At this stage, why not make the whole damn enterprise illegal? I could understand some of the advertising restrictions years ago when you were worried about companies marketing towards children, but any country taxing cigarette use into non-existence reeks of opportunism; let's drive a distasteful and harmful habit to extinction, but in the process let's get our last thirty pieces.

If they're going to make them Foster's-flavored, all that other stuff is just overkill.

Pocket Ninja: If they're going to make them Foster's-flavored, all that other stuff is just overkill.

That's what I came in here to say.

/It's Australian for rat piss.

Let us know if you see a slight rise in smuggling..

UNC_Samurai: At this stage, why not make the whole damn enterprise illegal? I could understand some of the advertising restrictions years ago when you were worried about companies marketing towards children, but any country taxing cigarette use into non-existence reeks of opportunism; let's drive a distasteful and harmful habit to extinction, but in the process let's get our last thirty pieces.

Because they figured out that doesn't work. They are using the method for boiling a live frog, and proving that the slippery slope is not always a fallacy. By slowly ratcheting up the penalties for smoking, they can make more and more people quit. If they banned smoking overnight, people would grow tobacco in their back yards.

UNC_Samurai: At this stage, why not make the whole damn enterprise illegal? I could understand some of the advertising restrictions years ago when you were worried about companies marketing towards children, but any country taxing cigarette use into non-existence reeks of opportunism; let's drive a distasteful and harmful habit to extinction, but in the process let's get our last thirty pieces.

I agree, prohibition works perfectly on illegal drugs!

I predict that australia will see a 10000% increase in black market cigarettes and cigarette smugglers.

Exactly why is tobacco over-legislation any different to the "War on Drugs" or prohibition?

I suppose if the first two attempts failed horribly, then it must be guaranteed that the third will be a rousing success.

UNC_Samurai: At this stage, why not make the whole damn enterprise illegal? I could understand some of the advertising restrictions years ago when you were worried about companies marketing towards children, but any country taxing cigarette use into non-existence reeks of opportunism; let's drive a distasteful and harmful habit to extinction, but in the process let's get our last thirty pieces.

I agree. I smoke, and it's embarrassing and stinky and all that, but when they are farking EVERYWHERE you go, it's hard to quit. I've tried... I know, I have no willpower, I'm a weak stinky loser, but it's illegal to do it pretty much anywhere, including on a goddam PATIO in Calgary, but it's still legal to sell them. Get 'em out of my face. I am far too lazy (and afraid of criminals) to find black market cigs, so that would be that.

People are still going to buy them. For most smokers its the last thing to drop from the budget. What this will probably hurt more than the smokers are the immediate family of smokers.

Jesus. When did Aussies start electing people like this. You guys used to be tough.

I'm not a smoker.

Once you hamstring the users of a product this much you're admitting that you only keep the product within the realm of the law for revenue. Stop demonizing people and throwing them in the back of the bus for following the law, Dicks.

The tobacco falls out of the Outer Party Victory Cigarettes

Cue the Chinese fake cigarettes coming in by the pallet.

Fast food and softdrink companies are going going to suffer the worst.

picturescrazy: Fast food and softdrink companies are going going to suffer the worst.

We're talking about cigarettes, not pot. Sillyhead.

20 AUD is like, what, 3.00 USD? What's the big deal?

/I kid, I kid
//We have to get our money jokes in while we still can

Beer-flavored cigs? Niiiiiiiiiice. I'll have to start smoking.

Philip (sP?) Morris wins on this, they have something like 80% of the market share and now no one can advertise to compete against them.

The federal government in Canada once tried to discourage smoking by putting high taxes on tobacco products. All it did was create a black market in cigarettes. There are times when it's best just to let people do stupid things.

EggFool: I agree. I smoke, and it's embarrassing and stinky and all that, but when they are farking EVERYWHERE you go, it's hard to quit. I've tried... I know, I have no willpower, I'm a weak stinky loser, but it's illegal to do it pretty much anywhere, including on a goddam PATIO in Calgary, but it's still legal to sell them. Get 'em out of my face. I am far too lazy (and afraid of criminals) to find black market cigs, so that would be that.

THIS

Milos Hattrick: The federal government in Canada once tried to discourage smoking by putting high taxes on tobacco products. All it did was create a black market in cigarettes. There are times when it's best just to let people do stupid things.

THIS

The more artificially expensive you make a good, the higher the profit margins for smuggling and black markets. If you taxed dairy creamer at 400 percent people would be hiding it in their asses too.

Milos Hattrick: The federal government in Canada once tried to discourage smoking by putting high taxes on tobacco products. All it did was create a black market in cigarettes. There are times when it's best just to let people do stupid things.

Wait, so your saying that capitalism works and prohibition does not?

Interesting.

Pocket Ninja: If they're going to make them Foster's-flavored, all that other stuff is just overkill.
What's interesting is that Fosters outside Australia tastes quite different to Fosters inside Australia.

At least here in Switzerland, Fosters is quite drinkable. Nothing to rave about, but it's quite easy to knock back a few pints. Certainly better than most of the local favourites. :)

/Might even give it another go when I move back home

picturescrazy: Fast food and softdrink companies are going going to suffer the worst.

He's right, you can use the same rationale on fatty, salty, and sugary foods that you use for cigarrettes. So fast food may well be next.

That comes out to a little over $150 USD for a carton. Damn.

