Merged: Ciggies Debate - Time to ban Duty Free?

[RYAN TCAD]

Isn't it interesting that at the same time QF has started to roll out the sale of cigarettes again on their LH flights, former tobacco executive Paul Rayner has been appointed to fill a casual vacancy on the Qantas board.

No wonder i'm becoming more and more cynical as time goes by.

Bo!

[wessex19]

better not let Charlie the monkey fly Qantas

YouTube - HOLY SMOKES! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzwaeMdWqXs&feature=related)

or maybe its just the wrong week to stop smoking


YouTube - Airplane! -- the wrong week to quit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwyrGwM4a7M)

:ugh:

[mrpaxing]

on the QF board is an ex international finance guy from the ciggies conglomorate. i suppose he will look over PG shoulder.:oh:

[Wod]

Mods, please move where you think appropriate.

The discussion on QF inflight fag sales makes me wonder if it isn't time to re-think Duty Free.

It would need ICAO presumably, coz Duty free is generally a national concession against gazetted import duty legislation. What's more, Duty Free is an industry with a government given right to make money.

Nevertheless, ceasing Duty Free by withdrawing concessions internationally, would reduce fuel burn , and remove flammable liquids (both booze and perfume ) from the aircraft cabin. Both desireable outcomes.

And since it would remove most of the In-Flight trolly activity it would help improve Cabin Service.

What do you think?

[tipsy2]

Nothing to get all worried about..


Just purchase any duty free as you arrive, simple really

tipsy

[Wod]

Only if the concession remains in place Tipsy.

My point is that to get the stuff off the aircraft, you need to remove the concession.

[RENURPP]

My point is that to get the stuff off the aircraft, you need to remove the concession.

no you don't. There is always more than one way to skin a cat.
Only sell duty free in the arrivals area, or simply ban carriage on aircraft.

[tail wheel]

Wod.

I suspect there is legislation and/or international conventions relating to the rights of passengers to purchase duty free goods on ships and aircraft in international waters and international airspace.

It would probably be easier for Australia to restrict duty free sales within it's territory, than in international waters or airspace.

And if your concern is inebriated passengers, what is to stop a passenger boarding the aircraft inebriated, or getting a "full charge" or buying duty free at an intermediate stop? I can't see Changi Airport restricting Australian passengers to the fruit juice bar!

The Australian Duty Free Sales industry employs a lot of people and probably generates significant profits, which are taxed as company profits.

I think you would need to make a much stronger case for anyone to take seriously any denial of duty free sales to international passengers?

Tail Wheel

[Magarnagle]

Obviously the whole point with duty-free is that it is entirely contingent on passage outside of national boundaries. You're simply not dealing with one nation's government, you're dealing with all of them.

Apart from ICAO, and their maritime opposite numbers having to liaise between themselves and every country that allows duty-free concessions, shutting it down entirely would put many thousands of people into the dole queue, and shut down valuable income channels for many companies.

Additionally, and most importantly, where else am I going to get a litre of Johnny Walker Blue Label at a decent price? :eek:

I see the point with regards to volatile liquids in the cabin, but there would be a mountain of public opinion, politicking, and paperwork to get through before it happened.

I'd hope it ends up in the "too hard" basket.

The next step would be to ban spirits on flights entirely (there are probably stronger arguments to do this than to ban duty-free), and that would take alot of the fun out of life.

[Wyle E Coyote]

Ban duty free? You're clearly not a driver.

Getting my hands on a nice bottle of scotch at a reasonable price is one of the few things that still puts a smile on my face these days. I'll be loading up today before departing these shores.

If Airlines were worried about the weight and increased fuel burn, they would self regulate. it's not the job of government to reduce airlines fuel burn. Maybe a better solution would be to not allow anyone who is classified as obese to board the aircraft....but that would kill the already struggling US industry.

[randyolddog]

WOD, cleary you are a LAbour left wing nutter of some sort.

what does a lefty do when they dont like something? :uhoh:


Ohh lets "BAN IT":ugh: cause thats what school teachers do to naughty kids.

