Australia to Mandate Plain Packaging for Cigarettes

[a_unique_person]

Now that the Opposition has agreed to the legislation, there is nothing to stop this going ahead. All cigarettes will by law have a packet that is olive green, with the colour content provided by a graphic warning about the dangers of smoking. All cigarettes will also be sold in shops from cabinets that hide them from display.

[Darat]

That's sounds like what the government is suggesting for England.

I've heard (on the radio) some people speaking for the "tobacco industry" who are against the idea and others for it. I don't think it will have much impact on current smokers and I wonder if it will even reduce the number of people (the young) starting to smoke?

ETA: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4156370#post4156370

[DC]

sounds good.

[lionking]

Well the tobacco industry here is mightily worried that it will reduce consumption and has spent millions on an advertising campaign. Their main "argument" is that it will somehow lead to an increase in sale of illegal cigarettes. if people can't buy gigs in fancy packets they will just go and buy counterfeit ones. Or something.

[DC]

Well the tobacco industry here is mightily worried that it will reduce consumption and has spent millions on an advertising campaign. Their main "argument" is that it will somehow lead to an increase in sale of illegal cigarettes. if people can't buy gigs in fancy packets they will just go and buy counterfeit ones. Or something.

they have good reasons to, i think the goal of the law is exactly that :)

[Darat]

Well the tobacco industry here is mightily worried that it will reduce consumption and has spent millions on an advertising campaign. Their main "argument" is that it will somehow lead to an increase in sale of illegal cigarettes. if people can't buy gigs in fancy packets they will just go and buy counterfeit ones. Or something.

If the tobacco industry is against the idea* then I suspect it will have an impact, which is good to know.




*Is a "reverse appeal to authority" a fallacy? :)

[a_unique_person]

They are experts on human behaviour and smoking, I will give them that. Not that they will tell you much of what their research has discovered.

[ThunderChunky]

Seems silly. I rarely even notice cigarettes (not a smoker) and I do not think the packaging is at all fancy.... Smokers are always being bullied these days...why not pick on sugar or saturated fat too? You think super sugar cereal is good for kids...that **** is blatantly marketed to children and comes with toys. How about frozen dinners that contain 40+ grams of fat per meal? That is worse than smoking a cig.

[lionking]

My cousin is CFO for Philip Morris International. He's not greatly worried, last I spoke to him. Asia is their biggest market by far, and if Australia fell off the world it would barely register. Naturally, neither he nor any of the management team smokes........

[lionking]

That is worse than smoking a cig.

I suggest you do a bit of research. There are safe consumption levels of sugar and even alcohol. There is no safe consumption level for tobacco.

[Fishstick]

What's the reasoning behind making packets look generic ? I've heard similar proposals for Belgium (we already have the warnings on the front/Back that take up most of the packaging), but what is the point behind making packets generic?
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding how this would drive down consumption

[lionking]

What's the reasoning behind making packets look generic ? I've heard similar proposals for Belgium (we already have the warnings on the front/Back that take up most of the packaging), but what is the point behind making packets generic?
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding how this would drive down consumption

Marketing is all about establishing a brand, and lebeling is integral to brand awareness, not only to the buyer but to the buyer's friends. If it made no difference, the tobacco companies wouldn't be spending so much money opposing it.

[DC]

Marketing is all about establishing a brand, and lebeling is integral to brand awareness, not only to the buyer but to the buyer's friends. If it made no difference, the tobacco companies wouldn't be spending so much money opposing it.

Wanted to say the same, but somehow i am not convinced the design of the package has an impact. I dont mind the package. i once buyed a package because i liked the design, black with silver skull and bones on it. but the cigarettes tasted very bad, so i neve buyed them anymore.

And somehow i cannot imagen a cool design might lead kids to start smoking.

but indeed, why else would they put so much effort in the design. the brand i smoke does from time to time bring out speciall designs etc.

must be they see some influence with the design.

[lionking]

Manufacturers spend a fortune on branding and packaging design for a reason.

[The Fool]

I don't care what color they are but.....

commence rant.

The Chinese are going to produce megatons of this now easily forged product. The price of cigarettes will fall. The government will respond by taxing the crap out pitiful addicts and the criminal element will expand the already existing black market of tax avoiding tobacco.

People will use marijuana to stretch out their tobacco stash.


this is all true, if you don't believe me I'll claim it again.

actually, what I really believe is that Australian senior citizens should be eligible to recieve free tobacco.

[The Fool]

Manufacturers spend a fortune on branding and packaging design for a reason.
yes.....they spend this money in the public interest to make it a lot harder for evil overseas people to forge tobacco products and sell them out of cars outside your schools.

[The Fool]

yes.....they spend this money in the public interest to make it a lot harder for evil overseas people to forge tobacco products and sell them out of cars outside your schools.
don't forget the olive industry is outraged at the colour....but obviously all you said is true too.

[lionking]

yes.....they spend this money in the public interest to make it a lot harder for evil overseas people to forge tobacco products and sell them out of cars outside your schools.

