Idle ciggie activists to tackle alcohol next?

Chaucer said that idle hands are the Devil's workshop. Well in Australia we have a well oiled health activist machine that has turned the average cigarette package into curiosity hour at the morgue. Mug shots of the dead and dying, diseased organs, blackened digits and other such medicinal delights now greet anyone with the misfortune to still be addicted to this former 'glamorous' consumer product. Fair enough as the body count from cigarettes would make anyone apart from the automobile and arms industries blush.

The danger for us hedonists, however, is that this victory over 'big tobacco' has left Australia with a set of idle health activists flushed with success and spoiling for another fight. Where to place this idealistic fervour? Well the chatter is that booze is what these puritanical protectors of vital organs will target next. So are we going to head down to path of VB stubbies being plastered with pictures of cirrhotic livers, bruised wives, vomitting teenagers and blood covered faces? Will our Chardonnay be called 'White Wine' with no reference to the winery, year and other such devious marketing ploys? Well the truth is that this utopian vision is what our healthy friends would dearly love to achieve. Average Joe, after all, is a victim of big corporates and will slavishly drink and smoke until his untimely demise unless these fearless deniers of 'freedom of choice' step in with their macabre tactics.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/nannys-drinking-problem/story-e6frg6z6-1226558565653

One thing I do know is that the day when your Toyota is covered with mangled limbs, decapitated bodies and teenagers in wheelchairs is probably far removed. Then again, maybe we are heading down the path where a trip to the pub will be like walking through Leningrad after the seige in the 1940s. Not sure if I want to live in such a society.

Bushman said:

...http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/nannys-drinking-problem/story-e6frg6z6-1226558565653...Then again, maybe we are heading down the path where a trip to the pub will be like walking through Leningrad after the seige in the 1940s...

Click to expand...

They'll come after the drinkers, nothing surer. It will not be so easy as with tobacco. Pubs, clubs, brewers, the wine industry, they're all significant political lobbies and corporate taxpayers (evidence that pokies regulation went nowhere).

Also it's hard to home-brew cigarettes, unlike a cheeky pale ale.

It's the thin end of the wedge for sure

How come with all these evil things in the world I don't smoke, drink very little and only gamble occasionally?

Miss Hale said:

It's the thin end of the wedge for sure

How come with all these evil things in the world I don't smoke, drink very little and only gamble occasionally?

Click to expand...

Shhh Ms Hale, you will do a health activist out of a long and fruitful career with a statement like that. We are all just mindless consumers of products placed in front of us by evil big corporations!

I think they should just mind their own business.

Or is that too simple?

That was a very colourful story from the Australian wasn't it ? Just has me yearning for the good ol days of the Marlbaro Man dancing across our screens, a smoke in every pocket and a beer in every hand.

Damn xloody nanny state !!

I think the question of public heath is worth discussing. One legitimate view could be saying that the taxpayer via the Government won't pick up the tab for a variety of diseases caused by poor personal health decisions. So for example if smokers get lung cancer and drinkers trash their liver they are own their own financially. Any takers ?

Why not reframe this discussion in a more neutral way ? As far as I can see it is just another story from the lobbyists who defend the cigarette/alcohol/gaming/fast food industry. It isn't about people health - just the right to pick their pockets with the most effective addictions businesses can produce.

I am with them.

I am sick of having to pay extra taxes for drug addicts health care and social management programs including policing of irresponsible and anti social behaviour, especially alcohol related violence.

basilio said:

I think the question of public heath is worth discussing. One legitimate view could be saying that the taxpayer via the Government won't pick up the tab for a variety of diseases caused by poor personal health decisions. So for example if smokers get lung cancer and drinkers trash their liver they are own their own financially. Any takers ?

Click to expand...

We have had this discussion before. How about obese people who need treatment for hypertension and heart disease because of their crap eating habits and reluctance to exercise?

How will you set the criteria for who will not be treated?
Is the person who smoked for a couple of years when young going to be refused treatment for lung disease in his 40's?
Is the person who is fat, but not quite obese, going to be treated?
etc etc

our inner city do-gooder class know whats best for us guys n gals... dont worry

basilio said:

That was a very colourful story from the Australian wasn't it ? Just has me yearning for the good ol days of the Marlbaro Man dancing across our screens, a smoke in every pocket and a beer in every hand.

Damn xloody nanny state !!

I think the question of public heath is worth discussing. One legitimate view could be saying that the taxpayer via the Government won't pick up the tab for a variety of diseases caused by poor personal health decisions. So for example if smokers get lung cancer and drinkers trash their liver they are own their own financially. Any takers ?

Why not reframe this discussion in a more neutral way ? As far as I can see it is just another story from the lobbyists who defend the cigarette/alcohol/gaming/fast food industry. It isn't about people health - just the right to pick their pockets with the most effective addictions businesses can produce.

Click to expand...

Hi Basilio,

There are so many consumer products out there that are arguably addictive or that 'we cannot live without' that can lead to 'lifestyle diseases', injuries or psychological issues now or in the future. Some of these are:

1. alcohol
2. junk food
3. sugar
4. processed foods
5. motor cars
6. cigarettes
7. prescription drugs
8. gambling

Of these, injuries from motor vehicles are arguably covered by TAC funding. The rest will no doubt need to be covered to some extent by the public health departments.

