Seth I was also surprised by Tony Abbot's stance till I realized that the Liberal Party of Australia is the ONLY major Australian political party reliant on the tobacco industry for funding.

The government cannot afford for everyone to give up smoking - there is an enormous tax on cigarettes. It is a really cynical exercise on their part to supposedly try to discourage smoking. If they were serious they would ban smoking. Until they do ban them, it is a legal product, and the industry should be allowed to continue producing their product without these ridiculous trade restrictions. Perhaps there should be a push to create a harmless cigarette.



I believe that has been tried, but never took off. I am not a smoker, but I deplore the hypocrisy of the government, and I mean past and present governments. I'm sure someone on this forum would know where to find the actual tax received by the government from the sale of cigarettes.

Year ending June





Total excise revenue

from cigarettes, cigars,

smoking tobacco and

other tobacco products,

$m



2001





$4,637.48



2002





$4,840.58



2003





$5,212.26



2004





$5,240.00



2005





$5,293.00



2006





$5,290.00



Projected 2007





$5,370.00



Projected 2008





$5,390.00



Projected 2009





$5,410.00



Projected 2010





$5,420.00



Projected 2011





$5,430.00



Sorry the table did not copy over so here is the link.



This is in Millions so the bottom figure is $543,000,000



http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-13-taxation/13-6-revenue-from-tobacco-taxes-in-australia

Costs of tobacco,

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/smoking-costs-economy-31-billion/story-e6frfku0-1225789268251



My mum's smoking introduced me to it. I really liked the smell and the smoke and it was relaxing. Neither she nor I smoke now. Sadly, it took me longer to quit.



Post WW2 a strong tobacco advertising campaign through Hollywood films encouraged young women to believe that smoking was a sign of their empowerment, individuality and independence. That is how mum took it up (and she was a nurse who had lost loved ones as well which kept it going, ie stress). Similarly some sectors of the present day women's movement defend and even promote raunch behaviour by young women for the same reasons viz., empowerment, individuality and independence. One day researchers will look back and wonder why girls and young women boozed, took drugs, raunched and even took up tobacco again.



I do not believe in bans for all sorts of reasons but mainly because government should not be in the business of restricting freedom unless it is absolutely essential



Also, banning creates a profitable black market, and criminal behaviour blooms.



By removing the romance of tobacco, explaining the risks and most of all, by encouraging parents not top smoke in front of children, the use is minimised. Plain packs are a logical step to reduce the appeal.



I think that all quit in their own time. The important thing is to protect the young and vulnerable from tobacco advertising as much as is reasonably possible. A philosophy or ethics class in primary school would help Year 5 is not too early - teach them how to think.

How many products have we seen banned over the years by a zealous government intent on "protecting" the public. There have been pesticides, herbicides, food additives, preservatives etc, not to mention all the toys, appliances, gadgets etc.

There is clear and undeniable evidence that smoking tobacco causes numerous diseases, not the least of which is several deadly cancers. It is the height of hypocricy for the government to dissemble and "nibble at the edges" of the tobacco problem. Ban tobacco products and countless lives will be saved and countless health dollars as well.

At present, retailers are not permitted to display the product and I cant see how "plain packaging" will help reduce smoking......it will only cost manufacturers and prevent them from using this small area to promote their product. It is a complete waste of time.

If the government was "fair dinkum" they would simply ban tobacco, BUT as has been noted, they are way too reliant on the income.

With all the information available to young people today,they still seem to take up smoking, WHY? Are they feeling so worthless that they dont care about their bodies,Is it lack of self esteem?or is it a form of self harm? Our generation was taught to think that we would be more attractive if we smoked ,today maybe the message needs to be how ugly a young person looks when smoking, in other words instead of pushing the health warning only add the" Pew You stink and look ugly warnings", After all kids care more about their appearance than anything else.Wobbly.