Yup. You saw right through me. I'll send the cheque back to my cousin. ;)

[The Fool]

I suggest you do a bit of research. There are safe consumption levels of sugar and even alcohol. There is no safe consumption level for tobacco.
rubbish. Only this morning I was coughing so bad I thought I was dying...couple of bungers and I felt fine.

People too quickly dismiss the therapeutic properties of cigarettes. Plus its everyones duty to consume them to keep them out of the hands of children.

[a_unique_person]

Seems silly. I rarely even notice cigarettes (not a smoker) and I do not think the packaging is at all fancy.... Smokers are always being bullied these days...why not pick on sugar or saturated fat too? You think super sugar cereal is good for kids...that **** is blatantly marketed to children and comes with toys. How about frozen dinners that contain 40+ grams of fat per meal? That is worse than smoking a cig.

Sure, other things are bad. Cigs aren't being banned, just less cloying. Plenty of people try to give them up and find it difficult when there is temptation everywhere. This just makes them less tempting. The proof is in the uproar being made about the new law by the manufacturers. It is also an attempt to stop children being attracted to them. The companies also use the packaging to attract the young.

[a_unique_person]

I suggest you do a bit of research. There are safe consumption levels of sugar and even alcohol. There is no safe consumption level for tobacco.

Recent research suggests alcohol is also dangerous in small quantities, and that it is a major cause of cancer. Not anywhere near as much as tobacco, but much more dangerous than people generally realise.

[The Fool]

seriously.....there is hardly any room on the packets thats not pictures of some rotting body part. Seems to me they only get to pick a colour and a font anyway. How is the schoolgirl that sells them going to tell which one I asked for.


just make them print "I'm a child molester" on them and be done with it.

[lionking]

As an aside, I'm watching the great Australian TV mini-series "Cloudstreet" set in the 40s and beyond. It's a wonder the actors don't ask for danger money. There are some scenes where you can barely see the characters through the smoke haze.

[The Fool]

Sure, other things are bad. Cigs aren't being banned, just less cloying. Plenty of people try to give them up and find it difficult when there is temptation everywhere. This just makes them less tempting. The proof is in the uproar being made about the new law by the manufacturers. It is also an attempt to stop children being attracted to them. The companies also use the packaging to attract the young.
In my youth the cigarette you smoked was a statement about your self image. I smoked the ones that made you a dignified young gentlemen who drove a Jag. Some people were cowboys and other rich young Jet-setters.

Tobacco advertising was everywhere.

Have we gone far enough yet?

[DC]

In my youth the cigarette you smoked was a statement about your self image. I smoked the ones that made you a dignified young gentlemen who drove a Jag. Some people were cowboys and other rich young Jet-setters.

Tobacco advertising was everywhere.

Have we gone far enough yet?

no

[Fishstick]

Marketing is all about establishing a brand, and lebeling is integral to brand awareness, not only to the buyer but to the buyer's friends. If it made no difference, the tobacco companies wouldn't be spending so much money opposing it.

That's all fine and all, but when it comes to picking out a packet of cigs, how is a generic packaging (rather than color + GIANTWARNING) going to reduce someone's consumption?

[Leif Roar]

Wanted to say the same, but somehow i am not convinced the design of the package has an impact.

Raymond Loewy's redesign of the Lucky Strikes package was credited with a 20% increase in sales.

[The Fool]

Raymond Loewy's redesign of the Lucky Strikes package was credited with a 20% increase in sales.
who lost 20%?

[Leif Roar]

who lost 20%?

I doubt if anyone knows that. Maybe no-one. All or part of the increase could theoretically have come from attracting new smokers and from existing customers smoking more.

[a_unique_person]

I doubt if anyone knows that. Maybe no-one. All or part of the increase could theoretically have come from attracting new smokers and from existing customers smoking more.

One of the attractions of cigarettes as a product is brand loyalty. They are always after those who don't smoke yet.

[a_unique_person]

That's all fine and all, but when it comes to picking out a packet of cigs, how is a generic packaging (rather than color + GIANTWARNING) going to reduce someone's consumption?

It's all about pavlovs bell, as far as I can tell. Cigarettes are highly addictive, and the brain associates the act of smoking with the packaging. Take away the shiny colours, make it drab and indistinct, the bell doesn't ring so loud. The fact that the cigarette companies oppose it so strongly indicates the packaging is an important part of maintaining the addiction. It won't make anyone give up, IIRC, so much as allow those who want to give up to do so. it also removes the image that Fool was referring to for those aspiring to be something they aren't.

[a_unique_person]

In my youth the cigarette you smoked was a statement about your self image. I smoked the ones that made you a dignified young gentlemen who drove a Jag. Some people were cowboys and other rich young Jet-setters.

Tobacco advertising was everywhere.

Have we gone far enough yet?

Just about. No point making it illegal, but removing the image makes it much less attractive to the youngsters they are chasing. When they are presented as the grubby little things they really are, not tarted up, less people will smoke them. I have to say, I could never see what was supposed to be so rebellious about handing over your hard earned cash to people who didn't care if you lived or died.

