It's hard to put a price on bringing a world-class event to Launceston, especially when it brings so much more than just a profit and loss statement.

Try putting a price on the Opening Night Gala when almost 900 people came out on a Monday night and laughed for three hours watching a line-up of comedy talent that you'd struggle to find anywhere in the world.

That's hardly a failure.

Then 600 people came out on Tuesday for more world-class comedy at the McDonald's Charity Gala.

Then 800 people came out for the Great Comedy Debate on Wednesday night.

That's more than 2000 people, coming out on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday night in Launceston to see some of the best comedians in the world.

Only the harshest critic would call that a failure.

Try putting a price on the experience of young Launceston Comedian Ned Townsend who performed alongside International and Australian professional comedians like Stephen K. Amos, Eddie Ifft, Fiona O'Loughlin, Cal Wilson and Steddy Eddy.

Ask Hannah Gadsby or Luke McGregor (you know, those multi-award winning Tasmanian comedians) to put a price on an experience like that without moving to the mainland.

I can tell you what they'd say - priceless.

The recent articles about the Laughs of Launnie Festival are entirely negative and seem focused on calling it a waste of taxpayers money.

That's what taxpayers money is for - to try and create things that make our towns, our states and our country a better place to live in.

Maybe The Examiner only likes it when the government spends taxpayer dollars on advertising in The Examiner.

In pure dollars and cents terms, the festival didn't sell enough tickets to cover its own costs. But that's not a failure.

The only failure that the festival directors had was a failure of ambition.

They tried to create something special for Launceston and they aimed too high.

Next time, perhaps The Examiner might want to consider helping them up, instead of bringing them down.

IF the education system, families, peer support, individual judgement, etc were all perfect, then there might not be any demand for addictive tobacco and related products.

If manufacturers and sellers had not used insidious persuasive advertising techniques in the past and if those entities voluntarily removed or recalled their morally repugnant and deadly tobacco products from the market, then this might inhibit sales.

Given that an imperfect world exists, then legislation that addresses some of those imperfections might help save lives, reduce suffering and grieving, improve budgets, stop some unwanted fires, reduce experimentation with other drugs (some of which are smoked) and ultimately relieve pressure on the health system.

Smoking is not a natural act. It pollutes our bodies and the environment.

The very act of proposing anti-tobacco legislation and associated publicity draws attention to the multiple dangers of the product.

One wouldn't be allowed to go up to the retail service desk and buy asbestos.

I ATTENDED the meeting regarding the new traffic lights at Gleadow Street (The Examiner, July 24).

It is a shame these consultation/information sessions make no difference even though the people attending have so much more knowledge regarding the area.

Those attending made suggestions but each and every one of them was shot down. According to the powers to be this is the best and only option.

It is good and well to say this but if you don't live, work or travel through the area on a daily basis how do you know this is the best option.

Approving the University to Inveresk (stupid idea on so many levels), Riverbend playground, Silos Hotel the list goes on - Goderich Street and Invermay Road along with Charles Street and Tamar Street bridges will not cope with the traffic.

I would really like someone to explain the real reason why all this building is being allowed in a flood-prone area creating so much traffic.

IT must be asked whether it is Centrelink policy to hurt people who had done nothing wrong. Is this what their employees got into the job for? To hurt people?

Centrelink claims it is not their policy to hurt people who had done nothing wrong?

OK, well why then are people like Donna Selby considered a special case and deserving of being targeted and harassed?

SUZIE Smith's letter (The Examiner, August 7) hit the nail on the head.

Both my partner and I suffer from medical conditions that leave us in the limbo land of disability employment support, not dead enough to be granted a disability pension but forced to constantly apply for jobs we know we can't do and will never get.

The system is in your face constantly and if you dare not get your form in on time (like when the internet is down) you're cut off.

It's a computerised inhumane treatment for us older Aussies who have worked and paid taxes to have to suffer.