The bansturbators latest attack on liberty

Imagine prohibiting cigarette sales to people born after 2000.

Phasing out tobacco will stop the next generation taking up smoking.

Actually I’d be surprised if this is really new and hasn’t been bandied around nannying and anti-tobacco circles previously, but this is the first time I’ve seen something like it being seriously mooted in the pages of a major newspaper. And I have to say that not only is it one of the most illiberal and unjust (when something is legal for one person and not for another for no better reason than the lottery of birth we have begun to wave bye bye to equality of law) ideas I’ve seen but also one of the most breathtakingly naive, if not downright stupid and verging on self-fisking.

Let’s start with that subheading (yes, the stupid really does start that early):

Phasing out tobacco will stop the next generation taking up smoking.

Well, yes it would… if that’s what you were actually doing, or indeed is even possible with a product made from a plant that grows readily in the wild and is fairly easy to cultivate, and was to be attempted in a sparsely populated country with 25,000 kilometres of mostly uninhabited coastline. Before even reaching the body text the author, Cameron Nolan, has confused making something unavailable with merely changing its legal status and blithely declaring that as a result nobody will ever use it again. It seem unlikely that he has given any thought to the date on which various proscribed drugs were, to use his term, phased out. For many drugs currently outlawed this was before most users were born: heroin, for example, was last available in Australia legally in 1953, and even then required a prescription.* Hardly a ringing success at preventing the next generation from taking it, and since heroin laws here go back to the 19th century it can be argued that in fact they’ve failed for several generations. With such serial failure a hallmark of prohibition why should anyone but the congenitally clueless and/or nanny-prone believe that tobacco would be any different?

Imagine that cigarettes did not exist. Now imagine that some plucky upstart – let’s call them Philip Morris – invented them and went to the regulators for approval to sell their product in the Australian market.

You can hear the laughter coming out of the offices of Product Safety Australia as these new inventors explain that they want to commercialise a product that has the perverse combination of being both highly addictive and highly deadly.

Again, yes, though my personal experience with quitting smoking – hard when you’re doing it because others are laying the guilts on you about it, ridiculously piss easy when you’re doing it because you’ve stopped enjoying it – casts doubt on the addiction thing, and since there may be a tendency to label any death as smoking related that ticks some of the right boxes even if it’s from something with multiple causes I suspect the dangers are equally overblown. But in any case why should it concern Product Safety Australia or anyone else? Does Product Safety Australia claim ownership of the living bodies of smokers? Does ASH? Does the Health Department? Does Cameron Nolan? Can any of them or anyone else show that they have legal title to, and therefore responsibility for, anyone else’s body? If the answer is yes then slavery is alive and well and operating in Australia. If the answer is no then Product Safety Australia can limit itself to making sure that potentially harmful/addictive products aren’t slipped into Australia’s markets pretending to be harmless and non-addictive. With tobacco this is probably not even necessary – we all know what it can cause, or at least what it gets blamed for, and if smokers choose to accept that risk because they enjoy smoking then that’s entirely up to them. If they’re not smoking me out – and that simply never happens – then I have no reason or right to tell them what to do with/to their bodies.

Yet this is not the world we live in.

It isn’t? So the state doesn’t arrogate ownership of people’s living bodies and an opium producer can go to Product Safety Australia and not be laughed at, or even arrested as soon as they’ve set foot in the door? The only sense in which it’s not the world we live in is that the nannies have not quite yet added tobacco – and alcohol, and fatty foods, and sugar, and Red Bull, and red meat, and Christ knows what next – and maybe it’s just me but I kind of get the sense that this disappoints Nolan.

We live in a world in which the mass commercialisation of cigarettes in the early 20th century rapidly outpaced our understanding of their health consequences.

Relevant only to those who wish to arrogate ownership rights over the live bodies of others. As understanding of the health issues grew that information has been made widely known. Not always with the willing cooperation of the tobacco industry, true, but it’s happened nonetheless. Nowadays who even reads the health warnings? Everyone knows what they say and we can’t ask for more than that, yet more is what the nannies always demand

We live in a world in which 15,500 Australians die every year from smoking-related diseases – more than road accidents, murders, alcohol and other drugs combined.