[Cuddles]

It's all about pavlovs bell, as far as I can tell. Cigarettes are highly addictive, and the brain associates the act of smoking with the packaging. Take away the shiny colours, make it drab and indistinct, the bell doesn't ring so loud.

I'm not convinced. Smoking is largely a physical addiction, with most of the remaining part being the habit. No-one cares what the packets look like, and certainly no-one tries to show off what packet their fags are in to their friends, it's just a box that the things happen to come in. I very much doubt everyone is going to suddenly give up smoking just because the box is a different colour.

The fact that the cigarette companies oppose it so strongly indicates the packaging is an important part of maintaining the addiction.

Not necessarily. What it indicates is that it's an important part of maintaining their personal profits. Brand recognition isn't about getting people to use the product at all, it's about getting people who already want to use a product to choose your specific brand over the competitors'. Brand recognition can cause a large placebo-type effect where people prefer the branded product over an otherwise identical one in different packaging. That's almost certainly what's at stake here - the big manufacturers are worried they're going to lose sales to cheaper ones, because their product will now have to stand solely on its own merits without any help from branding and advertising.

A particularly relevant point is that it appears imported Chinese cigarettes are already cheaper than those from the big three tobacco companies, the ones who are campaigning against the law, in Australia. It's not counterfeits they're worried about, it's that without the branding people will just buy those cheaper ones.

[TragicMonkey]

Just make the new wrappers out of tobacco, and smoke them instead of the cigarettes inside.

[ThunderChunky]

I suggest you do a bit of research. There are safe consumption levels of sugar and even alcohol. There is no safe consumption level for tobacco.

Sure there is, it's just very low. There is no "healthy" amount of tobacco, but then again there is no healthy amount of captain crunch, ice cream, or dough nuts. But, by shear number of people affected, does tobacco cause more health problems than fat or sugar or alcohol? I do not know the stats on that, but if tobacco isn't by biggest problem then this is just posturing. Sugar is marketed directly to kids with cartoons, games and toys, why don't they stop that?

Sure, other things are bad. Cigs aren't being banned, just less cloying. Plenty of people try to give them up and find it difficult when there is temptation everywhere. This just makes them less tempting. The proof is in the uproar being made about the new law by the manufacturers. It is also an attempt to stop children being attracted to them. The companies also use the packaging to attract the young.

I do not see how uproar by tobacco companies proves much of anything. There would be uproar by sugar companies if sugar could not be marketed directly to kids too. I wish the gov would do MORE to encourage healthy decisions, but it seems they mostly just go after tobacco.

[Alt+F4]

Cigaarette cases will just make a return and the tobacco industry can advertise on them. I've been keeping my chalk in an Altoids tin for years. Works great.

[a_unique_person]

The ban will still have the desired effect.

[The Fool]

I doubt if anyone knows that. Maybe no-one. All or part of the increase could theoretically have come from attracting new smokers and from existing customers smoking more.
smoking rates have been falling for a long time.....always falling....if a redesigned packaging increased a brands sales then its taking sales from others, not increasing the number of smokers..

http://www.quit.org.au/article.asp?ContentID=7240

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Here, half of the packaging consists of a picture. Some packs show sick lungs, some a diseased heart, others a pregnant woman smoking. There is text, like "Cigarettes hurt babies". It's supposed to be discouraging. I always wondered whether there could be a slight risk of nocebo driven health problems showing up.

Taxes make it so expensive that people buy based on price. The plain packaging won't make too much difference here. The real problem is that when tobacco companies lose income, they raise prices. When they raise prices, more people get tax-free cigarettes from the native reserves. Stolen cigarettes was a huge problem at the beginning of the high taxes on tobacco.

Maybe I shouldn't post when I'm fried.
Okaybye.

[ETA: Cigarette cases are very common around here. Natives' cigarettes come in bags...]

[Leif Roar]

smoking rates have been falling for a long time.....always falling....if a redesigned packaging increased a brands sales then its taking sales from others, not increasing the number of smokers..

Sorry, I should have mentioned that this redesign happened in the 1940ties. It's a common text-book example of industrial design.

[DC]

Sorry, I should have mentioned that this redesign happened in the 1940ties. It's a common text-book example of industrial design.

are there newer examples? i wonder how much influence it has today.

[Leif Roar]

are there newer examples? i wonder how much influence it has today.

Of package redesign in general, or for tobacco in particular?

[DC]

Of package redesign in general, or for tobacco in particular?

no, tabacco.

[Leif Roar]

no, tabacco.

None that I'm able to find with a quick googling. I'd assume that the general effects of package design still covers tobacco products, though.

[arthwollipot]

If it made no difference, the tobacco companies wouldn't be spending so much money opposing it.I think that the tobacco companies are complaining because they will lose their branding, not because they think this will make people smoke less.

Speaking as an ex-smoker, I think I can pretty safely say that there is nothing rational about smoking. If it were a rational act, people just wouldn't do it. Plain packaging is an appeal to smokers' rational brains, and I feel that that's just doomed to failure.

