Operation Fag-Off

One really must marvel at the ability of governments to chase their tails.

Jack up the taxes on something to the point where the risk adjusted price of the alternative is compelling and then, first act surprised and second seek to increase the risks of the alternatives.

Australia has amongst the highest cigarette prices in the world.  Possibly the highest.  Spartacus is not a smoker, but suspect there are those in Cat land who have a view.

Because of the high cost of cigarettes in the “regulated” market, the “unregulated” chop-chop has flourished.  The response of the government to this threat, not to health, but to a loss of tax revenue is to claim that chop-chop is more dangerous than regular cigarettes and to throw tax compliance resources at the market.

Thus, in last night’s budget, the government announced it is creating the Illicit Tobacco Task Force.  This taskforce will co-ordinate Operation Fag-Off and will seek to

recoup more than $3.5 billion by compelling tobacco importers to pay excise on point of importation.

Ta-da.

Separate to this major government announcement, Australia’s own hedge fund manager John Hempton posted yesterday on his blog of his analysis of a company called Swedish Match.  This is what Hempton wrote:

Swedish Match (a tobacco company with no cigarette brands) owns the world’s biggest match and lighter business.

Redheads and Cricket (part of the Swedish Match product portfolio) are totally dominant in Australia.

you are seeing 11 percent volume decline for matches, 23 percent decline for lighters.  If you are a big tobacco investor your only reaction has to be oh f–k.

Spartacus’ message to the Illicit Tobacco Task Force is good luck with that $3.5 billion.  Just don’t come back saying you did not have enough powers or resources.

Follow I Am Spartacus on Twitter at @Ey_am_Spartacus

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Operation Fag-Off

  1. Some History

    It’s the robber politicians buying – courtesy of the taxpayer – nastier protection for their extortion racket. And it can get nastier still. The government is taking additional protection measures for its racket after 5 x 12.5% and 10 (2 per year) x smaller tax hikes (aligned to average male weekly earnings) plus 10 % GST. In the next 3 years there will be another 3 x 12.5% tax hikes and 6 x smaller tax hikes plus 10% GST.

    Here’s an image that was posted years ago on another blog. At the time there was only ranting and raving by antismoking nut cases of outdoor smoking bans and $20 for a pack of cigarettes, both baseless, by the way. The image was posted as a joke in that surely people can see where the fanaticism of prohibitionism leads, that there were enough sensible people in government to prevent antismoking hysteria going down a path that can only get nastier and nastier.

    https://imgur.com/jLzHtrD

    In the years since that image was posted smoking has been banned outdoors – e.g., parks, beaches, university campuses; smoking has been banned indoors and outdoors at prisons that affects prisoners, prison staff and visitors; smoking has been banned at mental health facilities and where involuntary patients are forced to quit smoking on the spot at admission, amounting to torture. And a pack of cigarettes isn’t $20. It’s currently $26 and heading for $40 by 2020. And while the antismoking nut cases claim, as they only and always do, that everyone is just dandy with these measures, including smokers, there are serious detrimental consequences with all of these baseless measures.

    It has gotten nastier and nastier. Surely by now we can see antismoking fanaticism (prohibitionism) for the tyranny that it is and has always been. So we have the answer. In Australia, there are no sensible people in government or opposition or in the political class at all. They have given this madness a “red carpet” ride for years. And they’ve even managed, at the prompting of the unelected, unaccountable WHO, to create an extortion racket* through baseless, ever-increasing tobacco taxes.

    *The States are in on the racket, pocketing the GST on the extortionate taxes.

  2. Some History

    Scott Morrison:

    He said the changes (tax cuts) were affordable and fair.
    “Too much tax is too much tax,” he said.
    “It’s money being pulled out of people’s pockets.
    “You can’t be the government’s black [sic] cheque.
    “It’s not spending. It’s about people being allowed to keep their own money. It’s not ours.”

    https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/its-not-our-money-morrison-defends-income-tax-cuts/ar-AAwW6rr

    So “it’s not the government’s money”, “too much tax is too much tax” …… until it comes to baseless, sky-high extortionate taxes on tobacco. Then it is their money to be protected by a to-be-formed para-military force against anyone wanting to muscle-in or interfere with the government racket. Abominable.