You will also find that most Labour/Lefty's the world over are ex school teachers who have not had a "real" job and they try and run their
respective country's like primary schools.

I cant wait for Helen Clark to get the boot in the next short time. Maybe she can come and live with you:yuk:

[Wod]

Settle lads.

The wee devil symbol was intended to suggest that I wasn't peddling a personal crusade. Just floating the thought to spark a discussion.

I suppose it's working.;)

[tubby one]

if you are travelling form HK to OZ they will NOT sell you any liquor at the airport duty free stores. they have a sign up which states that the Australina government has banned the carriage of anything other than the 100ml LAGs!!!!:{

[Wangja]

Saudia and Kuwait Airways have had no problem dispensing with duty-free booze sales.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Until the Australian Govt outlaws smoking QF is not breaking any laws selling duty free cigarettes on board. They are not forcing them on non smokers and smoking them on board is not allowed so just how the **** is this the business of the nanny anti smoking lobby?

Do you know why smoking will never be banned in Australia?

Because of the enormous tax revenue it generates. Roughly $10 of every packet sold is TAX. Smokers are subsidising non smokers in the health system.

[tipsy2]

Chuck do you not also think that smokers and their accelerated ailments are not seriously contributing to the health problems of the community and its also ailing health system?

tipsy

[Chimbu chuckles]

Not nearly as much as the anti smoking lobby would have you believe...they are zealots just like the greenies with global warming.

As an example there is currently NO scientific evidence that second hand smoke is harmful...despite ENORMOUS amounts spent in studies trying to prove that it is. Look at the laws being promulgated on that lack of scientific rigor.

That is not to say non smokers don't find the smoke smell unpleasant but unpleasant is not the same thing as unhealthy.

There is actually some evidence that suggests second hand smoke might actually minimise sundry lung/breathing maladies but like the 'evidence' that suggests it is harmful it is statistically irrelevant because the studies (both ways) cannot come up with statistical indications better than 1.1 which is MILES short of the statistical likelihood of 2.0 needed to even begin thinking about using the data for Govt policy making. The fact that up until the 60s you could smoke pretty well anywhere and most people smoked cinemas (as an example) were chock full of cigarette smoke yet the incidences of childhood asthma was remarkably low. Since smoking has been progressively banned nearly everywhere in the last 30 years asthma has become much more prevalent than it was. Proof of anything? No - but interesting non the less and the subject of medical research.

Other studies have found a correlation between smokers and things like Alzheimers...smokers suffer remarkably less from this disease than non smokers. Also the subject of ongoing medical research.

Did you know that up until 1960 cigarette filters contained Blue asbestos?

Deadly by itself and the medical literature suggests that in concert with the chemicals contained in cigarette smoke the combination is far worse than either by itself. What do you suppose that combination did for the lung cancer statistics up until the mid/late 80s?

Now I am a smoker and one who wants to give it up...again...because it is just intuitively sensible that it cannot be good for you. But I also believe it is not NEAR as bad as the anti smoking lobby zealots would have you believe. My father smoked until he was 60 and is now a healthy 76. My first DAME (who was over 70 and in semi retirement) had been a smoker all his life until his late 50s. He told me the following;

Cancer is a disease of the elderly and as the population demographic ages more people die of cancer. 100 years ago people rarely lived beyond 50-60 (and few died of cancer) now it is commonly closer to 80 and more die of cancer.

Things like heart disease and emphasema were definately directly related to smoking and for that reason alone I should give up sometime...and I will...hopefully soon.

If it is true that smokers live shorter lives then the burden they make on the health system later in life is shorter than those who have never smoked.

It is an unfortunate fact of modern life that we are at the mercy of sundry single issue advocasy groups all pushing agendas. Global Warming is another example, there are many others.

