> Who's business is it if they smoke?
From the article: >About 17 per cent of Australians smoke, and a ban would cost the government about $6 billion a year in lost revenue. This would be offset by health savings, as the annual smoking-related medical burden tops $31 billion.
It would save them a net $25bil in medical costs. It isn't fair that a non-smoker suffers because of a smokers choices, that is unjust.
> They will just buy it illegally.
Some will, and if caught in possession they can be fined to pay for the medical costs of the people that end up going to the hospital anyway. $100 fine for a pack of cigarettes, perhaps advised to see a doctor about quitting.
>Link > > > Who's business is it if they smoke? > From the article: > > About 17 per cent of Australians smoke, and a ban would cost the government about $6 billion a year in lost revenue. This would be offset by health savings, as the annual smoking-related medical burden tops $31 billion. > > It would save them a net $25bil in medical costs. It isn't fair that a non-smoker suffers because of a smokers choices, that is unjust.
Source?
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^][v]#107,934
Cool way to create a huge black market and a large crime problem.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^][v]#107,937
It would never happen. Or at least, not all at once like that.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#107,947
@previous (E)
It's already highly regulated, and taxed.
Third, and already under way is a new regulation making all cigarettes identical, with no branding but the company name, and a graphic warning about smoking. They can't show cigs publicly in stores, they have to keep it behind the counter (otherwise it's advertising.
All this ban would do is make it necessary to get a licence at first, limiting the number you can buy.
So you're correct, it won't happen all at once, it's being banned slowly, and they already have most of the work done. this is just another step in banning cigs.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#107,949
@previous (A)
I assume it's already banned in restaurants? clubs?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#107,952
@107,934 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
This. If this happens, cigs are going to become just like all the other illegal drugs that make criminals millions. All this is going to do is take money away from legitimate businesses and put it into the hands of criminals.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#107,957
@107,934 (Ks !KansasxqvM) @previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
These. The same with anything else, like drugs or prostitution.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#107,959
@107,952 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx) @previous (G)
It will also burden taxpayers with the costs related to convicting people and housing them in jail. Things aren't as simple as they seem, and that shit could add to many, many billions.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#107,960
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
What do you think about age limits? What about harder drugs?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#107,963
> These. The same with anything else, like drugs > implying tobacco isn't a drug
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#107,964
@previous (A) > Implying I want to play semantics
You know what I mean; cannabis, LSD, etc.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#107,967
@107,960 (E)
All drugs should be decriminalized. Hard drugs should not be legal though, because it will mean more users.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#107,968
@previous (A) > Hard drugs should not be legal though, because it will mean more users.
So you do think prohibition works.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#107,969
@previous (E)
Depends on what you mean by "prohibition" and "works"
Criminalizing drug possession does not work, no matter the drug. It causes too many problems.
Prohibiting the sale of hard drugs, and guiding users to treatment is best.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#107,984
@107,960 (E)
Age limits are a good thing. A few harder drugs should be decriminalized or even legalized, there are a lot of factors and drugs to consider. The drug war isn't working, it never has and it never will, it does WAY more harm than good.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#107,991
> A few harder drugs should be decriminalized or even legalized
Only a few should be decriminalized? What drugs do you think should still carry a penalty?
Addiction is a disease, drugs are banned because of health problems. We don't arrest people with cancer, or jail people with diabetes, we treat it.
Criminalizing drugs hurts users more than the drugs themeselves. they try coke once or twice, and then get a felony conviction and their life is ruined. It means spending time in prison, losing loved ones, having a hard time finding a good job when they get out, lots of legal fees, etc.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#107,992
"Stop liking what I don't like!" - Australia
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#107,993
@previous (G)
You're a moron. No one gives a shit if someone smokes, as long as it isn't around them, and they don't have to pay for it.
If someone wants to kill their lungs, they can go right ahead, it's when they want other citizens to foot the medical bill that it becomes a problem.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#107,994
@previous (A)
The Australian government have a track record on banning anything they don't like or disagree with.
(Edited 8 seconds later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 27 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#107,995
> > A few harder drugs should be decriminalized or even legalized > Only a few should be decriminalized? What drugs do you think should still carry a penalty?
Heroin and maybe a few other super addictive drugs, psychotic shit like PCP etc. Theres a lot of drugs out there, research and facts would have to be gathered and considered.
> Addiction is a disease, drugs are banned because of health problems. We don't arrest people with cancer, or jail people with diabetes, we treat it.
