Cross Post: Tim Andrews Why Is Our Government Refusing To Save People’s Lives?

Imagine there was a way to save hundreds of thousands of lives and save the Australian taxpayer hundreds of million dollars a year in healthcare costs.

Imagine if such a technology existed. And experts all over the world have proven that there was no risk involved – just the potential to save lives.

Wouldn’t this be something? Wouldn’t it be miraculous? We would be singing and dancing in the streets!

The fact is that such a technology does exist – and the Australian government has made it illegal.

Smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable deaths in Australia. Millions of Australians can’t break the habit and die as a result.

Yet now a new technology – vaping – has arrived which helps smokers to quit. By delivering nicotine through water vapour, they still get their fix – but with none of the carcinogenic tars or chemicals involved in the burning of tobacco. It is a proven safe way to get people to quit and save lives.

The evidence is clear: As an expert independent evidence review published by Public Health England concluded: vaping is 95% safer than smoking and helps smokers quit. The UK Royal College of Physicians has begged for governments to  support vaping as the best way to prevent death and disability from tobacco use.In fact, 40 of the leading public health activists in Australia and around the world have begged the Australian government to make this life-saving technology legal.

Why is our government standing in the way of saving people’s lives?

This is not a case of the government being wrong or misguided. This is a case of the government standing in the way of saving people’s lives. It is morally reprehensible, and we need to do something about it.

This is why the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance, in conjunction with MyChoice Australia, have launched a new campaign for the Australian government to legalise vaping.

Please join our campaign at www.thrnow.com and tell your representatives that you support legalising vaping.

Because lives are literally at stake. Click HERE to join the campaign. It will take only a minute – but will make a real difference.

Originally published here.

This entry was posted in Cross Post, Hypocrisy of progressives, Take Nanny down. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Cross Post: Tim Andrews Why Is Our Government Refusing To Save People’s Lives?

  1. Anne

    Two reasons:

    1. Money.
    Tobacco Lobby in bed with Politicians.

    2. Government wants people to die.
    The U.N. ma wants Global depopulation. See Agenda 2030.

  2. mundi

    The government does not believe in things like the “prime directive”. They believe that all the deaths and misery they cause today are worth it to save future generators from the addiction of nicotine.

  3. mem

    The government will only approve vaping if it can tax vaping at the rate it taxes packets of cigarettes. (Can’t lose all that income). It has to be an income substitution or even better return to “incentivize” our innovative and agile heroes in Canberra. Damn problem is that vaping smokers find it easier to give up long term, hence income will necessarily deplete over time i.e. a downwards curve unless they can recruit more customers or up the price. Not good for the MBA power point brigade.

  4. Bruce of Newcastle

    Yep. Yesterday:

    One-fourth of US cancer deaths linked with 1 thing: smoking

    On the other hand as I’ve commented in the past the excise that Canberra would forgo for vaping is beyond epic. When you have their wallet in your hand their mind and balls will follow.

  5. Rabz

    Why is our government standing in the way of saving people’s lives?

    Because politicians are invariably incurious evidence free imbeciles in the thrall of equally vile totalitarian wowsers who wouldn’t have been out of place in a nineteenth century Temperance League.

  6. Fat Tony

    Hi Bruce of N’castle

    Is that some of the famous medical research we’ve been reading about lately – up there with climate change research?

    And if you don’t smoke, then it was second-hand smoke wot dunnit…..

    I remember reading some research many years ago that had the lower rung workers getting about 3 times the rate of lung cancer as the top rung people (all smokers). Exposure to industrial solvents, cleaners etc….

  7. Roger

    Because politicians are invariably incurious evidence free imbeciles in the thrall of equally vile totalitarian wowsers who wouldn’t have been out of place in a nineteenth century Temperance League.

    Otherwise known as “experts.”

    Daniel Andrews is an outstanding example of a politician who has virtually outsourced thinking about policy entirely to such “experts”. Their opinions cannot be gainsaid according to Daniel. Commitment to cultural Marxism is the first and foremost requirement for being considered an “expert”.

  8. Empire GTHO Phase III

    Why is our government standing in the way of saving people’s lives?

    It takes time to formulate policy that will maximise the opportunity for taxation and bureaucratic empire building. Give ’em a break. Statanism is hard work. At least that’s what I’m told.

  9. Eyrie

    Governments care about people and their lives? What a quaint point of view.
    Politicians and public servants care about pay, position, perks, pensions and the power to keep them happening. Anything else is coincidental.

  10. Anne


    Politicians and Public servants care about Pay, Position, Perks, Pensions and the Power to keep them happening.

    Excellent, Eyrie.

