A smoke-free Singapore?

[clark]

is there ever a government that has banned cigarette ?

Superman also says this is unrealistic.

What is more important is that government use a portion of this revenue to protect non-smokers from second hand smoke if they want to continue earning from this.

Either educate, fine or keep them in boxes (i.e. japan, etc). Current measures are inadequate !

 

[stanzza]

I would view it as govt would consider it seriously. Revenue from sin tax would not be a key consideration point, but rather from other complication or consideration.

1 billion annual revenue. My impression of sg govt can forgo that for public benefit. Otherwise it wouldn't only be 2010 before we get casino. It would have been much earlier.

Actually from what I read abt tobacco in the past, some countries have tried banning it only to be sued by the powerful tobacco companies, engaging their own panel of expert proving that smoking is not that harmful to health and stop the ban.

 

[stanzza]

If Sg govt can ban it, it would be a wild success. We would have done the right thing which other countries could not.

I would salute the govt.

 

[vios]

well unless stanzza qualifies for the position of PM (i don't mean, private message), if not, i don't see a possibility that our govt would think the same way as he (and other intolerant non-smokers) would.

 

[clark]

"....we can invent something to replace cigarettes in its addictiveness and poseur-appeal and i do not know what that could be"

Please dun say this has to be Milo.

 

[kittenpie]

clark,

you are obsessed with Milo.

everything you say can be linked back to him.

you having a crush on him? go for it, i say!

 

[stanzza]

Vios,

they did say they gg to seriously consider the proposal and found the idea interesting isn't it? And they do know at hand how much $$ they getting outta this without looking deeply into it rgt?

So what makes u think they don't wish to ban it?

 

[simpleman]

Stanzza,

You you wanna bet with me?

1 Billion is not a lot. Just raise GST by 1% can cover it.. or personal income tax by 2 to 3 %.. or raise ERP charges / ARF. The govt has a way to recover the lost revenue.

But I would bet that they will not consider a ban seriously. They may just increase the excise tax on tobacco.. or raise the min age to buy / smoke cigarette.. And put more restrictions on where you can smoke in public.. I think that is about all.

Is there a public benefit? No measurable benefit. Smokers will cry father cry mother... create more social problem. People would go JB for smoking holiday, people will pay much more for illegal cigarettes.... benefit trafficker. I don't see how it can have any public benefit. The air quality is better? Is it even measurable?

 

[clark]

there is nothing wrong to be intolerant on this issue of breathing in second hand smoke. It's every non-smoker right to be.

The government has to put in more concrete measures to ensure that smokers do so at the expense of their ownselves.

No two way abt it since they are making a revenue from this.

 

[clark]

drinking milo gives one an overaged asshole (among other nasty kinds).

I am not obsessed. i am merely doing my duty as superman to warn others of the dangers.

If to serve is a crime, i am guilty on all counts

 

[miloice]

"Intolerant, self-righteous.."

in short... auntie.

 

[stanzza]

SM,

medical cost resulting from smoking. Medical cost is subsidised in Sg.

 

[miloice]

"If to serve is a crime, i am guilty on all counts"
go serve your MIL in bed. Bond more with her.

 

[clark]

Milo, do you notice that nobody tends to respond to your posts these days.

wanna know why ? cos you are Milo dinosaur. Extinct and irrelevant. Plus no wits and class in your posts.

I am done with you (in the real world, i stamp over pple like you). You have been exposed !

Superman has served his duty.

 

[simpleman]

Not true. Yes, I find Milo determined / stubborn at times. But generally he speaks with a lot more sense than you especially if don't go around "hunting".

Kent is a lot more super-ass than superman. I ignore you these days.. but in this instance, since you are talking about ignoring Milo, I thought it would be good to let you know what other people think of you.

You are generally irritating.. much more so than Milo at his worst.

 

[clark]

i am at peace with myself.

My friends call me either superman or clark.

If u insist on calling me Kent....it is Mr Kent to you !