[Pinky the pilot]

Until the Australian Govt outlaws smoking

Can't imagine a Government of either of the major political parties in Australia trying such a thing, mainly for the reasons Chuckles listed further on in his post.

But also; can you imagine the unrest that such a ban would produce?:uhoh: I suspect it would be a similar situation to when the US Govt. enacted prohibition back in the 1920s.:eek:

[Magarnagle]

Just throwing some numbers around...

I figure maybe 5 million smokers in Australia.
Guesstimated average amount smoked per smoker: 1 pack every 2 days.
Equates to roughly 2.5 million packets per day.
$10 tax per pack, that's $25 million per day.
Over a year that's $9.125 billion.

I dunno what the figures are for daily expenditure within the health care system are for smoking realted illnesses tipsy2, but I'd guess that $25 million per day would just about cover it, and leave you enough change to pick up some duty-free smokes on your way out.

As Chimbu Chuckles states, that's why they will not ban smoking, but they are not shy of making life bloody difficult for smokers while they try to make it look like they care.

Cigarette taxes paved the way for the kind of thinking where they can just stack huge taxes onto things like alco pops, and claim it all to be for altruistic reasons. "No, it's not for the money at all, we're just looking out for you, because you're obviously too dumb to look after yourself".

[capt.cynical]

Thread hijack alert:uhoh:
I thought this thread was about "booze":ugh:

[aulglarse]

"hey, let's screw over some more employees"..."what a sterling idea":}

[bushy]

Tobaco and alcohol are drugs and drugs are used generate revenue by governments. The Australian government is the biggest drug dealing organisation in Australia. I also found it strange that I could buy scotch whisky cheaper in Australia than in England. Looks like the English government is doing well out of it too.

CC If you think you may try to give up smoking some time soon, then you are not serious about it. and will not suceed. To suceed you need to say "I will never smoke again for my whole life, starting now. No exceptions"

Smoking is disgusting. If you smoke in my house, I will piss in yours.

[Whiskey Oscar Golf]

It is an interesting hijack though captain. The amount of social stigma and vehement anger directed at smokers when the health and social costs of alcohol are either minimised or ignored is hypocrytical in the extreme. You can advertise, sponsor and encourage alcohol consumption and it's all good. You smoke a couple of durries and you get people trying on the guilt trip about health costs, forgetting the higher more destructive costs of other drugs. Can't wait to see the pictures of battered wives, car accidents and destroyed livers on the Grange.

Maybe because it's more accepted and doctors and pollies own wineries. It does get my goat up though when my taxpaying on my ciggies has more than paid for any health care I might need, I've also paid for the coppers, judges, screws and lawyers in dealing with the social costs of alcohol. Yet I have someone making me feel like a dog for enjoying, yes enjoying my own preffered drug of nicotine. They should just ban everything and live in boxes, we obviously can't take care of ourselves.

Oh and I don't care if they ban booze sales on the aircraft coz I don't drink and get pretty fed up with people stuffing their overheads with the 2 bottles, oversize bags, perfumes, camera's, gps units. Mind you the missus will be a little annoyed, which will then ensure I am annoyed.

[nick2007]

Allowing pax to carry such quantities of flammable liquids on board negates all the effort that manufacturers and modifiers go to in order to comply with flammability, smoke and heat release requirements for interior materials. I don't object to a ban of alcohol/perfume on-board.

[Pappa Smurf]

Until any item is banned its a persons right to buy it.

They modify laws such as x-rated magazines in sealed plastic wrappers or out of view ,no advertising of smokes etc,and restricting places you can have a smoke.
Many moons ago you could smoke anywhere.Disco,s were full of smoke(no extraction fans then),but hotels shut at 6pm.
Imagine going back to 6pm-geez what an outcry,but would reduce alcohol related instances by a bloody lot.
Have never seen figures on health way back,but its got to be worse now
old days-----fly swat-now fill house up with motein
less cars-now -cars everywhere
more metal in cars--now plastic(ever noticed white film on windows of new cars for the first 6 months-all the toxins coming out of plastics etc--ok-thats in sunny places.
Al Fresco dining--sucking in car fumes.

