Matthew - perhaps you haven't been in the workplace long enough to have had an employer explain to you that 'you are part of a team'. In this case we could say that you are part of Team Humanity - so there will have to be some negotiation between what you want and the team wants.

The team has decided that smoking is self-destructive behaviour, which is a bad thing. (Which isn't like the way most people use alcohol). The team says you can still have the drug, nicotine, just not the harmful cigarette. The team doesn't want this generation of smokers to recruit the next by setting an example - the children of smokers are more likely to be smokers.

You can make a case to allow smoking, but "it's my body" probably isn't a good enough case. To persuade me, you would need to show that the benefit to the smoker is greater than the cost to the victim - the person more likely to die an early, gruesome death, thanks to cigarettes. It seems to me that doing without cigarettes, but still having nicotine, is a small cost, compared to the cost for future victims.

Hi Russell, are you suggesting everyone should comply with a majority opinion? So if 51% of Australians don't approve of alcohol, buying a Tatts ticket or driving to work, it should be prohibited?

Hi James, I was answering the claim that 'it's my body I can do what I want' with the claim that we all live in relationships with others (family, friends, neighbours et al.), and that relationships involve reciprocal obligations. We've all been through the adolescent 'I'll do what I want to' phase, but as adults we recognise that our community has claims on us, as it also supports us.

So, we generally accept the obligation to obey the laws the community makes. If we want to change those laws it's best done by argument, persuasion and influence. But for really serious matters we reserve the right to follow our conscience and break a law.

To me, smoking cigarettes is a fairly trivial pleasure to give up, given that nicotine is available for addicts, while the consequences for those who are immature enough to start smoking are likely to be very serious. So I would support more and more measures being taken to discourage smoking. I might need to be persuaded that a complete ban would be effective.

"Relationships involve reciprocal obligations" - sure, I must not fail to tell my neighbour if I notice his house is on fire. I must not fail to return Mrs Over-the-Road's puppy when it escapes again from her inadequately fenced back yard. (Maybe we should be banning those, too. Puppies or inadequate fencing? you decide.) I will continue my atavistic practice of baking a cake to welcome new neighbours, even though nowadays that's usually met with a suspicious glare followed by bewilderment. I will not allow my household to make excessive noise, to litter the street with wrecked cars and other rubbish, or to indulge in door-slamming, engine-revving and other un-neighbourly behaviour.

But that's as far as it goes. I have no other obligations to my neighbours or my 'community' and frankly have no idea what kind of world you live in, but suspect it's frozen somewhere around 1952.

What I do in my own home is entirely up to me. Fortunately none of my interests is illegal, so nobody can stop me. I deeply resent the interference of total strangers who burn with missionary zeal as they try desperately to insist that THEIRS is the One True Way. Sounds unpleasantly evangelical to me and you know what they say: fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.

p.s. non-smoker

Diana - I didn't say that mine is 'the One True Way' - I was talking about obeying the law.

There are laws I disagree with, for example in the case of voluntary euthanasia, the polls suggest that a large majority of people (including me) would like the voluntary euthanasia option for people with a terminal illness. But that means we should try to have the law changed, and not just ignore it.

I like to run on the beach of a morning and I go to the part of a beach where dogs are banned - a bit further along is the dog beach. There are often people with dogs where they shouldn't be - presumably they think that no-one can tell them where to take their dog. But that just leads to strife. They should respect their community enough to obey the law, or work to have it changed.

And no, what you do 'in your own home' isn't entirely up to you. Try downloading certain kinds of pictures on your home PC and see where it gets you.

Diana - It is a lonely path understanding the right of others to think differently and I respect your point of view. The overview of this issue encompasses the young minds who are not able to see an adult perspective however. Your call that some are "evangelical" is fairly accurate.

There is the issue of those who are not left free to choose, the young. How does this fit into your values?

This is where Michael Silverton looks on track suggesting an alternative solution. Unfortunately Michael may fall into the category of the " ....the One True Way". Because he sees; " ...... policing the current legislation on sale of cigarettes to minors" - Michael. Value systems are at issue here with; "Setting a date for a tobacco-free Australia?"

Announcing people should be free to choose, but ignoring our duty of care to the young undeveloped mind is out of step with evolved values. Something to think about.

Russell - you're quite right, you didn't claim a One True Way and in fact reading back my post it struck me I sounded rather rude, and I apologise for that.

