[Igor Antunov]

The Australian state of Tasmania is considering a ban on cigarette sales to anyone born after the year 2000 in an attempt to create a smoking-free generation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -2000.html

Nationwide, Australia's anti-smoking campaign (been going for years already) has been fairly effective.

I think this targets the problem closer to it's roots (dumb youngsters-monkey see monkey do), without punishing existing addicts (too late for them). I'm all for it.

A family friend recently died from lung cancer.
My dad gave up smoking for 10 years after smoking for 20 years, then started again a few years back. It's not an addiction that can actually be beaten, just surpressed until the day you die. Nicotine is a hell of a drug.

[AVT]

Welcome to the nanny state.

[Rei Murasame]

It's nice of them to try this policy, since it means that the rest of us can sit back and watch and see if it works in Tasmania, and then attempt to copy it in other countries if it does. Good stuff.

[Swagman]

Yes barring smoking for people under 12 years of age sounds like reasonable policy.....

[Rei Murasame]

Well, I'm assuming that the ban on these people lasts forever. For instance, say a decade from now they walk into a newsagents shop and try to buy cigarettes, they'd have to show their ID, and it would say they were born after the year 2000 and then they'd be denied service.

[Igor Antunov]

Yes barring smoking for people under 12 years of age sounds like reasonable policy.....

No, this is not how it works.

Well, I'm assuming that the ban on these people lasts forever.

Yep

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Why would anybody expect this to work? Teenagers are already banned from buying cigarettes, yet Tasmania has apparently the highest smoking rate among the young in Australia. So extending the ban to (future) adults most of whom will have started smoking as teenagers while being banned from buying cigarettes, will reduce the smoking rate how exactly?

Awful and stupid policy.

[Exuro]

Banning a popular and highly addictive recreational substance creates a lucrative black market. This was shown by prohibition in the US when they banned alcohol.

The anti-smoking campaign is working well enough. There is no need to create more drug-related crime.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Banning a popular and highly addictive recreational substance creates a lucrative black market. This was shown by prohibition in the US when they banned alcohol.

The anti-smoking campaign is working well enough. There is no need to create more drug-related crime.

I think such a ban would have the effect you described if you went from a state where cigarettes are completely acceptable and desirable in society - to a sudden ban. Thats basically what happened with prohibition in the states. However given the effect that the anti-smoking campaign has had on society over the last few decades, I see this as merely another layer to the ongoing delegitimisation of cigarettes. Pointing to a black market that may rise out of this ban, while potentially creating problems of its own, won't detract from the overall program of delegitimising cigarettes if the overall consumption of cigarettes - even including black market sales - is shown to continue to decline.

[Smertios]

Seriously, I don't get this. First of all, if sales continue to all except the youngest generation, illegal acquisition will continue existing. I can't imagine why a bar owner might check people's IDs all the time to sell cigarettes. Not to mention that there will always be a black market. Alcohol, for example, is illegal for people under the age of 18 (or 21 in some countries). I seriously doubt a lot of people have never tasted alcohol before their 18th birthday, though.

Second, is it really necessary? I mean, anti-smoking campaigns have been quite successful everywhere, despite not banning sales. Tobacco companies are already forbidden of advertising and are forced to add pictures of disgusting side effects of smoking in the back of every product. There are already laws forbidding people from smoking in public spaces like bars, malls etc. The tendency is for smoking to drop a lot. I don't think banning sales is needed.

And third, the Australian constitution allows such thing? You ar not supposed to treat people unequally like that. It's not their fault that they were born in the wrong decade. Either ban it to everyone or don't ban it at all.

[Exuro]

Pointing to a black market that may rise out of this ban, while potentially creating problems of its own, won't detract from the overall program of delegitimising cigarettes if the overall consumption of cigarettes - even including black market sales - is shown to continue to decline.

Smoking rates have halved in the last 30 years despite constant access to legal tobacco. That can be attributed to smoke-free legislation and campaigns, which require funding. While tobacco remains legal the government can tax the suppliers to offset the cost of anti-smoking campaigns. Criminalisation just makes the anti-smoking campaigns more expensive, by taking up police resources and forfeiting tax income.

Plus, new smokers get smokes illegally as it is. Many start in their teens. As with cannabis, there is a minority population who will take up smoking no matter what its legal status; reducing the size of that minority is done by doing damage to the image of smoking and by dealing with the social issues that drive teens to smoke in the first place. Criminalisation is just a headache.

And the last thing any neighbourhood needs are more break-ins due to idiot burglars trying to steal from dealers and growers, too often breaking into the wrong houses. That happens often enough due to cannabis.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

I like it. I smoke and probably will until I die, but wish every day that I never started. I'd like them to ban the bloody things rather than bleeding me dry with taxes while showing me pictures of rotting body parts. Even if this doesn't work it's worth trying.

[Swagman]

Yes barring smoking for people under 12 years of age sounds like reasonable policy.....

No, this is not how it works.

Just being facetious. I can see Taswegians having a raging market for fake proof of age cards well into the future...

