Tobacco Packets Have to Remove All Branding in Australia

[Korren]

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

It's nothing to do with the tobacco, but the chemicals that are added. For an example see the link I linked to this morning on lead at eight times the quantity in counterfeit cigarettes.

Yes, but isn't that a bit like saying that one batch of curare contains eight times as much saturated fat as another batch of curare? The second batch might be the healthiest, but the difference is rather academic.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

I assume you are from the UK, so take this with a grain of salt since I have never been there in my life.

Here in Pennsylvania, when they were considering the ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, the same arguments were made by all the local bar owners: They would lose a lot of business.

First, there was no support for that claim. Personally, I had a gut-feeling it was a false claim.

Second, they have been proven wrong. In fact, they have been proven so wrong, there has actually been an INCREASE in the bar/restaurant business overall since the law passed.

<snip> <good stuff>

Actually Manopolus' profile says Kansas.

In the UK, the incidence of outside heaters and gazebos for smokers in beer gardens has increased. Certainly for me, the least pleasant part of going to the pub has been removed. I no longer need to wash the smell of stale smoke out of everything the instant I get home.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Originally Posted by jimbob

]I don't want smoking illegal, I'd just prefer if it reduced drastically, and the more the better. I also don't want people to start smoking as children when they are too young to take such a decision.

But are lame laws that technically violate free speech and branding rights really the right way to go about it?

You know that smoking has been reducing very rapidly over the past two decades, due to the social stigma, health campaigns, and cost of the product? I assume there comes a point that the numbers of smokers will not change, once a certain minimum threshold is reached.

I am not so sure the laws are lame. I am not sure they do violate free speech particularly: they neither curtail religious nor political expression, just specify that if you sell a product, its packaging has to conform to pretty rigorous criteria - unlike prohibition which would obviously prevent any any packaging of tobacco. Similarly, I believe that Rastafari argue that prohibition of marijuana is a curtailment of their religious freedom.

As to the levels of smoking - it will be interesting to see what happens in Australia.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Quote:

Most of the time obese people do not impact my comfort - unless they are sitting next to me on the train. Smokers who smoke next to me do so. As a group, smokers who smoke next to other people do cause public health problems.

That also is a good point. "Public health." Someone's right to smoke should not trump my right to live as happily and comfortably as possible. Which is why many states in the US have banned smoking in public places such as restaurants, bars, and parks. Also, I have never heard of any form of public transportation allowing smoking either. Trains, planes, subways and buses all do not allow smoking.

So as good a point as that last one may be, it's sort of moot.

That is a fairly recent development - indeed I am not entirely sure whether tobacco companies yet accept that passive smoking has been a problem. There is also the bit which can't be legislated for, which is exposure of family members in the home. Reducing total smoking will probably reduce that as well.

[Manopolus]

Originally Posted by jimbob

The brand name and variant will still be there, just in a specified typeface

This website has images

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Look for designer cigarette cases to become more popular, as I doubt folks will care to carry crap that looks like that around with them

Originally Posted by jimbob

One person in this thread said that smoking should be completely banned, but also said that it would be a bridge too far. The rest have argued for control measures, but not total banning.

Smoking is often an act of rebellion, but also it it has often been an "act of conformity" to a peer group.

Yeah, but my experience is that the conformists generally quit within a year or two of leaving home, when they're still young adults. This was true even in the late 80s. (note that this belief is based on completely anecdotal observation... I'll admit to it not being scientific).

Originally Posted by jimbob

I am a great believer in the law of unintended consequences - I find one good rule of thumb when assessing something is to ask yourself what the intent of a measure is, and if you were someone subject to that measure, how would you work the system to make that measure as good for you as possible. There are plenty of examples from the use of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in the UK at least (I can think of examples from work, and examples from politics which make the news).

However, anti smoking legislation in the UK since the year 2000 has led to an increase in the rate of reduction in smoking - I have covered quite a bit of that in previous posts, I'd recommend the report I mentioned in post #187:
This PDF Point of Sale Display of Tobacco Products, Cancer Research UK
August 2008 as a start.

Yeah, I have serious problems with using law in order to manipulate statistics. There's a major problem with that particular trend in modern politics -- you tend to treat specific individuals rather poorly and unfairly when your only real goal is to manipulate statistics.

Originally Posted by jimbob

I'd have thought that bad debt and lack of effective regulation of banking institutions had more of an effect on the economy.