Also you're right about the dogs on beach thing, and all that other obvious community awareness stuff that really boils down to common politeness and consideration when you think about it. And it was blinkered of me not to consider the kind of gross behaviour that does go on in some homes, yes, but I suppose it's fair to say I'm really only responsible for what goes on in mine. My assumption that there's a common standard of behaviour that's tacitly understood by all was naive.

And that's quite enough humble pie for one afternoon!

Paul -
I appreciate that I neglected to consider the overview and thank you for those thought provoking questions.
Hmmm I see I shall have to count to ten before posting next time. Yes, very much so, to your last para and what a conundrum it is. The 'young undeveloped mind' is assaulted on so many fronts, all the time, that it's going to take a powerfully fresh approach to effect change, methinks.

I think what motivated my original post was really a surge of irritation at what seemed in that moment to be yet more evidence of the Nanny State Syndrome, an intolerably tiresome phenomenon (and not confined to Australia!)

Diana - I think that deserves a gold stamp from The Conservation editor: most people will never say they misread something or apologise for the tone of a comment. But it allows conservation to go on ......

I think we might have an honest difference of opinion, which is fine .... me here in the reasonable centre (or 1952 to some) and you somewhere out on the edge of 'do your own thing' hippiedom.

c-o-n-v-e-r-s-a-t-i-o-n, sorry, not properly awake from delicious 1952-type afternoon nap.

Diana - This current political system is dominated by neoliberal thinking. The "Nanny State Syndrome" is a smoke screen used by those with red SDi value systems to justify their behaviour. It would be nice if publicly listed companies actually cared or used values that meant we were shown the respect we deserve. Let alone cared enough to nanny us!

Red SDi values - include memes like "people are lazy and need to be made to work, "might is right" "be what you want regardless" ....... and so on.

Spiral Dynamics [SDi] - by Clare Graves - this link is an introduction to value systems or levels of thought.
Just join SlideShare it's free and go here;
http://www.slideshare.net/magx68/spiral-dynamics-introduction-1110600

Hi Russell, I do take your point about reciprocal obligations. I'm just not clear how a ban on cigarettes follows from this.

Smokers pay tax on cigarettes to cover the State's medical expenses. There are bans on smoking in public spaces to prevent discomfort to others. But smoking alone in your bedroom, for example, has no effect on other people.

Hi Diana, I've felt the same way after posting sometimes - 'OMG did I really write that'!

And it's great Russell can be so good humoured about it.

However, I thought your comment was really witty and thought-provoking.You should write more!

Have you ever considered spending a few years in downtown Mogadishu to get away from all this bothersome 'red' government interference? You can enjoy your life unimpeded by the government meddling in your affairs, and practice a pure nanny-free existence with all the "respect you deserve" (although I can't guarantee Islamist militia won't do house calls from time to time).

And you'll even be able to stream Alan Jones via your digital radio.

(or do you like all the 'good' bits of government interference like roads, hospitals, education, police, social security, clean air, safe drinking water...?)

I looked at the website. After a while I made the decision to reserve the study of Spiral Dynamics for my extreme old age (probably about the end of next week the way things are going.)

But at least now I know what a meme is, so thank you for that. It seems to be another word for cliche, is that right? My least favourite is "whatever floats your boat", which seems to encourage a certain intellectual laziness.

Whateverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...........

Hello Peter.

Slightly interesting response, in that it makes me wonder what prompts people - you, in this instance - to be borderline spiteful in response to a post from a total stranger on an internet forum.

Comparisons are odious, you know, and rather misleading. Mogadishu vs Queensland? You're not comparing like with like. Banning cigarette smoking is unlikely to be a priority in Mogadishu right now.

If death is what makes an activity "dangerous", I guess we should ban living ?

I am not sure what the authors agenda is; is it to save the most lives, in which case we can save 100's of thousand by reducing the War budget and using those dollars to help our closest neighbours PNG and save many, many thousands of lives. So it can't be that as there is no argument in his article about saving the "most lives".... is it concern for health and well being of fellow Australians (that just sounds eerie and paternal) and I hope it's not that, or soon someone will be arguing to ban something he enjoys, perhaps alcohol, is it socialised health care the author is really against ? The article makes no sense.

