3 ms·

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.)
- prawn 10y ago
  But there are strong social norms discouraging smoking. It's gone from looking like a cool, sociable thing (restaurants, pubs, colleagues at work) to "Look at those people who can't quit." People aren't smoking in restaurants. At pubs, they are forced into a dodgy little area, often near gambling machines. And outside offices, they often hide around the side near alleys because they are discouraged or embarrassed about smoking out the front.
  - spangry 10y ago
    Precisely! If you check some of my other comments in this thread, you'll see me putting forward the idea that these social incentives (created by these laws) are the primary cause of reduced smoking rates over the past decade or so. My concern here is over timing. I'm not sure that smoking has been sufficiently socially marginalised to the point that a black market would not form if we banned cigarettes. We've seen this already in Australia. The ATO (where I used to work) has had compliance teams in the field for at least a decade now dealing with the 'chop-chop' problem (black market tobacco), which grows larger with every excise increase. In a sense, banning it is the equivalent of setting excise at some rate approaching infinity per cent. I don't have any control over what the Tasmanian parliament does, but I really hope they understand that they only get about 1 shot at this per decade at most. If they pass this law and it turns out smoking is not sufficiently marginalised, and a black market subsequently forms, they'll spend the next 3-5 years fighting the black markets, another 3-5 debating and eventually re-legalising cigarettes and then we'll be back to where we are now. Although it requires a bit more patience, it might be safer to wait a couple more years as the 'outdoor smoking laws' strengthen social incentives and norms. They might even be able to come up with additional measures to accelerate this process. I agree that we're close to the point where banning cigarettes is feasible. But whether we've actually past that point...
    - k-mcgrady 10y ago
      >> "Precisely! If you check some of my other comments in this thread, you'll see me putting forward the idea that these social incentives (created by these laws) are the primary cause of reduced smoking rates over the past decade or so." I believe it actually works the other way too. If your friend group is primarily made up of smokers who are forced to go outside the pub/restaurant etc. multiple times in an evening you might decide to start joining them. I know a tonne of people who only 'smoke when they drink' for this reason and many others who started like that and now smoke full-time.

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.)
prawn 10y ago
But there are strong social norms discouraging smoking. It's gone from looking like a cool, sociable thing (restaurants, pubs, colleagues at work) to "Look at those people who can't quit." People aren't smoking in restaurants. At pubs, they are forced into a dodgy little area, often near gambling machines. And outside offices, they often hide around the side near alleys because they are discouraged or embarrassed about smoking out the front.
- spangry 10y ago
  Precisely! If you check some of my other comments in this thread, you'll see me putting forward the idea that these social incentives (created by these laws) are the primary cause of reduced smoking rates over the past decade or so. My concern here is over timing. I'm not sure that smoking has been sufficiently socially marginalised to the point that a black market would not form if we banned cigarettes. We've seen this already in Australia. The ATO (where I used to work) has had compliance teams in the field for at least a decade now dealing with the 'chop-chop' problem (black market tobacco), which grows larger with every excise increase. In a sense, banning it is the equivalent of setting excise at some rate approaching infinity per cent. I don't have any control over what the Tasmanian parliament does, but I really hope they understand that they only get about 1 shot at this per decade at most. If they pass this law and it turns out smoking is not sufficiently marginalised, and a black market subsequently forms, they'll spend the next 3-5 years fighting the black markets, another 3-5 debating and eventually re-legalising cigarettes and then we'll be back to where we are now. Although it requires a bit more patience, it might be safer to wait a couple more years as the 'outdoor smoking laws' strengthen social incentives and norms. They might even be able to come up with additional measures to accelerate this process. I agree that we're close to the point where banning cigarettes is feasible. But whether we've actually past that point...
  - k-mcgrady 10y ago
    >> "Precisely! If you check some of my other comments in this thread, you'll see me putting forward the idea that these social incentives (created by these laws) are the primary cause of reduced smoking rates over the past decade or so." I believe it actually works the other way too. If your friend group is primarily made up of smokers who are forced to go outside the pub/restaurant etc. multiple times in an evening you might decide to start joining them. I know a tonne of people who only 'smoke when they drink' for this reason and many others who started like that and now smoke full-time.