Banning anything causes it to go underground and why should anyone be dictated to! after all they are making a heap on this product. We are becoming a nanny country.

Thank you redhead, very interesting. There is far too much money to be made out of cigarettes, both by the manufacturers and the government. There just doesn't seem to be an answer - people will smoke, come what may, and legal or not, there will always be someone there to supply them.

7,500 Australians die each year from lung cancer alone and lung cancer is arguably far from the unkindest death delivered by smoking.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/tobacco-claim-all-smoke-and-mirrors-20110520-1ewn2.html



Big tobacco is damned scared that Australia's plain packaging initiative will catch on elsewhere, evidence enough that it is a most worthwhile thing to do.



For those who don't understand why people continue to take up smoking, or cannot give up once started, this letter expresses the sentiments of many smokers I have known,

http://talesfromthequit.com/goodbye-letter-to-my-cigarettes



The dying Yul Brynner was right to say that whatever you do, don't take up smoking,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTTY2vTsGho



The ethics or otherwise of big tobacco (old advertisement featuring doctors),

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI&feature=related

Although plain packaging, after no advertising, is another step

towards getting rid of this insidious killer, I think more can be

done through factual description of how the smoke goes into

the lungs and from there,into the blood and then to all parts of

the body causing so much damage that may take years to manifest.



It may be legal, which came about through ignorance of it's

destructive content, I cannot see the sense in allowing such a

product to be allowed to maim and kill people, even if political

parties benefit from tobacco companies donations, "Bribery"

With all the information available to young people today,they still seem to take up smoking, WHY? Are they feeling so worthless that they dont care about their bodies,Is it lack of self esteem?or is it a form of self harm? Our generation was taught to think that we would be more attractive if we smoked ,today maybe the message [color=purple]needs to be how ugly a young person looks when smoking, in other words instead of pushing the health warning only add the" Pew You stink and look ugly warnings", After all kids care more about their appearance than anything else.Wobbly.[/color]

My sentiments exactly; this would be much more a deterrent than any health warnings.

I once told a pretty girl, who subjected me to passive smoking, you would look a lot prettier without the cigarette; and if looks could have killed, I would have been dead.

I also once asked a some fifty year old, how many cigarettes he smokes a day, mentioned 20-25, but he said, it was more than 40; then he asked me, how did I guess? I told him, I could smell it. It really shocked him.

The politicians are a bunch of hipocrytes and they know it. The smoking benefits the governments in two ways: first they collect huge taxes on cigarettes, and as many smokers die prematurely, they save a lot on pensions, particularly as the low income earners are more likely to smoke than the upper classes.

I,am I being too cynical?

I am sure the wrath of God will come down on me for asking a couple of silly

questions, but maybe some expert can advise me.

Smoking in Australia has been reduced by over 75% in the last 20 years.

Why has lung cancer increased by around 300% in the same time?

Most males in China smoke & the incidence of lung cancer is proportionately

lower. WHY?

There would appear to be a much better correlation between lung cancer &

motor cars on the road, but no mention of banning, reducing or over 60% tax.

BTW I used to chain smoke a pipe. I gave up 12 years ago.

Innes, I think you will find current patterns of lung cancer incidence (new cases) reflect smoking behaviour 20 years ago.

Smoking is the major cause of lung cancer.

[url=http://www.cancerwa.asn.au/resources/statistics/]Source[/url]

Before the 2ndww, smoking was made from a block of tobacco

and rolled in your hands or ready rolled tobacco.

packet cigarettes were a bit expensive, During the war

most smoked roll your own, you never heard so much about cancer.

It was mainly "Stunt your growth' 'slow you down playing sport, "breathless"

It seems as if when 'tailor made cigarettes became the main choice

[Which are full of chemicals} that all these diseases have come to light.



Someone mentioned that to have a license to smoke would not

be accepted in Australia.

Yet we a had similar concept after the war, You had to register

at a tobacconist to receive a certain allowance.