Related Articles


  1. 1

    Steven Haby

    I wonder if Col Allen had a word with Adam Creighton prior to his piece in the Oz to ‘harden up’ his rhetoric. What an odious piece of ‘writing’ from Mr Creighton. The tobacco lobby are just like climate change deniers.

  2. 2

    Interrobanging On

    Nauseating and stupid, even for the Liberal Party’s press bureau in the Murdoch Press.

    The Nazi references are offensive, dumb, inaccurate and seriously overreaching. What more can be said?

    But it has the requisite dog whistles of the infantile ‘freedom of choice’ argument, cash grab etc. Plus muddying the waters and not offering alternatives. Just like the Liberal and apparently what its supporters want.

    Plus the faked concern for the country’s poor. Price increases are the most effective measure to get poor people to stop, saving them money in the future. That requires the tiniest degree of sophistication in thinking – something Abbott supporters can not afford to have.

  3. 3

    timothy ghost

    smoking isn’t a “cost of living” expense, it’s a privilege, a lifestyle choice. electricity, food, rent et al. are cost of living expenses, all (arguably) essential to living in a modern industrialised society like australia. can’t afford to smoke? then stop smoking, sheesh

  4. 4


    Shock, horror, amoral churnalist garnishes prostituted analysis with banal hyperbole.

    Thanks crikey for noting, but really the only surprise is that -anyone- still pays for News Corpse product. Ideally the outraged health workers would be organising a boycott.

  5. 5


    I really can believe this is an issue. With the smokers of the country fighting a rear guard action to maintain their unhealthy practises, increases in taxes will eventually make is prohibitively expensive to maintain their addiction. Whilst it is abhorrent that News Ltd can publish such rubbish, what do you espect from Rupert looking after his mates interests in big business.
    Todays newpaper headline wrapes tomorrow fish and chips (or used to), I just wonder what point the Australian is trying to make…it’s OK for the populace to smoke unfettered by Government attempts to re-coup the health costs?

  6. 6

    Harry Rogers

    If disease doesnt kill the smokers either the government or lynch mobs will.

  7. 7


    France, Italy, Greece, Spain, Germany etc not more than 5 euro a pack and have the mg on the side of the pack. Australia 20 bucks a pack removed the mg on the side but when you go to give up and get the helping aids it has a reference to the mg of what you where smoking? (Imagine if alcohol had the % removed) The price of the aids are prohibitive as the cause. The government is not serious about stopping smoking or saving people, and the ones on their pedestal have no idea only toxic comments. I have had a guts full of Australian smokers getting crucified by every blow hard with a gob, treated worse than dog dung on the bottom of a shoe, junkies get treated better along with better attitudes.

  8. 8

    john davidson

    Ahhh. “Godwins law”. An excuse used by communists, or “Greens”, or anti-smokers, or anti fattists, or any other hippy grouping, to deflect, or “defeat” any reasoned argument/discussion
    away from the clear fact that there IS no difference between them and the nazis, when that reasoning comes dangerously close to proving the fact. And used by Nazis, who are loosing their argument, but can, or will not be seen to be “throwing-in-the-towel.”

    As to “Nazi”. It is a methodology. Or a “world view” NOT an end result. (In fact part of Mein Kampf was TITLED “Weltanschauung” (World view)!)

    It does not matter if you end up eradicating Jews, or smokers, if the METHODS, or even the RHETORIC used are the same that were used by the “Nazis”, then the title is yours. Go and enjoy it.

    (A simple test is to compare methods used by the anti whatever lobby today, and “News”papers such as “Der Stürmer” ( ), or “Das Schwarze Korps” ( ). If the methods match, are so similar as to make no difference, or even if they FEEL that way, then those methods, and those using/purporting them, are nazis, and “Godwin”cango and screw himself sideways..)

  9. 9

    Fran Barlow

    John Davidson

    That’s just silly.

    I will grant that “Godwin’s Law” is a silly paradigm. If speaking of the Nazi period is salient, then let’s by all means bring them up. The onus is on the proposer of the link to show adequate cause.

    You say though:

    [It does not matter if you end up eradicating Jews, or smokers, if the METHODS, or even the RHETORIC used are the same that were used by the “Nazis”, then the title is yours. Go and enjoy it.]

    That’s not adequate cause. There are a few category errors here. Firstly, you are using “eradicate” both in its hard sense (killing and preventing recurrence of a living thing) and its more metaphoric sense — in this case in relation to the custom of smoking. If smoking does stop being a practice, the people who had been smoking will still live, very probably for somewhat longer than if they’d persisted. Your phrase should have been “if you end up eradicating Jews, or smok ers ing” if you were being precise. Your imprecision helps found a false amalgam between “the methods of the Nazis” and those of the (allegedly similar) eradicators of smoking.

    This is a kind of essentialism. You want to say that there is an essenetial and thus salient connection between the methods of the Nazis and those of smoking eradicators, in order to say that the latter and the former are ethical equivalents, but you need the ide of dead bodies “Jews” and “smokers” for those who might miss it.

    The trouble here is that the premature death toll that some advocates like Creighton adduce in favour of the “no financial harm to others from smoking claim” shows that unlike the Nazis, smoking eradicators are hoping to extend people’s lives not cut them off short.

    If someone eats their breakfast the same way as leading Nazis, it doesn’t make that person an ethical equivalent. One needs to show that the method has some ethical status peculiar to Nazis in order to make a link.

    You try a similar thing when you cite the word “Weltanschauung” as a chapter heading in Mein Kampf. The word appears there because it’s a German word, and Hitler spoke German. It wasn’t his invention, so it’s not peculiar even to him, let alone Nazis as a group.

    It seems to me that one can argue that whereas pleasure in the world is unevenly distributed, and that every reasonable person would want as much of it as was available, and bearing in mind that pleasure will describe different things for each of us, that taxing pleasure where practicable and redistributing the revenue where pleasure is in short supply seems ethically robust.

    If these funds underpin the health or education systems, or to protect the vulnerable or serve to build and improve housing and public amenity and thus spread the pleasure about, then it seems to me that this suffices to do it. Surely, the knowledge of smokers that each puff could save another’s life, grant them one more day of pleasure, would make smoking even more pleasurable than it might seem to advocates of the pleasure had in smoking. Perhaps taxes on smoking are that very rarest of things in public policy — a win-win solution.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2015 – 2021 Croakey | Website: Rock Lily Design


Follow Croakey