To The Escape Zeppelin!: dairy creamer at 400 percent people would be hiding it in their asses too.

wasn't that in a Japanese porno?

/I contribute nothing

TheDokta: Pocket Ninja: If they're going to make them Foster's-flavored, all that other stuff is just overkill.
What's interesting is that Fosters outside Australia tastes quite different to Fosters inside Australia.

At least here in Switzerland, Fosters is quite drinkable. Nothing to rave about, but it's quite easy to knock back a few pints. Certainly better than most of the local favourites. :)

/Might even give it another go when I move back home

Now wait just a minute here. Your next to the country (Germany) with the best beer anywhere (sorry limeys) and you drink fosters? Sacrilege. Turn in your man card.

The reason none of this works is because people are addicted to cigarettes. The desperate behavior exhibited by smokers can easily be paralleled in that of other junkies. It just happens that cigarettes are legal and many other drugs are not. People will do anything to get their fix.

/and yes, this does apply to many things that are not actual "addictions," to a milder degree

first they lock up and rape their daughters and now this ?

UNC_Samurai: At this stage, why not make the whole damn enterprise illegal? I could understand some of the advertising restrictions years ago when you were worried about companies marketing towards children, but any country taxing cigarette use into non-existence reeks of opportunism; let's drive a distasteful and harmful habit to extinction, but in the process let's get our last thirty pieces.

Making things illegal isn't always the answer. A lot of people are rightly keen to see marijuana legalised, but both weed and alcohol lead to more deaths in other people through the impaired use of vehicles. At least smoking is a vice that can't immediately lead to the deaths of others.

A better idea might be to ban smoking everywhere except outside your own home. As someone who's allergic to cigarette smoke (as in it stops me from breathing) there's nothing worse than some coontmouth lighting up at the pedestrian crossing in a crowd of people. But it needn't be illegal. It might seem perverse, but some members of society need a self-damaging outlet, lest they damage others.

This is just going to make children want it more.



/not that I'm complaining

Ah, the wonderful smell of a black market and a bit of proof that the government gets a better kickback from illegal sales than from taxes.

EggFool: UNC_Samurai: At this stage, why not make the whole damn enterprise illegal? I could understand some of the advertising restrictions years ago when you were worried about companies marketing towards children, but any country taxing cigarette use into non-existence reeks of opportunism; let's drive a distasteful and harmful habit to extinction, but in the process let's get our last thirty pieces.

I agree. I smoke, and it's embarrassing and stinky and all that, but when they are farking EVERYWHERE you go, it's hard to quit. I've tried... I know, I have no willpower, I'm a weak stinky loser, but it's illegal to do it pretty much anywhere, including on a goddam PATIO in Calgary, but it's still legal to sell them. Get 'em out of my face. I am far too lazy (and afraid of criminals) to find black market cigs, so that would be that.

A method that worked for me is to go where you CAN'T buy cigarettes. In my case, a week on a sailboat. In yours, being in Calgary, perhaps a camping trip.

turtleking: first they lock up and rape their daughters and now this ?

I'll take Austria for $100, Alex.

Australia to smokers: fark you, fark your life, fark everything you believe in, I farked your wife, I fu -- hey, you got a couple dollars I can borrow til next Thursday?

If you want people to stop smoking, then gird your loins and just make it illegal. You'd end up hoisting yourself on your own petard, but that's your problem. This thing where we've decided that smokers are the devil incarnate, but at the same time refuse to just make the habit illegal although constantly claiming there's absolutely nothing redeeming about it and no reason for it to exist... it's just sad.

I'm disappointed, but ultimately unsurprised. The world at large seems to be catching on to the fact that you can just attack smokers indefinitely and nobody will care. Then again, if people are going to keep paying, I guess you just have to shrug your shoulders and say that these noted street economists were right.

/non-smoker
//they'll come for unhealthy food eventually
///trying to make sure there's someone left when they come for my Five Guys

gave up: Let us know if you see a slight rise in smuggling..

Are you kidding? I'm already trying to figure a racket involving robotic crocodiles to smuggle cigs inland.

Only feasible now that Steve Irwin isn't going to try to find the cloaca on the robot.

Forget that nonsense and get right down to it.

Hire a few universities here and there around the world to start selective breeding to produce a near zero nicotine content variety of tobacco. Then hire a few others to find a way to remove nicotine from tobacco- If one can decaffeinate coffee, one can denicotinate tobacco. Once the two options are available, then start with phase 2...

Start mandating nicotine content maximums, to be reduced gradually to zero in say 5 to 7 years, and offer the nicotine reduced plants and de-nicotination process to the tobacco companies for free, so they can't biatch about the costs or the impossibility of the plan.

Have the FDA or the appropriate regulatory agency perform random testing of batches, seize and destroy any that test over the maximum for the given year.

From the cut off date onward, no industrially manufactured tobacco for human use can have anything but a trace of nicotine in it.

Smoke all you want after that, but I guarantee that aside from folks who choose to grow their own in the back yard, nobody will be smoking much of store bought stuff.


I feel if you go to the trouble to grow your own, you can smoke it. Tobacco, marijuana, coca, salvia, psilocybin, etc. I don't know if one should be allowed to sell it, but certainly if you bother to grow it for your own use, you can do what you like with it.