As an aside, are marijuana smokers actually in favour of banning tobacco? Most of the arguments I have seen are arguing that marijuana is less harmful than tobacco so should be given at least an equal legal status to tobacco. I haven't much of an opinion on the relative harm of tobacco and marijuana but am just repeating the argument I have seen.

Eating fast food doesn't harm the health of other people in the same way that passive smoking does.

The effect of smoking on obesity is complex. This paper Consequences of smoking for body weight, body fat distribution, and insulin resistance - Am J Clin Nutr April 2008 vol. 87 no. 4 801-809 was high on google scholar search and I suggest looking at some of the figures, especially figure 2. I'll just quote the abstract here, for copyright reasons.




This news release (can't find the paper quickly) states that passive smoking increases obesity as well as diabetes.

[Manopolus]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

I assume you are from the UK, so take this with a grain of salt since I have never been there in my life.

Really? You've never heard of Kansas? My "location" field is set to where I actually live... although at the moment I'm back in college in a slightly larger town... Emporia, KS, and that's where I'm talking about. It most certainly isn't in the UK.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Here in Pennsylvania, when they were considering the ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, the same arguments were made by all the local bar owners: They would lose a lot of business.

First, there was no support for that claim. Personally, I had a gut-feeling it was a false claim.

Second, they have been proven wrong. In fact, they have been proven so wrong, there has actually been an INCREASE in the bar/restaurant business overall since the law passed.

Afterall, non-smokers definitely outnumber smokers, and it isn't even close. I believe the figure is something like 80% non-smokers to 20% smokers in the state of PA.

Nonsmokers absolutely HATE cigarette smoke. It is a huge deterrent to want to go out to eat or drink. Imagine an industry actually trying to promote a practice that alienates close to 80% of the population! It's extremely senseless. It is actually downright idiotic.

Actually, the smoke ban has been so successful for business, that the few bars that were allowed to maintain their smoking status, actually banned it from their establishments themselves. In my hometown, there are only two bars left that allow smoking.

(PA law is not an outright ban on smoking in bars. Bars are allowed smoking if the percentage of alcohol sales compared to food sales is so high.)

So yeah. I think you may want to check your claim that a lot of local businesses have gone out because of smoking specifically, or because they were competing against the chains.

All I know is that pretty much ALL the truly local bars have shut down since the last time I was here (I moved shortly after the ban was implemented). The only ones left are the ones that cater primarily to college students, and they were here for quite a while before the ban took place... so it wasn't due to new competition. In the bars I went to, something like 80% of their base was smokers. I'm not talking about the bar/grille combos, but the strictly drinking joints. Oh, and note that these places did not have an outdoor area where you could drink. While the original ordinance did not even allow smoking at outdoor enclosures where you could still drink, that was changed later... so some thing that wasn't particularly important when you set up your bar, years ago, has become an absolute necessity if you want to stay in business. That's a bit unfair, don't you think? I actually knew some of the owners of these beer joints fairly well... good people, some of them. I guess the militants don't particularly care that they just screwed them out of a business.

As far as restaurants, I may have exaggerated a little bit. It's hard to tell the effect, since restaurants tend to go out of business regularly, and i was never much of a foodie in any case. In contrast, many of the bars I was talking about were around for like 50 years or more (one in particular I think was a family owned business for like 90 years). I don't think that their collectively small window of time of closure was coincidence.

Please note that I'm talking about small town America, where individuals count (pop 25k), not about some large city where you only care about demographics and ignore the specifics.

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

How is anything happening in the UK on topic to this thread? The Statute of Westminster was passed nearly 80 years ago you know.

Errr... because plain packaging is on the agenda here too? Or is this an 'Australia only' thread?

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by Korren

Yes, but isn't that a bit like saying that one batch of curare contains eight times as much saturated fat as another batch of curare? The second batch might be the healthiest, but the difference is rather academic.

Not really academic when the whole raison d'etre of plain packaging is harm reduction and improvements in public health. If the consequence of the legislation was that smoking rates didn't change, but people were smoking tobacco with more harmful additives then it hasn't achieved it's hoped for objective.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

Not really academic when the whole raison d'etre of plain packaging is harm reduction and improvements in public health. If the consequence of the legislation was that smoking rates didn't change, but people were smoking tobacco with more harmful additives then it hasn't achieved it's hoped for objective.

The highlighted bit is what is under discussion. There is reason to think that smoking rates will fall further as a consequence of this measure.