That aside any "heath budget" worry is a nonsense of misusing statistics, healthy people inevitably cost more as they linger into the twilight years using huge amounts of Government resources. If the author is concerned about health care costs, he should be advocating people take up smoking and over eating.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=smokers%20and%20the%20obese%20cheaper%20to%20care%20for&st=cse&gwh=D3EA757B12F86C83B4D97FE3866A29A1

I can understand removing tobacco and alcohol from being able to be advertised but that and education are where Government should stop. I don't and never have smoked but support peoples right to. Anyone that thinks prohibition is a sensible way forward should be ignored, look at the lunacy this has left us in the "drug" debate.

This is all very well, and yes, smoking is a disgusting habit. However, if you're going to cite the cost of doctor appointments etc. etc. burdening the public purse and/or negatively affecting the prosperity and happiness of non-smokers, well, may I refer you to the obesity epidemic conversations and suggest that the grossly overweight, who must surely outnumber the smokers, incur significant healthcare costs. Obesity is always glandular in origin, but I'd wager that in 99% of cases the glands involved are specifically salivary. Ugh.
Some of us find the evidence of shameless self-indulgence as offensive as the smell of a smoker, you know. Prejudiced? Yep.

Diana - the link between tobacco and the complexities of obesity are hardly similar. You are right prejudice is used in both issues. However with tobacco addicts it has some validity because the process of addiction is simple and science of brain function in tobacco addiction known.
The obesity story is far from being a complete science.
For example we are only just starting research into gut flora.
Just this one example alone means the right human gut flora / microbiota can eliminate food from the body. The wrong can process and encourage storage of energy. It is why some eat mountains of rubbish food and drink, but never gain fat.

Then there are environmental issues, abundance, industrialisation of food, breast feeding, it's duration, child care, time constraints on parents for shopping and preparation, fast food, soft drinks, supermarket convenience. Dehumanised cites, brown and white fat deposites with genetic diversity and on and on, pages of difference. So prejudging obese people is unfair, on the other hand prejudging smokers can be accurate.

I admit I am wary of mental illness with smokers, as 99% of the mentally ill smoke. Awareness of others is an important survival mechanism and pre-programed into us.

What we can not be prejudge with smokers is how circumstances led them to the addiction. Given there are multinational corporations determined to enslave as many as possible, we need to have empathy for the addict and be ready to help.

Paul Richards: “Given there are multinational corporations determined to enslave as many as possible, we need to have empathy for the addict and be ready to help.”
“our duty of care to the young undeveloped mind is out of step with evolved values.”

Paul, you’re using the standard inflammatory rhetoric of fanatics/zealots. Concerning antismoking, the same sort of baseless rhetoric is to be heard all the way back to James I in his “Counterblaste to Tobacco” in the early-1600s. The poisonous rhetoric says far, far more about the [unstable] mental state of zealots than smokers at whom it’s directed. The current antismoking crusade represents a regression – not an “evolution” – to dangerous fanaticism of a century ago. You should go do some study on the psychology of fanaticism, its typical slogans, e.g., “for the children”, and the destructive bandwagon effects it can produce.

You should also consider that the bulk of the public is now enslaved to the medical production line. For example, we – young and old alike - are now medicated on prescription drugs more than ever. The voracious medical establishment has essentially “medicalized” everyday life….. the entire human condition, making patients of everyone, and where there is now very little that it does not consider “its jurisdiction” and requiring its intervention…… usually profitable intervention.

but bacon tastes so good. i know it causes heart attacks and the smoke is carcinogenic, also pigs must die. but i can't give up bacon

oh, cigarettes? sorry i thought you said bacon.

sorry to joke, it's not a very good analogy i know, but the point is that it's easy to forget that people smoke because smoke tastes good (to some people, as it happens, i hate bacon)

Jeff Poole - you have missed half of the equation - it's about risk vs benefit. SO, you don't ban the car because the enormous daily benefits far outweigh the risks, per kilometer journeyed. Ambulances also help save lives.

Same with air-conditioning - what if it saves more lives from hyperthermia than it wastes from Legionnaire's?

Tobacco is not as drug - it is a plant, containing the addictive substance nicotine. You are correct that burning it and inhaling the smoke is a hazardous thing to do - with essentially NO benefits (except, perhaps, in managing anxiety - which is why so many people are addicted).

But we need to be cautious about the "what about other causes of harm" argument without weighing the harms against the benefits.

'McDonalds, Hungry Jacks, (obesity, heart disease)' Not illegal...yet.