Ok -lets ban cars ,sorry put a restriction in place--only small engines---can use 3 times a week to do shopping-

Many major cities like Mexico city have respitary problems because they are covered in smog and i bet its not because the whole population is smoking 6 packets of fags a day.

With restrictions or not,if its legal to sell then whats all the who-ha about

[Chimbu chuckles]

Isn't it interesting that at the same time QF has started to roll out the sale of cigarettes again on their LH flights, former tobacco executive Paul Rayner has been appointed to fill a casual vacancy on the Qantas board.

Well Capt Cynical you are wrong...see first post above. This is about QF deciding to sell cigarettes duty free on their flights again...I mean SHOCK/HORROR...as it stands, and shall likely remain, cigarettes are not illegal and QF is breaking no law by selling them to consenting adults. And NO-ONE has the right to attack them for doing so.

While the dangers of smoking have been overstated now for decades the dangers of drinking have been understated for at least as long.

Bushy I would never smoke in another persons house or car or even in their close proximity if they were non smokers. I don't force my habit on other people EVER!

All those of you who drink, occasionally to excess, want some bad news?

Studies indicate alcohol is one of the bigger contributors to cancer. So you can sit there all high and mighty with your 4th whisky or beer in your hand feeling all smug as you slag off a smoker but you are taking a very similar risk.

The BIG difference is that smoking doesn't lead to spousal or child abuse, fatal car accidents, bar brawls, soccer hoodlums and sundry other social maladies we suffer from in this day and age. David Hooks (the cricketer) was not punched and killed by someone suffering the effects of too many cigarettes. All second hand smoke does is cause your clothes to smell a bit...not fatal last I heard.

So why don't you get off your high horses and learn to be a little tolerant of others.

[RYAN TCAD]

Go Chimbu!

I don't have anything against smokers.

But hey, do you think that the sports groups that QF sponsor would be happy? The Government could also be selling smokes in each of their departments without breaking the law! Heck we could even have a vending machine in each CASA district office!

But, i think it also comes down to a moral issue - and QF seem to have taken a backflip. But then again, what's new?

Bo!

[ozangel]

30kina for a carton on PX when I was up there doing CNS-POM... With discount, $23 a carton on NLK when I went there... about $9 a carton in hongkong, but they blow your head off... $38 for a twin pack of bundy/jimmy.

Oh how i miss international flying!

Look, back OT - the smokes weigh less than a bottle of grog, they'd make a decent profit from them, sure theyre not good for you but neither is the airline food, nor is sitting still for 22hours to LHR etc... As someone who used to sell duty free at QF, I was never tempted to buy anything from the catalogue - its cheaper in the arrivals hall. That said, more often than not, would sell $1000-$3000 on an 8hour flight (up to $6500 was my record on SIN-PER @ christmas). Thats a lot of $$$, and no doubt a lot of profit!

Its about money not morals.

[Chimbu chuckles]

But, i think it also comes down to a moral issue

Nope, smoking is not a moral issue for non smokers or society in general.

Something like young pre pubescent girls having sexually charged pictures taken of them by an adult and displayed as 'art' has a moral dimension that perhaps society at large might want to decide on. Perhaps media bias in reporting has a moral element. Political spin has a moral dimension that society should worry about.

These are things that can, and do, damage our society, in every sense of that word, smoking does not.

The problem we face culturally is that single issue advocasy and an intellectually lazy population has seriously damaged our ability to decide what is a moral issue and what is a harmless (to others) personal choice.

[ozangel]

Fair point chimbu,

but if it wasn't morals - why is there such a stink about it?

Why are people expressing the view 'it's not right', 'think of the children', 'its a filty habit and its being encouraged'...?

By definition perhaps its an opinion - but there's a fair bit of emotion surrounding the issue...

[Chimbu chuckles]

Read my last paragraph again.