  11. wal1957

    Wait for the public uproar when, (not if) the government talks about taxing fatty foods. You know… so we can combat the obesity problem and the cost of healthcare in Australia. The exact, same reasons for taxing the smoker!

    Nah! That will never happen. Even thought obesity is a huge impost on our healthcare system. The reasoning is simple……. Obese people, vote! And their are a lot of more obese people in OZ than smokers .

    I know I am cynical… I can’t help it. I have been around a long time, and know that the politicians NEVER do what they should do, only what they think they can get away with!

  12. Rabz

    Err, Wal, don’t forget the constant clamour for additional taxes on sugary drinks – because fatsos and da kiddies.

  13. Eyrie

    wal1957, eating fat doesn’t make you fat. Carbs make you fat. Do some research!

  14. Mick

    Now I’m not gonna say smoking isn’t bad for me; I’m pretty sure it is.

    But governments have convinced people that smoking is a burden on society with health care costs, and all that. As a result, the non-smoking populace looks upon smokers with disdain. If you don’t believe me, do a survey of non-smokers and you will get the feeling that it’s not so much the behaviour they dislike but the smokers themselves.

    That dislike of a portion of the population by a larger majority easily provides a government momentum for tax increases on those not-so-popular smokers.

    This approach gives government a veil of seeming to care about the health of smokers by implementing discouraging price restrictions which will also, ostensibly, assist with the unfunded health care burden of smokers.

    But knowing how desperate governments are with budget savings, what can we make of their desire to prevent a proven stop-smoking aid?

    Perhaps smokers aren’t the financial burden they claim, but rather an easy target — made up of poor addicted souls — that are easily exploited, with the public’s blessing, for net tax gains.

  15. Tim Neilson

    Mick
    #2183772, posted on October 26, 2016 at 9:39 pm
    Yes, I’ve seen critiques of the “research” that shows smoking as a huge burden on the public purse. Very probably that “research” is rubbish.
    But even if smoking were really a substantial public cost there still might be an incentive for the government to be anti-vaping. People switching to vaping will cost tobacco tax revenue now. The benefits will come only over some years with better health outcomes. Why let people do what they want, save lives and improve the budget if the benefits won’t be felt till some future election cycle? So, no way unless they’re sure that they can switch seamlessly to confiscatory tax on vaping.

  16. Some History

    Smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable deaths in Australia. Millions of Australians can’t break the habit and die as a result.

    Yet now a new technology – vaping – has arrived which helps smokers to quit. By delivering nicotine through water vapour, they still get their fix – but with none of the carcinogenic tars or chemicals involved in the burning of tobacco. It is a proven safe way to get people to quit and save lives.

    Sorry, Tim (same with Terry Barnes), but you’re just parroting the standard antismoking rhetoric. You are an antismoking wowser. Vaping had the potential to show up the antismoking tossers as pathological liars. They lie about vaping now just like they’ve been lying about smoking for decades (centuries even). Instead, the vapers, the vocal ones being antismokers, i.e., vaping “saved” me from horrible smoking, decided to go the antismoking route. These vapers actually believe that antismokers spoke truth right up to when the e-gadgets came on the scene a few years ago. Then, mysteriously, the antismokers started lying and only about vaping. For heaven’s sake!

    Vaping is being peddled by vapers as the “solution” to the smoking “problem” (that’s the language of prohibitionists). In so doing are we having to endure another wave of antismoking hysterics. One vaper group has released a “documentary” – “A Billion Lives” – touted as the “truth”. Rather, it’s just a load of antismoking bunkum pushing for sales of e-gadgets to bring “salvation” to hapless smokers.

    These vaping “speakers of truth” are clueless. They have no grasp of the sordid, 400+ year history of antismoking. They have no clue of the magnitude of the abuse of statistical information by antismokers. They have no clue that the term “cause” has been tortured beyond recognition in the hands of contemporary Public Health. They have no clue of the standard, baseless inflammatory language used by finger-wagging fanatics. And, so, the vapers have become fanatics themselves.

    Vapers could have taken the position that if Public Health believes that smoking “kills” x number of smokers per year, then why would it not embrace e-gadgets? Vapers did not have to commit to the baseless claim but simply that if PH believes the claim, then why does not PH embrace e-gadgets? The same could be said for the concocted idea of “nicotine addiction”. If PH peddles this [baseless] claim, then why does it also agitate for extortionate levels – into the crazy sphere – of tax on tobacco that exploits the addiction? Not so. Vapers parrot the antismoking tripe as if incontrovertible fact.

