Debate on former health minister John Hill’s proposal to legislate for “endgame” strategies to cut smoking has started earlier than he expected.
A research paper commissioned by Hill was sent to all MPs last Thursday ahead of an expected debate in the South Australian parliament next week.
An InDaily reader posted our story on Hill’s concept of a complete ban on smoking for people born after 2000 to the community message site reddit.com, sparking an immediate reaction.
“I understand the desire to prevent health problems that arise from smoking, but isn’t this overzealous,” the InDaily reader asked.
“And won’t it create a different set of rights for people born after 2000? What message does that send about equality before the law?”
You might like
The responses were positive.
Those in favour noted that the proposal would not have an impact on current smokers;
“This is different: under this scheme, I can keep smoking till the day that I die, but it stops new people from becoming smokers. It isn’t taking anyone’s cigarettes away.”
“Someone who was born in the year 2000 cannot legally smoke today, they would only be 13 years old, but they could become a smoker in 2018. Under this scheme, the government won’t take that persons cigarettes away or force him to quit, because he/she never started smoking to begin with!”
Stay informed, daily
“Might not be the most perfect idea, but it’s worth trying if you believe curbing smoking is a good thing.’
Other respondents thought the proposal sounded too good to be true.
“In a perfect world where all people only start using substances when they are legally available to them (18), this model might work. If people simply observed and obeyed all the laws in the world this wouldn’t even be up for debate. And you are correct, people don’t miss what they’ve never had. But how on earth are we going to stop these people from accessing them?”
“We’ve outlawed every other drug, and (if you know the right people) virtually anyone can get their hands on just about anything. Ever. Drugs you didn’t even know existed. And they can be accessed by anyone of any age, the difference being exposure. If you never meet anybody who does illicit drugs, you might never be exposed. However, cigarettes are everywhere. Not just in the media, but on the streets. And kids are going to be exposed to cigarettes, whether this law exists or not.”
“Whether we like it or not, cigarettes exist. If they never existed, we wouldn’t have this problem. But they do. They’re real, and they’re addictive. And, as they are both real and addictive, people will use them and want to use them.”
And there were the health perspectives.
“I’m all for freedom to do as one chooses, but smoking does cause a drain on the health system…personally I can’t see a problem with this law – none of these people should be smoking already, it just removes one questionable choice, given what we know about smoking its actually more irresponsible not to do this to look out for our children.”
Finally, there was the issue of choice.
“It certainly is a divisive point, isn’t it? At what point do people have to accept responsibility and at how much government intervention is necessary and effective?”
The online debate continues here.
Want to see more stories from InDaily SA in your Google search results?
- Click here to set InDaily SA as a preferred source.
- Tick the box next to "InDaily SA". That's it.
