3 ms·

Bold move limiting gambling ads to just three per hour. Next up light-touch bans on cigarettes where you can only smoke during ad breaks.

angry_octet 6mo ago
The ability for Sportsbet to deluge your feed with gambling remains unhindered. Their TikTok/Instagram ads are clever and unrelenting. As a consequence there is a quiet crisis in young people, 18-30, deeply in debt, working second and third jobs so that they have a bit more money to gamble.
- merek 6mo ago
  > As a consequence there is a quiet crisis in young people, 18-30, deeply in debt, working second and third jobs so that they have a bit more money to gamble. Do you have a source for this?
  - angry_octet 6mo ago
    I have relatives who work in retail, and they says it's endemic. Bunnings workers, KFC crew, etc.
suprjami 6mo ago
I'd strongly support a year-based ban on cigarette purchases. Set the purchase birth year to the current age 18. So DOB 2008 if done today, if you're born 2009 or later you can't buy smokes at all ever. Within two generations we'd largely eliminate smoking. Within three cigarettes would be amongst impossible to get. Great public health initiative.
- mrguyorama 6mo ago
  The UK is supposedly doing exactly this. As are a few other places.
- asdff 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - andrewstuart 6mo ago
    Seatbelts, speed limits, laws against property and personal crime, workplace safety regulations, All government overreach, eh?
    - asdff 6mo ago
      Admittedly, I'm not arguing it any one way or another. I'm just presenting what I think is perhaps an interesting argument that highlights how the whole concept is somewhat arbitrary and ambiguous, resting more on ones personal moral positions towards a thing in particular than any real underlying logical justification shared across similar concepts.
      - sanswork 6mo ago
        It's not interesting at all, you're just choosing to ignore externalities.
  - amarcheschi 6mo ago
    Smoking affects surrounding people much more than the above
    - asdff 6mo ago
      Obesity does too. You are consuming sometimes twice as many calories as what is needed to survive. You put strain on medical facilities as well, and increase pooled costs of healthcare. Same social ills a smoker puts on you. Second hand smoke isn't really a thing anymore with indoor smoking bans.
      - sanswork 6mo ago
        Someone being obese doesn't impact my health directly. Second hand smoke impacts the kids/family of smokers. Second hand smoke impacts everyone walking past the front of an office building.
- grebc 6mo ago
  I smoke maybe a pack a year at best. I can’t buy smokes because some nuffies don’t like it? Take a hike.
  - nkrisc 6mo ago
    So it would be a small personal sacrifice for huge societal benefit, and you wouldn’t even do that?
    - grebc 6mo ago
      No.
    - InvertedRhodium 6mo ago
      The societal downside of providing yet another revenue stream for criminal organisations seems like it might be worth taking into consideration.
      - grebc 6mo ago
        Actually happening in Australia, almost any smoker buys illegally imported cigarettes at a quarter of the price ($10/15ish vs $50/$60) a pack. Pure government tax hikes created the most ripe opportunity for criminal orgs in such a long time.
- toast0 6mo ago