    And then there’s Cormann:

    Cormann said the evidence was that the illegal sale of tobacco had “been an increasing problem that needs addressing and that’s what we’re doing”.
    In the 2016 budget, the Turnbull government raised the tobacco excise by 12.5%.
    Asked if this had contributed to the problem, Cormann replied that “there is always an element in the community that will seek to avoid paying their fair share of tax”.
    “We’re always looking for ways to protect the revenue, we’re always looking for ways … to ensure revenue is paid as it must under our laws,” he said
    .

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/06/budget-crackdown-on-illicit-tobacco-aims-to-raise-36bn-over-four-years

    Cormann completely evades the question that government activity has created a flourishing contraband market. He is not questioned, let alone grilled, at all that the political class was warned time and again that their harebrained massive tax hikes on tobacco would promote a contraband market. Rather, Cormann declares that the eye-wateringly high extortionate taxes on tobacco are “fair” and that anyone buying from the contraband market (avoiding being robbed blind by government) is a slacker avoiding paying their fair share of tax! And Cormann reiterates that what’s important now is to best protect the government racket. The utter gall of these government miscreants is staggering.

    The comments by both Morrison and Cormann are far, far beyond obscene. We passed the “obscene” marker about 5 years ago. The law has been made an ass by these tosser politicians.

  3. struth

    Australia has the highest tobacco prices.
    The highest housing prices.
    The highest power prices.
    When all taxation is actually included, we are one of, if not the most heavily taxed people on earth, the proof being in the above prices are all caused by taxation.
    We are one of the most socially regulated countries, and one of the most litigious on earth.
    And yet we still shake our heads at the dumb Europeans and yanks, while we fall off a cliff, like the lemmings we are.
    We are the next Venezuela, and the first anglosphere western country to succumb.

  4. Motelier

    Petrl, diesel and LPG excise anyone?

    Wot is the term for Hydrocarbon fuels imporeted or produced and sold without excise.

    Alcohol, well you can, and I do, brew your own.

  5. Some History

    Spartacus is not a smoker, but suspect there are those in Cat land who have a view.

    Spartacus, thanks for the thread, but you (along with many others) really need to get better informed about the Tobacco Control racket. For a start, see thread and comments here:
    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2018/05/06/is-butt-squad-a-new-reality-tv-show/

  6. Bruce of Newcastle

    The Left have been undermining rule of law for quite a while.
    Now we see the blowback.
    The people going Galt aren’t the law abiding Christians and other righties.
    The Galtists are lefties who have no respect for the law because their own side taught them that.
    So now the lefties in government are playing guacamole with lefty pot growers and cigs importers.
    Good luck with your social engineering SJW kiddies, your own side is white-anting you.

  7. RobK

     brew your own.
    As i said on the previous post about tobacco; i dont see why you can’t grow your own. If the tax is adjusted so only the enthusiastic grew their own and consumption is allowed where others are uneffected, then I think the right balance is reached. No need for contraband busters. And some of these anti-tobacconists have the gall to speak of a civil society.

  8. Some History

    As i said on the previous post about tobacco; i dont see why you can’t grow your own. If the tax is adjusted so only the enthusiastic grew their own and consumption is allowed where others are uneffected, then I think the right balance is reached. No need for contraband busters. And some of these anti-tobacconists have the gall to speak of a civil society.

    Tobacco growing in Australia requires a government licence. They used to be issued to commercial tobacco growers before the industry was wrecked by government. There is now no commercial tobacco growing in Australia. The government now does not issue any licenses. If you’re caught growing tobacco – even one plant – there is a massive fine and possible jail term involved. See following comment on King James I.