Why doesn't someone with balls in Australia just shout, "Who the Fark died and made you god you nanny do gooder wankers!"

I don't even smoke, in fact I hate it, but this sort of thing smacks so much of big brother.

/You OWN yourself, that means no one can tell you what to eat, drink, smoke, or who to fark as long as your over the age limit.

//shouldn't have given up your guns.

Oh and as an incentive, eliminate the taxes on zero nicotinoid cigarettes.

The maximum allowed would have 100% tax, reduce the amount of biologically active nicotinoids by a percentage, the taxes should be reduced accordingly (excepting sales tax).

Retort:
Making things illegal isn't always the answer. A lot of people are rightly keen to see marijuana legalised, but both weed and alcohol lead to more deaths in other people through the impaired use of vehicles. At least smoking is a vice that can't immediately lead to the deaths of others.



I'd like to see a source on that, specifically on deaths caused by impairment via marijuana.

Ikahoshi:

If you're going to do that you might as well just make it illegal. It would be a lot quicker, cheaper, and would accomplish the same thing.

What is the point of smoking without that sweet, sweet alkaloid?

My dairy creamer smells funny...

This is my proposal.
Sell them in thermally welded shut clamshell packaging.
They'll be more expensive than cell phones soon, anyways.

Wait till you see a guy jonesing through a nicotine fix trying to open one of these. HIL-AR-IOUS!!

ScottHimself: Retort:
Making things illegal isn't always the answer. A lot of people are rightly keen to see marijuana legalised, but both weed and alcohol lead to more deaths in other people through the impaired use of vehicles. At least smoking is a vice that can't immediately lead to the deaths of others.



I'd like to see a source on that, specifically on deaths caused by impairment via marijuana.

I don't need to cite a source, it's common farking knowledge. Don't get me wrong, I think weed should be legal. It does impair your reaction time though.

Thanks to my governments latest hard on for taxing things, I no longer smoke tobacco.
That has saved me thus far 7usd per day for the last six weeks.
I'm going to save all the money up and someday move to a land that I really do have the pursuit of happiness.

My .02

I'm just going to sit here and laugh at all the cigarette smokers paying top dollar while I pack a bowl of some really fantastic Sour Diesel I'm smoking for 'free' thanks to Uncle Sam not allowing the legal sale of this gorgeous plant. Thanks, Sammy. Toking to you and your ridiculous regulations that allow me to do this.

Of course, if you just give up smoking then the nannies win.

Retort:
I don't need to cite a source, it's common farking knowledge. Don't get me wrong, I think weed should be legal. It does impair your reaction time though.

Of course. I misread your post as claiming that driving under the influence of marijuana somehow claimed more lives than cigarettes. Was just calling you out to make a spectacle of you. My fault.

They badmouth Fosters, but they'll pay more than $6 for imported Coronas at the pub!

dixiedownunder Quote 2009-07-04 06:54:12 PM
They badmouth Fosters, but they'll pay more than $6 for imported Coronas at the pub!

Or as we call it here in Texas, Mexican Sweat.

Impudent Domain:
Or as we call it here in Texas, Mexican Sweat.

Excuse me, but a Corona with lime is damned good if you're already really gone and she pays for it.

Sqube: //they'll come for unhealthy food eventually


Alcohol and unhealthy food will be next. If the government sees a reduction in health care cost, you can count on them coming for your beer and Big Macs.

FREDIOHEAD: Sqube: //they'll come for unhealthy food eventually


Alcohol and unhealthy foodThe air we breath will be next. If the government sees a reduction in health care cost,wants more money, you can count on them coming for your beer and Big Macsthe very air you breath.

/Government will survive anyway they have to and it's not about what's right or what's wrong.

Barbecue Bob: FREDIOHEAD: Sqube: //they'll come for unhealthy food eventually


Alcohol and unhealthy foodThe air we breath will be next. If the government sees a reduction in health care cost,wants more money, you can count on them coming for your beer and Big Macsthe very air you breath.

/Government will survive anyway they have to and it's not about what's right or what's wrong.



PAY YOUR AIR TAX OR THIS COULD BE YOU!!!
/not nearly obscure

Cigarette prices just went up 7/1 - Marlboro's are six bucks a pack! You can still get some weird semi-pipe tobacco cigs for under $2 but I don't see that lasting.

Good thing I quit (again) recently.

Nothing is obscure on Fark.

Milos Hattrick: The federal government in Canada once tried to discourage smoking by putting high taxes on tobacco products. All it did was create a black market in cigarettes. There are times when it's best just to let people do stupid things.

though unlike Canada Australia doesn't have a large country with plentiful supplies that has multiple land border crossings. It all has to come in by boat or plane so it might pay more to join Australian customs and confiscate some of the contraband for yourself.

Know who else tried to get rid of smoking?

In Ontario now it's about $10 a pack, and stores have to keep them behind closed doors. You can't even display a cigarette pack.

Someday, we'll all look back on this and laugh.
.
.
.
We'll say:

"Remember back when there were politicians, lawyers and cops?"

Man, we'll be rolling on the ground in laughter, smoking cannabis next to our campfire.

That is, we'll be laughing and smoking until the stainless steel soldiers of The Administrative Accord wipe us out in an instant with their sonic disruptor beams. It's hard to laugh much once your brain has been jellied.