'Air conditioning (legionnaires, all 'flus - still the biggest killer)' There are legal constraints on owners of large air conditioners to maintain them and ensure that they are free from contaminants.

'Unsafe sex (AIDS, Syphilis, bables)' One can be gaoled in NSW for deliberately exposing sexual partner (s) to HIV.

'Mobile telephones (car accidents)' It is illegal to use a mobile whilst driving.

'Alcohol (car accidents, obesity, induced stupidity)' It's illegal to drive whilst drunk.

'The Internal Combustion engine (similar lung diseases to smoking, destruction of human habitat )' It is also illegal to disable/fail to maintain the pollution control systems on modern cars.

So..tobacco isn't really being singled out, is it?

You're not a neurosurgeon.

Peter Fox: “Have any of you ever broken the news to a smoker that they have incurable lung/bladder/kidney etc cancer?”

Not a pleasant task. But it goes with the job. I’m interested in why you single out smokers…… that telling *them* is an unpleasant task. Why you seem utterly convinced that any malady that would befall a smoker is somehow “caused” by smoking? Peter, you sound like an antismoker. This stance clouds perception and judgment, constantly seeing “causes” where none are demonstrable. Why would you need to ensure that those who smoke are badgered into believing that smoking “caused” their condition? There are even medicos telling nonsmokers, for example, that their lung cancer was “caused” by smoking being permitted in the lunch room at work. This is delinquent.

I’m assuming you’re a medical practitioner. How much time do you – or the medical establishment – spend on iatrogenesis? Or the mangling of the Hippocratic Oath over the last 30 years, a similar assault as occurred in the German medical establishment in the lead up to the Nazi regime? There are some estimates of iatrogenesis that dwarf the so-called “toll” from smoking. How much time do you think the medical establishment spends looking at its own backyard that would detrimentally affect its profitability?

What about this, Peter:
“As many as one in four doctors who responded to a 2005 Canadian Lung Association survey admitted to providing lesser care to smokers. A University of Washington survey published last year found just under one in 10 smokers hid their tobacco use from doctors, often because of stigma.”
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2417574

If one percent of medicos were indicating that they were providing lesser care to any group, it should be sounding alarm bells; it is so contrary to the primary goal of patient care. Twenty-five percent indicating so is catastrophic. So, what became of this survey? Absolutely nothing.

When the medical establishment becomes ideologically (eugenics) compromised, when it ventures into social engineering, it becomes a dangerous entity. Antismoking represents institutionalized bigotry in the contemporary medical establishment. There are medicos that have become terribly and selectively judgmental.

Consider iatrogenesis which refers to any detrimental outcome produced by medical conduct (e.g., adverse drug reactions, medical errors, poor care of the bed-ridden resulting in infected bed sores). In America, from the very few studies that have been done, iatrogenic deaths are estimated at 750,000-1,000,000 per annum. It dwarfs the so-called tobacco “death toll” (400,000) and is approaching half of the total annual death toll in America (2,500,000). The medical establishment is by far the leading cause of preventable death and disability and associated costs. The translation for Australia is that iatrogenic deaths are estimated at 55,000-74,000 per annum compared with the tobacco “death-toll” of 16,000. The translation for the UK would be 150,000-200,000 iatrogenic deaths per annum.

Further, the iatrogenic toll is far more plausible, causally, than the tobacco “toll”. The tobacco “toll” is based on lifetime use (involving millions of puffs) that also brings into play a veritable plethora of other factors over a lifetime. It is also argued from the population level that has very poor extrapolation to the individual level. Conversely, the iatrogenic toll is argued from the individual level and then estimated for the population level. For iatrogenesis, causation is typically demonstrable at the individual level. For example, with adverse drug reactions (these are properly prescribed, FDA approved drugs), it may take just one or a few pills to produce cardiac arrest in some patients that can be fatal or leave permanent injury. The patient is stable and within an hour of taking a pill goes into atypical catastrophic failure. The temporality of many of these associations is not over a lifetime, but involves hours or days. Of the two – the iatrogenic or tobacco tolls – it is the former that should attract very serious scrutiny. But, as will be seen, it has been the other way around, or upside-down.