No, I can't see any scenario under which this plan will actually reduce rates of smoking. There's absolutely no evidence that it will - because this is the first time it's actually been tried.

It's worth doing for that reason alone.

[theprestige]

Not necessarily. What it indicates is that it's an important part of maintaining their personal profits. Brand recognition isn't about getting people to use the product at all, it's about getting people who already want to use a product to choose your specific brand over the competitors'. Brand recognition can cause a large placebo-type effect where people prefer the branded product over an otherwise identical one in different packaging. That's almost certainly what's at stake here - the big manufacturers are worried they're going to lose sales to cheaper ones, because their product will now have to stand solely on its own merits without any help from branding and advertising.

A particularly relevant point is that it appears imported Chinese cigarettes are already cheaper than those from the big three tobacco companies, the ones who are campaigning against the law, in Australia. It's not counterfeits they're worried about, it's that without the branding people will just buy those cheaper ones.

This suggests that the proposed legislation won't actually reduce smoking at all, but rather just shift smokers from one supplier to another.

I can understand the Austrailian legislators harboring a special hate for "big tobacco", but why should they harbor--as they apparently do--a special love for "cheap Chinese tobacco"? If they're going to legislate an assault on the tobacco industry, shouldn't they assault the entire industry? And shouldn't their assault have a reasonable expectation of actually reducing the overall number of active smokers?

[Mycroft]

This seems petty to me.

I think we should acknowledge that people who are free to make their own choices will sometimes make wrong choices, and that the individual's freedom to make the choice is more important than protecting everyone from making a wrong choice.

Years and years ago I chose to take up cigarettes. I did that with full knowledge of how harmful they are. I did it because I liked smoking, it's pleasurable.

Years later I quit. It wasn't easy, but I did it. I did it because despite smoking being pleasurable, I got tired of being controlled by an addiction. At no point was I mind-controlled by pretty colours or designs on a cigarette package.

[JJM 777]

All cigarettes will by law have a packet that is olive green
Nah, just make them illegal. The rest is nothing but double standards upon double standards. My main argument against cigarettes is the expulsive stench that they leave on the person who involves in the activity.

[sadhatter]

Wanted to say the same, but somehow i am not convinced the design of the package has an impact. I dont mind the package. i once buyed a package because i liked the design, black with silver skull and bones on it. but the cigarettes tasted very bad, so i neve buyed them anymore.

And somehow i cannot imagen a cool design might lead kids to start smoking.

but indeed, why else would they put so much effort in the design. the brand i smoke does from time to time bring out speciall designs etc.

must be they see some influence with the design.

I believe the brand your referring to is called " Death", a friend brought back a pack of them from England, and as one who likes a strong cigarette, they were right up my alley.

( in case this came off as a sarcastic jab, i am totally serious. )

[sadhatter]

That's all fine and all, but when it comes to picking out a packet of cigs, how is a generic packaging (rather than color + GIANTWARNING) going to reduce someone's consumption?

We have had things like this going on in canada forever.

When they introduced the pictures, people just used tape to cover them. Not that it reduced consumption mind you, people just don't like rocking around with a picture of a limp cigarette on the pack.

Then they decided that cigars cannot have good flavors, awesome for those of us that smoked cigars in order to smoke less cigarettes.

Then they decide that small cigars shouldn't exist, again, for those of us that bought 2 or 3 for a couple of days to limit tobacco consumption, another turd in the punchbowl.

The problem is, that people automatically assume because the tobbacco companies are against it it is going to reduce consumption. Let me propose a different reason.

They are against it because it is going to make specific brands less distinct, leading to higher purchases of lower priced cigarettes because, let's face it, packaging and image is a pretty big draw to buy a certain brand of cigarettes. Your mom smoked DuMaurier, your probably going to smoke it. If you can't think of the brand, your probably going to go with the lowest priced one available.

But this is not going to reduce consumption, ( we have the cabinets here and have had them for about 2-3 years.) current smokers know where the cigarettes are, and heck will probably still ask for their brand ( the annoying bit of this is that now it is a lot harder for clerks to find uncommon brands, leading to a 5 minute wait while they open all the little doors searching, when they could have just scanned.) , and kids will still know that there be cigarettes in those cases.

Sure the motive is still profit, but it is not the sinister " People will stop smoking" motive that people want to paint them with. People will always smoke, even if it is illegal, making the process more annoying is doing nothing more than screwing with a social group that is already one of the few it is okay to pick on in any given circumstance.

One of the posters made a good point about knock off cigarettes becoming common , a common trait around here on the reservation smoke shops, is to package a lower quality product in a higher quality product's package. The only draw back is acquiring said package, as they are fairly distinct. If every pack is generic, your going to be able to pass off a sows ear as a silk purse a hell of a lot easier.

[sadhatter]

Nah, just make them illegal. The rest is nothing but double standards upon double standards. My main argument against cigarettes is the expulsive stench that they leave on the person who involves in the activity.

So then i assume curry, garlic, some fish, some cheeses, a lot of cologne , beer, hell alcohol in general, and people with really bad B.O. are all on your list of things that should be made illegal too?