Silly humans, we always think we want what we want. Then the government tells us what we really want... and charges us a fee for the service.

farkin_Gary: Someday, we'll all look back on this and laugh.
.
.
.
We'll say:

"Remember back when there were politicians, lawyers and cops?"

Man, we'll be rolling on the ground in laughter, smoking cannabis next to our campfire.

That is, we'll be laughing and smoking until the stainless steel soldiers of The Administrative Accord wipe us out in an instant with their sonic disruptor beams. It's hard to laugh much once your brain has been jellied.

Silly humans, we always think we want what we want. Then the government tells us what we really want... and charges us a fee for the service.


It's coming, citizen.
I must dissent (new window)

That works out to about $10.63 USD per pack of 20. About the same as pricing in NY....

Fano:

It's coming, citizen.
I must dissent (new window)

Thanks for that, Fano.

Now, I'm going outside for a smoke. I wouldn't want to deprive that lying bastard, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, of my share of the $600 million dollars he steals from us smokers every year.

InuNoTaisho: 20 AUD is like, what, 3.00 USD? What's the big deal?

/I kid, I kid
//We have to get our money jokes in while we still can

They stopped working when your economy collapsed mate.

Australia plans to make all cigarette wrapping generic,
Like Lucky Strike? (new window)
ban all advertising and sponsoring,
Does Lucky Strike have a website?
charge $20 for a pack of 30 smokes,
Enjoy your Lucky Strikes, New Yorker?
and require them all to be Foster's-flavored
I can smoke and get drunk at the same time? Great! cause the bars around here don't let me smoke anymore.

FTA: Under the changes, some of which were canvassed in a discussion paper released late last year, cigarette packets would be generic and plain, with larger graphic health warnings taking up about 90 per cent of the front and 100 per cent of the back.

F Denis Leary: It doesn't matter how big the warnings on the cigarettes are; you could have a black pack, with a skull and crossbones on the front, called TUMORS, and smokers would be around the block going, "I can't wait to get my hands on these farking things! I bet ya get a tumor as soon as you light up!"

Good luck with that, mates!

rdyb: FTA: Under the changes, some of which were canvassed in a discussion paper released late last year, cigarette packets would be generic and plain, with larger graphic health warnings taking up about 90 per cent of the front and 100 per cent of the back.

F Denis Leary: It doesn't matter how big the warnings on the cigarettes are; you could have a black pack, with a skull and crossbones on the front, called TUMORS, and smokers would be around the block going, "I can't wait to get my hands on these farking things! I bet ya get a tumor as soon as you light up!"

Good luck with that, mates!

This is why I think the whole warning label idea is all wrong. If you want to smoke, go ahead and smoke, but now we take away your right to look cool doing it.

Instead of black warning labels in bold, omnious fonts, it should be law on that cigarettes are officially called "fairy sticks", that boxes and wrappings are colored pink, and that the cigs have the word PENIS printed on the side.

Yup, when cigarettes are illegal, who is going to allow the pot heads to smoke? Yet, you never see pot advocates advocating cigarettes. Thats some narrowmindedness right there.

Good. The Farking things should be banned altogether.

Dodgeyaussie: Good. The Farking things should be banned altogether.

Agreed, cigarettes are dangerous and should be outlawed. Why don't people understand this? The government is just looking out for your best interests.

Cheers Mates

gadian: Yup, when cigarettes are illegal, who is going to allow the pot heads to smoke? Yet, you never see pot advocates advocating cigarettes. Thats some narrowmindedness right there.

Not that it has any effect whatsoever on our wonderfully greedy legislature, but cigarettes are significantly worse than what you're comparing them to.

Sawatdee: Cheers Mates

Don't you know it's insanely cruel to tease an Aussie in the US with photo's like that?

I hope it happens next in America.

I handle a boat really well, it's only 90 miles to Cuba, and there are some places on the Florida Keys only the devil and I know about.

Besides, times are hard and I could use a little extra money.

Dodgeyaussie: Good. The Farking things should be banned altogether.

As someone who doesn't smoke let me point out that you are a fool.
The sort of zero freedom or privacy, permanent prison society required to make prohibition work would be a nightmare.

Let's see here - the plan is to price smokers into defeat? That they'll by and large finally quit? Perhaps some will. Many if not most will simply find other ways to get their smokes. And if there is one thing I have learned, it's that governments are particularly effective at prohibiting illegal manufacture and sale of substances.
Cigarettes would be even more difficult to stem because it's something that you can do in public (at least outside). Because of this, short of crying, "Halt, citizen, while we inspect your packaging for the proper tax stamp!," you won't be able to do shiat to stop it.

One thing is certain, though: The days of bumming a cigarette are numbered. Unless you're a hot girl. In which case you can have my vehicle and apartment, too.

The true path to ridding society of tobacco is shame. That's currently heaped upon smokers like never before. That shame is the only thing that will force people to quit. When cigarettes are frowned upon as automatically as, say, walking down the street with a dead fetus, we'll make headway in the 'war on tobacco.'

I think they are ready up to $11 inNYC. Who can afford a habit like that in this city? That with the terrifying ads of late would be enough to make me stop.

Sawatdee: Cheers Mates

Hideous crap.

