A tobacco ban in Tasmania (Australia) has passed a little while ago and now there's a potential look in for a similar ban across all of Australia.(http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/world-affairs/2012/08/tobacco-ban-people-born-after-year-2000-passes-tasmanian-upper-house)
The ban still allows people to smoke but anyone born after January 1, 2000 will never be allowed to buy tobacco products over the counter, regardless of how old they are. Meaning even after they turn 18, 30, 50, etc, they will still be denied the purchase from anywhere that sells tobacco due to their date of birth.
I guess it's a smart move as it doesn't piss off the smokers of this generation, and the oldest person currently affected by this new rule would be 14, and I can assume most parents (even if they themselves smoke a lot) wouldn't want their kids to take up the habit. I understand that kids these days will still smoke if they want to as they're likely to have friends born before 2000 to buy it for them, but it means that in the years coming the youngest age eligible to buy cigarettes will go up and up, until the point nobody can buy them at all.
It has been rumoured that a similar approach will be taken across other countries in an attempt to ban tobacco in the future.
Thoughts? Any angry smokers out there? Any smokers out there that approve of the decision?
I honestly wouldn't care if people decided to smoke if they could be responsible about it and not hurt others. But they can't. Cigarette butts are the #1 most littered item in the world. Those littered cigarette butts do not decompose and kill wildlife/children along with leaking hazardous chemicals and poisoning the environment. Second hand smoke is damaging to health, can lead to asthma in kids, damages the value of houses, and smells like crap. At this point it isn't just one person's habit.
That's smart, as OP mentioned, it wouldn't affect those who already smoke, and will rant against the law. It's brilliant planning for the future, and I hope that it'll work out eventually. Glad to see it might be considered by my country.
They are going to need one hell of a foolproof way to manage this ban successfully. Banning something without the enforcement would let the black market and self producers have the ability to bypass the law and make much money, which is like forbidden narcotics trade.
I still have trouble believing that something that smells so bad can become so addictive.
Believe me, it is very addicting. Smoking once has a negligible effect on your nerve system ( in a way that it does not cause addiction). once you smoke twice however, you will be caught in a spiral of using more and more of the substance. failing to commit yourself to smoking after passing the second time, would cause anxiety, a loss of concentration, and cause you to be moody, an effect i saw at my father who is a heavy smoker. It is very addicting, so much that i fail to understand the logic as to why should we not classify cigarettes as narcotics
I think its a brilliant idea. I wish something like this had been in place when I was younger so I would have likely not started smoking. I have had many addictions in my life and smoking has been the hardest to deal with. It is expensive, its horrible for my health, and despite numerous efforts and approaches to quitting, I still can't walk away from cigarettes.
Not really. You don't become addicted from the first puff or stick. You'd need to really take quite a few sticks at the beginning, or coax yourself into continuing the habit at the beginning. Then it kicks in.
The only question I have is has prohibition ever worked? Isn't this just running the risk of illegal trafficking down the road for the next generation once the current generation that are allowed die off?
Since Tasmanians are going to have a harder time getting throat cancer now, they will have to just get in touch with themselves or go chase kangaroos around or sometime like that. Seriously, who gives two dingo turds about what gets banned in Tasmania? The wildlife there is better known than the human populous.
It is a nerve toxin. Though reasonable use of it has practically no consequences.
Since Tasmanians are going to have a harder time getting throat cancer now, they will have to just get in touch with themselves or go chase kangaroos around or sometime like that. Seriously, who gives two dingo turds about what gets banned in Tasmania? The wildlife there is better known than the human populous.
Aside of being rather racist in your first sentence, you are failing to see that if this law proves to be effective, this could serve as a good example for other countries as well.
This is ridiculous. I mean, this is violation of rights. And why ban tobacco? Ban alcohol, that's a much larger problem than cigarettes.
Alcohol are digestible by the body, due to a chemical reaction taking place on the liver. smoking, containing tar and nicotine, is not digestible by the body, so it will just built up over and over again until your body can't take it anymore. However, i do know that alcohol can be extremely poisonous in large amounts, some ( like wood alcohol ) are even lethal because of the breakdown of the substance that creates formic acid, which can cause death or blindness.
Human races don't exist at all. You were just making a lowly 'joke' about a certain group of people.
And anyway this is just obstructing discussion about the tobacco ban. It should be completely irrelevant what country decided this legislation, unless there are social aspects to take into account; which I think is not the case here. This ban is an interesting approach to a long-known problem, so I actually do give a **** about this.