Can't get addicted if you never try it. ;)
> Criminalizing drugs hurts users more than the drugs themeselves. they try coke once or twice, and then get a felony conviction and their life is ruined. It means spending time in prison, losing loved ones, having a hard time finding a good job when they get out, lots of legal fees, etc.
A life long addiction is pretty fucking harmful to the user, people around them and society in general. You can't slap a 'bad drug' label on every drug though. Only a few should be truly illegal. I'm not sure coke should be legal, but I'm not informed on the hard statistics of addiction rates etc.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#107,997
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Contrary to popular belief, heroin isn't any more addictive than most prescription opiates
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#107,998
> Heroin and maybe a few other super addictive drugs, psychotic shit like PCP etc. Theres a lot of drugs out there, research and facts would have to be gathered and considered.
What good will criminalizing them do? > Can't get addicted if you never try it. ;)
That is not what we are discussing, I am talking about what is done to people caught using it.. If a heroin user is caught, how will criminalizing help? > A life long addiction is pretty fucking harmful to the user, people around them and society in general.
Yes. How will criminalizing help? > You can't slap a 'bad drug' label on every drug though. Only a few should be truly illegal. I'm not sure coke should be legal, but I'm not informed on the hard statistics of addiction rates etc.
I agree, some should be prohibited. But I disagree that any should be criminalized.
You still haven't answered my question: Why should they be criminalized?
You said they are dangerous, I agree. You've said you can't become addicted if you don't try them, I agree. However those are other issues. The question, again: Why should the be criminalized?
t.o.4.s.t.r !o17EOYwz.g joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,000
Fucking incompetent retards.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,026
@previous (t.o.4.s.t.r !o17EOYwz.g) > in·com·pe·tent/inˈkämpətənt/ > Not having the necessary skills to do something successfully.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 32 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,027
@107,998 (A) > Why should they be criminalized?
To keep them from being widely available, and easy to obtain. Pretty simple.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,036
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
It's common knowledge. Injecting is basically the most instant way of taking it and has the most extreme rush. No one injects pills because the binders destroy your veins... so no one injects prescription opiates. Heroin is injected because 100% of the supply is through illegal channels and none of it is in pill form. If it were used medicinally, which it very well could, it would be most available via pills... use your head.
(Edited 33 seconds later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,048
@previous (E)
Nah, I get the comparison. Opiates gonna opiate, but it would make sense for the purest and quickest high to be the most addictive.
> Contrary to popular belief, heroin isn't any more addictive than most prescription opiates
I just don't think that's true.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,053
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Fentanyl is well over a hundred times more potent dose-by-dose than heroin.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,057
@previous (E)
Fentanyl is approximately 100 times more potent than morphine, not heroin. That amount of opiates would kill you unless taken in EXTREMELY small doses. Not to mention thats one example, and a strawman.
> > Why should they be criminalized? > To keep them from being widely available, and easy to obtain. Pretty simple.
Prohibition stops them from being widely available. Criminalization is how it's treated after they have been caught with them.
Criminalizing or decriminalizing drug possession is how you respond to drug use after the fact.
What good does it do someone who has already used the hard drug to make it worse for them?
You are defending prohibition over and over (which isn't what I asked), you still haven't said why you support criminalizing any drugs.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,098
@108,068 (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
Australia already has:
- High tobacco taxes
- Strong anti-advertising regulation. It can't even be displayed publically in a store, you have to ask for what you want.
- They recently made it so that all cig packs have to look the same.
Enforcing a licence is just another step. It will be done. And then they will make the licences more strict, and more expensive.
sexual aerosol !!mtq555+/1 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,101
why not just tax cigarettes? id imagine thats a pretty heavy part of the economy, unless their economy is stable as it is and they can afford to take a loss
edit: oh wait i read the article
(Edited 8 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,127
> why not just tax cigarettes?
Taxing cigarettes brings in $6 billion, while the cost to the taxpayers for tobacco-related diseases is #31 billion.
Taxing does not work, and so this is the next step.
> id imagine thats a pretty heavy part of the economy, unless their economy is stable as it is and they can afford to take a loss
They spend a very large amount of time, money, and resources on something that just gets burned. Then they spend even more money treating the problems is causes.
So no, it would be better for the economy if people did not waste so much money.
sexual aerosol !!mtq555+/1 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,136
> Can you post a new link? The one you posted now links to a different article. Link > Anyway, it sounds like Australia is trying to become worse than China in terms of government control and censorship.
Right now non-smokers are paying the bills of smokers. If they didn't have universal healthcare, who gives a fuck? Let them smoke their lungs dry. But as it is, smoking is costing taxpayers a lot more than it's making them.