Also, if any of you Yanks want to come here and liberate us from our retarded socialist government (Let's pay fat people to go to the gym! Let's censor the internet! Let's ban fast-food advertising!) please do so. Australia's population learnt how to bend over and take it up the ass from the authorities in the good old convict days, and have proven themselves increasingly adept at being controlled, tricked, bullied and exploited and still remain deluded that Australia is the greatest country in the world.

I think the strategy is good. yes, black market ciggarettes will increase but only a small percentage of people will buy their ciggs 'under the table'

Making them illegal upfront will make people go nuts as it almost enforces an immediate quit, this way it encourages people to reduce smoking and quit, without being too sudden. if people continue to smoke and pay the price, thats their loss. If they turn to the black market, which will need a lot of time to form, it would be too much hassle. Other drugs etc people dont use like cigarettes. a pack a day of cigs is a lot harder to supply than the occasional bag of drugs.

its just making a bad thing harder to do!!

I dont understand why this has a scary tag.

I doubt this would happen.

Changing the packaging will do bugger all because ciggarettes aren't allowed to be displayed front on in most supermarkets, and aren't allowed to be showed at all in cartons.

The price will increase again, of course - because the government gets a share of the profit. The tobacco/alcohol industry is a HUGE drawcard for the government, neither will EVER become illegal.

Australia is getting really odd. Living next door to them means we get a lot of their news. I wonder if this is how Canada feels about the US? i.e vaguely embarrassed by our neighbor's shenanigans but glad we don't live there.

I'm honestly not surprised at nazi bans on narcotics, given that Austria also produced Hitler.

AngryAngryHippo: Sawatdee: Cheers Mates

Hideous crap.

Also, if any of you Yanks want to come here and liberate us from our retarded socialist government (Let's pay fat people to go to the gym! Let's censor the internet! Let's ban fast-food advertising!) please do so. Australia's population learnt how to bend over and take it up the ass from the authorities in the good old convict days, and have proven themselves increasingly adept at being controlled, tricked, bullied and exploited and still remain deluded that Australia is the greatest country in the world.


The scary thing is it doesn't matter which party we vote in either. Both the major parties want more and more restrictions.

Nonesuch: AngryAngryHippo: Sawatdee: Cheers Mates

Hideous crap.

Also, if any of you Yanks want to come here and liberate us from our retarded socialist government (Let's pay fat people to go to the gym! Let's censor the internet! Let's ban fast-food advertising!) please do so. Australia's population learnt how to bend over and take it up the ass from the authorities in the good old convict days, and have proven themselves increasingly adept at being controlled, tricked, bullied and exploited and still remain deluded that Australia is the greatest country in the world.


The scary thing is it doesn't matter which party we vote in either. Both the major parties want more and more restrictions.

Some folks long for their shackles.

Nonesuch: AngryAngryHippo: Sawatdee: Cheers Mates

Hideous crap.

Also, if any of you Yanks want to come here and liberate us from our retarded socialist government (Let's pay fat people to go to the gym! Let's censor the internet! Let's ban fast-food advertising!) please do so. Australia's population learnt how to bend over and take it up the ass from the authorities in the good old convict days, and have proven themselves increasingly adept at being controlled, tricked, bullied and exploited and still remain deluded that Australia is the greatest country in the world.


The scary thing is it doesn't matter which party we vote in either. Both the major parties want more and more restrictions.

I was just musing today that no matter who you vote for in Australia, your governments are thoroughly farking dislikable. And it's not because I'm a New Zealander.

Instead of us joining you, how about we annex Australia and make it an NZ province?

People still smoke? Let them die in peace.

Retort:

Instead of us joining you, how about we annex Australia and make it an NZ province?

Deal. We could do with more hippy chicks.

Well that's one way to make the bottom 25% pay more in taxes with a progressive income tax.

Either make smoking illegal or leave it alone.

Should a government direct the market by heavily taxing some goods and not tax others?

678583: Dodgeyaussie: Good. The Farking things should be banned altogether.

Agreed, cigarettes are dangerous and should be outlawed. Why don't people understand this? The government is just looking out for your best interests.

I represent the government we are going to put a camera in your bedroom. We believe that your doing something there that is unsafe for you so we want to make sure that your no longer doing it. Don't worry you'll hardly know it's there. 1984 anyone.

The only thing the government should do is put a warning label on it. Other than that stay the fark out of peoples lives.

Wait, isn't the Labor party supposed to be the party of the working class? This will be a heavy hit to the poor working class.

What a joke. Kevin Rudd is a wanker.

I think the majority of us just wanted to see Howard out and didn't much care who replaced him

I live in Virginia, a state with one of the lowest tobacco taxes. I don't smoke but have seen generic cigs for less than $3.50/pack. I honestly do not pay enough attention to give an honest price. But $3.50 US is like, what? $10 Aussie? Contact me and I will gladly ship you all the cigs you want in exchange for Australian dollars (if you have nothing else of value, like, hot OZ chicks or hot kangaroo chicks).

I will give you a fair deal......

Bexta: I think the majority of us just wanted to see Howard out and didn't much care who replaced him

Rudd may as well be Howard.

Lee451: $3.50 US is like, what? $10 Aussie?

It's more like $7.90

jbernie: Milos Hattrick: The federal government in Canada once tried to discourage smoking by putting high taxes on tobacco products. All it did was create a black market in cigarettes. There are times when it's best just to let people do stupid things.

though unlike Canada Australia doesn't have a large country with plentiful supplies that has multiple land border crossings. It all has to come in by boat or plane so it might pay more to join Australian customs and confiscate some of the contraband for yourself.

