Wild new plan to eradicate smoking in Australia entirely

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/h...y/news-story/e8d443dfa6cabf8a157aba1fef95724f

Smokers could be made to buy cigarettes with a prescription or at a pharmacy, in an ambitious new plan to wipe out smoking in Australia almost entirely.

And here we have yet another example of the government control and social engineering practiced in Australia. At over $25 USD per pack, clearly the Australian government uses taxes as a means of social engineering.

 

If they can do that, why don't they just outlaw it period?

It isn't like the US doesn't do just as bad with their sin taxes and health insurance penalties on smokers.

 

12oz bag of vanilla cavendish pipe tobacco costs me ~$20 on the res. Does me for about a month. I roll it into cigarettes because I got sick of cleaning a pipe.

 

$25USD a pack haha keep dreamin, this is 2020, we've just had 3 years of 12.5% compounding per year tax increases.

I quit smoking earlier this year and started vaping as an alternative. My lungs have cleared completely and they tried to make even this illegal.

I can't make vape juice, but I can grow tobacco. If a vape import ban ever came into effect I'd probably just go back to smoking.

Nanny statism is the only real issue with Australia.

 

Has anyone had to give up smoking because of the cost but wished that the cost goes down so that they can afford to start smoking again?

 

If one doesn't like the laws in Australia, don't move there, don't live there.

 

I moved out of a blue state because of high taxes, my cigs cost me $1,89

 

the longest human to have ever lived was a smoker, this should be a choice imo

anti-smokers wish a non-smoker held that title, so they could brag about it, but they can't

 

many

 

Who? And name them....

 

just like prohibition of alcohol, this won't work, it will just create criminals of people growing their own plants, and then they lose the tax rev

 

name the ones that have not.... show us how many it is, list them all

 

I would question the value of a thread where the OP either hasn't read the article that is the basis for it, or is deliberately misrepresenting the article.

To claim that a bunch of ideas from a research institute, none of which have been implemented or have been attempted to be implemented, qualify as 'government control and social engineering' is either fantasy or a deliberate attempt to mislead. No point pretending I'm surprised.

 

also seems there could be health benefits, like stress reduction (stress kills)

and even

"An inverse relationship between smoking and COVID-19"

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200615/An-inverse-relationship-between-smoking-and-COVID-19.aspx

"According to Haynor and colleagues, recent studies have shown that smokers are significantly under-represented among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in China, France, Italy, Germany, the UK, the USA, Israel, Iran, South Korea, Kuwait, Mexico, Spain, and Switzerland."

per this, smokers are 87.4% to 98.6% less likely than non-smokers to be hospitalized if they catch the virus

"Smokers Hospitalized Less Often for COVID-19"

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200430/smokers-hospitalized-less-often-for-covid-19

"the rate of smokers ranged from 1.4% to 12.6%. No studies recorded e-cigarette use."

 

I think what we can all agree on is that excessive smoking is bad, just like excessive sun, excessive sugar, the list goes on

but regardless, this should be a persons choice

the next thing to be taxed out of existence will be sugar...

 

Yes, but had you actually given up smoking? I can understand it if you don't want to stop smoking

 

I've known many smokers and none have regretted stopping. I know a few smokers who wish they could give up

 

Probably because the virus goes into their lungs, looks at all the cancerous growths and decides, I'm not staying here, it's a death trap

 

probably because mild stress strengthens the body, that is how you grow muscle and the same is probably true of the process that cleans out the lungs

if you get moderate sun, you're less likely to get cancer, too much though and the opposite, same with smoking maybe... I think the issues come into play with excess - smoke two packs a day, and you're gonna have issues

the longest person to have lived was a moderate smoker for just shy of 100 years of her life

 

That was an early study on a very small sample. Subsequent studies on much larger samples has shown that smokers are more likely to contract the virus, some suggest because of touching their mouth, and smokers are more likely to have more severe symptoms.
https://www.bhf.org.uk/informations...headlines/coronavirus/coronavirus-and-smoking

https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/reduce-you...used-corona-virus-quitting-smoking-and-vaping

 

nope, you misread, smokers are less likely to be hospitalized by a huge percent, but those that are hospital have a higher rate of death percent wise

but it's still a a way smaller number compared to non-smokers


if 1000 nonsokers die out of 2000

and 20 smokers die out of 30

from the above it looks like smokers have a higher percent of death rate, but the truth is, less smokers died, so you are less likely to die if a smoker

"smokers are 87.4% to 98.6% less likely than non-smokers to be hospitalized"

that matters.... that is huge, if a drug had results like that, it would be a best seller right now

I would guess of the smokers that do get admitted, they were the ones that smoked to excess

btw, I don't smoke, but can't deny the benefits, and can't deny there are also risks, both can be true

 

I had a theory when I first read back in April the report you posted here that the reason was that smokers tend to not breath in so deeply so the virus doesn't enter into the lungs so far as it would in non-smokers

 

I think it's that they have a more productive cough as they are used to having to clean out the lungs

the danger with smoking is the addiction part that could lead to excessive smoking, just like with alcohol - some people get addicted, some do not

that said, I do think more studies are needed, not to promote smoking, but to learn from it, it could lead to medical breakthroughs, we can't let our biases against smoking turn us away from investigating it, that said, I do not think it will get much funding

 

Nicotine is a very effective anti-bacterial and may have some anti-viral effects

 

And this is a problem why?

if they knew then what we know now tobacco would never have been legalised in the first place