And here we have our first suspect figure. It’s almost Holy Writ that smoking causes lung cancer, and it’s frequently assumed by the lazy that it causes all lung cancer. Yet smoking is on the decline and lung cancer is on the rise, including among non-smokers. Assuming that the passive smoking scare is not bullshit the dwindling numbers of smokers must surely be smoking far more than the combined efforts of larger number of smokers in the past. Yeah, doesn’t seem real likely, does it? And that being so there’s reason to doubt the number of deaths caused by smoking, even when weasel words like ‘smoking-related diseases’ are used.

We live in a world in which every year three foreign companies are allowed to take a combined profit of more than $500 million from the Australian market while leaving us with a combined social cost of over $31 billion.

$31 billion according to a study which in fact conceded that the tax raised is greater than the medical costs to taxpayers, and came up with the remainder of the ‘social cost’ by means of some assumptions and a few seemingly highly arbitrary values being assigned to various things. Over to Chris Snowdon of Velvet Glove, Iron Fist.

This same study did indeed come up with a figure of $31 billion, but it did so by including ‘costs’ that no reasonable person would consider to be costs. Lost productivity both at work and at home gave them an extra $8 billion (p. 64). Aside from the obvious problem of coming up with a suitable cash equivalent for domestic work, all lost productivity figures are questionable because they rely on an assumption that an individual is capable of a set amount of work in a lifetime and that he/she has a duty to fulfill that quota, otherwise they are somehow costing other people money. It’s as if someone dies and you have to go round and clean their house for the next ten years. It’s a nonsense.

Still more dubious is the remaining $19.5 billion which is made up of ‘intangible’ costs (p. 65). This relies on the entirely arbitrary valuation of a life at $2 million, or a loss of one year’s living of $53,267. This kind of psychological evaluation is practically meaningless and has no place in economics. You might as well say that the value of life is priceless and, therefore, the costs of smoking (or alcohol, or drugs) is infinite.

In other words, what Cameron Nolan is referring to here is policy based evidence. Anything with arbitrary values shouldn’t even be part of an adult discussion on the issue, but since it’s headline figure appeals to nannies, paternalists and neo-puritans alike it’s reached for with depressing regularity. Cameron Nolan isn’t the first and won’t be the last. And speaking of which…

With this Gordian knot tied, the government seems content to pull as hard as it can on one end as the considerable might of the tobacco industry pulls on the other. The government bans cigarette advertising on television and radio; the tobacco industry increases its print media advertising. The government bans cigarette advertising in print media; the tobacco industry increases its sponsorship of sporting events. The government mandates graphic health warnings on cigarette packets; the tobacco industry adjusts the attractiveness of their packaging designs. The government mandates plain packaging; the tobacco industry hires a battalion of silks and runs to the High Court.

Oh, please. The tobacco industry adjusts the attractiveness of their packets? Seriously? This garbage can only come from the pen of someone who believes, as do the plain pack pod people, that people smoke because of what’s on the box. As I’ve said repeatedly on this subject, chop-chop, Australia’s illegal and regulated and QC free tobacco, is unbranded and comes in whatever the supplier has to hand, and it has no problem in maintaining a market for what it produces. What matters to smokers is how the cigarette tastes, not what the box looks like. Nannies are apparently incapable of understanding this so I’ll draw a parallel: try to remember the most delicious food you’ve ever had, and consider whether those sublime flavours are materially altered by the plate it’s served on and the cutlery you’re provided to eat it with. Alternatively, imagine if Michel Roux shat on the plate and served it, would being on a gold rimmed plate in a multi-starred restaurant that you had to book weeks ahead make it any more than a warm turd with some imaginative garnish? That’s how much packaging matters to smokers, and if it’s really true that it’s the nicotine that they’re hopelessly addicted to (coughs – bullshit) it should be no surprise to the nannies that packaging is barely even on the average smoker’s radar.

And indeed the boxes have really not changed all that much as the health warnings and horror pics have gradually taken over. Marlboro have always had the same font black lettering on white with red triangles meeting above, B&H have always been the same gold background with the name in the preferred font, etc. They adjusted bugger all in response to health warnings and horror pictures, they just conceded some of the background to them. Since the intended result, every smoker in the world throwing up their hands and quitting immediately, did not happen the nannies are desperately casting about for something to blame for people still sparking up. The health warnings and pictures are not allowed to have been a pointless waste of time, ergo it must be the ebil cigawette makers changing the designs, even though the only designs are broadly the same as they always were.

There is of course another way to untie a Gordian knot: by cutting it. The government could mandate that cigarettes can only be sold to a person who is over 18 years of age and was born before the year 2000. This would gradually phase out cigarettes in Australia by forever prohibiting their sale to the next generation – those who are currently 12 years old or younger.