 

[powder]

i think it's very typical of local pple to act helpless and basically act 'no choice'... sometimes i really wonder why...

as a parent, i have never faced any difficulties keeping my kids away from 2nd hand smoke... most of spore is air-conditioned anyway... there's legislation in place to prevent all the blatant smoking... which sufficiently cuts off the exposure by such a large percentage that it's easier to find fresh air, than "smoke-air". even in east coast, walking along orchard... it's really not difficult.

i've not actually met any smoker who intentionally chases after pple to blow smoke in their face... last time i saw such action is on tv. however it's easier to see pple walking into a group of smokers and giving a dirty look or covering their noses... most times, i notice that a slight detour is very possible.

these are my observations... call it entrapment, call it disturbing the bees' nest... but i think some pple intentionally And wilfully put themselves in such situations so that they can show their displeasure.

 

[clark]

powder....have you not seen pple outside somerset 313 smoking away ? this is a high human traffic area but how to even walk ard when second hand smoke drifts ?

At the end of the day, the government plays a very impt role. Either educate, fine and install concrete measures to allow both groups to co-exist.

Smokers have a right to smoke at their own expense but not at the expense of others. As simple as that.

 

[stanzza]

Many countries are trying to ban cigarettes. Only to be challenged legally. They are taking steps to slowly outlawed it.

If any country can implement a successful total ban, Singapore can.

http://www.tobaccouse.info/finland-seeking-to-prohibit-tobacco-use/

 

[clark]

a very good post stannza.

you rock !

 

[simpleman]

It is quite useless to ban because many countries are trying to ban it.

Death sentence is not legal in many countries or even corporal punishment.. but it is in Singapore. We are not ashamed to hang people just because many countries are not doing so.

Prostitution is illegal in many countries.. In Singapore it is legal. It is again, one of the many necessary evils like smoking..

As long as smokers are considerate, they smoke in designated public areas or privately and they are not intrusive, we should be a little tolerant.

 

[clark]

ah...get it straight !

It is intolerant to second hand smoke....it is not being the smokers.

can you understand this simple logic simple man ?

 

[simpleman]

yes, you can be intolerant to inanimate objects like 2nd-hand smoke.. so what?

The 2nd hand smoke is caused by 'humans'.. so you are tolerant of the human but not the smoke?

Or you are really intolerant of the smokers? Get your intolerance right.

How about you not driving? I also don't like CO and CO2 from your car...

 

[clark]

ah...there are regulations on car emissions. It is with intolerance of such emissions from the public that governments are pushed to pass such bills. we do not ban cars right ?

the more u post, the more rubbish u write.

your logic cannot be comprehend.

i am flying off. Superman choose to ignore you.

 

[tomasulu]

what's this, kindergarten is over?

 

[clark]

just when i am flying off, my super radar eye zoomed in on this tomasulu.

Sambal Belachan.....your fish is there. i leave it to you to start grilling.

Dinner can be served soon.

 

[simpleman]

There are also regulations on where you can smoke..

What rubbish logic you are saying ..

Yeah, things that you care for.. the car for eg.. there are regulations on emissions.. so you are happy with it. How about those people who don't own a car. They are not happy.. can they ask the govt to ban cars instead?

And things that you don't care for.. smoking for eg.. You want a ban because you are intolerant of 2nd hand smoke when there are already regulations and restrictions regarding smoking.

such self-centredness. What super-selfish.

Who cares about super-ass like you anyway.

 

[clark]

superman choose to ignore you.

When a simple man choose to be a mad man, there is no saving grace.

Till another thread beckons, superman signing off.

 

[miloice]

On the contrary, I'm getting a lot of responses. Just from stupid mad man that doesn't talk much sense.

 

[powder]

clark,

ref 313, if it's bad - avoid tat place in future... or if u really need to go there, or enter thru Zara or other entrances. most shopping centres have similar shops nowadays, so avoid those tat do not give u your desired protection.

if i can avoid places with horrendous parking, i'm sure u can avoid paces with horrendous health impact?

 

[clark]

Powder,

If it is within 313 and the management strata permits such activites, it will be my choice not to go there.

But to smoke in the public walkway outside and expect a group of individual to avoid cos of some inconsideration behaviour is ridiculous.

Anyway, superman point is that the government plays an important role in this and this has to be steered by the public. If they choose not to listen, there will be friction.

 

[clark]

wah....btw, even superman at 2.35 am is having his beauty sleep.

Why sleep so late ?

 

[stanzza]

http://www.who.int/features/qa/60/en/index.html

 

[clark]

stannza....you rock !

you have Superman's stamp of approval !

 

[miloice]

hi Stanzza,

from the article in the URL you provided :
"Tobacco smoke in enclosed spaces is breathed in by everyone, exposing smokers and nonsmokers alike to its harmful effects."