The "Smell" argument always makes me giggle, there are about a million activities one can engage in that makes them exude a bad smell, yet people can still with a straight face say that smoking should be limited because of it.

[cwalner]

The "Smell" argument always makes me giggle, there are about a million activities one can engage in that makes them exude a bad smell, yet people can still with a straight face say that smoking should be limited because of it.

for me, the smell is the reason I have never smoked cigarettes. I have always found the smell so repulsive that I have never come close to being tempted to try them (I did once have and actually enjoyed a cigar at my brother's wedding). I, however, do not think it should be banned and even have issues with some of the limitations on smokers (in the US) now.

I lived in Las Vegas when NV passed thier no-smoking-in-restaurants law. The funny thing is that even before the law, I never had any problem finding non-smoking restaurants or restaurants with well enough seperated sections for my, admittedly sensitive, tastes. Therefore, I never understood the need for such a ban.

[sadhatter]

for me, the smell is the reason I have never smoked cigarettes. I have always found the smell so repulsive that I have never come close to being tempted to try them (I did once have and actually enjoyed a cigar at my brother's wedding). I, however, do not think it should be banned and even have issues with some of the limitations on smokers (in the US) now.

I lived in Las Vegas when NV passed thier no-smoking-in-restaurants law. The funny thing is that even before the law, I never had any problem finding non-smoking restaurants or restaurants with well enough seperated sections for my, admittedly sensitive, tastes. Therefore, I never understood the need for such a ban.

And that is more than fair, i am in no way shape or form trying to say that the smell of cigarette smoke is awesome, and people are just whining.

Just that if we are going to use unpleasant smell as a reason to ban something, there are many other activities that would fit the same bill.

Personally i could care less how someone chooses to smell ( okay, there was one exception in which me and a group of folks complained in regards to a gent at work, who literally, for no valid medical reason showered on a bi monthly basis. And this is not an exaggeration, i took the time to get to know the guy, to make sure that there wasn't a medical reason, or anything of that nature. He just didn't like the way " clean hair felt." ), i mean in my fantasy world where only i matter, there would be many activities i would ban because of their annoyance or unpleasantness to me personally.

But in the real one, i can accept that someone smells like rotting meat because they like mint gum ( and ironically are trying to cover up a bad smell.) sure the smell sucks, but it is just a smell, and chewing the gum gives them pleasure. So i can take one for the team.

[autumn1971]

So then i assume curry, garlic, some fish, some cheeses, a lot of cologne , beer, hell alcohol in general, and people with really bad B.O. are all on your list of things that should be made illegal too?

The "Smell" argument always makes me giggle, there are about a million activities one can engage in that makes them exude a bad smell, yet people can still with a straight face say that smoking should be limited because of it.

If garlic and cheese eaters regularly paused to rub their food all over everyone and every surface around them, then yes. I don't mind that a person's habits make that person smell like their butt hairs are on fire, but smokers generally don't realize that they make everyone they come into contact with smell like a burning anus too.

[cwalner]

And that is more than fair, i am in no way shape or form trying to say that the smell of cigarette smoke is awesome, and people are just whining.

Just that if we are going to use unpleasant smell as a reason to ban something, there are many other activities that would fit the same bill.

Personally i could care less how someone chooses to smell ( okay, there was one exception in which me and a group of folks complained in regards to a gent at work, who literally, for no valid medical reason showered on a bi monthly basis. And this is not an exaggeration, i took the time to get to know the guy, to make sure that there wasn't a medical reason, or anything of that nature. He just didn't like the way " clean hair felt." ), i mean in my fantasy world where only i matter, there would be many activities i would ban because of their annoyance or unpleasantness to me personally.

But in the real one, i can accept that someone smells like rotting meat because they like mint gum ( and ironically are trying to cover up a bad smell.) sure the smell sucks, but it is just a smell, and chewing the gum gives them pleasure. So i can take one for the team.

Yeah, but the laws never cite smell as the reason for the ban. It is almost always the claimed health risks of second hand smoke (which I agree with, but understand is debated). However, as a Vegas expat, I was always amused/consfused by the old folks coming into the casinos (notorious for smoke haze) with their portable oxygen tanks

although as a diabetic who would frequent the buffet's I am not sure I have that much to feel so superior about. :boxedin:

[sadhatter]

If garlic and cheese eaters regularly paused to rub their food all over everyone and every surface around them, then yes. I don't mind that a person's habits make that person smell like their butt hairs are on fire, but smokers generally don't realize that they make everyone they come into contact with smell like a burning anus too.

Yep to non smokers.

And to people who don't eat curry the same can be said for curry, for those that don't drink alcohol the same is said for alcohol.

If your theory was true, everyone would smell like cigarette smoke constantly, and you wouldn't notice it because it was the way everyone smelled. But as you notice it, we can conclude cigarette smoke does not geometrically multiply as you attempt to state , due to the simple fact that there are places in which you cannot smell it.