And I’ve already explained that we should not expect this to be any more successful than prohibition of heroin has been at preventing anyone born in 1965 or later from trying it.

This proposal balances the rights of existing smokers and the need to protect children born in this century from the pernicious effects of tobacco addiction.

Ah, suddenly Nolan’s all concerned for people’s rights. But only the rights of those born before 2000 – people born in the 21st century have, ipso facto, fewer rights under his proposal than those of us born later. This disparity of rights is an essential part and I have no idea if Nolan is even aware of it. If he is he certainly does see, to mind some, to use Orwell’s infamous expression, being more equal than others.

Many of us will still be concerned that such a prohibition – as with alcohol in America in the 1920s – will lead to a proliferation of the black market.


However, the aim here is not to criminalise cigarettes but to drastically reduce consumption by as yet unaddicted future generations.

Yet the prohibition of heroin lead to the same disastrous results despite it being a more gradual process designed to reduce future consumption. Again, why would it not happen with tobacco? Why would the criminals behind the illegal tobacco industry not take up as much of the slack as legislation progressively makes available to them? There is simply no reason for them not to as long as a demand exists.

A teenager would inevitably still be able to source a packet or two of cigarettes from the black market or an older sibling, but they would be much less likely to form or sustain a ‘packet a day’ addiction lasting many years without easy access.

Just the same as how nobody can form a heroin addiction these days, right? Oh, wait…

If we are trying to reduce cigarette-related deaths by 90 per cent, gradually withdrawing their sale from our petrol stations, supermarkets and 7-Elevens is a sure-fire way to get us there.

What? For fuck’s sake, where the hell does Nolan think chop-chop is sold now? Sure, out of the back of vans and through mates at work, but if he thinks none at all is going under the counters of dodgy shops and petrol stations then I have a bridge he might be interesting in buying.

Many of us will also be worried about the effect this will have on the tobacco industry and retailers.

Actually no, I couldn’t give less of a shit if I’d spent the past week on an Immodium only diet. As long as they have a market, by which I mean people aware of the risks freely choosing to buy the products anyway, they deserve to survive and the day they don’t they deserve to go the way of the dinosaurs. I’m vastly more worried by Nolan’s uneven approach to individual liberty.

Finally, what about those words that sit permanently perched at the tip of any tobacco company’s tongue – what about the “nanny-state”?

Who are you calling a tobacco company? I’m no fan or friend to them and I resent the association.

By that measure, the government should get out of the way and allow companies to start selling heroin, cocaine and other highly addictive and highly deadly drugs at everyday retail outlets. After all, they are consumed by people exercising free will and their commercialisation would create thousands of jobs.

Well, yes. And if that resulted in regulation, consumer legislation, quality control etc – all of which can be expected to reduce deaths and health problems – as well as the reduction of the black market and hence prices and crime (provided government restrains its greed and doesn’t go crazy with the Pigovian tax that’s widely accepted as being an inevitable part of legalisation) then what would be wrong with that? If nothing else it would remove the risk of prison and criminal records currently run by the large numbers of people who are able to hold down a job and remain productive members of society despite using drugs. If this state of affairs is less desirable to the Nolans of this world it surely can be only because there’s less control involved.**

Fortunately, most of us accept that such profits fall into the category of “ill-gotten gains” and demand that our government prohibit the creation of such unscrupulous markets.

And the only reason I don’t make some snarky remark about sheeple at this point is because Nolan is probably wrong about this as well. More and more articles are being written saying that the war on drugs has failed and suggesting at the least a rethink and softening of the stance on prohibition, if not decriminalisation and eventual legalisation. Yes, even in the very same newspaper that published Nolan’s piece (for instance see here and here and here), and polls on such articles (like the one at the end of this one) frequently show that most support it. So much for most accepting yadda yadda and demanding our government continues to make our decisions for us.

Ultimately, it is very difficult to come up with a good reason that justifies the premature deaths of 15,500 Australians every year. […] The phase-out proposal ensures that current smokers will be unaffected while future generations will be protected.

And in his very last point Nolan is wrong once again – it is very, very easy to come up with a good reason, and I can do it by quoting someone other than Cameron bloody Nolan.

Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.

Mohandas Ghandi.

