Smoking Wars Again II

Yesterday I highlighted some of the problems for the anti-smoking nanny staters in the latest National Drug Strategy Household Survey.

It gets worse.

Before I get to that, let’s just remind ourselves what the nanny-staters are claiming:

The survey was taken before the December 2013 price rise – the only major factor that would explain this is the introduction of plain packaging.

The entire difference between 2010 and 2013 is being attributed to the plain packaging policy. Okay. Here is Simon Chapman again:

This is the biggest drop I’ve ever seen. This is champagne-cork pulling time.

Yes. Well. Okay – so how then do we explain the increase in the percentage of daily smokers aged 12 – 17? (See table 3).


If I recall correctly plain packaging was specifically designed to prevent the uptake of smoking amongst children. Yet we see “the definitive National Drug Strategy Household Survey” showing that the incidence of smoking amongst children aged 12 – 17 has increased.

Best Chapman put that champagne away.

(HT: Dick Puddlecote.)

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

12 Responses to Smoking Wars Again II

  1. Aussiepundit

    The war on smoking is just another part of the war on drugs.
    Yes, smoking is bad for your health. So is pot, heroin, alcohol, speed, and for that matter, most medications that your GP will prescribe. We all wish people wouldn’t smoke. Well, some people want to smoke.

    Left wing politicians wish it was illegal. “If it was invented today…” they fantasise. Well, illegality can be implemented on a spectrum. You raise the costs, increasingly restrict where and when the drug can be bought, sold or used, and bit by bit it becomes more and more illegal.

    And we are starting to see stories of ‘dealers’ getting arrested, for example, e-cigarettes, chop-chop and so forth. Just like an illegal drug.

  2. Bruce of Newcastle

    There is no data on the consumption of illegal tobacco and smuggled cigarettes.

    The plain packaging law and increase in excise means there’s a double incentive for people to go black. PPL means smuggled packets are harder to spot because smokers have a very valid reason to hide the disgusting boxes. Excise increase means smugglers can make more profit per shipment.

    Until people like Chapman can get reliable data on the black market, which Roxon and the ALP has fostered, no one can possibly believe anything the left spouts on this topic.

  3. Some History

    In addition to its “Plunge in smoking attributed to plain packaging” article, the SMH also published a slightly more tempered article on the matter yesterday:
    Cigarette sales rose after plain packaging, say companies

    The theme of this thread is addressed in this other article:

    The survey also recorded an increase in smoking among adolescents, from 2.5 per cent in 2010 to 3.4 per cent in 2013, Mr Argent said.
    Geoff Neideck, of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which conducted the survey, said that figure had not been highlighted as it was taken from a small sample and there was a large chance of statistical error.
    He was more confident of the finding that the average age of a first-time smoker had risen from 14 to 16.

  4. I am the Walrus, Koo Koo K'Choo

    Stop putting data in the way of their good story.

  5. What ever it takes

    Kids aren’t stupid, with the cost of legit smokes, they’re saving their money to smoke dope. It amazes me the number of young kids I come across who are regular dope smokers.

  6. Trish

    I’m not sure how many millions of taxpayers dollars were spent on the introduction of plain packaging , but it only cost me $2 for a plain black plastic box to hold hubbies cigarette packet.

  7. .

    Weed is being nudged by tobacco in terms of price.

    Our “anti drug” regime is making marijuana look more attractive by making tobacco cost so much.

    It is just a clusterfuck of failure.

  8. Sinclair Davidson

    The plain packaging debate is going down the carbon tax route. Any evidence that supports their case is climate, everything else is weather. 🙂

  9. John Hooper

    I don’t care if you smoke. I might think you’re a moron -which you would have to be – but that’s your business.

    What I do care about is being forced to breathe your smoke. It blocks my sinuses, makes my eyes water, gives me a headache and just plain stinks.

    The issue is you making the simple act of breathing unpleasant for others, not giving them cancer. It’s like pulling apart your arse cheeks and farting in our face, and telling us it’s your right.

    This is where smug self righteous Libertarians don’t get it.

  10. Some History

    Hey, John Hooper,

    You sound like a smug self-righteous antismoker, i.e., misocapnist, spouting all the standard slogans.

    Nonsmokers are simply people that do not smoke. There are nonsmokers that like the aroma of tobacco smoke and there are plenty more that are not fussed one way or the other. Antismokers, on the other hand, are a different mentality altogether. Antismokers hate [tobacco] smoke/smoking/smokers. There’s even a name that’s been given to this hatred of smoke that probably originated in the antismoking fanaticism in America a century ago – “misocapnist”. Even with the antismoking barrage of the last 30 years, antismokers are still a minority. So, to get their way with legislators they typically hijack the entire nonsmokers group, pretending to speak for all nonsmokers. Most non-smokers do not have hyper-reactive, inordinate reactions to wisps of smoke. There is every reason to believe that this disproportionate “sensitivity” to smoke is neurotic: It is a projection of a troubled mental state. It also helps to explain why the history of anti-smoking is littered with wild exaggerations, inflammatory lies, and bigotry. The finger-wagging anti-smokers that promote themselves as “moral superiors” are moral fakes.

    It’s antismokers that find tobacco smoke as “obnoxious”…. that it “stinks”. It’s antismokers’ subjective experience that they then depict as “objective”. And then follows the “filthy”, “disgusting”, “dirty” barrage. Antismokers’ hyper-reactivity to tobacco smoke is inordinate, disproportionate; many react to even a whiff of smoke as if they’re being led to the gallows. Even their vocabulary in describing smoke is terribly exaggerated – they have to negotiate “walls” or “tunnels” or “clouds” of smoke. Just spend a little time with a rabid antismoker and it becomes quickly apparent that they can’t be reacting to the physical properties of smoke. They seem to be troubled minds projecting their significant inner turmoil (fear/hate) onto smoke.

    State-sponsored inflammatory propaganda concerning tobacco smoke promotes irrational belief, fear and hatred on a mass scale. The fear-mongering has produced a nocebo effect (e.g., anxiety disorder, hypochondria, somatization) in the gullible. Here’s a short but useful video on the nocebo:

  11. Some History

    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.”

    This change from fragrant to foul has not 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 remnants of smoke – even outdoors. There are those that claim that, arriving from a night out, they had to put all of their clothes in the washing machine and scrape the “smoke” off their skin in the shower. There are even those that claim they are “allergic” to tobacco smoke. Yet there are no allergens (proteins) in tobacco smoke to be allergic to.

    And it didn’t stop with just the smoke. Cigarette butts – heretofore unheard of – suddenly became a “monumental problem” too – akin to improvised explosive devices, requiring drastic action. These are all recent phenomena born of toxic propaganda; it is an expanding hysteria. It says nothing about the physical properties/propensities 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. Typical symptoms of anxiety disorder are heart palpitations, chest tightness, shortness of breath, headache, dizziness, etc. These capnophobics (smokephobics) are no different to those irrationally attempting to avoid cracks in the pavement lest their mental world come crashing down. Questionable social engineering requires putting many into mental disorder to advance the ideological/financial agenda. It is the antismoking fanatics/zealots/extremists and their toxic mentality and propaganda that have long been in need of urgent scrutiny.

  12. Some History

    As another commenter put it:

    “Vehement anti-smokers are weak people because they get off on a manufactured outrage that they cannot express in other areas of their lives, so this is their only way they can exert dominance and control over a stranger.”

Comments are closed.