You're right. In the early 90s when Canada tried high cigarette taxes, people smuggled them in from the U.S. Now the smugglers are in the U.S. and get their supplies from the indian reservations and Mexico.

I'd say it's a certainty that people in Australia are already stockpiling tobacco seeds.

spamdog: Bexta: I think the majority of us just wanted to see Howard out and didn't much care who replaced him

Rudd may as well be Howard.

Well yeah, I think people are realising that now. But it doesn't matter who else comes up in the next election, it's never ever going to be any different

wildcardjack: gave up: Let us know if you see a slight rise in smuggling..

Are you kidding? I'm already trying to figure a racket involving robotic crocodiles to smuggle cigs inland.

Only feasible now that Steve Irwin isn't going to try to find the cloaca on the robot.

maybe you can train the dingos to meet up with the robotic crocs
and run the smokes further inland :)

Let's offer smokers the support they need to pack it in, like printing up one side and all around the others, encouraging messages like, SMOKING MAKES YOU, AND EVERYTHING YOU OWN, STINK!

I actually think generic labeling and bans on advertising are good ideas. If there was a way in the U.S. around the pesky 1st Amendment, I'd support them, as well as a ban on alcohol ads. I'd combine it with legalization though. The problem with raising sin taxes is at a certain point you get smuggling. Once you have smuggling you get the normal violence related to illegalization.

(I'd support legalization of most drugs, but at the same time I don't think drugs, including alcohol, should be able to advertise.) They can even ban Twinkie commercials, but if, without having a Twinkie shoved down my throat I still want a Twinkie then they'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands. We'd need a Constitutional Amendment on the subject, none of this 'you need a stamp to sell it' B.S.)

"Smokers are EEEVIL, and they must be PUNISHED!, because they are SINNERS!"

good

/smoker

Dodgeyaussie: Good. The Farking things should be banned altogether.

hey, but, who will pay all the extra money into the general funds for all the politians to use???????????

HoratioGates: I actually think generic labeling and bans on advertising are good ideas. If there was a way in the U.S. around the pesky 1st Amendment, I'd support them, as well as a ban on alcohol ads. I'd combine it with legalization though. The problem with raising sin taxes is at a certain point you get smuggling. Once you have smuggling you get the normal violence related to illegalization.

(I'd support legalization of most drugs, but at the same time I don't think drugs, including alcohol, should be able to advertise.) They can even ban Twinkie commercials, but if, without having a Twinkie shoved down my throat I still want a Twinkie then they'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands. We'd need a Constitutional Amendment on the subject, none of this 'you need a stamp to sell it' B.S.)

Is commercial speech protected speech?
There seems to be (or have been:drugs) some limits in place for TV ads at least.
Now that I think about it, I don't recall any cigarette ads on TV currently.

I wish governments would make up their minds on smoking. I'm fine with them allowing it fully or banning it altogether, but they should pick ONE OR THE OTHER. I'm tired of this hypocrisy of "oh cigarettes are bad and kill you and you shouldn't ever do them because there is nothing good about them, but it's okay if you want to anyway because we gets lots of money from them". It's crap.

Time to start up an internet tobacco business.

ScottHimself: I'm just going to sit here and laugh at all the cigarette smokers paying top dollar while I pack a bowl of some really fantastic Sour Diesel I'm smoking for 'free' thanks to Uncle Sam not allowing the legal sale of this gorgeous plant. Thanks, Sammy. Toking to you and your ridiculous regulations that allow me to do this.

Actually many states tax Marijuana. Dealers are supposed to purchase stamps and affix them to their baggies.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6668

PirateFreedom: HoratioGates: I actually think generic labeling and bans on advertising are good ideas. If there was a way in the U.S. around the pesky 1st Amendment, I'd support them, as well as a ban on alcohol ads. I'd combine it with legalization though. The problem with raising sin taxes is at a certain point you get smuggling. Once you have smuggling you get the normal violence related to illegalization.

(I'd support legalization of most drugs, but at the same time I don't think drugs, including alcohol, should be able to advertise.) They can even ban Twinkie commercials, but if, without having a Twinkie shoved down my throat I still want a Twinkie then they'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands. We'd need a Constitutional Amendment on the subject, none of this 'you need a stamp to sell it' B.S.)

Is commercial speech protected speech?
There seems to be (or have been:drugs) some limits in place for TV ads at least.
Now that I think about it, I don't recall any cigarette ads on TV currently.

Do you mean is commercial speech in Australia protected under the American constitution? Australia has no protected speech other than political speech.

Ikahoshi: Forget that nonsense and get right down to it.

Hire a few universities here and there around the world to start selective breeding to produce a near zero nicotine content variety of tobacco. Then hire a few others to find a way to remove nicotine from tobacco- If one can decaffeinate coffee, one can denicotinate tobacco. Once the two options are available, then start with phase 2...

Start mandating nicotine content maximums, to be reduced gradually to zero in say 5 to 7 years, and offer the nicotine reduced plants and de-nicotination process to the tobacco companies for free, so they can't biatch about the costs or the impossibility of the plan.

Have the FDA or the appropriate regulatory agency perform random testing of batches, seize and destroy any that test over the maximum for the given year.