The current policies are already minimizing the exposure in enclosed spaces.

There isn't anyone disputing how selfish acts should be condoned at all. Rather, pointing out the selfish double standards one is placing over smoking in general (not just the selfish ones) but yet at the same time, OUT OF THEIR OWN CONVENIENCE and NEEDS completely tolerant towards their own contribution to pollution to the air we claim a right over.

 

[stanzza]

Milo,

go argue with all the country leaders and UN organization. If it is not the case that tobacco companies are so powerful, a similar ban proposed in Sg would have occur worldwide long ago.

The current policies are just progressive steps to reach an ultimate goal - a total ban.

These progressive steps are to weaken the tobacco industry, before gg for the final kill.

U speak like a smoker or someone from the industry.

 

[stanzza]

there's no tolerant to other form air pollution at all. There are strict regulation to control all those at well.

The only difference is that we could not eradicate vehicles and factory plants, as they serve a greater good by improving people's life. We can only try to advance in technology on reducing/eradicate these impact and control the emission level through regulation.

As for smoking as an activity, there is no greater good to speak about. Sin tax is there to push up the price of cigarette in order to curb quantity demanded and placing it out of reach from more people. It is a tool to weaken the tobacco industry, reduces the demand for tobacco and evading the complex legal complication. It is a strategy. Of course it makes good revenue for govt, but that's not exactly why they are doing it.

Rather, it is because tax is a good way to curb demand and weaken them, without having to deal and fight with them on legal front.

Tobacco industry fund a lot of politician in their campaign to get elected and that sortta stuff, so they have strong influence.

Those things ppl read and form in their mindset, that tobacco not necessary be cause of death etc, downplaying it's effect...

Ppl probably gotta think abt whether they have been brainwashed and convinced by marketing campaigns. U can get experts to fight for you easily if u got the money.

 

[stanzza]

It have always been a long political war between each country govt and tobacco industry.

And politics is what gets will get things done right, though slowly.

That's y I say if sg govt can really pull this off. I'll salute them.

 

[miloice]

hi stanzza, I'm not a smoker nor from the industry. Never like the smell or its effects and will never try it. I'm just as irritated by selfish people... not just smokers.

Actually, most folks are all for responsible policies to encourage healthy lifestyle. But, its not the same as lumping every smoker as being selfish and irresponsible. The dispute is mostly this as also on the feasibility of such a ban. With the current direction where the sg govt is heading, I doubt they would ever ban it. Casinos are legalized because of the direct and indirect revenue it brings. Likewise from the Tobacco industry.

 

[powder]

well clark,

i won't be defending the inconsiderate smokers for sure... am just pointing out that u can avoid them.

all said and done, there are choices in life, and we are empowered First, as individuals - to act on this empowerman... we ARE empowered by our ability to avoid. we can choose not to avoid and make a big hooha, but do remember it is not becos we had no options, but becos we choose to or not to.

i'm saying that it's quite easy to avoid... whilst u're pointing out cases here and there to build a case in a manner where u have no choice whatsoever... i fail to see why that should be the case.

 

[stanzza]

Milo,

Because people needs protection. People cannot make a well informed decision if they are misinformed with all the marketing campaigns. Many ppl think that they are making decision on their own free will. No, it is easy, very easy to manipulate them through information feeding. And it is the best way cause they will think that they are exercising their own thoughts/action.

People's decision are form by their thinking pattern + knowledge. Knowledge is form by information provided. There is little difference between each's thinking thought. But lots of difference in terms of knowledge. So by feeding people with the information you want them to access and restricting them information which you do not want them to access, you can manipulate their mind. Shaping their decision to your decision, shaping their mind to what you want.

And because health and social expenditure exceed revenue collected.

People whom developed health complication in their prime, leave behind dependencies. Imagine if 100% of population smoke and just 10-20% of them gets health problem. How much money would need to be spent and social problem would the country have.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=3995

 

[powder]

sometimes it's the local mentality that gets to me... pple acting like they have no choice, then intentionally doing something in order to 'get caught' in it - basically entrapping themselves wilfully...

and then they cry father cry mother and want somebody to do abt it.

this is life, we're all adults able to make choices... where we walk, what we eat, where we live, what we do...

for me i smoke... i dun do it in front of my kids, nor in my house, nor in my own car alone... i do it at designated places, and places which may be grey but without other pple around me. half the time i walk away as far from pple as possible... except dining areas where smoking is allowed... if it happens to be next to non-smoking tables, i'll make the effort not to light up Even if i have the right to - in my designated smoking table. not becos i'm ashamed, but becos i care that pple may not like it... i think i've earned my right to keep to my choice.

to be hunted down, to be pushed to the corners... is tough... but i guess considering it's a social ill, i'll still be able to swallow and move away.