Welcome to the nanny state.

Yep another fine example.

[colliric]

It's nice of them to try this policy, since it means that the rest of us can sit back and watch and see if it works in Tasmania, and then attempt to copy it in other countries if it does. Good stuff.

Won't work, they'll just buy it on import through the internet still... You can get anything illegal on the internet iif you know where to get it from(usually the Silk Road, or just the normal internet if it's just tobbacco) and know how to get it "Safely"(usually just through the standard Post from a "trusted" seller). It might reduce some access to smoking for the youth, but those that are determined to smoke and appear as "rebels" would still be smart assed enough to figure out how to obtain ciggies and make "pocket money" off onselling them to their friends.

And third, the Australian constitution allows such thing? You ar not supposed to treat people unequally like that. It's not their fault that they were born in the wrong decade. Either ban it to everyone or don't ban it at all.

Yes... and it should be, otherwise how coulld you change things such as learner permit laws? I got my permit in 2003, so I should and did get put through under that system when I bothered to get my License in 2010. If you got your learners after a certain date(sometime in 2006) you had to 100 logged hours as a learner. Thank God I didn't have to because I got it before the date that it changed and the law was that I would get tested for my probationary license under the old standards(I only did <25 hours, at least 90% with a payed tutor, in 7 years, as I got the permit for ID purposes originally). Unfortunatly for me though I had delayed getting my learners permit till after the P's laws had changed from 1 to 2 years.... but before it became 3 years!

I was lucky that they did this because under the current system I would have had to bitch and moan to my parents to give me more and more time supervised in their car... which would have made it exceptionally tougher(as would have the extra year on my P's). So thankfully they "discriminated" against new learners rather than just impose it on all learners at the time!

If they are seeking to phase out legal Tobacco smoking obviously they'd start by setting a DOB for the last generation of Legal tobbacco smokers to have been born by. I don't agree with it, because the usual prohibition issues are going to come back again, and they would need to be prepared to deal with it. And that includes giving Aus-Post and customs more responsibility concerning packages coming through the mail(as in the Internet era this is an increasingly popular form of avoiding laws concerning the purchasing of illegal substances, buying it on the Darknet and having aus-post deliver it without checking whats actually hidden away inside).

[Heisenberg]

Gandalf is correct: prohibition didn't work because it was an attempt to ban a substance that has been a staple in European culture for thousands of years. As cigarettes become less socially accepted, moving to ban them will become easier. Quite simply, the alcohol analogy doesn't really work. It should also be said that this applies to hard drugs as well: calling the current ban on cannabis etc "prohibition" is not really accurate.

Alcohol, for example, is illegal for people under the age of 18 (or 21 in some countries). I seriously doubt a lot of people have never tasted alcohol before their 18th birthday, though.

Well, buying alcohol is illegal for people under 18. However, the minimum age for alcohol consumption is 5 years old (in Britain, at least). That isn't true of tobacco. Again, it's less socially acceptable now, so the situation isn't really comparable.

And third, the Australian constitution allows such thing? You ar not supposed to treat people unequally like that. It's not their fault that they were born in the wrong decade. Either ban it to everyone or don't ban it at all.

The beauty of British-derived systems is that they are more flexible than others. In any case, tobacco consumption is not a civil right. The purpose of constitutional provisions for equality is to ensure real, hard rights are protected. Liberty and license are not the same thing.

[colliric]

Gandalf is correct: prohibition didn't work because it was an attempt to ban a substance that has been a staple in European culture for thousands of years. As cigarettes become less socially accepted, moving to ban them will become easier.

When that ban was brought it, Alcohol had become socially damaging to the United States to the point where the vote got cleanly up, it was avalible in a heck of alot more places than it is today. 24 hour Beer joints. So it is certainly a comparable situation here.

Prohibition brought about some resulting changes to our drinking attudes that stuck even after it was repelled. Liquor Licensing laws are one of them. "Lock-outs" and enforced Closing times are another.

[AFAIK]

People should smoke e-cigarettes/ vaping. Way healthier.

It's interesting that the USA is currently moving away from prohibition of ganja. Whilst much of Europe now focuses on harm reduction rather than law enforcement.

This is a social health issue. I doubt that prohibition would be workable.

[Godstud]

Easy to get around it. Get someone else to buy the cigarettes for you. Buy from cigarette machines in bars, etc.

I think the intent is good but I don't see how you could do it without infringing on the rights of the individual.

What of the person born in 1999? What makes them so exempt from it? It's simply age discrimination, and that's how most people would view it, as well.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

This is backwards, we need to be legalising substances not vice versa.

[Igor Antunov]

Discouragement and scare campaigns have largely worked in this country, and it is always surprising when one travels overseas to europe just how prevalent smoking and the associated ciggie stench is compared to home. I don't think they need to take it further, the social stigma attached to smokers has already reached levels where the smoking population will continue dropping. Now they need to do the same with alcohol, don't ban or make it hard to acquire, just raise the prices and educate the younger generation.