  9. Some History

    The Anti-Tobacco Racket: History Revisited

    Anti-tobacco/smoking has had a long, sordid, 400+ year history. Pretty well all of the antismoking crusades have been prohibitionist, usually banning the sale/use of tobacco. There was one notable exception – King James I (‘tis he who commissioned the King James Bible translation) in the early-1600s. Jimmy did a few things. He penned the antismoking piece, “A Counterblaste To Tobacco”, a work loaded with inflammatory drivel written in ye olde English (He also penned a book on Daemonology). It was important to clearly indicate moral outrage because this provides the pretext for taking action on the tobacco “issue”. But Jimmy didn’t prohibit tobacco/smoking. Armed with the appearance of moral high ground, he banned the growing of tobacco in England and arranged for the importation of tobacco from Virginia, America. Banning the growing of tobacco in England reduced the risk of locally produced contraband. So, King Jim manufactured a monopoly on tobacco (entering through imports) in England. And didn’t Jimmy have a field day with the monopoly. He set a ration on the sale of tobacco per person and super-inflated the price of tobacco. He was robbing his tobacco-users blind. What a good “Christian” king. Unfortunately the racket had a limited life. The mass-scale robbery invited contraband. Tired of losing revenue to contraband, Jim eventually relented and lowered his price.

    Fast-forward some 400 years to the island nation of Australia. Since the early-1900s, growing tobacco in Australia has required a government permit. The only ones issued these permits were tobacco companies.

    Australia bought into the antismoking hysteria in the 1980s. The leaders of the current antismoking crusade are prohibitionists. Their goal, as it was in early-1900s America, is to destroy the tobacco industry. The prohibitionists have brought to the table the “moral outrage”. Having partnered with the prohibitionists, the moral outrage permits the government to act on the tobacco “issue”. The beginnings were small. The goal was to put the heat on the “evil” tobacco industry – banning of advertising, constantly referred to as the “merchants of death”, etc. By 2014, the tobacco companies have been chased out of Australia. The tobacco companies no longer contract tobacco growing and no longer manufacture tobacco products in Australia. All tobacco products are now imported into Australia. The growing of tobacco in Australia, based on early-1900s law, is effectively banned; tobacco-growing permits are not issued to individuals. If someone wants [legal] tobacco, they have to buy the officially-imported, government-tax paid stuff. The Australian government finds itself in a manufactured position not unlike King James. It has a monopoly on [imported] tobacco in Australia and has complete control over its price through excise tax. Unlike Jimmy, the government hasn’t even had to get its hands dirty sourcing imports. It uses tobacco companies as offshore growers/manufacturers that then import tobacco products into Australia. And, just like Jim, isn’t the Australian government having a field day with the monopoly. It just keeps jacking up the taxes on tobacco. It’s, again, mass-scale robbery.

    It’s important to note the collusion between government and zealot prohibitionists. The prohibition sought this time is not the sale of tobacco but to effectively ban smoking in all the places that people typically smoke. Taxation is also a “punitive” tool. Important is that the same step is interpreted differently by prohibitionists and the government. Increased taxation is viewed by the zealots as a coercive tool to antismoking conformity, whereas the government views it as a means to increased revenue (through robbery). To maintain the appearance of a moral “high ground” the government needs the moral outrage of the zealots. It doesn’t matter if the moralizing zealots are constantly lying in their claims. All that matters is the moral outrage and the appearance of moral high ground. To keep the zealots on-side, it has to appease the antismoking whims of the zealots, e.g., smoking bans, plain packaging. In doing so, it legitimizes what are baseless claims by the zealots. The government can then claim that extortionate taxes, which it’s really interested in, are necessary to “help” people to quit and will receive full support from prohibitionists. The fact of the matter is that those who smoke are being fleeced by baseless, ever-increasing taxes. The government knows that most won’t quit smoking and it counts on increased revenue from tax hikes in its budget forecasts. It’s robbery based on the moral fraud of antismoking rhetoric. It’s a racket. Worse is that some of the zealot prohibitionists want kick-backs in the form of funding to further “educate” the public, advance their careers, and remain in comfortable employment.

    This results in the utterly perverse situation that those who smoke are further and further marginalized through baseless antismoking laws, smoking deemed “unfit” for normal society while they’re also being robbed through ever-increasing extortionate taxes. Smokers are forced to pay for their own “denormalization” and further fleecing. And this is occurring not in the autocracy of 1600s England but in a one-time relatively free society like Australia where the government is supposedly a servant of the people (which includes those who smoke). It’s the government in its partnering with zealot prohibitionists that is conducting itself like a criminal entity.