  NZ tried that cigarette ban, but walked it back so they could get juicy tax revenues. https://lite.cnn.com/2023/11/28/asia/new-zealand-smoking-ban-reversal-intl-hnk https://lite.cnn.com/2023/11/28/asia/new-zealand-smoking-ban... Maybe split the difference and raise the purchasing age for cigarettes 6 months every year. Takes longer to get to nobody can smoke, but you'll get there eventually.
  - awesome_dude 6mo ago
    The (NZ) government that changed the approach is heavily loaded with Tobacco friendly Ministers - the expectation is that when the government is voted out (no government lasts forever) the age based approach will be bought back in.
  - InvertedRhodium 6mo ago
    We’d just end up in the same situation as Australia - where up to one third of all cigarettes consumed are purchased on the black market.
    - maerF0x0 6mo ago
      if this source is to be trusted it's now half https://wrdnews.org/illicit-tobacco-in-australia-half-of-all-cigarettes-now-black-market/ https://wrdnews.org/illicit-tobacco-in-australia-half-of-all... (I did not vet anything, I just googled your words because I wanted to know more)
      - grebc 6mo ago
        It’s likely a lot more than half.
  - bluGill 6mo ago
    Smoking is out of favor and has been for years. Every year that goes by there are less smokers. Eventually there will be so few that the tax revenues don't matter anymore. I can't guess when that is coming though.
- denkmoon 6mo ago
  Can we please not keep trying to redo prohibition. Yes it costs public health. No you can’t stop adults imbibing the drugs they want, the only thing you can do is criminalise it which makes criminals of sick people. Great work.
- smelendez 6mo ago
  US has gone to a minimum age of 21. I actually think that’s enough, along with raising the price and reducing the number of places people can smoke. People generally start smoking by their teens or not at all. Making it hard for kids to get exposed to nicotine will stop a lot of addiction. Also way fewer parents have cigarettes in the house so it’s harder for kids to grab them at home. And there are pretty strong taboos nowadays about giving random kids stuff they’re not supposed to have.
- squigz 6mo ago
  Would you support the same ban for alcohol?
  - suprjami 6mo ago
    I would but the rest of Australia wouldn't. This country has an unhealthy drinking problem.
- merek 6mo ago
  > can't buy smokes at all ever They can, they will be available on the black market along with every other widely used illicit recreational drug. Banning tobacco won't make the problem disappear, people want their poison, including sensible rational people who accept the risks and use in moderation. Banning tobacco will push it underground, giving criminals a new revenue stream which can fund more harmful activities. Not only will the govt lose out on tobacco tax, they may have to ramp up law enforcement expense to crack down on the now illicit tobacco trade and ever more empowered criminals. Users of the black market products will have no guarantee of quality assurance, products may contain additional harmful additives. There's an optimal level of tax and regulation to keep distribution out of criminal control, educate the general public, and offer support to the serious victims, all the while collecting tax to fund these activities. This is precisely what many countries are already doing to varying degrees. And the same argument can be made for many vices, including gambling and alcohol.