Concerning smoking, there have been thousands upon thousands of antismoking “studies” conducted/funded. Many do not break new ground but simply reinforce the agenda. World Conferences on Smoking and Health have been occurring since the 1960s. In the last few decades there are National Conferences on Smoking and Health. There are now even Conferences for Nonsmokers. Then there are Smoking Cessation Conferences run by the Pharma cartel peddling its useless/dangerous wares. Additionally there are numerous antismoking lectures and colloquia and speeches and committees and campaigns. Specific institutes for the study of tobacco have been created as sub-centres of university Public Health Departments. There has been a frenzy of antismoking activity over the last three decades. A formidable, lucrative industry has been created that did not exist 30 years ago. And the bulk of it is all under medical direction. The medical establishment has wreaked social havoc, again, to tackle the tobacco “death toll”, and peddled essentially on the basis of the far smaller tobacco “toll” in nonsmokers (SHS).

So we could then ask that if this has been the reaction to the tobacco “death toll”, then there must be an even greater industry addressing/correcting institution-wide iatrogenesis? In fact, there’s not. Compared with the many thousands of antismoking studies, there are but a handful (less than 20) concerning institution-wide iatrogenesis, damning as they are. There are no conferences on iatrogenesis whatsoever. There are no specifically-created institutes addressing the issue. In fact, it attracts almost zero attention within the medical establishment itself. The medical administration doesn’t like talking about it or the public knowing about it. This is the same medical establishment that now wants to “fix-up” the world. Scrutinizing the medical establishment would reveal how unstable its framework is. It would mean a [reasonable] loss of profits and trust. While it tenaciously maintains the spotlight on its favorite social targets, it avoids scrutiny like the plague. The medical establishment was out of control 30 years ago. It has since entered a sinister phase. And smokers are one of the first to notice the ugly side of the medical establishment in its world-fixing (eugenics) crusade.

Most are not aware that the Hippocratic Oath has all but been done away with in the contemporary medical establishment. It is not a requirement of medical graduation. A key tenet of the Hippocratic Oath is “first do no harm”. When the Hippocratic Oath is dispensed with, it opens the medical establishment to deranged ideology (eugenics) and greed: With the “first do no harm” precept done away with and open to deranged ideology, the medical establishment can then rationalize doing harm for the greater “good”, and where it defines all the factors. The same assault on the Hippocratic Oath occurred in the German medical establishment in the decade preceding the Nazi regime. Medically-pushed antismoking also began to appear in German society around this time.

The contemporary medical establishment has become a dangerous self-serving entity. While it incites arguments that particular social groups are “costly” to the system, they never ask what cost they pose to the system. Taxpayer-funding of the health system has become a black hole, sucking more and more funding into it. This is constantly blamed on everyone except the medical establishment. The medical industrial complex is wealthy, second only to the military industrial complex. Where is taxpayer funding going? Are medical services/products overpriced? Are there useless, costly products? Are there useless, costly procedures? Is there useless, costly equipment? Is there useless, costly screening and testing? Is there a useless, costly bureaucracy? etc, etc.

The argument can well be made that it is when the medical establishment is not properly looking after its affairs is also when it becomes additionally dangerous by venturing into havoc-producing social-engineering crusades. And we haven’t even begun to consider that all of the detrimental consequences of social engineering – denormalization, stigmatization, alienation, extortion, economic hardship, bigotry, etc – are also iatrogenic.

Let me summarise your position:
1) Smoking kills people
2) Medical complications kill people
3) Therefore doctors don't have a moral position to address public health because they are personally responsible for so much suffering.

You then proceeded into 'Reductio ad Hitlerum' by linking the anti-smoking movement to the Nazi regime and eugenics. With the social chaos caused by the medical profession ("denormalization, stigmatization, alienation, extortion, economic hardship, bigotry"), it is no small feat that doctors are able to sleep at night.

The reason I mentioned those specific cancer types is that they are amongst the cancer type most strongly linked to smoking. Smoking is attributable to 90% of lung cancer deaths in males [1], bladder cancer incidence ~60% [2], kidney cancer incidence ~70% [3].

I would never tell a patient that their cancer is 'caused' by smoking - generally they come to this conclusion themselves if they are a heavy smoker. If you smoke 2 packs a day for 50 years, then get lung cancer, most people put 2 + 2 together. Obviously, you can never state definitively what causes a cancer. But based on known attributable risk estimates, it's unlikely this patient developed lung cancer from another cause.