Also, nothing to do with censorship.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,327
@previous (A)
I know this has nothing to do with censorship, but this on top of all the censorship and control issues Australia has is destroying any freedom anyone has over there.
Edit: Actually, it does have to do with censorship, because no where in the article does it say that Australia is banning/outlawing cigarettes. It's says they're making them get rid of all branding and that all cigarettes have to be hidden, as they consider it a type of advertising. So censoring the tobacco companies is exactly what they're doing.
As for the issue of tax payers having to foot the healthcare bills of smokers, why don't they just say that issues related to smoking aren't covered? Maybe that should also ban motorcycles, in case a tax payer has to cover injuries related to a motorcycle accident. And let's ban fast food or anything unhealthy on top of that, and make it so that you're only allowed to eat food on a government approved list to make sure that tax payers never have to cover anything related to an unhealthy lifestyle. Let's put mandatory exercise laws in place because tax payers shouldn't have to pay for anyone with an unhealthy lifestyle. This is the problem with universal healthcare. You either accept that your tax dollars are going to pay for someone else's medical problems, or you let the government control your life more and more since anything you do that affects your health has a negative externality on tax payers.
Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. If you give up the responsibility to cover your own healthcare costs because you don't want to pay for it, you give up the freedom to do what you want with your body, because you have made your life the responsibility of the government. First it's extreme things like cigarettes, but it's a slippery slope. Once you give up that responsibility, you're basically handing the rights to your body over to whoever is footing the bill for your body. Fast food might not be illegal now, but you no longer have an unalienable right to put what you want in your body, because they can always use the "well it's not fair for tax payers to take responsibility for your choices" argument. You can try to ignore this principle and pretend that people have a right to "free" healthcare and they have a right to do whatever they want with their bodies, but then you create a moral hazard where anyone can live however they want and have someone else pay for the consequences, hence the $31 billion in taxes because of tobacco related diseases.
For the record, I'm not completely against the government getting involved with healthcare, regulating it, and spending tax dollars to help people who really need it, but you can see how completely universal healthcare like they have in Australia creates controversy.
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
[^_^] joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,332
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I genuinely read and agree with this statement.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,334
@previous ([^_^])
It would be like 1984, where they have to turn on their little TVs and do the exercises they're told to do to stay in shape. And sex isn't allowed either, because it can spread diseases that government healthcare would have to cover. You're not allowed to procreate without consent from the government, because they'd have to cover the costs of maternity, and cover the costs of your child's health, etc. We'll all eat in government cafeterias so they can control what we put in our bodies. Alcohol with be strictly forbidden. Yep, Australia sure knows how to get the ball rolling on a 1984-esque distopia. Let's follow their example.
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,335
I'd prefer to live in an area where fast food, and cigs are banned, and pot and psychs are legal.
I'd support other people if they wanted to live in an area where fast food was legal, cigs were taxless, and pot was illegal.
To each there own. I don't think non-smokers should be paying for smokers habits tho.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,336
@previous (A)
How about instead of saying you support the right of people to choose the reigns that bind them, you support the right of people to be free and responsible? How about instead of banning fast food and tobacco, you just choose not to eat fast food or smoke tobacco? Instead of someone else trying to tell you you can't smoke pot, they just don't smoke pot and leave you alone? Instead of figuring out which health conditions should be covered by the government, and which ones you don't want to foot the bill for, and dividing people up by region according to how they want to live, everyone has the right to live whatever lifestyle they want, and everyone takes responsibility for the choices they make in life?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,345
> How about instead of saying you support the right of people to choose the reigns that bind them, you support the right of people to be free and responsible?
Because people aren't responsible. That's fine when they hurt themselves, but many people injure others with their irresponsibility. Smoking is a small example, but many people abuse alcohol and end up killing innocents on the road.
If I live in a city that effectively bans alcohol, for example, I can feel a little safer on the road. By banning cigs, the (socialized) health care I pay into will spend my money on people that are hurt (more likely) for reasons outside their control. > How about instead of banning fast food and tobacco, you just choose not to eat fast food or smoke tobacco?
I don't want to pay for people that hurt themselves. I'd be cool if it was legal, but the health care didn't cover it. > Instead of someone else trying to tell you you can't smoke pot, they just don't smoke pot and leave you alone?
Sure, but if an area had a large number of people concerned about it, legitimate or not, I would respect them in their area. > Instead of figuring out which health conditions should be covered by the government, and which ones you don't want to foot the bill for, and dividing people up by region according to how they want to live, everyone has the right to live whatever lifestyle they want, and everyone takes responsibility for the choices they make in life?
