Federal

Aug 27, 2012

Prohibition on Tasmania’s smoking speakeasies a bad idea

A proposed Tasmanian ban on selling cigarettes would be a prohibition-style flop, writes Martyn Goddard at Tasmanian Times.

The 18th amendment to the United States constitution came into force on January 29, 1920. The manufacture, sale, transportation import or export of intoxicating liquors was prohibited. Thus began the greatest social experiment, perhaps, in human history.

27 comments

Leave a comment

27 thoughts on “Prohibition on Tasmania’s smoking speakeasies a bad idea

  1. Ben N

    I am not sure I completely agree… cigarettes, by nature are something done regularly, and pretty difficult to hide, whereas most drug and alcohol use can be done ‘under the table’ so to speak, and tend to be done outside of work hours.

    I think the ban has a high likelihood if working to some degree, but criminalising it at a personal level will cause issues, just like it has with illicit drugs. The only people they should be chasing with the law, is the vendors.

    My issue is more the encroachment on personal liberty. When you are born should not dictate what freedoms you may enjoy.

  2. Wombat

    Big difference between alcohol and tobacco – moderate alcohol use has little or no impact on health. Nor is it addictive. Nor does using it correctly kill you.

    I’m in favour of the ban but against any criminal penalties for use or possession – these should be reserved only for those who sell it. Whilst this will drive supply underground to an extent, what is the moral difference between a publicly-listed company which cheats/lies/threatens to sell a product which kills, and a criminal enterprise which does the same?

  3. Two Bird Stone

    Ben, as someone who has known serious drug addicts in the past, let me assure you that “Difficult to hide” is all relative. One person that I knew would wake up in the morning, smoke a bong, got to work, come back during lunch, smoke a bong, go back to work, come home, end his day with a few bongs. Marijuana use is no easier or harder to hide than cigarette smoking, and prohibition will NOT change people’s addictions. I’m dead certain that there are plenty of kids born in 2000 who would smoke a few cigarettes just because it’s illegal – and all it would take is for them to get one of their mates born in 1999 to buy a pack for them. Once they’re addicted, the bikie gangs would have a field day.

    One other issue that hasn’t been raised in any of the media I’ve seen is regarding tourism. Australia’s tourism and hospitality industries are dependent on tourism from countries like China. And yes, while China’s overall smoking rate is around 25%, that’s because only 2.4% of women smoke, and a whopping 52.9% of Chinese Men smoke (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1102459). What will happen to tourism in Tasmania when blanket smoking bans are introduced? Simple: It would be decimated.

  4. Fool

    Prohibition has never worked! Our politicians are not placed in positions of power to make such decisions, citizens still need choice! No to nanny states! Whats the next step by the idiots in power, NO MORE DRINKING? NO MORE FATTY FOOD? ENFORCED EXERCISE? NO MORE DISSENT? NO MORE PROTESTS? NO MORE CRITICISM OF THE GOVERNMENT?
    I would really like to tell the government to take a hike from trying to control what people do in their lives!!!!!
    It appears that Western governments have been over stepping their bounds more and more recently. Not only are we subjected to more and more draconian laws, but we have had our rights and privacy stripped away. Rather than going forward it appears that we are returning to tyrannical feudal systems of control.

  5. Steve777

    I think this ban is well intentioned but wrong-headed. What we are doing now is working, slowly but surely, even if it may need a few more tweaks to overcome Big Tobacco’s ongoing attempts to circumvent restrictions on marketing their addictive poison. When I was young, nearly all grown-up men smoked, and while it was still regarded as slightly risque for a woman to smoke, more and more girls were taking it up. Now you just see a few pathetic souls huddling against the wind outside workplaces and entertainment venues who can’t wait to get home to tend to their addiction. Prohibition is unlikely to work and may have have the opposite effect of making smoking seem more desirable to many young people because of its illegality. Nearly all of today’s smokers were once rebellious teenagers who wanted to look ‘cool’ and grown up, disdainful of their elders’ warnings that smoking was a privelege reserved to adults and that it was very naughty for young people to smoke, with dire warnings that it will make you sick when you’re very old (most teenagers can’t imagine being 40). Eventually, smoking will be seen for what it is, a rather unattractive, unglamorous and expensive addiction practiced among a few consenting adults in private.