    Bring on the contraband.

  10. “You can only kick a dog so many times, before he turns around and bites.”
    – said some famous bloke…
    The biting will, as is usual in Australia, take the bitten bureaucrat by utter surprise and their first thought will be “…but it was for their own good!”

  11. Some History

    It should be mentioned that voters who smoke have been stripped of choice at the ballot box. Both major political parties have the exact, same tobacco tax policies. It’s typically Labor – the supposed “workers party” – that first proposes tax hikes. After a week or 2 of whining about unfairness, the Liberals, tails between their legs, adopt the very same – in every regard – tobacco tax policy. They are being directed by outsiders (i.e., the WHO) through the government health bureaucracy. Our politicians are “owned” by the unelected, unaccountable internationalists and their agenda.

    Here’s a cartoon at the time when Rudd (with Abbott in tow) proposed the first 4 x 12.5% increases in excise commencing in 2013. The same thing happened when Shorten proposed another 4 x 12.5% increases in excise commencing in 2017.

    https://imgur.com/Zp9TUFX

    The only option for smokers to voice their protest at the government robbery is an “alternative supply” market.

  12. Some History

    “You can only kick a dog so many times, before he turns around and bites.”
    – said some famous bloke…
    The biting will, as is usual in Australia, take the bitten bureaucrat by utter surprise and their first thought will be “…but it was for their own good!”

    +1

  13. areff

    The tobacco I purchase (for a friend, as i would never, ever break the law myself) is all made overseas and comes in brand-name packaging. Vietnamese Marlboros, unsmokable Chinese Ying Yyangs, Mexican mystery smokes. Clearly, these are smuggled not legally imported, as such products are not allowed to be sold.

    So by slugging legal tobacco importers with more tax, Morrison will be forcing up prices by seeing this cost imposition passed along to consumers.

    This dolt of a treasurer has just increased the market for low-cost smuggled fags, instituted a price-maintenance scheme for organised crime and done nothing to promote the public’s respect for the rule of law.

    What a ninny.

  14. RobK

    Curiously, many of these same critics of tobacco are those proponents claiming we’ve lost the war on drugs and need to liberalize those regulations.

  15. areff

    http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-30949434

    Above, a very popular brand in Melbourne’s West. Five years ago there was once shop — the local tobacconist — selling under-the-counter handrolled and homemade fags. $28 for 100 was the going rate. You couldn’t back then get tailor made fags that tasted like the legal variety.

    One morning last year, just before they banned smoking at outdoor tables, the three tables outside my favourite local coffee shop were all occupied by smokers and not one had a legal packet on the table. Not one.

    Now, within a three mile drive of my home, I can list seven stores selling good-quality under-the-counter smuggled smokes. No more rough as guts chop-chop.

    You’d think the Treasurer for an alleged conservative party would understand market forces. Nut, no, not this one or this party.

  16. struth

    One really must marvel at the ability of governments to chase their tails.

    This still involves the growth of government, so they see it as a win.

  17. The BigBlueCat

    Basically I couldn’t care less about how much the gummint taxes tobacco users. While I have no issue with people smoking it up in their own home (away from children), I personally find the habit a dirty, unsafe and disgusting one, usually undertaken by those not just exercising their right, but damn well claiming it and bugger anyone else who feel they have a corresponding right to fresh, clean air.

    I am currently in Europe, where smoking is still allowed in outside cafes and restaurants. Mrs BigBlueCat and I nearly vomit when someone lights up and the smoke wafts our way. It’s hard to find a nice cafe without tobacco smoke being present. So Australia is a leader in my book when it comes to preventing smoking in outside venues. Yes, we are non-smokers (so the gummint gets nought from us from tobacco products). So I applaud Morrison for his stance on tobacco – tax the stuff out of existence – if tobacco was being introduced as a new product, it wouldn’t be allowed. Lets’s not defend the indefensible in terms of public health and a nicer environment in which to live.