angry_octet 6mo ago

The ability for Sportsbet to deluge your feed with gambling remains unhindered. Their TikTok/Instagram ads are clever and unrelenting. As a consequence there is a quiet crisis in young people, 18-30, deeply in debt, working second and third jobs so that they have a bit more money to gamble.

merek 6mo ago
> As a consequence there is a quiet crisis in young people, 18-30, deeply in debt, working second and third jobs so that they have a bit more money to gamble. Do you have a source for this?
- angry_octet 6mo ago
  I have relatives who work in retail, and they says it's endemic. Bunnings workers, KFC crew, etc.

suprjami 6mo ago

I'd strongly support a year-based ban on cigarette purchases. Set the purchase birth year to the current age 18. So DOB 2008 if done today, if you're born 2009 or later you can't buy smokes at all ever. Within two generations we'd largely eliminate smoking. Within three cigarettes would be amongst impossible to get. Great public health initiative.

mrguyorama 6mo ago
The UK is supposedly doing exactly this. As are a few other places.
asdff 6mo ago
[flagged]
- andrewstuart 6mo ago
  Seatbelts, speed limits, laws against property and personal crime, workplace safety regulations, All government overreach, eh?
  - asdff 6mo ago
    Admittedly, I'm not arguing it any one way or another. I'm just presenting what I think is perhaps an interesting argument that highlights how the whole concept is somewhat arbitrary and ambiguous, resting more on ones personal moral positions towards a thing in particular than any real underlying logical justification shared across similar concepts.
    - sanswork 6mo ago
      It's not interesting at all, you're just choosing to ignore externalities.
- amarcheschi 6mo ago
  Smoking affects surrounding people much more than the above
  - asdff 6mo ago
    Obesity does too. You are consuming sometimes twice as many calories as what is needed to survive. You put strain on medical facilities as well, and increase pooled costs of healthcare. Same social ills a smoker puts on you. Second hand smoke isn't really a thing anymore with indoor smoking bans.
    - sanswork 6mo ago
      Someone being obese doesn't impact my health directly. Second hand smoke impacts the kids/family of smokers. Second hand smoke impacts everyone walking past the front of an office building.
grebc 6mo ago
I smoke maybe a pack a year at best. I can’t buy smokes because some nuffies don’t like it? Take a hike.
- nkrisc 6mo ago
  So it would be a small personal sacrifice for huge societal benefit, and you wouldn’t even do that?
  - grebc 6mo ago
    No.
  - InvertedRhodium 6mo ago
    The societal downside of providing yet another revenue stream for criminal organisations seems like it might be worth taking into consideration.
    - grebc 6mo ago
      Actually happening in Australia, almost any smoker buys illegally imported cigarettes at a quarter of the price ($10/15ish vs $50/$60) a pack. Pure government tax hikes created the most ripe opportunity for criminal orgs in such a long time.
toast0 6mo ago
NZ tried that cigarette ban, but walked it back so they could get juicy tax revenues. https://lite.cnn.com/2023/11/28/asia/new-zealand-smoking-ban-reversal-intl-hnk https://lite.cnn.com/2023/11/28/asia/new-zealand-smoking-ban... Maybe split the difference and raise the purchasing age for cigarettes 6 months every year. Takes longer to get to nobody can smoke, but you'll get there eventually.
- awesome_dude 6mo ago
  The (NZ) government that changed the approach is heavily loaded with Tobacco friendly Ministers - the expectation is that when the government is voted out (no government lasts forever) the age based approach will be bought back in.
- InvertedRhodium 6mo ago
  We’d just end up in the same situation as Australia - where up to one third of all cigarettes consumed are purchased on the black market.
  - maerF0x0 6mo ago
    if this source is to be trusted it's now half https://wrdnews.org/illicit-tobacco-in-australia-half-of-all-cigarettes-now-black-market/ https://wrdnews.org/illicit-tobacco-in-australia-half-of-all... (I did not vet anything, I just googled your words because I wanted to know more)
    - grebc 6mo ago
      It’s likely a lot more than half.
- bluGill 6mo ago
  Smoking is out of favor and has been for years. Every year that goes by there are less smokers. Eventually there will be so few that the tax revenues don't matter anymore. I can't guess when that is coming though.
denkmoon 6mo ago
Can we please not keep trying to redo prohibition. Yes it costs public health. No you can’t stop adults imbibing the drugs they want, the only thing you can do is criminalise it which makes criminals of sick people. Great work.
smelendez 6mo ago
US has gone to a minimum age of 21. I actually think that’s enough, along with raising the price and reducing the number of places people can smoke. People generally start smoking by their teens or not at all. Making it hard for kids to get exposed to nicotine will stop a lot of addiction. Also way fewer parents have cigarettes in the house so it’s harder for kids to grab them at home. And there are pretty strong taboos nowadays about giving random kids stuff they’re not supposed to have.
squigz 6mo ago
Would you support the same ban for alcohol?
- suprjami 6mo ago
  I would but the rest of Australia wouldn't. This country has an unhealthy drinking problem.
merek 6mo ago
> can't buy smokes at all ever They can, they will be available on the black market along with every other widely used illicit recreational drug. Banning tobacco won't make the problem disappear, people want their poison, including sensible rational people who accept the risks and use in moderation. Banning tobacco will push it underground, giving criminals a new revenue stream which can fund more harmful activities. Not only will the govt lose out on tobacco tax, they may have to ramp up law enforcement expense to crack down on the now illicit tobacco trade and ever more empowered criminals. Users of the black market products will have no guarantee of quality assurance, products may contain additional harmful additives. There's an optimal level of tax and regulation to keep distribution out of criminal control, educate the general public, and offer support to the serious victims, all the while collecting tax to fund these activities. This is precisely what many countries are already doing to varying degrees. And the same argument can be made for many vices, including gambling and alcohol.