Investing in people pays off. Giving those with fewer opportunities a government-sponsored educational grant (that they might repay in part or full) means a better life for them, a more competitive economy, and and more tax revenue.
Universal health care means helping people make better decisions, treating issues before they become a problem. This is an investment into people, and it pays off for everyone.
Investing in people, and guiding them, pays off if done right. Why have public schools? Why not just let parents take responsibility for the kids and pick a private school (paid for by tax breaks from no public school). Why have labor laws?
Again, investment is a good thing.
Let libertarians have their havens where anyone can do anything, and let them see if it works. The best cities will influence others. It's a mesh of political/governmental system competing. Each has more of a chance to test it's ideas. Communes, libertarian havens, liberal cities, theocratic states.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,348
@previous (A) > Because people aren't responsible. That's fine when they hurt themselves, but many people injure others with their irresponsibility. Smoking is a small example, but many people abuse alcohol and end up killing innocents on the road.
Well then laws should, and are, made to keep those things under control. I never said I had a problem with banning drunk driving or taking measures to protect people from second-hand smoke. I just don't believe in taking it to the extreme of saying that all medical conditions should be covered and smoking should be banned to make up for it.
> I don't want to pay for people that hurt themselves. I'd be cool if it was legal, but the health care didn't cover it.
I agree with this statement, but the problem is it's a slippery slope. What if the government made you exercise and be healthy in order to reduce the costs of healthcare. Where do you draw the line?
> Investing in people pays off. Giving those with fewer opportunities a government-sponsored educational grant (that they might repay in part or full) means a better life for them, a more competitive economy, and and more tax revenue.
Universal health care means helping people make better decisions, treating issues before they become a problem. This is an investment into people, and it pays off for everyone.
I can agree with this too, but not taken to the extreme of all healthcare being 100% free and no one having any responsibility, because I mentioned before, if you give up all the responsibility then you give up all your freedom. If they government is 100% responsible for your body, you no longer have any right to your body. Preventative care, helping the elderly, getting timely treatements, etc, are all good things that usually have positive externalities at minimal cost to the tax payer and don't hurt anyone, while at the same time not creating the moral hazards we're talking about. I clearly stated that I'm not against the government having some role in healthcare. I stated that systems like the ones in Australia create the right/responsibility issues we're talking about.
> Investing in people, and guiding them, pays off if done right. Why have public schools? Why not just let parents take responsibility for the kids and pick a private school (paid for by tax breaks from no public school).
Many argue that that is a great idea, and a voucher system could be used to help lower-income families pay for better education. Basically, put the same amount of funding into education, but instead of giving that money directly to the schools, give it to parents and make schools compete for it. Suddenly even the lowest income families can afford to send their children to better schools instead of just taking what the state gives them.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,351
> Well then laws should, and are, made to keep those things under control. I never said I had a problem with banning drunk driving or taking measures to protect people from second-hand smoke. I just don't believe in taking it to the extreme of saying that all medical conditions should be covered and smoking should be banned to make up for it.
I can agree with that. > I agree with this statement, but the problem is it's a slippery slope. What if the government made you exercise and be healthy in order to reduce the costs of healthcare. Where do you draw the line? I don't believe any community would pass something like that. It's outrageous, and involves actively doing something. Telling people to stop something is one thing, telling them to do something is another. > I can agree with this too, but not taken to the extreme of all healthcare being 100% free and no one having any responsibility, because I mentioned before, if you give up all the responsibility then you give up all your freedom. If they government is 100% responsible for your body, you no longer have any right to your body. Preventative care, helping the elderly, getting timely treatements, etc, are all good things that usually have positive externalities at minimal cost to the tax payer and don't hurt anyone, while at the same time not creating the moral hazards we're talking about. I clearly stated that I'm not against the government having some role in healthcare. I stated that systems like the ones in Australia create the right/responsibility issues we're talking about.
Agreed. > > Many argue that that is a great idea, and a voucher system could be used to help lower-income families pay for better education. Basically, put the same amount of funding into education, but instead of giving that money directly to the schools, give it to parents and make schools compete for it. Suddenly even the lowest income families can afford to send their children to better schools instead of just taking what the state gives them.
I was really for the system when I first heard about it. But I bet this would mean a lot more kids in religious --indoctrination camps-- schools. In order to cash the vouchers you would have to be teaching the right subjects (math, science, biology, health, w/e), and religious studies would have to be paid for by someone else (school, parents) and not count as school time.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,381
Prohibition is a great idea!
Meowth joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#108,384