Tobacco Laws

[beso]

I understand the UK government is very interested in the leglislation just passed in Australia that will see all tobacco sold in plain brown packs with pictures of smoking related illnesses as the only decoration.

That world first change got through despite a very expensive legal battle by the tobacco companies.

The Upper House of the State of Tasmania is now working on a bill that will make the sale of tobacco illegal to anyone born after 2000.

Is this a sensible strategy or going too far?

[jomifl]

What wonderful idea, of course there will be some people who will need to smoke in order to get relief from a prevailng medical condition.:-)

[dotty.]

the packs are changing here too wsoon, they will be plain white in most cases with similar adverts related to the ilnesses, which are already on packs now, selling CIGS to under 18s is already illegal, didn;t realise tasmania had no restrictions on age

[douglas9401]

They do seem to have the bit between their teeth on this issue down under. Good for public health in the long run I'm sure but how easy would an eventual law be to enforce and how much police and customs time and effort will be needed to counter the inevitable black market operations?

[coccinelle]

The law of 2000 isn't just for now but for ever so even in 2020 anybody born after 2000 can't buy cigarettes. The idea is to stop anyone from starting and so in 50 years time there'll be no smokers....

[LazyGun]

I was a smoker, for most of my adult life, and gave up probably around 5 years ago now. The damage that smoking can do is nowadays well documented and well understood, and this and the psychological issues surrounding the addictive nature of smoking are probably the only reasons it remains tolerated as a legal drug are down to tradition and probably money.

Most governments have taken the pragmatic view of attempting to instigate cultural change, making smoking socially unacceptable, whilst at the same time ramping up the duty on each pack. That system is working -in the UK for instance, it now seems ancient history when smoking was common in pubs and restaurants. It has become socially unacceptable in a very short space of time. and overall, the proportion of adults smoking has had a decreasing trend with a notable acceleration in that downward trend since the ban on smoking in pubs etc was introduced.

So bringing in legislation crafted to take effect some years down the line, as with Tasmania is no bad thing, and should probably work, because of social compliance if nothing else.

[wildwood]

It will put tobacco products in the same league as drugs. Another business opportunity for the gangs to get the addict's money and so encourage them to rob and burgle.

I really don't know how to fix the smoking problem but making it illegal will make it more attractive to the youths.

[LazyGun]

@Wildwood - That can be managed. What is the alternative - to do nothing? Except the status quo?

Recent history and the decline in the absolute numbers of adult smokers should tell you that information campaigns, coupled with measures to make smoking expensive by increasing duty, and probably most importantly changing social and cultural opinions make a huge difference. If, socially and culturally, you know that smoking is uncool and likely to make you a social pariah, then the incentive to smoke is all but removed.

[coccinelle]

Well, Tasmania is a bit of an exception; it did manage to wipe out all the aborigines then all the tasmanian tigers so they might just gun smokers down in a few years time!!! A joke; I've got family in Tasmania and it's a lovely state.

[jno]

I'm not sure how it can be managed, LazyGun. How's the policing of cannabis going? How did Prohibition go?

[B00]

All tobacco products are in plain packaging. OK, they're in their advertising colours still, but they are plain and only have the company name on the front.

I fail to see how changing them all to a plain brown will make a difference?

[daffy654]

It won't make much difference as far as I can work out. Over here we have had the pictures of cancerous throats etc. on the packs for a few years, they have also made some retailers hide the packs in a locked cabinet. The cigarette counter is no less busy in the shops round here.

[LazyGun]

@jno - I think you are missing the point I am making. I am not an advocate of prohibition at all. What I am an advocate of is social engineering - the gradual phasing out of smoking as an attractive social proposition. This, coupled with price control measures and medical information campaigns have had a huge impact upon smoking, at least as measured by the number of adult smokers in the UK.

All of those who instinctively disapprove of such measures can offer nothing as an alternative except to plead for the status quo to be maintained.Species, cultures, societies change and evolve over time - this issue is no different, but needs positive and progressive legislation and campaigning because of the tremendous long term health consequences to individuals and societies that smoking represents.



Tasmanias proposal to make it illegal to sell to those people born after 2000 can be viewed as a logical extension of the current age restrictions that most countries have. Its a forward looking proposition, one that does not affect those it is designed for much for at least another 4 years or so, and such measures, coupled with increased social disapproval will have a significant impact.

[McMouse]

Seems Australia is going in the right direction. Where I live the ban on smoking in coffee shops etc has moved all the smokers outside to the pavement tables and chairs. As a non smoker with respiratory issues I find it impossible to walk past some of these places without going into spasms of coughing. The same is true of many pub gardens.

[EvianBaby]

So they are essentially going to make smoking illegal in Tasmania?

How would that effect the revenue once all the current smokers have died off?

[LazyGun]

@Evian - Slightly strange argument, if I might make that observation. Are you saying that governments, societies should do nothing to curb or control socially dangerous behaviours simply because of a fear of a decline in revenue? That seems a rather cold analysis...

And anyway, what revenue? Most of the revenue raised by the duty on smoking products is swallowed up in covering the costs to society of both the direct and indirect costs of managing the health problems of smokers, and those non smokers affected by passive smoking.

But this is not simply an economic argument - it has a moral dimension too - Governments have a societal obligation to act where actions dangerous to society are happening. That, in a large part, is what Governance is all about.

[LazyGun]

@ Daffy
"It won't make much difference as far as I can work out. Over here we have had the pictures of cancerous throats etc. on the packs for a few years, they have also made some retailers hide the packs in a locked cabinet. The cigarette counter is no less busy in the shops round here."

You do not say where you live Daffy, and I can only speak for measures within the UK - but the various policies to encourage smoking cessation with a view to ending the practice of smoking as a socially acceptable practice are working. Whilst you personally might not see much anecdotal evidence, the statistics show the overall picture. After the war, around 2 in every 3 males routinely smoked, as did 1 in every 2 adult females. That has declined markedly so that now it is approximately 1 in 5 adult males and 1 in 5 adult females.

http://www.cancerrese...nd-smoking-statistics

And this decline has been achieved by medical information campaigns, making smoking more expensive, controlling the accessibility and advertising of smoking related products, introducing bans on smoking in the workplace and enclosed public environments, and helping to change societies view of smoking from a general acceptance to a general disapproval. Social engineering.

[EvianBaby]

Who said I was making any argument? I was just asking a question.

[jno]

sorry, I misread your post, LazyGun. But that leaves Wildwood's point unanswered: how is this not going to turn nicotine into an illegal drug and boost the international drugs trade?

The thing about Prohibition was that it already had a groundswell of public opinion behind it, and had done so since Victorian times. Social engineering had done its bit. But it still didn't work because there was a huge amount of public opnion the other way too: at least as many people wanted to drink as didn't.

[LazyGun]

Evian - apologies but it read to me like an argument rather than a question ;) Regardless, I do not think any economic argument in favour of keeping things as they are works, and one cannot have the economic argument in the absence of the moral obligations.

@jno - Once again - I am not advocating prohibition. Illegal drug dealers only make money when there is a demand. Whilst you have a programme where the product in question is legal but controlled, and with a great deal of social control over where and when you can take your particular narcotic, then the attraction of using that drug declines.

Once upon a time, in the UK, adult smokers were the vast majority, were seen as the norm. All these control measures have changed the view from cultural acceptance to cultural disapproval.

Obviously there is going to be smuggling etc of tobacco - it happens now - but I still find that situation preferable to one where we just do nothing to implement progressive measures to discourage such behaviours.....

[ronnietoon]

counterfeiters wet dream