What some of u should realise is... u should not lump every smoker together. u may have built your "i hate smokers" mentality from a few incidents rather than everytime. not many pple notice when pple smoke in designated areas and start liking smokers...

the same kind of attitude extends towards PRC-ladies, towards menial foreign workers, towards MILs even.

it is within our means to see where pple are coming from... and we have the maturity to see it.

it's the same reason why i stopped replying to May when i realise that she is not about to be discursive not bother to listen, for this thread it's been Bang Bang Bang... there can be all sorts of denials, but it's not gonna be hard to make my decision and call and decide that in this thread, it's gonna get nowhere.

if a person goes to an election rally hating that particular political party... he is not there to listen nor have an open mind... but to try to catch and cause disruption.

 

[miloice]

Whatever the campaign, i choose to be a non smoker. I don't need to be taken care of in ways I can protect myself. This is my view.

Staying healthy is much an individual decision and discipline. Campaigns can help to provide a good environment. But, its the individual that makes the main difference here. Not as if we have smokers polluting every corner and enclosed area in where we live and work. We have enough protection currently.

 

[miloice]

When overseas for months, without a gym, I was able to go for runs after work and improvise weights with water bottles and workout right in my room. Do we just excuse ourselves for not staying healthy and place the responsibility elsewhere?

There are ways to around the problems and we have options available. Over here, it isn't even that difficult. Maybe back in the 80s and 90s. But now, the current policies give us non smokers a lot of protection and yet we are asking for more.

I agree with powder that the local mentality is generally looking outside and not within for answers. They need the government to take care of their health. Its really sad.

 

[stanzza]

Milo,

the campaign I spoke about, was marketing campaign from tobacco coy.

Notice many govt try their best to suppress their marketing campaign? Advertisement, sponsorship, branding etc? While suppressing their voice, they try to raise their own voice such as putting words like "smoking kills" and disgusting photos on cigarette box.

In the past, tobacco coy are the guys getting heard. Not govt.

If someone just repeat the phase "smoking is good for your health" a million times and back it up w some expert reports, ppl will believe it.

Some marketing effort are straight forward. Some indirect marketing are not so straight forward. How do you know, if a certain expert or a certain article dismissing the effect of tobacco are not paid to do so?

Yes, the majority of ppl needs more protection than they think they do. No, most of them is not capable of informed decision due to all the effort by the corporate.

Not only tobacco. Ppl do believe those exaggerated advt in beauty and health industry isn't it? And, govt is recently screwtinising them, checking whether they have scientific proof to their claims.

 

[stanzza]

I heard that in south america, they have vans with beautiful girls giving out free cigarette to any kids below 18. The idea is to get them hook to become life long customer. Not sure whether this is still happening.

 

[stanzza]

Powder,

u dun smoke in front of ur kids. Means u also dunwan ur kids to smoke rgt?

So the policy if implemented is good for you.

Btw, I bet your kids know u r a smoker anyway, so they would still see you as an example.

 

[kittenpie]

it's the same reason why i stopped replying to May when i realise that she is not about to be discursive not bother to listen

-----------------------------------------------

i asked you a simple question, you give me smoke and screen, and now you are acting up all self-righteous about it.

i decided to stop addressing you after you failed to answer a simple yes or no to my question, and now you have the CHEEK to even dare mention my nickname! you are as indeed BUAY PAISEH as i thought.

you are lame, Powder. and now you are still running around this thread like a garden-variety common gnome.

if that is not disgusting, i do not know what is!

 

[kittenpie]

really, if you think my question was loaded with entrapment, you could have ignored me.

or said something cheeky like your friend tomalasu, even then, i dont care.

but now, you are acting up again.

when you will wake up? why are you living in denial in this particular topic?

 

[kittenpie]

again, my stand is very clear.

smoking stays in singapore, it is a necessary evil. economics is important.

just that i didnt like the smugness i detected in your first posting, ok?