If you’re not free to put whatever you like into your body in the knowledge that it may harm you then you’re not free. If you are not free to make bad decisions then you are not free. If you are protected from the consequences of your actions then you are not free. Everything about Cameron Nolan’s proposal involves people, initially just some but in time everyone, being less free and having less say and less ownership of their own bodies and lives. Christ, Cameron, the first two lines of the national anthem is about Australians rejoicing because they’re young and free. Aside from being young and carefully monitored for our own good not being anything worth singing about it’s a bugger to find a rhyme for it.

And really, does anyone believe it’ll stop with tobacco? Alcohol prohibition in the US may have been largely reversed after a decade or so but on the whole prohibition has been growing. Smokers and drinker and those who love liberty in general are fond of paraphrasing Niemöller’s famous poem (and I’m delighted and relieved that someone in the comments on Nolan’s piece in The Age had already done so by the time I found it – I’ve been getting a little worried about Australian attitudes to liberty lately***), but the truth is tobacco wasn’t even the first. It wasn’t even the first thing attacked that was once something many, if not most, adults did. The only difference from America’s Temperance led experiment with banning alcohol is that a more invidious salami slicing approach is preferred now.

The lesson most draw from Prohibition was that in hindsight it was unwise to have done it at all, while the lesson the nannies and neo-puritans drew was that it wasn’t implemented the right way. And I can’t help but suspect that in the back of many minds is the unspoken thought: “If only we’d been in charge of it…”

P.S. Those who’ve read the article will probably have noticed this at the bottom.

Cameron Nolan is a Masters of Public Administration Candidate in the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. This article won the Australian Fabians Young Writers Competition for 2012.

The Fabians, eh? Can anyone say it’s a surprise? And incidentally, the prize Cameron Nolan got from the Aussie Fabians was a thousand bucks, so if anyone wants to get their wallet out and pay me for fisking it I’ll take $500.</p?

However, when a Republican mayor in New York is banning soft drinks over a certain volume (wasn’t popcorn mentioned too or was that somewhere else) and Conservative councillors in London boroughs talk about charging people whose lifestyles aren’t approved off extra for services they’ve already paid for in advance through their taxes, and also since historically their leaders have frequently been the worst kind of self-righteous, illiberal arseholes, the Right have got absolutely nothing to boast about and more than a bit to be ashamed of. When it comes to nannying, control freakery, big statism and generally being self righteous paternalist pricks the left and right are absolutely as bad as each other.

A plague on both their houses.

* We should ignore the point that morphine is, pharmacologically speaking, very nearly the same thing and is used by hospitals in large quantities every day. As I understand it the effect is the same as heroin but less rapid.
** It should go without saying that as well as being a non-smoker and teetotaller I am also not a user of any prohibited drugs. Been exposed to a number of them but was never interested.
*** Actually when I looked there seemed to be roughly as many comments opposing it on anti-nannying grounds as there were frothing tobaccophobic venom and smoker untermenschen stuff that Dick Puddlecote’s been collecting.

18 comments for “The bansturbators latest attack on liberty

  1. David A. Evans
    July 10, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    With you all the way AE. Prohibition is a far greater health risk than any of the drugs banned. Total lack of regulation, lacing of drugs to increase profits, dirty needles and needle sharing, we all know these things happen.

    We also know of course that our criminals in high places will tax onerously with the excuse that it’s to discourage use. BULLSHIT!
    They apply the same logic to taxes on tobacco & alcohol, they just want to maximise the take, without scaring the horses

    At least if legal, there should be improved QC.


    • July 11, 2012 at 10:33 am

      “They apply the same logic to taxes on tobacco & alcohol, they just want to maximise the take, without scaring the horses”

      This. Governments are far more addicted to the tax money than any smoker ever was to nicotine. In fact my one and only concern about drug legalisation is that the first government to wake up and do it will give in to the temptation to rip the arse out of the taxes and reap no benefit, which would put it all back decades and play right into the hands of the criminals running the trade now.

  2. Tatty
    July 10, 2012 at 1:55 pm

    gradually withdrawing their sale from…supermarkets

    I’m pretty damn sure this is already happening.

    Once upon a time I could get a carton of 100 ciggies no problem with my ASDA online delivery. Two months ago they were suddenly…albeit erratically… “unavailable”. This happened twice in a number of weeks.

    Where you order multiple individual items they will at least send what is available even if the total amount isn’t so… so almost a fortnight ago now…I switched to ordering 5 individual packs. They’d surely have at least one pack to send, right ?

    Nope. “Unavailable”.