It is funny the silly premises people will cling to in order to try and say the smell of cigarette smoke should be in a class by itself. Versus simply admitting that stuff you don't eat/smoke/drink yourself stinks, and you notice it because you don't do it yourself, and in some cases because it is rare where you are. ( One person with a real curry can cause an entire floor of my school to be full of complaints of some " Horrible weird smell", and why? Because up until recently damn near no one in my city had ever really smelled actual curry. )

[lionking]

This seems petty to me.

I think we should acknowledge that people who are free to make their own choices will sometimes make wrong choices, and that the individual's freedom to make the choice is more important than protecting everyone from making a wrong choice.

The trouble with this argument is that smoking costs all taxpayers billions through the treatment of smokers in the public health system. Government has the responsibility, I believe, to discourage (at least) damaging, unhealthy behaviour.

[sadhatter]

Yeah, but the laws never cite smell as the reason for the ban. It is almost always the claimed health risks of second hand smoke (which I agree with, but understand is debated). However, as a Vegas expat, I was always amused/consfused by the old folks coming into the casinos (notorious for smoke haze) with their portable oxygen tanks

although as a diabetic who would frequent the buffet's I am not sure I have that much to feel so superior about. :boxedin:

Oh yeah, a lot of the bans i agree with. I find a lot of laws are reasonable ( do i really care there is a black lung on a pack? No, not at all. ) , and the ones that arn't are kinda silly at worst.

But once you get into the personal aspects of smoking, then it is a whole different story. High pitched whining about minor inconveniences, which in no way shape or form are limited to smoking, replace any real, solid logic. And usually this is mixed in with a bit of " Non smokers have rights to." in an age where not only is that phrase true, but smokers are now get the short end of the stick.

And it always astounds me, even when people don't agree with a law there is this " well they are smokers." attitude toward it. If psychics were told they had to do crappy things for being psychics, we would all be able to step back and say " Well they may suck, but that isn't right." , yet it comes to smoking and suddenly it is allright to sit back and say " Har har har, looks like ya got shafted there smokestack! "

[sadhatter]

The trouble with this argument is that smoking costs all taxpayers billions through the treatment of smokers in the public health system. Government has the responsibility, I believe, to discourage (at least) damaging, unhealthy behaviour.

What should we do for all those sports players then?

[lionking]

What should we do for all those sports players then?

Playing sports has an obvious upside for individuals and the community. What's the upside of smoking?

[sadhatter]

Playing sports has an obvious upside for individuals and the community. What's the upside of smoking?

It provides pleasure to people, some smokers ( the majority) find it relaxing and focusing, and you seem to forget it is highly taxed mitigating some of the drain on the health care system, and that it is a huge moving product for convenience stores leading to more money in the local economy.

But i am sure these can be hand waived away, i await said hand waiving and rationalizations as to why others that engage in activities that cause a drain on the health care system should be immune from taxation.


Can't you just be honest about it? You hate smoking and don't care how crappily the smokers are treated because of it.

[lionking]

Can't you just be honest about it? You hate smoking and don't care how crappily the smokers are treated because of it.

Good try at mind reading. You are wrong though. The Australian government spends a lot of money on discouraging unhealthy behaviour, like excessive drinking, unhealthy eating, drink driving....I could go on and on. They are smart enough to know that prohibition won't work (a certain nation proved that quite effectively), but are prudent enough to care for the health of citizens and minimise public health expenditure.

[sadhatter]

Good try at mind reading. You are wrong though. The Australian government spends a lot of money on discouraging unhealthy behaviour, like excessive drinking, unhealthy eating, drink driving....I could go on and on. They are smart enough to know that prohibition won't work (a certain nation proved that quite effectively), but are prudent enough to care for the health of citizens and minimise public health expenditure.

Snicker, couldn't reply to the point you made so, you used my bit of a " get real" as a springboard.

Yeah, i am feeling more soundly defeated by the second.

I'll wait for at least some hand waiving of my points away before continuing.

[lionking]

Snicker, couldn't reply to the point you made so, you used my bit of a " get real" as a springboard.

Yeah, i am feeling more soundly defeated by the second.

I'll wait for at least some hand waiving of my points away before continuing.

At the very least you could spell "waving" correctly.

[Molinaro]

I see a market for decorative cigarette package packages.*


*cigarettes sold separately

[Alan]

This suggests that the proposed legislation won't actually reduce smoking at all, but rather just shift smokers from one supplier to another.

I can understand the Austrailian legislators harboring a special hate for "big tobacco", but why should they harbor--as they apparently do--a special love for "cheap Chinese tobacco"? If they're going to legislate an assault on the tobacco industry, shouldn't they assault the entire industry? And shouldn't their assault have a reasonable expectation of actually reducing the overall number of active smokers?
I was under the impression that the imported cigarettes are illegal, due to them not conforming to packaging requirements and something about tax. This is just something I heard from a smoker who bought imported cigarettes from a small business. So I don't know if it's true.

EDIT: Apparently not, but:
Coles is in hot water from Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon for selling imported cigarettes significantly cheaper than local cigarette brands, undermining the Government’s anti-smoking efforts.
http://www.dynamicbusiness.com.au/legal/coles-cheap-imported-cigarettes-1817.html

The government does not love cheap imported cigarettes.