  6. simon.chapman

    Martyn, you need to read Wayne Hall’s seminal review of the claim that “prohibition didn’t stop people drinking” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.02926.x/pdf It didn’t, but it had large an important effects.
    We don’t judge any public health policy or initiative in such absolute terms. Seat belts don’t stop all people dying on the roads, condoms don’t prevent all disease & unwanted pregnancies.

  7. Charlie Maigne

    I think tobacco is the one drug for which prohibition might have a chance, especially starting with the low smoking rates we have today. The reason is that, while addictive, it doesn’t really rate as a recreational drug.

    I just can’t see people going through the lengths to score cigarettes that they saw during the Prohibition in the US and that we see now with illicit substances. Some hardcore addicts might fight the good fight, of course, but they’d be in the minority. The rest would just grit their teeth and bear it. Social smokers certainly wouldn’t bother – it’s not that good.

    And since (despite what the old “one cigarette and you’re hooked” campaign would’ve had us believe) nicotine addiction is built and maintained through frequent consumption of small doses, taking away the convenience would go a long way towards breaking the cycle of addiction.

    I don’t particularly like the current policy approach to illegal drugs, but I like even less the incongruity between that, and never being more than a brief walk away from being able to legally acquire a drug that kills millions of people a year. Surely the balance is a more than a bit off here.

  8. John Bennetts

    @Simon.Chapman:
    What has been proposed is not simply a “public health policy”. It is a prohibition of a product, use of which may cause personal illness for its consumers.

    Smoking is certainly a stupid and filthy habit, but the legislation goes far beyond outlawing stupidity. It will create a whole new class of criminal, complete with business plan pre-prepared.

    Once something has been banned, as so carefully stated in the lead article, it is beyond all other means of control. It cannot be regulated for pureness, additives and contaminants. It cannot be restricted to certain age groups or places. It cannot be taxed and thus cannot at least be asked to pay for some of its public costs, eg for health care. In other words, it goes feral.

    What Simon advocates will lead to immediate lack of control. He advocates stepping away from peer pressure and public disapproval, education campaigns and even intervention via counselling by family doctors. This last, because it would be a brave doctor indeed who would tell his patients that they are criminals. In the main, they just won’t do it. All of society’s complex web of constraints and gentle pressures will evaporate overnight.

    So here’s hoping that the Tassie Government will resist the temptation to break the trend towards ever lower usage via this type of legislation and will, instead, let the current excellent trends continue.

    Besides which, what’s wrong with a bit of self-assisted Darwinian selection? By comparison with Big Brother-style legislation such as that which is proposed, it’s obvious which one is more socially evil.

  9. Coaltopia

    If I want to be able to smoke the occasional cigar, I should be allowed to. Regardless of when I was born.

    If I want to chain-smoke, then I need to be taxed thoroughly enough to discourage it and help cover my future health bill.

  10. Steve777

    I don’t have a problem with adults smoking, as long as they don’t do it near me. Smoking doesn’t make people dangerous behind the wheel, it doesn’t impair their ability to work, nor does it make people aggressive or obnoxious, although smokers might get grumpy if they’re deprived. But smoking does affect nearby people, both short term (it stinks and gets in their hair and clothes) and long term (passive smoking). So my main problem with nicotine is its delivery system – cylinders or pipes emitting noxious, foul-smelling smoke. If people took nicotine in pills or made it into a tea and drank it, there’d be no worries. It would still be bad for the people who chose to use nicotine, but would not affect innocent bystanders. But smoking is like drinking beer from a garden sprinkler – it shouldn’t done in company.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...