    Not only that but when you place an online order and pay by debit card the bank puts a hold on the total amount of your order. If, when your delivery arrives, items have been “unavailable” the total is recalculated and only that amount is actually taken from your bank. This normally takes, maybe, 2 or 3 days after delivery to release the excess funds to your bank account.

    In the case where ciggies have been “unavailable” it has taken far longer.

    Where 1 carton was “unavailable” it took a week after delivery to release funds back into my account. Where 5 individual packs were “unavailable” it has taken (to date) TEN DAYS…and still no sign of that money.

    I am no conspiracy theorist but this cannot be a coincidence…can it ? 😐

    • July 11, 2012 at 10:30 am

      I’m also reluctant to go all tinfoil hatty over it, but it is suspicious. Never mind, somewhere a man with a van will supply you, and if not do what Leg-iron and Pat Nurse and others are doing and grow your own.

      • Tatty
        July 11, 2012 at 12:26 pm

        Or there’s the shop down the road run by those nice sri-lankans who, yesterday, helpfully showed me a price list stating the RRP of my preferred brand is to rise by another 25p per pack when current stocks run out and has stashed a few cartons at current price in the back *just for me*.

        What do you reckon to buying ciggies online ? Have any smokers amongst the regular commentors on this (and associated blogs) ever done this ? What was your experience and can you recommend a site ?

        I’ve just read a testamonial on buycigsonline… that claim to ship from countries within the EU but it’s random as to precisely where…who says their ciggies arrived from the UK so the price they paid was -tax.

        To echo one of Julia’s blog titles today…buying ciggies online isn’t a time to be “hopeful and naive”. 😉

        • July 11, 2012 at 4:33 pm

          Some of those are duty-free sites, one of which, IIRC, is located in Cyprus. They seem to be able to despatch cigarettes from all over Europe. These are not the big corporations which run duty-free shops in airports but smaller mom-and-pop concerns.

          The problem is that even if they send an order out to you, there is no guarantee that you will receive it. If you do, it takes at least two to three weeks.

          There also seems to be some problem with cigarettes from Spain, which the UK officials have been known to impound.

          Some of these cigarette-shipping places send directly to a middleman in the UK who then sends the cartons out. (They are already pre-addressed and ready to go.) However, if UK authorities impound his shipment from the duty-free supplier, then you’re out of luck (and, possibly, pocket).

          I did quite a lot of research on this and that was what I came up with.

          The best you can do is to order from UK retailers — try Duckworth’s in Wales — for loose tobacco, filters, papers, cigarillos and cigars. They ship quickly.

          Sorry to read about your Asda experience. I’d stick with the Sri Lankans, personally.

  3. July 10, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    ‘Australian Fabians’ — thanks for this, which supports my hypothesis that bans various come from the Left originally with the Right following on later in sheeplike support.

    Both sides of the spectrum are guilty. They are all Fabians now.

    • July 11, 2012 at 10:29 am

      I think you’re letting the Right off way too easy there. Paternalism and feeling that they know what’s best for the proles better than they themselves has been a self-indulgence of the Right since before there was a real Left. If anything I’d say this tendency to control, regulate and ban is a Right thing that the Left have nicked rather than the other way around. It just feels that way because the Left have turned out to be even keener on it and rather better at bringing it about.

      • July 11, 2012 at 2:56 pm

        We could argue this one until the cows come home. 😉

        A few weeks ago, I heard a remark made by one of Napoleon’s descendents who was interviewed briefly on RMC (Radio Monte Carlo) about the Socialist Party in France. The interviewer said, ‘Surely, you don’t align yourself with them?’

        He replied, ‘Why not? Napoleon was a natural socialist. I’m following in his footsteps.’

  4. Andrew Duffin
    July 10, 2012 at 8:23 pm

    You can persuade me with the freedom arguments; I’m cool with challenging those who would claim ownership rights over my body or yours; I appreciate the private property angles of the smoking ban in pubs.

    Oh yes, all of that.

    But you’re on shaky ground when you start saying there’s doubt over whether smoking causes cancer.

    Sorry mate, but much as you may enjoy the habit, and much as I am happy to let you get on with it (except in my house or car or office, thank you!), it IS actually bad for you.

    Very bad indeed.

    Fact. Not opinion or spin.

    • July 10, 2012 at 9:40 pm

      Not so, but it’s career-limiting to speak out, especially if you’re a scientist.

      Here are four links for starters, three by ex-Tobacco Control researchers and one by a professor at Strathclyde University who warns about the consequences of draconian bans:

      Look forward to hearing from you after you read them.

