non-smoking) pub with a child. I don't understand about the taxi. What do you mean? Regarding the pubs, I live in Queensland and have never seen a 100% non-smoking pub. They always have a dedicated smoking area.
- imron 10y ago
  Depending on the age of the child, the child may be required by law to use a child safety seat. Taxis typically don't come with such seats and so they will refuse to carry you.
  - angry_octet 10y ago
    In most states taxis (but not uber) have an exemption, QLD is just a massive pain in the arse. Logically the market should evolve to allow requesting a car with seats but no.
- taneq 10y ago
  Maybe they're talking about a child young enough to need a booster seat? They recently raised the age below which children require a booster seat to 7 years.

ensiferum 10y ago

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

jtblin 10y ago

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

village-idiot 10y ago
I agree with you that alcohol abuse is a problem, but it does seem to me like a different take would be required to reduce binge drinking. Two things stand out: 1) Alcohol branding and brand identification is extremely common and deep seeded in the West. It'd be a very hard cultural sell to drop alcohol branding. 2) A lot of alcohol is consumed in bar specific pints, not the packaging it's sold in.
- willemmali 10y ago
  Off topic, but "deep seeded" is a pretty great eggcorn (word/phrase that sounds like another word/phrase, is quite different but still approximates the meaning of the original). It's like "deep seated" with a reproductive twist.
wycx 10y ago
I would rather see an end to sports betting advertising before alcohol. At least the alcohol advertising is not integrated into sports tv coverage.
- exodust 10y ago
  What do you mean "not integrated"? Alcohol advertising is present in the most popular sport in Australia, AFL football.
  - wycx 10y ago
    I can't say anything about Channel 7, but during the Foxtel coverage, during every pre-match, and Friday and Saturday post-matches they have to cross to a man from the betting company to give them the odds for other games in the round etc. I don't see them cross to someone from CUB or Lion Nathan to give the beer update.

wavegeek 10y ago

What we have here now is effectively prohibition with all that entails i.e. a huge black market.For people on average incomes, tobacco is now in effect an illegal drug. The official stats on smoking exclude the black market and greatly understate smoking rates.

jest3r1 10y ago
A third of cigarettes sold in Ontario are contraband, study suggests: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/01/23/a-third-of-cigarettes-sold-in-ontario-are-contraband-study-suggests.html https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/01/23/a-third-of-ci...
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
This - and so much this. I understand the urge to reduce smoking. I find it weird that prices are so high because I think it encourages a black market. Black markets are somewhat dangerous, as there aren't the quality controls in place. The other option seems to be to switch to nicotine gums most of the time, which carry their own health risks. I find it even more appalling considering the dismal rates at which people actually succeed dropping the habit, which is something like 6%. For those already smoking, it might seem hopeless. I support some tax on them, even though I smoke, but I wish they'd save the highest price at least until we are better equipped to handle the addiction part of it.

hnmchackleton 10y ago

This story gives a very one sided view of the situation in Australia. The decrease in population wide smoking in Australia this century has not been due to an increase in quitting. It's mainly due to reduced rates of initiation in young people. http://mike.bailey.net.au/2015/10/smoking-prevention-and-treatment/ http://mike.bailey.net.au/2015/10/smoking-prevention-and-tre... People who cannot or do not want to quit are being denied information and access to reduced harm alternatives so as e-cigarettes. It's currently illegal to sell nicotine e-liquid in Australia, thanks largely to hard campaining by a large cancer charity that receives millions on dollars each year from taxpayers to reduce smoking rates. Look up 'health facism'. It finds a safe space within the "tobacco control" arm of public health. Not all public health advocates are humanitarians. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/the-nazis-forgotten-anti-smoking-campaign/373766/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/the-nazis... "But according to Proctor, the Nazi ban did manage to do some good for a subset of the population: German women. Proctor estimates that some 20,000 German women avoided lung cancer deaths, thanks to “Nazi paternalism, which discouraged women from smoking, often with police force.”

nikdaheratik 10y ago
While the story was mostly in favor of Australia's current smoking policy, I believe it was much more fair to both sides of the story than a claim that just because the Nazis's didn't like smoking, that means that any other government that doesn't like smoking is a Fascist dictatorship.
- hnmchackleton 10y ago
  I agree with your assertion but suggest you misunderstood mine. Well meaning politicians in liberal democracies would do well to consider carefully before crossing the line between encouragement and coercion when trying to modify individuals behaviour "for their own good". Health facism can include appealing arguments like "the State pays for your healthcare so we can punish you for risky bahviour". Australia's TGA today rejected an application to permit smokers to legally purchase a safer source of nicotine (e-liquid for vaping), largely due to pressure from the same groups patting themselves on the back for what a great job they've done making life harder for smokers.

hnmchackleton 10y ago

exodust 10y ago

The thing I hate about the anti-smoking advertising is that it's blanket coverage. The "Shock and awe" is broadcast far and wide for all to see, whether you smoke or not. From cinema screens to small screens to billboards. I was driving behind a bus and had to stare at a larger than life cancerous growth being operated on. I don't even smoke, so why must my field of view be contaminated by this horrible imagery? Everyone must suffer the offensive ads because a few people smoke. Way to go Australia. Bring back the ladies underwear ads for buses please, I'm trying to concentrate!

Walf 10y ago

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

cpursley 10y ago

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

perilunar 10y ago

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