Australian Court ruling seems rather odd...

[dales]

The smoking lamp is lit, joe.

[Joe Guy]

Don't Bogart that joint, my friend.

[Scooter]

The assumption you are making is that if government made tobacco illegal, it would prevent people from smoking

I would not make such a stupid assumption.

Then this statement:

If there was no net gain to our government from tobacco sales and smoking is as unhealthy as they say it is, the sale of tobacco wouldn't be allowed.

makes no sense. What purpose would be served by not allowing the sale of tobacco in the circumstances you describe, if it was not intended to decrease the amount of smoking?

[rubato]

My point is that the government is obviously benefiting from tobacco sales and masking its appreciation of the large amount revenue it receives as a concern about our health.

If the government was really concerned about the health of cigarette smokers, cigarette sales would be made illegal. The truth is, 'Big Tobacco' is good for our economy.

Calif has cut smoking rates from 26% in 1984 to about 13% now by an effective anti-smoking campaign.

That is postive proof that the Calif government has been sincerely getting people to quit and not begin smoking.

yrs,
rubato

[Sue U]

I have no doubt that if cigarettes were introduced as a new product today, they would be banned or made virtually inaccessible by regulation. However, after more than 400 years of tobacco use and 100 years of mass-market cigarette production, entrenched social and economic structures make eradication difficult at best. It may take several more generations before tobacco, and cigarettes in particular, become so socially unacceptable that they effectively disappear.

[dgs49]

This may be unknowable, but I wonder what percentage of the reduction in the percentage of smokers in the overall population would be attributable to:

The cost of cigarettes growing to previously-unimaginable levels,

People becoming more aware of the long-term health effects through mass media, as well as personal experience,

Smokers themselves discouraging young people from starting,

Social stigma, or

Government anti-smoking campaigns (warnings on packs, advertising, etc).

My guess would be that the last factor is probably the LEAST influential. Indeed, among young people - who typically consider themselves impervious to any sickness or disease - government propaganda may have the effect of encouraging kids to try it.

[Joe Guy]

The assumption you are making is that if government made tobacco illegal, it would prevent people from smoking

I would not make such a stupid assumption.

Then this statement:

If there was no net gain to our government from tobacco sales and smoking is as unhealthy as they say it is, the sale of tobacco wouldn't be allowed.

makes no sense. What purpose would be served by not allowing the sale of tobacco in the circumstances you describe, if it was not intended to decrease the amount of smoking?

I thought I was clear in saying that it's about the money. In the U.S. our government benefits from sales taxes on tobacco. If tobacco were made illegal, it would be sold in the black market and create another crime and we'd probably need to use other tax money to build more prisons.

Legalizing marijuana would also bring in a lot of revenue to the government. Of course, the government would have to force the advertisers to tell everyone to smoke responsibly and many politicians would complain about how evil and unhealthy it is - all the way to the bank.

[Scooter]

You said it would be stupid to assume that making tobacco illegal would reduce usage (on this we agree).

Then you said that, if government was not making money from it, and because it is unhealthy, they would make it illegal.

This:

If tobacco were made illegal, it would be sold in the black market and create another crime and we'd probably need to use other tax money to build more prisons.

is an argument against making it illegal, even if government was making no money from it.

What I am asking is what rationale would there be for making it illegal, since you have just said that it would not reduce usage. There are lots of things that government doesn't make money from, it hasn't caused them to be made illegal.

[rubato]

States which have had vigorous well-funded anti-smoking campaigns (california has done the best) have seen a large drop.

States with no anti-smoking campaigns saw little or no decline. Ky with no anti-smoking campaign during that period had zero decline by 2003 although it has dropped from 30% to about 26% since then. I don't know if they started an anti-smoking campaign then or not.

yrs,
rubato

[Grim Reaper]

Now Tasmania is trying to go a step farther, they want to ban anyone born after 2000 from smoking at all.

[Gob]

Prohibition never works.

[Andrew D]

Not everyone's market share can go up. Assuming there is no attempt being made to affect overal consumption, there will be winners and losers from any branding strategy. And yet not even the losers are willing to get behind these restrictions, even though it will supposedly be in their economic interest. Are they just plain stupid, or do they recognize that there will be an impact on consumption?

Neither. The losers in the current competition of branding strategies simply recognize that the new restrictions prevent them from competing for greater market share. In a normal market, the losers in the current competition of branding strategies change their branding strategies in order, they hope, to gain market share. The new restrictions make that impossible, so those whose ability to compete for market share is compromised object to those new restrictions.

[dgs49]

I don't know if this was directly addressed above, but it seems to me that the producers are not completely without options.

What if they would start selling some sort of "very cool" re-usable cigarette containers that had distinctive, product oriented artwork. Users would be encouraged to take their cigs out of the ugly, government-required packages and put them into these cool packs, which would be sold at a very attractive price.

Could this fly under the new regulations?

[Gob]

That point has been raised.

I don't think the ciggy manufacturers woudl be able to get away with it. But, as has been said, third party manufacturers could make a killing.

[Grim Reaper]

Prohibition never works.

Especially when it's a half-assed version that still allows the product to be purchased legally.

[rubato]

Prohibition never works.

Especially when it's a half-assed version that still allows the product to be purchased legally.

The current versions are very effective in reducing smoking.

We just show people that they are hopeless dupes of liars who are trying to kill them and stupid morons if they smoke, and they quit.

Amazing.

Like a charm.

Some people are too stupid to 'get' a simple message like that but a lot of them die of emphysema, head and neck cancers, lung disease, heart attacks, strokes and so the demographics are all our way!!!


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

And some smokers live well, and comfortably, into their 90s or even older--go figure.

[oldr_n_wsr]

My doctor, knowing of my alcoholism, told me to continue smoking for a year or two after my quit drinking date.

[Gob]

That makes sense, the stress of trying to quit two addictions at once would be horrible.