  18. Some History

    …..and I nearly vomit when someone lights up and the smoke wafts our way.

    I feel the same way reading your standard, obnoxious, intelligence-barren, hate-loaded, antismoking crap.

    Notwithstanding, have a nice holiday.

  19. Some History

    I am currently in Europe……

    I can just picture you and the missus…. the obnoxious, constantly-whining tourists.

    https://imgur.com/D8scPX2

    Am I right? Am I right?

    Oh, you wear white socks under the four-sizes-too-big premium-plastic sandals.

    I was close though.

  20. John Constantine

    Their Public Order Response Komittat will soon enough be deployed in the urban dawn assault raids on cafes to check the documents of smokers and search them for contraband.

  21. The BigBlueCat

    Some History … no, you are wrong. We don’t whine, we go elsewhere where there is no smoke (inside if necessary, where smoking has been banned).

    I find it extraordinary that you abuse me on the basis of my personal dislike of tobacco .. how very libertarian of you. As I said, I don’t care how much tobacco people use but I do care about personal comfort. Yes, we very nearly do vomit when we have tobacco smoke wafting our way – we very much enjoy clean air. We are not greenies, but we do enjoy not having pungent smoke in our nasal passages.

    I wonder what white socks has got to do with anything ….. or is that just more abuse? Pretty typical of tobacco users methinks …..

  22. Some History

    Their Public Order Response Komittat will soon enough be deployed in the urban dawn assault raids on cafes to check the documents of smokers and search them for contraband.

    Comrades 🙂

  23. Some History

    Some History … no, you are wrong. We don’t whine, we go elsewhere where there is no smoke (inside if necessary, where smoking has been banned).
    I find it extraordinary that you abuse me on the basis of my personal dislike of tobacco .. how very libertarian of you. As I said, I don’t care how much tobacco people use but I do care about personal comfort. Yes, we very nearly do vomit when we have tobacco smoke wafting our way – we very much enjoy clean air. We are not greenies, but we do enjoy not having pungent smoke in our nasal passages.
    I wonder what white socks has got to do with anything ….. or is that just more abuse? Pretty typical of tobacco users methinks …..

    Oh no….. you really do dress that way?

  24. struth

    People also take their dogs into restaurants in Europe, and most places are pet friendly.
    They are able to self regulate, and therefore people don’t take noisy out of control dogs in due to a respect for others and a government that doesn’t treat them like babies.

    Sometimes people wrapped in cotton wool (Australians) get frightened, upset and literally nauseous when they see others in the world enjoying freedoms they can only dream about.
    They then find the slightest wiff of a ciggie turns them into coughing and choking drama queens.
    It’s not the smoke that offends these people, it’s the fact that the narrative of living in a free country is smashed when you go overseas, and the shock can do weird things to many people.
    If you don’t like experiencing the world, stay home and experience all that Australia allows.
    SFA

  25. Some History

    As I said, I don’t care how much tobacco people use but I do care about personal comfort. Yes, we very nearly do vomit when we have tobacco smoke wafting our way – we very much enjoy clean air.

    My apologies, your nasal highness.

    Here’s the thing, BBC. How, bar the last 20 years, in heavens above would you have survived at any other time in human history where smoke was commonplace in everyday living, e.g., heating smoke, lighting smoke, cooking smoke?

    And how does vehicular smoke figure with you, oh your grand nasalness? Is it “clean” smoke?

  26. wal1957

    The BigBlueCat

    So when the nice people in government tax sugar, you won’t complain will you?

    I mean your attitude is bugger ’em, right?
    I mean they only want to tax sugar so they we live longer, right?
    Because we don’t know what is best for us right?
    Good.
    Come back in five years when all sugar products have tripled in price, and then see what response you get.

    FYI Most smokers I know are considerate of others when they smoke. Yes you do still get the occasional idiot, but it is attitudes like yours that cause friction. Suck it up baby!

  27. Some History

    Oh, you wear white socks under the four-sizes-too-big premium-plastic sandals.