      Fact. Not opinion or spin, unlike Tobacco Control.

    • July 11, 2012 at 10:18 am

      I think you’ve misread what I said. I very carefully did not say that smoking does not cause cancer because I lack the expertise to make such a claim and suspect that it’s probably inaccurate. What I said was this:

      It’s almost Holy Writ that smoking causes lung cancer, and it’s frequently assumed by the lazy that it causes all lung cancer.

      What I refer to there is both the lack of dissent mentioned by Churchmouse and the assumption among some lazy thinkers (mostly not scientists) that lung cancer is *only* caused by smoking when in fact a number of other things can cause it. There’s also the the problem that lung cancer in non-smokers is rising as smoking has declined. If they both rose and fell together then there’d be something in that, though of course correlation does not mean causation. But when there is no correlation at all, when the factor being blamed for a rising effect is itself falling, then can it really be the cause or should we be looking for something that does actually correlate? However, that’s an ETS issue – nowhere did I say that smoking does not harm smokers. Criticising the unthinking acceptance of increasingly hysterical dogma on the subject, which I did in passing at most, is not claiming that fags are harmless.

      You also weren’t reading properly when I said that I stopped enjoying smoking years ago and gave up (which, claims of addictiveness to the contrary, is remarkably easy when you’re not enjoying them), and that these days I’m a non-smoking teetotaller. It’s easier to make a case for drug legalisation when you don’t even drink or smoke. :mrgreen:

  5. July 11, 2012 at 12:48 am

    There was an old bloke on BBC Radio 4 last week, introduced as the Dr who carried out 1960’s studies (on other doctors) that “established that cancer was caused by smoking” as opposed to car exhaust fumes or tarmac which had been earlier candidates.
    He’s retiring now to plaudits all round, bless. Asked about the risks of Second Hand Smoking he replied “minimal, does not bother me at all”.

    Back on topic “Phasing out tobacco will stop the next generation taking up smoking” Agreed on all the points in the post and hiding tobacco behind mystery screens at Tesco and the Co-Op will simply add to the allure of tobacco to the young.

    • July 11, 2012 at 10:26 am

      We’ve had the mystery screens here for a while. Victoria allowed an exception for tobacconists with a shop door on the reasonable grounds that if you go in the shop you already know what you’re going to find in there, so as long as packs weren’t in the window it was okay. Hilariously the ACT did not, so that tobacconists not only had to look like sex shops from the outside but had to keep all the cigs in drawers and cupboards anyway. Far as I know they did jackshit, which is presumably why we’re getting plain packs next. Meanwhile the chop-chop people carry on their business as they always have.

  6. Greg T ingey
    July 11, 2012 at 9:11 am

    Much as I loathe smoking, this is completly insane.
    ALL drugs should be legal, licensed (for purity) taxed & freely available, for money, at any Pharmacy.

    Just “banning” it (whatever “it” is), merely creates a black-market & an opportunity for crimal gangsters … and the idiots can’t or won’t see this?

    • July 11, 2012 at 10:22 am

      Pretty much where I’m coming from. Don’t like smoking, don’t allow it in my house, don’t object to anyone else smoking anywhere else even if they’re nearby. Because my legs aren’t fucking painted on and I’ve never been unable to get away from the smoke. Smoky pubs? Fine, nobody’s forcing me to go in. If it’s mildly smoky I’ll put up with it for god company, and if it’s too smoky I won’t.

      Free choice of a responsible adult. When did it go out of fashion?

  7. July 11, 2012 at 10:45 am

    It’s interesting to note that what appears to be an original idea by the winner of the Australian Fabians Young Writers Competition for 2012 was already announced in Singapore in March 2012 by Tobacco Control:

    ‘The proposal to create a tobacco-free generation, by denying access to tobacco to those born from 2000 onwards, received strong support when it was presented at a meeting of the Human Rights and Tobacco Control Network (HRTCN) as part of the pre-conference activities associated with the World Conference on Tobacco Or Health (WCTOH) taking place here in Singapore …’

  8. Furor Teutonicus
    July 11, 2012 at 11:01 am

    XX the nannies have not quite yet added tobacco – and alcohol, and fatty foods, and sugar, and Red Bull, XX

    Don’t be so sure. Denmark already has a “fat tax”, and remember last year, when the “Mail” went into a spitty and hissy fit regarding “Caffeine enhanced” fizzy drinks?

    So, as you say, they have not “added”, but they have constructed the first steps.

Comments are closed.