Do you work for BAT? [4]

[1] http://www.lung.org/lung-disease/lung-cancer/resources/facts-figures/lung-cancer-fact-sheet.html
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21846855
[3] http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/2/254.full.pdf
[4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/10/cigarette-firms-accused-promoting-online

John, I am a non-smoker who is strongly opposed to regulation. People need to make up their own minds if they want to smoke and accept and pay for the consequences. However I must object to the notion that smoke adversely affects made up diseases. For example, smoke (of any sort) adversely affects asthma, especially in confined spaces like planes and restaurants etc. So while I respect the right of people to smoke (as long as they are aware of the consequences), I do not think they have the right to conduct an activity which adversely affects the health of others.

Stephen

"People need to make up their own minds if they want to smoke and accept and pay for the consequences"

By "people" I will assume you mean informed adults making personal choices, fully aware of consequences?

Further, you (and I) are attempting to debate with someone who claims (believes?) that smoking is actually beneficial to health. No rational argument to be had here.

So you'd like some second hand tobacco smoke?

What are you rambling on about?

John A - What are you rambling on about?

I think a little respect is due Mark Amey, we have had to endure over four thousand words from you defending big tobacco and the rights of smokers over others.

Most of it lifted rhetoric from think tanks supporting the smoking lobby over the last fifty years and now actively rolling out climate denial rhetoric as well. For the record we now are in no doubt about what you are rambling on about.

Paul, Mark addressed nothing in the post. He just made a one-sentence, nonsensical statement. It is he who is being disrespectful. If he’d care to clarify it, I would be only too happy to address any issues he raises.

As to your comment, there may be over 4,000 words…… I wasn’t counting. But then you’ve addressed none of the issues either. I and others have respectfully endured your ranting about “spiral” nonsense and colour-coding of “values”. You’ve even managed to convince yourself that “….I understand the range or stages of human values”, that you have your finger on the pulse of the universe. Paul, let’s just say that you think you do.

Not content with barging in, you then let loose with a baseless, spiteful blast. This was somewhat of a shock [not really] coming from a self-proclaimed “oracle”. Allow me to make the comment directly since previous posts…… all 4,000+ words ….. haven’t sunk through the colour layers of your mind. None of my posts are a “defense” of the tobacco industry or the rights of smokers over others. That’s what you need to believe. That accusation….. standard practice….. is usually wheeled out by antismokers when they don’t like what they’re hearing, when their propaganda starts getting exposed for what it is.

So, Paul, might I respectfully ask that if you can’t coherently address issues raised, that you keep your snide, “colourful” comments to yourself.

John you seemed to be connecting the dangers of second hand smoke with eugenics, which, too me seemed to be a pretty huge leap. In fact, a ramble!

Mark - Funny how those with limited values can do it to others, but can not deal with the same back.
The issue is fraught with emotion, justification, anger and I personally see red over some points so understand John's sore spots only too well.

Mark, these days it’s referred to as “healthism”, but that’s actually the behavioral dimension of eugenics. What makes it particularly eugenics is the social-engineering intent by a self-installed medical elite. A small, self-installed clique operating under the auspices of the World Health Organization decided for everyone that tobacco-use should be eradicated from the world. The current antismoking crusade has been an “eradication” crusade – like most previous crusades - from the outset, masqueraded for a time as “protecting” nonsmokers from secondhand smoke “danger”. But that charade is long over because we are now seeing smoking bans in parks, beaches, entire university campuses, denial of employment and medical treatment to smokers that have nothing to do with secondhand smoke “danger”. Look at the website for the last World Conference on Tobacco or Health. Right at the top is the slogan “Towards a Tobacco Free World” - http://wctoh2012.org/nav-programme.html . This was the plan from the outset although they originally claimed that it wasn’t, that they were only trying to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke “danger”. That’s not true; it’s just one of a plethora of lies. I have to respectfully indicate that if you’d read the information and absorbed it, you wouldn’t be making that statement. I can only direct you back to the basic information/links in the comments, otherwise I would have to re-post and…… you know who…… is keeping track of my word count :)

But maybe this will help. I can even pose this as a question for Paul if he’s willing to field it with his profound insight.
Give us your assessment (e.g., colour) of the rabid antismoking fanatic. Here’s a little background:

Here’s a brief history of the antismoking madness over the last few decades.

The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.
Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.

While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors. Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, innocent nonsmokers should have to “endure”.
Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entrance ways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entrance ways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses and parks and beaches.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.

On top of all of this, there are now instances, particularly in the USA, where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation) rather than allow them to have a cigarette – even outside.