[Alan]

I see a market for decorative cigarette package packages.*


*cigarettes sold separately
There's already one, since cigarette packages have gory pictures on them.

[arthwollipot]

I believe the brand your referring to is called " Death", a friend brought back a pack of them from England, and as one who likes a strong cigarette, they were right up my alley.

( in case this came off as a sarcastic jab, i am totally serious. )Yep. I had a mate who got Death cigarettes once. They were pretty good.

[LTC8K6]

Raymond Loewy's redesign of the Lucky Strikes package was credited with a 20% increase in sales.

That was in a whole different world, though. Smoking was cool then. The war was on, and LS went patriotic. The increase was also apparently due to women finding the new white package more attractive and women smoking more during the war.

[LTC8K6]

Sounds like it will save the tobacco companies a lot of money in the advertising area.

Maybe they can market cigarette pack covers that have their logos on them?

[Cuddles]

This suggests that the proposed legislation won't actually reduce smoking at all, but rather just shift smokers from one supplier to another.

This seems the most likely outcome to me. People don't smoke in order to look at the packets, so changing the packets seems unlikely to make any difference to the total number of smokers.

I can understand the Austrailian legislators harboring a special hate for "big tobacco", but why should they harbor--as they apparently do--a special love for "cheap Chinese tobacco"? If they're going to legislate an assault on the tobacco industry, shouldn't they assault the entire industry? And shouldn't their assault have a reasonable expectation of actually reducing the overall number of active smokers?

You'd hope so, yes. Unfortunately, it now seems fashionable to bash smoking simply for the sake of bashing it. Yes, it's unhealthy. So are lots of other things. The health risks are now well known, and it's perfectly possible for non-smokers to go to the pub without having to sit in clouds of smoke, so there's really very little reason go after smokers any further. They know what they're doing, and as long as they don't bother everyone else with it, what's the problem?

If your theory was true, everyone would smell like cigarette smoke constantly, and you wouldn't notice it because it was the way everyone smelled.

What utter nonsense. No-one is claiming that cigarette smoke magically gets everywhere. If people are decent enough to smoke outside, they would have to pretty much rub against you in order to actually attach any smell to you, just as with the other smells you nonsensically compare it to. However, anyone who has ever been in a relatively small room with smokers, such as a pub or restaurant, will find it blindingly obvious that they very quickly end up smelling of smoke. It's really not very pleasant to go out for a couple of pints with friends, then have to immediately wash all your clothes and have a shower in order to prevent your own home ending up stinking of stale smoke.

Honestly, I amazed anyone could be clueless enough to argue with this. Even before any smoking bans were introduced the vast majority of my smoker friends would smoke outside, even at their own homes, precisely because they didn't want to have everything end up smelling of smoke.

It's pretty much like spitting. Spitting on someone really doesn't cause any harm, it just makes their clothes a bit dirty. But you're still not allowed to do it. You're not allowed to throw paint on people either, or draw moustaches on their face, or any number of things that are essentially harmless and can be cleaned up with a bit of washing, but are unpleasant. Why should smoking be any different?

The trouble with this argument is that smoking costs all taxpayers billions through the treatment of smokers in the public health system.

No it doesn't. The taxes paid on tobacco are far more than the additional healthcare costs. Banning smoking would most likely end up harming non-smokers because there would be less money to pay for our healthcare, and with the current laws against smoking in public places smoking has exactly zero effect on our health even if you assume second hand smoke is as dangerous as claimed.

Government has the responsibility, I believe, to discourage (at least) damaging, unhealthy behaviour.

Sure. But there's a big difference between discouraging something, and actively persecuting or banning it. It's a similar situation to junk food. I have no problem with the government providing more information, or forcing manufacturers to provide it themselves. But when it comes to things as ridiculous as dictating how they package their own goods for no apparent benefit, I just don't see the point.

[Seismosaurus]

So won't this make it terribly easy for a shop to just buy the cheapest brand and sell it as the expensive ones?

[cwalner]

So won't this make it terribly easy for a shop to just buy the cheapest brand and sell it as the expensive ones?

I would imagine that might work in the very short term. While not a smoker, I imagine that the different brands would have different tastes and people would notice that kind of bait & switch.

Then the store would likely be on the receiving end of some very expensive fines and lawsuits.

I think the real problem with that kind of shenanigans would come from unscrupuouls distributors, not shops.

[The Fool]

So won't this make it terribly easy for a shop to just buy the cheapest brand and sell it as the expensive ones?

There are still Brand names on the packs....just with standard colours and fonts. One of the whines from the Tobacco companies is that the new laws will make it easier to sell fake branded illegal imports.

.....so if you get a pack of benson and hedges that after lighting up appears to contain mostly camel dung...its all Julia's fault!

[cwalner]

.....so if you get a pack of benson and hedges that after lighting up appears to contain mostly camel dung...its all Julia's fault!

as a non-smoker, I must ask. Is there really that much of a difference that you would notice?

