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.