The campaign against cigarettes has been welcome and I am actually very glad that smoking rates are on the wane having once been addicted to the noxious weed. However, the means (publishing images of a variety of awful medical conditions) cannot necessarily be rolled out to other products. Otherwise we will have supermarket shelves full of god awful images. I was also able to kick the habit once I was mature enough (late 20s) to realise that I was not immortal and that lots of people die from smoking.

There is also a very well funded lobby group that will now look for the next public health campaign and alcohol will be it. While there is much that can be done with alcohol fuelled violence, I personally would not endorse these products being covered in grotesque health warnings. Also, it is arguable that the cost from obesity, motor vehicle accidents, gambling and other such 'consumer choice' driven afflications will conveniently ignored. It is a scatter gun approach.

I am very worried about such decisions being taken out of citizens hands too - the 'nanny state' as you call it. Our freedoms have been hard won and yet seem now to be constantly eroded from the hands of responsible adults. I do draw a distinction with tobacco, by the way, due to its highly addictive nature.

I deplore comments such as ex smokers should be denied health care. Well, sure, but make sure then that you refund them all the income tax, GST, smokers levies and the like that they have paid through their adult lives committing no crimes. Also, while smoking has been demonised, those partaking of fatty foods, sugar, riding motor bikes, popping valiums etc., all of which can have lethal consequences, get as much access to healthcare as they need.

white_goodman said:

our inner city do-gooder class know whats best for us guys n gals... dont worry

Click to expand...

I reckon you're way off the mark. It's the suburbanites who never venture into the city and are tucked up in bed by 7:30 on a Saturday night who believe all the hype about how dangerous the streets are. Inner city types love hugging trees but they want to be able to smoke certain weeds and drink as much as they want.

Glad the topic has become more neutral and certainly worth exploring.

I just threw up the idea of denying people health care based on their personal habits to be a little provocative. As Julia points out the grey areas in this discussion would be a nightmare to police and just not practical.

Bushman you noted how addictive tobacco is and how glad you were to get off it. Your list of consumer products that are potentially addictive was good. Without being silly we could also add the addictions of

1) Shopping (till you drop)
2) Excessive Use of internet

FWIW I believe that the overriding issue in our society is the pressure on people to consume. Our economy is geared to more and more growth. It seems that the whole advertising industry is trying to persuade us to use more than we need.

That in itself is the seed of many of our addiction and health problems.

How would we go with a public health program which promoted "Buying less" " Living Simply" "Smelling the Roses" "Enjoying the simple things " Would we be a happy, healthier lot if stopped trying to keep up with the Joneses, spent more time with our friends and family and didn't have to do it over a beer or a Macca's ?

Just for interest how do people think the industry lobbies would respond to such a public health campaign - particularly if it became successful at changing our drinking and junk food habits ?

McLovin said:

I reckon you're way off the mark. It's the suburbanites who never venture into the city and are tucked up in bed by 7:30 on a Saturday night who believe all the hype about how dangerous the streets are. Inner city types love hugging trees but they want to be able to smoke certain weeds and drink as much as they want.

Click to expand...

certain weeds are already illegal thus dont count... I imagine the wineo's would get an exemption for any alcohol type prohibition.. surburabnites venture into the suburbs, go to manly, the fiddler, roxy or cronulla on a saturday night and tell them they dont drink

Bushman said:

I am very worried about such decisions being taken out of citizens hands too - the 'nanny state' as you call it. Our freedoms have been hard won and yet seem now to be constantly eroded from the hands of responsible adults.

I deplore comments such as ex smokers should be denied health care. Well, sure, but make sure then that you refund them all the income tax, GST, smokers levies and the like that they have paid through their adult lives committing no crimes. Also, while smoking has been demonised, those partaking of fatty foods, sugar, riding motor bikes, popping valiums etc., all of which can have lethal consequences, get as much access to healthcare as they need.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

basilio said:

Without being silly we could also add the addictions of

1) Shopping (till you drop)
2) Excessive Use of internet

Click to expand...

Again, how would this be measured. Why should governments interfere in either of these activities? If someone wants to waste all their money on shopping for whatever they fancy, that should be their own business.

What is 'excessive use of internet'? Unbelievably, I heard a radio program over the weekend where the American Psychiatric Assn is considering making "internet addiction" a mental illness!!!

One day we will find that our every inclination has a label of some sort of psychopathology attached to it.
This phenomenon has, imo, become thoroughly unhealthy.
No one is sad any more. We are all clinically depressed at the slightest hint of anything other than utter cheerfulness and therefore are required to consume medication to offset this psychological abnormality.

Shades of the population wide consumption of Soma in Orwell's "Brave New World".

FWIW I believe that the overriding issue in our society is the pressure on people to consume. Our economy is geared to more and more growth. It seems that the whole advertising industry is trying to persuade us to use more than we need.

Click to expand...