From the cut off date onward, no industrially manufactured tobacco for human use can have anything but a trace of nicotine in it.

Smoke all you want after that, but I guarantee that aside from folks who choose to grow their own in the back yard, nobody will be smoking much of store bought stuff.


I feel if you go to the trouble to grow your own, you can smoke it. Tobacco, marijuana, coca, salvia, psilocybin, etc. I don't know if one should be allowed to sell it, but certainly if you bother to grow it for your own use, you can do what you like with it.

I'm the I Quit With an E Cig poster here..we're doing the opposite...nicotine without all the hundreds of other chemicals, tar, carbon monoxide etc, and since I mix my own "juice" phasing out the nicotine is easy. You actually DO initially go through withdrawal and understand it is what is put WITH the tabacco ..I think the nic is not the only problem at all.

Retort: Do you mean is commercial speech in Australia protected under the American constitution? Australia has no protected speech other than political speech.

And even political speech isn't always protected.

We do have strong anti-free speech though, our slander and libel laws.

And to stay on topic, $20 for a pack isn't that surprising, and when it happens (if it hasn't already) it won't stop me from buying them.

eclipse492: I think the strategy is good. yes, black market ciggarettes will increase but only a small percentage of people will buy their ciggs 'under the table'

Making them illegal upfront will make people go nuts as it almost enforces an immediate quit, this way it encourages people to reduce smoking and quit, without being too sudden. if people continue to smoke and pay the price, thats their loss. If they turn to the black market, which will need a lot of time to form, it would be too much hassle. Other drugs etc people dont use like cigarettes. a pack a day of cigs is a lot harder to supply than the occasional bag of drugs.

its just making a bad thing harder to do!!

eclipse492:

knows little about the illegal drug market or smoking. sorry buddy

SwiftFox: The tobacco falls out of the Outer Party Victory Cigarettes

I now love you.

/Smokes, and will grow his own if this shiat comes over to Amerika.

ScottHimself: I'm not a smoker.

Once you hamstring the users of a product this much you're admitting that you only keep the product within the realm of the law for revenue. Stop demonizing people and throwing them in the back of the bus for following the law, Dicks.

I would love for pot to be legal and exploited for revenue. . . .

/Tobacco smoker too, but really, tobacco smokers biatch way too much
//Yes, it's unfair, but compared to users of most other recreational drugs you have it pretty goddamn easy

It's really interesting reading all these posts from people who just know that they're so very clever with all their proposals for how people can be forced to stop smoking. Man, do all you cats really care about whether or not people smoke? Wow, you must all be unbelievably nice people to be so concerned.

Are you sure there isn't another reason for your position, though?

I like the suggestion above - just apply a graduated tax based on nicotine content. 100% of allowed nicotine would be massively taxed, 0% nicotine wouldn't be taxed at all. The reason smokers are addicted to smoking is nicotine, this way they'd be motivated to switch to less and less nicotine content over time and would eventually reach a level where they could comfortably quit.

Ikahoshi: Oh and as an incentive, eliminate the taxes on zero nicotinoid cigarettes.

The maximum allowed would have 100% tax, reduce the amount of biologically active nicotinoids by a percentage, the taxes should be reduced accordingly (excepting sales tax).

People have been smoking cornsilk for years with no interference.

That solves a very big problem. Now if only the government would determine what I should eat and wear, how I should pray, where I should work, and who I should marry. I guess I'd be all set then.

Sheesh, even Bronze Age gods allowed for a little free will.

microfiber pocketwatch: Australia is getting really odd. Living next door to them means we get a lot of their news. I wonder if this is how Canada feels about the US? i.e vaguely embarrassed by our neighbor's shenanigans but glad we don't live there.

Nah mate, I think it's jealousy / penis envy. It's like nerds at school pretending they hate the "cool group" but secretly wish they could hang out with them and get all the girls too.

/insert sheep joke here
//please don't take me seriously

In Oregon, they just raised smoking taxes a dollar to support public education. A few friends and I (as adults who have chosen not to have children while in this country without citizenship to someplace other than the United Political Channels of America) came up with an easy solution to the newest taxes coming up:

Every cigarette given to children under the age of 18 = $1.00 tax exemption.

Hand me a ballot that goes towards newer text books, I'll sign it. Hand me a ballot that puts healthier options on any minor's public education meal, I'll give it money. Tax me under the table on a bullshiat ballot for a dollar off of my only vice? Die in a fire, I'd rather help the growers I know seed tobacco than support the status-quo education laws that are currently in effect.

/Because the status is NOT quo.

Cancer is so enticing!

global wombats: Retort: Do you mean is commercial speech in Australia protected under the American constitution? Australia has no protected speech other than political speech.

And even political speech isn't always protected.

We do have strong anti-free speech though, our slander and libel laws.

And to stay on topic, $20 for a pack isn't that surprising, and when it happens (if it hasn't already) it won't stop me from buying them.

You must not smoke much or you are pretty rich. Either way good for you. Are their any other products that you would buy that cost approx 10 cents (US) to produce for $20 (US)? A C cell battery costs about a 5 cents (US) to make I will gladly sell them to you in double packs for $20 (US)

with larger graphic health warnings taking up about 90 per cent of the front and 100 per cent of the back

Perhaps Australia should paint their Parliament in the same fashion.

