[mewpmewp2]

From another perspective it took massive change in generations and over 40 years of campaigning and it is still a problem for the 11 percent.

[defrost]

Knocking back smoking by two thirds has saved billions for the national health system.

On the books, totally worth it.

[b800h]

And cost billions in state pensions. I'm not suggesting that's any sort of counterargument but the costs should possibly be offset against other types of end-of-life care.

[defrost]

It's been discussed. The balance has so far fallen on the side of anti smoking policy.

Australia is a democracy with many small parties and several quasi independant larger party (three main large parties) members, there's been scope for almost anyone to campaign to repeal anti-smoking policy by either running directly or by lobbying their local of federal rep.

People have campaigned for hunting, for cannabis, for many things .. so far no one, to my knowledge, has campaigned to repeal the anti smoking policies.

[mewpmewp2]

Sure, but imagine doing the same effort that likely requires critical mass for actual adaption on small obscure medicines and illnesses.

[FeepingCreature]

Are they addictive? Then regulate them as addictive drugs.

Are they not addictive? Then it seems a stretch to compare them to cigarettes.