Of course. That's the essence of growing an economy. It is always up to the consumer to decide for themselves what they need or don't. We do not need some sort of nanny state instructions about what is good for us. I utterly detest this whole notion.

How would we go with a public health program which promoted "Buying less" " Living Simply" "Smelling the Roses" "Enjoying the simple things " Would we be a happy, healthier lot if stopped trying to keep up with the Joneses, spent more time with our friends and family and didn't have to do it over a beer or a Macca's ?

Click to expand...

You are assuming people overall are too stupid to make appropriate choices. The more we tell them what they should or should not be doing, the more we encourage them not to think and make valid decisions for themselves.

If there will be a major plus in hopefully a change of government this year, it will be the Liberal philosophy of encouraging people to think for themselves. Under Labor, the nanny state has grown exponentially, to the absolute detriment imo of the population.

I believe Grey Nomads should not be allowed drive their hideous caravans any further from the high tide mark than 1 metre.

Let them smoke or drink, or buy lollies from multinational petrol outlets, let them eat Maccas and Jacks.

Let them buy funeral or rollover insurance.

But save us from their effects on rural Australia.

gg

I have already said, I am all for alcohol to be next.
Alcohol needs a negative effect put in soceity, just as smoking.

kennas said:

I am with them.

I am sick of having to pay extra taxes for drug addicts health care and social management programs including policing of irresponsible and anti social behaviour, especially alcohol related violence.

Click to expand...

Alcohol related violence is the fault of the courts and lawmakers who allow the alcohol industry unfettered access to minors and allow people to drink themselves stupid without consequences.

If you're over .05 in a car you get punished but you can walk the streets out of your brain ready to bash someone and nothing happens unless you do ....and are caught, then it's a fine and bond.

Clubs and pubs are not supposed to serve drunks but that's all they do, the consequences ? ZERO.

Violence, booze a nation's shame as police prepare for Australia Day assaults

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...lia-day-assaults/story-e6frf7kx-1226559588345

Most people drink responsibly.

There is however an element of our society that flaunt its rules whether by drink driving, anti social behaviour or violence. This is the part which needs to be addressed.

1. Consistent and harsher penalties for drink driving.
2. Raise the drinking age to 21.
3. Higher penalties for selling alcohol illegally or irresponsibly.
4. Consistent and harsher penalties for violence.

Australia Day, shudder. The little flags, the aggressive jingoism and the booze. Please not a hot day on 26th.

It used to be a day that passed with little fanfare, but it's grown into a monster. Much sympathy for anyone who doesn't fit an anglo stereotype, how they must dread 26th Jan.

MrBurns said:

Alcohol related violence is the fault of the courts and lawmakers who allow the alcohol industry unfettered access to minors and allow people to drink themselves stupid without consequences.

If you're over .05 in a car you get punished but you can walk the streets out of your brain ready to bash someone and nothing happens unless you do ....and are caught, then it's a fine and bond.

Clubs and pubs are not supposed to serve drunks but that's all they do, the consequences ? ZERO.

Click to expand...

Agree that we need tougher consequences for alcohol-fuelled violence. I don't see any need for clubs etc to be open past 1am - nothing good happens after midnight. If you want to party on, do it in a private home. Transporting people from the nightclubs to their homes in a fast and affordable fashion would alleviate a lot of the brawls that occur due to intoxicated young adults wandering the streets in the early hours.

dutchie said:

Violence, booze a nation's shame as police prepare for Australia Day assaults

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...lia-day-assaults/story-e6frf7kx-1226559588345

Most people drink responsibly.

There is however an element of our society that flaunt its rules whether by drink driving, anti social behaviour or violence. This is the part which needs to be addressed.

1. Consistent and harsher penalties for drink driving.
2. Raise the drinking age to 21.
3. Higher penalties for selling alcohol illegally or irresponsibly.
4. Consistent and harsher penalties for violence.

Click to expand...

Agree with all but raising the drinking age - I don't think that would be practical, and should be unnecessary if the other measures were put into practice.

Personally I'd like to see much more pressure put on clubs/pubs to adhere to regulations re serving alcohol to drunks. I'd like to see much tougher legal consequences for violent and unruly behaviour. Sadly, I think quite a few younger people are already smashed on Red Bull & vodka and the like before they even head out for the night these days as they can't afford club prices - the attitude seems to be to get drunk first and then head out to dance and socialise. Often enhanced by pills.

The "Think before you Drink" ads that used to run on tv, showing some examples of poor decisions made due to the effects of alcohol, did get my teenagers' attention and at the very least got them thinking, and aware of the ability of alcohol to loosen inhibitions - often to one's later regret. As with a lot of unwelcome behaviour in society, a large part of the problem is young people mimicking their parents and their beliefs. If kids grow up seeing their parents drink responsibly, and families openly discuss the effects of alcohol in a truthful way, this would certainly help. Unfortunately, as the opposite is quite often the norm, I'd like to see a few more public health ads aimed at young adults on tv. If getting legless and behaving like a moron becomes "uncool" that would have far more effect than any legislation.

The old "Life Be In It" ads had a positive effect for a little while didn't they? Education rather than regulation is the key. You have to make people want to do something or change their ways - not simply tell them how they must behave.