    And, so, we now have vapers that are also antismoking nut cases, peddling vaping as the means to “salvation”. We even have vaping twonks suggesting that vaping will eradicate the smoking “problem” entirely. Just give smokers an e-gadget, they’ll quit smoking, and everyone will saunter hand-in-hand through the daisy-covered fields and live happily ever after. Just one problem. There are smokers that have tried vaping and don’t care for it at all. Beyond zealotry/fanaticism, we also need to understand that, in the State-forced antismoking milieu of the time, e-gadgets are competing with Big Pharma’s essentially useless “nicotine replacement therapy”. The e-gizmos are more successful than NRT, but not highly so. In this financial setting are the e-gadget salesmen highly enthusiastic to peddle antismoking derangement, promoting their product as the bringer of “salvation” just like Big Pharma has been doing for years concerning NRT.

    So, Tim & Terry, as far as smoking goes, you’re not libertarian. You’re authoritarian, antismoking plonkers.

  17. Mick

    Tim,
    #2183781, posted on October 26, 2016 at 9:49 pm

    Good point. It’s not likely a gradual reduction in actual health costs will see a similar reduction in government funding to a heavily unionised medical field. There will still be votes to buy.

  18. None

    I am an ex smoker. There is an increased risk of health problems linked with smoking but it’s just an increased risk. No guarantee you will die from cigarettes. That’s just tosh. I hate the cancer council nazis as much as the anti smoking nazis.

    Also you don’t need vaping. If smoking is stupid, vaping is moronic, and omg, one for aging hippies and dead bit bikies. Smoking is a dead easy addiction to beat because the withdrawal symptoms are not painful or acute. Just an annoying passing feeling like hunger for a few seconds, a few times a day. Worst over in 24 hours, totally gone for worst smoker in 2 weeks, 4 absolute max. I mean seriously it’s that easy to quit. There is nothing rational, sensible or beneficial about licking the bottom of a dirty ashtray which is really all that smoking is. Every smoke tastes as shit as the first one. You just pretend it doesn’t.

    But hey we have to keep the Quit public servants in jobs don’t we. I just wish all smokers quit for three months coz we can then sack a hell of a lot of useless time wasting public servants. Best bottom line improvement ever.

  19. Snoopy

    Vaping does look bloody ridiculous though. Not cool at all. If you insist, vape in private or be prepared to be mocked.

  20. Peter Greagg

    In costs and benefits terms, the health costs associated with smoking are far less than the huge amount of tobacco excise.
    From memory this was the case in the late 1990s. Of course, since then excise has risen very steeply, and no doubt will continue to do so in the future.
    So from an externality perspective, there is no justification for this excessive taxation.
    This is a disgrace, IMO, because when you look at the groups who predominantly smoke, they include the mentally ill, welfare dependants, aborigines, prisoners in goal, and low income earners.
    Where are the sjws declaring there virtue trying to protect the disadvantaged? Missing in action of course!
    (Rant over, I feel better now.)

  21. Pauly

    Simple.It is well documented that in Australia that the government harvests more money from Tobacco excise than it spends on Tobacco related health expenditure. it does so by making profits from the poor and exploiting human misery from tobacco caused diseases to rachet up their cut of the profits. If a private company behaved in such a manner all the fashionable lefties would be complaining loudly.

    Also why would the government be interested in solving a problem? Governments are in the business of managing perceived problems. if a problem is ever actually solved then the poor public servants managing the problem will lose their jobs and politicians will lose a source of headlines of Actions we Are Taking to Manage the Problem!

  22. Rococo Liberal

    If vaping is illegal, why do I see so many people doing it in the streets of the Sydney CBD?

    The reason for that is that vaping is perfectly legal.

    I suspect what Tim Andrews is really on about is that it is illegal in some States to vape in designated non-smoking areas. That restriction should be removed, not because it might lead to fewer people smoking tobacco, but because any needless restriction on freedom is by its very nature wrong.

  23. Hydra

    If vaping is illegal, why do I see so many people doing it in the streets of the Sydney CBD?

    The reason for that is that vaping is perfectly legal.

    I suspect what Tim Andrews is really on about is that it is illegal in some States to vape in designated non-smoking areas. That restriction should be removed, not because it might lead to fewer people smoking tobacco, but because any needless restriction on freedom is by its very nature wrong.

    You miss the point.

    Vaping with nicotine is illegal.

  24. Grigory M

    Just buy yourselves a pacifier – dip it in honey if you want some flavour (honey won’t restrict your blood vessels like nicotine does).

  25. .

    Maybe if you had one you wouldn’t literarily spill your seed here. You hate freedom Grigory.

  26. Seve H

    @ Hydra vaping with nicotine isn’t illegal actually you can import E liquid containing nicotine from overseas vendors for personal use and also under federal law its permissable to import up to 3 months supply of nicotine base liquid to mixwith australian made non nicotine containing liquids it becomes illegal if a vendor sells nicotine E liquids in Australia .

Comments are closed.