The whole nicotine free tobacco was figured out years ago.
And here's a great Wired article on it:
Amish Tobacco (pops)

Big tobacco had a Big problem with this.
Concerns of cross pollination of plants for one.

//enjoyable article involving an "Amish rock star"
///really just an Amish guy with sunglasses and a cell phone

Retort: ScottHimself: Retort:
Making things illegal isn't always the answer. A lot of people are rightly keen to see marijuana legalised, but both weed and alcohol lead to more deaths in other people through the impaired use of vehicles. At least smoking is a vice that can't immediately lead to the deaths of others.



I'd like to see a source on that, specifically on deaths caused by impairment via marijuana.

I don't need to cite a source, it's common farking knowledge. Don't get me wrong, I think weed should be legal. It does impair your reaction time though.

I wonder how many auto accidents are the result of smokers not paying attention while they light up or drop a cigarette.

just like the public at large, you folks are all too glad to have an authoritarian government limiting freedom as long as it's the freedom you don't want others to have.

Good. The smokers have options. The Corporations do not.
/grow/roll your own addicts
//anti-prohibition, anti corporate marketing of highly addictive drugs.

Barbecue Bob: Thanks to my governments latest hard on for taxing things, I no longer smoke tobacco.
That has saved me thus far 7usd per day for the last six weeks.
I'm going to save all the money up and someday move to a land that I really do have the pursuit of happiness.

My .02

No kidding. I haven't smoked in 18 days. I was smoking the lowest price cigs that tasted OK at 35 bucks a carton. I would have gone through two cartons by now, or maybe a little more. I figure I am going to save about $1500 a year.
/food tastes sooooo much better
//hell, even WATER tastes so much better
///nicotine patches and sunflower seeds FTW

How are these idiots going to make up the loss in tax revenue when everybody quits/dies of smoking?

You can't condemn something and then profit from it. It just doesn't work. You can try to do both but ultimately you will only succeed at one or the other.

If you keep trying to manipulate taxes on individual goods then eventually your budget will be exposed to fluctuations in the prices of those goods. It doesn't matter weather its cigarettes, alcohol or bananas; it's all equally stupid in the long run because you take on more risk for no reason!

You actually need people to pay taxes, which is why you shouldn't use them as a deterrent.

According to Yahoo the Australian Dollar is worth 0.79 US Dollars as of July 3rd. And while the US economy may be tanking the Australian Dollar tanked even more than the US Dollar at the end of last year, it went from 0.95 to 0.65. The historical price is in the 0.70-0.80 range. I do however think jokes of one currencies value compare to another is stupid without taking into account the cost of living in said countries.

On to another subject.

I had this plan to reduce tobacco consumption for a while now I and I think it might really work. Pick a date in the near future, before that date, anyone of legal age can acquire/buy a single-user, non-transferable license to purchase commercially produced tobacco products. After that date, no new licenses can be purchased, ever. Anyone caught selling tobacco products to someone without a license or anyone with a license giving or selling tobacco products to someone without a license would face severe consequences (make them really harsh so that it isn't worth it).

This would solve several problems, current smokers can continue to smoke all they want and wouldn't complain, tobacco producers, and retail outlets would have many years of a slowly declining consumer base to figure out how to make a living selling something else and governments would have many years of declining tobacco tax revenues to figure out what to tax next. Eventually, 40-60 years down the road, there would be almost no one using tobacco products.

This being said, I do believe that personal production, for your personal use, of anything, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana or whatever should not be illegal. I do not think any government has moral or otherwise authority to tell any individual what to do as long as they are not harming anyone else.

/Former, 21 year smoker

Retort: PirateFreedom: HoratioGates: I actually think generic labeling and bans on advertising are good ideas. If there was a way in the U.S. around the pesky 1st Amendment, I'd support them, as well as a ban on alcohol ads. I'd combine it with legalization though. The problem with raising sin taxes is at a certain point you get smuggling. Once you have smuggling you get the normal violence related to illegalization.

(I'd support legalization of most drugs, but at the same time I don't think drugs, including alcohol, should be able to advertise.) They can even ban Twinkie commercials, but if, without having a Twinkie shoved down my throat I still want a Twinkie then they'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands. We'd need a Constitutional Amendment on the subject, none of this 'you need a stamp to sell it' B.S.)

Is commercial speech protected speech?
There seems to be (or have been:drugs) some limits in place for TV ads at least.
Now that I think about it, I don't recall any cigarette ads on TV currently.

Do you mean is commercial speech in Australia protected under the American constitution? Australia has no protected speech other than political speech.

I don't mean to insult Australians I was just responding to this:
"If there was a way in the U.S. around the pesky 1st Amendment, I'd support them, as well as a ban on alcohol ads."

I'm still curious about what the US rules are although I appreciate learning the Australian standard.

WOW Overreact much? They're not banning them, just making them more expensive.

You can still exercise your personal responsibility and purchase them or not purchase them...you can budget for them, you can save up for them if you have to, but you can still get them!

jeez, you'd think people were stealing babies here...

If you can't afford them, you'll quit. If you can't afford them and don't quit you'll suffer in other ways. It's still YOUR CHOICE.

Why are you people against choice?

Britney Spear's Speculum: Time to start up an internet tobacco business.

They're around, i used one a couple of times when i was still smoking, worked a treat, very cheap, but a guy i know tried it as well andd had his package intercepted by customs and was charged the duty on them.