[MG1962]

There are still Brand names on the packs....just with standard colours and fonts. One of the whines from the Tobacco companies is that the new laws will make it easier to sell fake branded illegal imports.

.....so if you get a pack of benson and hedges that after lighting up appears to contain mostly camel dung...its all Julia's fault!

Just do what I did - called the tobacco company who's product it was meant to be, told em the batch number on the packet and where I bought it. They sent me a couple of replacement 'real' products, and life moved on

[marplots]

What I don't get is why, if the package is essentially just one big warning, you'd then put in a provision to hide them.

Is it to prevent impulse buys? Cause I can see that happening... I walk past a display of cigarettes and suddenly I think, "Man, I'm going to pick up a couple of these in case I start smoking this weekend."

[MG1962]

What I don't get is why, if the package is essentially just one big warning, you'd then put in a provision to hide them.

Is it to prevent impulse buys? Cause I can see that happening... I walk past a display of cigarettes and suddenly I think, "Man, I'm going to pick up a couple of these in case I start smoking this weekend."

Kids

[The Fool]

as a non-smoker, I must ask. Is there really that much of a difference that you would notice?
as much difference as you would get in beers....although the terms used to describe the differences are probably as stupid as the terms used to describe beers.....such as "well rounded" ....that one always gets me :)

I remember Vietnamese cigarettes which smelt like someone had set fire to a dead rat....then you would get hold of some American cigarettes and the difference.......made five to ten times the price seem like money well spent.

There were British cigarettes called "wild woodbines" that would kill a brown dog.

[The Fool]

Kids
They hide them in aluminium cabinets....now everytime I see aluminium I feel like a cigarette.

[Sherman Bay]

I can see a market for after-market cigarette packaging. After you buy your cigs in a generic pack, transfer them to one that says "Marlboro," with a color pic of a cowboy. Or is that going to be illegal, too?

If so, doesn't it seem that the govt is becoming just a little too zealous by outlawing personal freedom?

[The Fool]

I can see a market for after-market cigarette packaging. After you buy your cigs in a generic pack, transfer them to one that says "Marlboro," with a color pic of a cowboy. Or is that going to be illegal, too?

If so, doesn't it seem that the govt is becoming just a little too zealous by outlawing personal freedom?
cigarette advertising is illegal, so you could not sell boxes with tobacco names on them.

[rjh01]

I can see a market for after-market cigarette packaging. After you buy your cigs in a generic pack, transfer them to one that says "Marlboro," with a color pic of a cowboy. Or is that going to be illegal, too?

If so, doesn't it seem that the govt is becoming just a little too zealous by outlawing personal freedom?

cigarette advertising is illegal, so you could not sell boxes with tobacco names on them.

I think we are onto something here. Somebody could sell boxes that would contain cigarettes. Probably made of coloured metal so that it would look good. No need for any names or pictures on them. I think they used to do that sort of thing once.

[a_unique_person]

I can see a market for after-market cigarette packaging. After you buy your cigs in a generic pack, transfer them to one that says "Marlboro," with a color pic of a cowboy. Or is that going to be illegal, too?

If so, doesn't it seem that the govt is becoming just a little too zealous by outlawing personal freedom?

You can still buy them quite legally. You can't legally push them. Could be a model for other drugs too, legal and illegal. Alcohol comes to mind. It causes numerous deaths, violence and misery, yet ads are squarely targeted at the young. Prohibition is worse than useless, but banning pushing of a product does not impinge on your right to consume it.

[Polaris]

Just about. No point making it illegal, but removing the image makes it much less attractive to the youngsters they are chasing. When they are presented as the grubby little things they really are, not tarted up, less people will smoke them. I have to say, I could never see what was supposed to be so rebellious about handing over your hard earned cash to people who didn't care if you lived or died.

FWIW, you could say the same thing about anything you spend your money on - including taxes.

[The Fool]

You can still buy them quite legally. You can't legally push them. Could be a model for other drugs too, legal and illegal. Alcohol comes to mind. It causes numerous deaths, violence and misery, yet ads are squarely targeted at the young. Prohibition is worse than useless, but banning pushing of a product does not impinge on your right to consume it.
Damn...can I assume you have dismissed out of hand my theories about evil chinese flooding the black market with cheap unbranded generic fags?

Big tobacco should get tax cuts to fund their patriotic desire to provide the market with an honest product....

honest...

[a_unique_person]

Damn...can I assume you have dismissed out of hand my theories about evil chinese flooding the black market with cheap unbranded generic fags?

Big tobacco should get tax cuts to fund their patriotic desire to provide the market with an honest product....

honest...

I don't know. Who can predict exactly what will happen, but 'chop chop' tobacco has been available for years now if you know someone, from what I have heard.

[The Fool]

I don't know. Who can predict exactly what will happen, but 'chop chop' tobacco has been available for years now if you know someone, from what I have heard.
Tried some once. It smelled like ........can't say......It would breach the membership agreement.

[nvidiot]

Isn't the argument that because the tobacco companies are against this change that it must be a good idea, essentially a form of adhom? Or poisoning the well?