    Premium plastic with MAX Foot-Odour Dispersion Technology™

  28. You can have a pavement cafe table in Victoria within touching distance of passing vehicles but good forbid you allow anyone to smoke within 4m of a dinner. Walking past doesn’t count.

  29. Some History

    Consider the outdoor dining area of a restaurant. Normal people would look about, might even notice a few smokers in passing and, if they looked hard enough, notice thin tubes of dissipating smoke rising upwards. But this is not what antismokers “see”. Their perception of the “magic mist” of SHS is something completely different, again loaded with hysterical exaggerations.
    The smoke from any number of smokers – even ONE, can utterly ruin the dining experience of antismokers, indoors or outdoors. As antismokers are sitting at an outdoor dining table the smoke from even one cigarette, no matter how initially distant from the antismoker, is capable of identifying antismokers and will congregate [by some currently unknown process] specifically around their heads. No matter how much smoke there is initially, the smoke undergoes a multiplication process around antismokers’ heads to form a thick cloud that renders antismokers effectively blind……so thick is this cloud of smoke that antismokers find it impossible to even see the plate of food 12 inches in front of them. But that’s not the worst of it. Although not able to see their food, the antismoker can at least feel around with their hands and scoop up some rearranged bits and pieces to their mouths. And it’s here that the greatest shock comes. Blinded by the smoke, tears rolling uncontrollably from their swollen, squinting eyes, food finally making it into their mouths, antismokers discover that the smoke has also paralyzed their taste buds…. all of them. They chew and munch and swallow but with no enjoyment whatsoever. Mind you, no-one has ever seen this happening [and it’s never been caught on video] but antismokers are adamant that it’s commonplace.
    Having regained their composure [giggle], the antismoker leaves the restaurant. As he/she looks back at the outdoor dining area what they “see” is dead birds, withered plants, cracked concrete and building walls, tumbleweed rolling through a patch reduced to a barren moonscape, all caused by just a little tobacco smoke. Welcome to the whacko world of antismokers.
    Even the rabid antismoking nut case, Simon Crapman, has written on a mental dysfunction [idiopathic environmental intolerance] aspect to antismoking. [A shame that he played a leading role in promoting the mental dysfunction to begin with]
    http://web.archive.org/web/20140130131001/http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/publications/toofar.pdf

  30. Some History

    Walking past doesn’t count.

    It will in New York City. An antismoking nut case councillor wants to ban smoking while walking. If you’re standing still, you can smoke. But if you’re walking, smoking will be against the law.
    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/councilman-bill-ban-smoking-walking-sidewalks-article-1.3886435

  31. The BigBlueCat

    @Some History & @wal1957

    I have no issue with anyone smoking as long as it does not impinge on my enjoyment of fresh air. Sugar tax is completely a different issue to me – your use of sugar in no way infringes any of my enjoyments. If there is a push for a sugar tax, I would resist it, although I do recognise the public health issues associated with excessive sugar intake (obesity, diabetes, heart disease), but caveat emptor.

    The dangers of tobacco use are well known also. But tobacco use does not only impact the user. This is well researched, and you ignore the dangers of prolonged tobacco use at your (and my) peril.

    When it comes to a street cafe where there is a lot of traffic, I probably wouldn’t go there either. Personal choice. At least in the places I’ve been to in Europe, traffic impacts on clean air hasn’t been an issue. Street cafe’s in Melbourne are mostly in laneways anyway – again not many issues there.

    I accept that smokers are becoming more considerate – mostly due to public (& legal) pressure. But there is a long heritage of belligerence by smokers towards non-smokers that is hard to ignore. You guys exhibit it perfectly. Gross over-statements of what you imagine non-smokers see due to the presence of tobacco smoke is itself “whack-job”. Non-sequiturs about living in the past have no relevance and are not an argument – I don’t live in the past, and neither do you.

    I’m not anti-smoking in that I’m not out there with placards, or lobbying local councils, state MP’s or anything like that. But I do object to the sensorial assault that tobacco smoke represents – to me.

    I’ll now leave it to you guys to over-react once again. By Jeez – you guys really hate someone having an alternative opinion, don’t you?