At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required to push it. There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking – their smokefree “utopia” – since the 1960s. They have prostituted their medical authority and integrity to chase ideology. All of it is working to a tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO and that most nations are now signed-up to (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control).

We can see the pattern here. The concocted SHS “danger” concerned a minute statistical risk of entirely questionable causal basis for LIFELONG (30, 40, 50, 60 years) exposure to SHS from spousal smoking. Around 99.9+% of those exposed to SHS over a lifetime have NO elevated statistical risk of disease. Yet with the propaganda promoting the idea that SHS is bio-weapon-like, unlike anything else on earth, we now have many delicate and dainty nonsmokers “running the gauntlet” of smokers at entranceways, hand cupped over mouth, terrified that they might inhale a whiff. This is the promotion of mental dysfunction (e.g., anxiety reactions, hypochondria, somatization). And the irrationally terrified then demand “protection”. It is fully to be expected as a result of incessant inflammatory propaganda. And this is typically what happens when the medically-aligned Public Health goes on its social-engineering, deranged ideological crusades. The fanatics will keep pushing as far as society allows them.

This has all happened in just 20 years. If it was mentioned 20 years ago, or even 10 or 5 years ago, that smokers would be denied employment and housing and smoking bans in parks and beaches, it would have been laughed at as “crazed thinking”. Yet here we are. It’s all happened before and it has all been intentional, planned decades ago. We just don’t learn or we’re going to have to learn the very hard way because it has to do with far, far more than just smoking.

I'm not going to even attempt to argue , except to say that smoke stinks, and smokers stink. I wish they could be sent to a small shed, at least 50 metres from anywhere so that I don't have to smell the stench. Of course, the smokers eventually come back inside, and we have to have that stink exuding from their skin.

Does that make me 'healthist'? I suppose so.

I'm not sure that it makes me a eugenicist, though!

Mark: “I'm not going to even attempt to argue….”

Didn’t think so.

So we’ve gone from secondhand smoke “danger” to it’s the awful “stench” that now warrants eradication of people from your considerable proximity.

Here’s something to consider, Mark:

From Bayer & Stuber
“…..In the last half century the cigarette has been transformed. The fragrant has become foul. . . . An emblem of attraction has become repulsive. A mark of sociability has become deviant. A public behavior is now virtually private. Not only has the meaning of the cigarette been transformed but even more the meaning of the smoker [who] has become a pariah . . . the object of scorn and hostility.”
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2005.071886

This change from fragrant to foul hasn’t come from the smoke which has remained a constant. The shift is an entirely psychological one. Unfortunately, the way the shift is manufactured is through negative conditioning. The constant play on fear and hatred through inflammatory propaganda warps perception. Ambient tobacco smoke was essentially a background phenomenon. Now exposure to tobacco smoke (SHS) has been fraudulently manufactured into something on a par with a bio-weapon like, say, sarin gas. There are now quite a few who screech that they “can’t stand” the “stench” of smoke, or the smoke is “overwhelming”; there are now those, hand cupped over mouth, that attempt to avoid even a whiff of dilute smoke. This is a recent phenomenon. It says nothing about the physical properties of tobacco smoke. These people are demonstrating that they have been successfully conditioned (brainwashed) into aversion. They are now suffering mental dysfunction such as anxiety disorder, hypochondria, or somatization. Questionable social engineering requires putting many into mental disorder to advance the ideological/financial agenda.

Mark: “Does that make me 'healthist'? I suppose so.
I'm not sure that it makes me a eugenicist, though!”

Mark, you left one out –
Does that make me a neurotic bigot? Absolutely!

How am I a neurotic bigot for hating stench??

Bloody smokers!

"Funny how those with limited values can do it to others, but can not deal with the same back."

Um.... judgemental, much? A little soupcon of self-righteousness, maybe? Is that appropriate in a conversation between grownups? I don't know, it feels a bit Grade 9 to me.

Mark - We all have seen your comments and they are logical and passionate. Repartee with anyone with this mindset is pointless. I share your frustration.
Addicts started tobacco use for emotional reasons, at best they free themselves for emotional reasons. Logic, sound reasoning will not work. That is why protection of children and youth is important, their brains are not fully formed until twenty five, science tells us currently. Then they are free to choose.
Hopefully tobacco supporters will one day see this on those terms and imagine a better future.
I like your values.

Interesting thoughts, Craig.