  32. Some History

    But I do object to the sensorial assault that tobacco smoke represents – to me.

    What if you took a detour to Hawaii and spent a few days next to the volcanic eruptions? Do you think your idea of sensorial assault would change? Returning to Europe do you think that encounters with wisps of tobacco smoke might be considered as delightfully aromatic in contrast?

    And where do you think the chemical-loaded smoke from the eruptions is going? It’s going into the air that you think is “fresh and clean”. It undergoes dilution as it circles the globe.

  33. Some History

    BBC, following are some examples of what antismokers have believed over the last 400 years regardless of facts.

    Here’s a comment appearing in an Australian newspaper in 1912:
    A paragraph in The Register of September 14, 1912, announced that the City Council is daring to deal with the smoke nuisance. If the council can remove from our streets the smoke which is continually puffed in our faces, and so give us a chance to breathe the purest air obtainable, some of us will be exceedingly grateful, and the names of the men responsible for the change will be passed onto future generations as those of men who had courage to face an evil and deal with it and not merely to talk and write on health matters. At present it is dangerous to a person’s health to walk through the streets of Adelaide.

    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/58599326?searchTerm=smoking&searchLimits=

    Then there’s:
    “The right of each person to breathe and enjoy fresh and pure air—air uncontaminated by unhealthful or disagreeable odors and fumes is a constitutional right, and cannot be taken away by legislatures or courts, much less by individuals pursuing their own thoughtless or selfish indulgence.”

    Sound familiar? Well, that’s from 1911…..

    1911: Dr. Charles Pease stated the position of the Non-Smokers’ Protective League of America in a letter to the New York Times, dated November 10, 1911:
    http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lqp46a99/pdf;jsessionid=5647F950375B5064AA449F152F20E8C9.tobacco03

    “Clean air” or “pure air” is just one of numerous antismoker delusions. Air, generally, contains a multitude of chemicals (most of the chemicals in tobacco smoke are already in the air generally, plus more), gases, particulates, bacteria, viruses, pollen, dust, manure dust, animal dander, dead skin scales.

    And then along comes the antismoker: “I am an antismoker. Don’t you know that I am a superior being? I own the air…. all of it. I get to decide what is put in and not put in the air. I hate tobacco smoke. Tobacco smoke, or any remnants thereof, must never enter my breathing sphere or any area that I might ever or never frequent. I, your antismoking highness, so decrees.”

  34. Some History

    Chemicals in air:
    Here is a list of 33 of the 188 toxic pollutants the EPA has found will be in clean, cigarette smoke free, air.

    Some you may recognize as being in cigarette smoke and there are some that are not found in cigarette smoke.

    http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/188polls.html

    Acetaldehyde-Acrolein-Acrylonitrile-Arsenic Compounds-Benzene-Beryllium Compounds-1,3-Butadiene-Cadmium Compounds-Carbon tetrachloride-Chloroform-Chromium Compounds-Coke Oven Emissions- 1,3-Dichloropropene-Diesel Particulate Matter-Ethylene dibromide-Ethylene dichloride-Ethylene oxide-Formaldehyde-Hexachlorobenzene- Hydrazine-Lead Compounds-Manganese Compounds-Mercury Compounds-Methylene chloride-Nickel Compounds-Perchloroethylene-Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)-Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM)-Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (7-PAH)-Propylene dichloride-Quinoline-1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane- Trichloroethylene-Vinyl chloride

    Even our exhaled breath contains chemicals:

    “Human Exhaled Air Analytics…” Buszewski et al, Biomed. Chromatogr. 21: 553–566 (2007) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bmc.835/pdf

    The only issue is whether the quantities of chemicals in air are considered safe, i.e., dosimetry. In most cases, unless you’re nearby an erupting volcano or a forest fire, for example, exposure is within permissible exposure limits. The American federal agency governing indoor air quality – Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) – considers typically encountered smoke (including tobacco) to be within permissible exposure limits for particular constituents. And that’s indoors!