“……we already have taxation on tobacco and limitations on where people can smoke which are becoming more restrictive. Some private apartment blocks are banning smoking which is fairly close to banning smokers.”

Craig, while you suggest that the “humane” thing to do is ban the sale of [commercial] tobacco, you fail to address that outdoor bans, apartment bans, compounded extortionate taxes don’t even have the pretense of a coherent basis. They represent a bigotry bandwagon out of control. Why are you not suggesting that the humane thing to do is to bring the zealots, their inflammatory propaganda, and obscene funding into check? Why not bring their deranged denormalization/stigmatization campaign into strong question?

Consider the “Lavac Incident” pushing for apartment smoking bans in Australia. It’s a very recent example of the depths of depravity that antismoking fanatics will stoop to advance their deranged agenda. In Australia, the fanatics are not even attempting a futile court case to enact apartment smoking bans. Given that they have no evidence of hazard on their side, what do fanatics do? They bypass scientific and legal scrutiny and go straight to the unquestioning media where they can make all sorts of baseless, inflammatory claims made to appear as “authoritative” aimed directly at the public. The “Lavac Incident” highlights the lies of commission/omission appearing in a newspaper article advancing apartment smoking bans. The “information” provided in the article and an advocacy booklet is entirely at odds with the actual facts. http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/peter-lavac-whole-story.html
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/march-of-morons.html

Only more mental dysfunction can be promoted by this very serious misrepresentation. It is the pathetic, delinquent attempt to whip up a bandwagon effect. Read also the “comments section” of the blog thread. One of the antismoking groups involved even has a draft letter that can be distributed to smoking neighbours, informing them that the antismoker regularly has people with a variety of medical conditions that are aggravated by smoke; so could the smoker refrain from smoking. It’s all made-up junk.

Also noteworthy is the lameness of the mainstream media which provided unquestioned access to the public for the fanatics. Worse still, is that commenting was disabled on the story.

I agree, there is more to smoking than just being addicted. I smoke occasionally, once a month or less, and have never really been addicted. It's a pleasant relaxing feeling and it combines well with a beer and a few peanuts.

If we are to sensibly discuss the health and other problems associated with tobacco addiction we cannot talk about it in isolation from the problems associated with other drugs. If you have been tuning in to that discussion, you will see that the 'solution' of banning a substance which people find pleasurable and addictive is no solution at all.

I think it is time to approach the issue more holistically. I would like to see warning labels on coke bottles, advertising restrictions on heavily processed food targeted at kids. I would like to see a more intelligent drugs and foods policy which addresses the whole spectrum of harms associated with things we can put into our bodies for pleasure. Singling out tobacco for further restrictions seems to reflect a sort of zealous preoccupation that we have with cigarettes. I say take a deep breath and look first at everything else on the supermarket shelves which is doing harm.

Alexander - I like your logic and it has merit. What we can loose sight of with tobacco is the fact that it is a drug, Drugs are any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function.

Although it can be argued that industrialised food can have a detrimental affect, on the whole the food it purports to be does not. So we are dealing with commercialised deception. When we take tobacco down this line of argument there is no core basis for use, other than medicinal. The most active ingredient is nicotine and that known to have positive effects on schizophrenia among other mental disorders. It helps with delusional states.
You said yourself a; "pleasant relaxing feeling " we know this is one of the key hooks, and that science tells us this is an illusion. When the opposite happens to human homeostasis. But it interacts with our synapses and creates the illusion of a calm relaxing state, by locking into pleasure receptors meant for other chemicals.

Given it alters 'normal bodily function' and you are right the;
"whole spectrum of harms associated with things"
needs addressing. Why is tobacco not the best starting point? It tops the list because it "alters 'normal bodily function". Ergo, when "Should we set a date for a tobacco-free Australia?"

There are manufactured foods which we all know, which are really pushed in supermarkets, and have so little nutritious value which is dwarfed by the harm that comes from eating them, that they push the definition of 'food' out a little.

But even if we exclude such 'food' from the equation, and focus on drugs, the manifesto presented here, to ban cigarettes, is heading for a collision course with the pro-legalisation of illicit drugs movement. The pro-drugs ship is on course to a system much like exists now for tobacco or alcohol - with a combination of regulation and taxes used to discourage abuse and pay for health and society costs.

Wherever the middle ground is eventually found, we are going to continue to live with substances that offer us pleasant illusions mixed with known and unknown harms for a long time yet, i hope.