    Antismokers have some serious psychological issues projected onto smoke. They believe that air minus tobacco smoke is “pure/clean” and that when tobacco smoke is added, air suddenly becomes “harmful”. Antismokers have no grasp of basic chemistry and the idea of dosimetry is entirely alien to them. Whatever antismokers have made of tobacco smoke, it’s dysfunctional, incoherent.

  35. Some History

    BBC, 1 “study”. ONE… and from back in 2004. And that’s “overwhelming” evidence of harm? Yep, I can see how you would believe that.

    BBC, you’re a duffer. A likeable duffer, but a duffer nonetheless. There have been numerous “studies” on SHS and lung cancer. Here’s a systematic review (2015) of all those studies. You won’t like the conclusion:
    https://www.wjgnet.com/2308-3840/full/v4/i2/10.htm

    All those studies concern, say, lung cancer in spouses living with smokers for many decades in the indoor setting. How, then, BBC, do you explain smoking bans outdoors – even in parks and on beaches – when there isn’t even any concocted evidence of harm for outdoor settings?

    HINT: Quit while you’re behind, BBC. You’re WAY out of your depth. Go and enjoy your holiday you big galoot.

  36. The BigBlueCat

    @Some History

    Thanks for the link … did you read this bit??

    We thank Japan Tobacco International S.A. for supporting publication of this paper. The opinions and conclusions of the authors are their own, and do not necessarily reflect the position of Japan Tobacco International S.A. We also thank the United Kingdom Tobacco Manufacturers Association, Imperial Tobacco Ltd, British-American Tobacco Limited, and Philip Morris Products S.A. for earlier support in developing the databases used.

    I suspect there may be some selection bias here …

  37. Some History

    I suspect there may be some selection bias here …

    You’re playing the same game that antismoking nut cases have been playing for the last 4 decades…..oh no, if there’s any connection to [evil] Big Tobacco, it must be tainted. Entirely predictable.

    You made the claim, show us where the “selection bias” is? If you can’t, then trap up.

    Then ask yourself why a meta-analysis hasn’t been [recently] conducted by Public Health.
    HINT: Because it knows what the conclusion will be and it doesn’t like it. So it leaves a meta-analysis unaddressed.

  38. The BigBlueCat

    @Some History

    My original concern was about my personal discomfort around tobacco smoke, which you so gleefully dismiss as unwarranted. Maybe if I urinated on your head, I could dismiss any impact on you on the basis that urine is sterile and not a risk to you. What’s good for the goose, etc.

    If you think that using tobacco products is as safe as lollies, then you go right on and use them – don’t let me spoil your delusions. Meanwhile, the weight of medical and scientific evidence is against you. (Suggest you go to Peter Mac’s lung cancer wards and have a chat with the many sufferers in there.)

    By your reckoning, general air quality is bad for us, yet the concentrations of toxins in tobacco smoke is much higher than the general toxins in our air (volcanos notwithstanding). I can only conclude that tobacco smoke is also bad for human ingestion.

    Those of us not in the land of denial (where you seem to live) should, by all accounts, avoid bad air (including tobacco smoke).

    On the point of selection bias, it is clear the researchers of the article you cite dismissed studies that did not support their study for, well, reasons. Ask yourself the question that if big tobacco funded the study, would the results have been released if the conclusion was that side-stream smoke was dangerous to public health? Methinks not. And while I’m sure the conclusions reached by the research team are correct in terms of the studies they did accept, you really do have to ask the question if tobacco side-stream smoke is really that good for our health, especially when you make claims (probably properly supported by good research) that our clean air isn’t that clean and is really a danger to our health. Yet you seem to believe that adding tobacco smoke to the mix does nothing. Go figure …

    Steve McQueen, Barry Sheene, Yul Brynner, John Wayne and a host of other people who have died from tobacco-related illnesses beg to differ with you. And those who live with heavy smokers and who aren’t themselves smokers will also beg to differ (I count myself in that group, having both parents who were 2-3 pack per day each – fortunately they stopped in their late 40’s, though Dad did die of cancer-related illnesses).

    I sincerely hope you (or your loved ones) do not suffer any ill health from tobacco use (direct or indirect). However, you can never say you weren’t warned. As for me, I take the warnings seriously.

Comments are closed.