We will now be able to get data in a fairly short time.

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by jimbob

As an aside, are marijuana smokers actually in favour of banning tobacco? Most of the arguments I have seen are arguing that marijuana is less harmful than tobacco so should be given at least an equal legal status to tobacco. I haven't much of an opinion on the relative harm of tobacco and marijuana but am just repeating the argument I have seen.

Why on Earth would a pot smoker want tobacco made illegal? No one smokes pure joints unless they've got lungs made of steel and are a bit insane.

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by jimbob

The highlighted bit is what is under discussion. There is reason to think that smoking rates will fall further as a consequence of this measure.

We will now be able to get data in a fairly short time.

And when we do, god forbid that anyone from Tobacco Control confuse correlation with causation!

And why "a fairly short time"? I thought this measure was to protect the next generation? They are not going to be around in "a fairly short time".

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

Originally Posted by jimbob

As an aside, are marijuana smokers actually in favour of banning tobacco? Most of the arguments I have seen are arguing that marijuana is less harmful than tobacco so should be given at least an equal legal status to tobacco. I haven't much of an opinion on the relative harm of tobacco and marijuana but am just repeating the argument I have seen.

Why on Earth would a pot smoker want tobacco made illegal? No one smokes pure joints unless they've got lungs made of steel and are a bit insane.

Well that was my point, in reply to this:

Originally Posted by Manopolus

I fully suspect that the faddish wave of anti smoking city ordinances and state laws going around in 2008 or so made a major contribution to this country's recession, although nobody ever mentions it as such because it's just so freaking pc nowadays to hate on tobacco (usually while regularly smoking pot, eating fast food, and doing various other things that have at least as detrimental of an effect on your health).

[Manopolus]

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

Why on Earth would a pot smoker want tobacco made illegal? No one smokes pure joints unless they've got lungs made of steel and are a bit insane.

hmm... you must smoke pot differently in the UK. I've never heard of anybody mixing it with tobacco around here... hell, you smoke a joint a different way than you would a cigarette... direct inhalation rather than into the mouth first, then inhale, like a cigarette. I'll admit to not having done it much myself, since I don't particularly care for the high, but I think that's still the generally accepted method.

If you want examples of pot smokers who think tobacco is evil, just talk to a few people from California. You'll have a conversation with a random 5 of them, at most (admittedly just a guess), until you find said example. They'll also have a tendency to repeat a bunch of myths suggesting that pot is actually good for you (admittedly, it is less dangerous than alcohol, but there's some serious mythology out there making it out to be a god-like drug for medicine, etc.). In any case, a joint or two a day will still give you both more tar and more nicotine than a pack of cigarettes a day (or so I've been told).

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

And why "a fairly short time"? I thought this measure was to protect the next generation? They are not going to be around in "a fairly short time".

They're already here and attending school. All we have to do is see if smoking uptake in school students falls at a significantly faster rate in the few years after plain packaging is introduced than it had been already. (And make note of any potentially confounding variables, such as changes to anti-smoking advertisements.)

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by Manopolus

In any case, a joint or two a day will still give you both more tar and more nicotine than a pack of cigarettes a day (or so I've been told).

A quick web-search tells me that there is no nicotine in marijuana. (But there is more tar and cancer-causing chemicals.)

[Manopolus]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

A quick web-search tells me that there is no nicotine in marijuana. (But there is more tar and cancer-causing chemicals.)

Either remembering wrong or got some wrong info. somewhere... dunno which. In any case, nicotine isn't particularly dangerous beyond it's addictive properties... other than that, it's pretty similar to caffeine. The point was a comparison between the two, and I think the cancer thing is probably the more important part.

I also know that my lungs and throat hurt a hell of a lot more the next day after sharing a joint than cigarettes ever made them.

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by Manopolus

I also know that my lungs and throat hurt a hell of a lot more the next day after sharing a joint than cigarettes ever made them.

Bit off topic, but the reason for this will do with the heat level in burning MJ, compared to tobacco, I think. Pure joints don't smoke well, so I'm unsure as to why people in your part of world don't mix it with tobacco.

Anyways, back to the topic in hand...

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

A quick web-search tells me that there is no nicotine in marijuana.

This is correct. The clue's in the name of the genus, Nicotiana.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

That is actually a good point. The so-called "War on Drugs" does not work.

I think a ban on tobacco would actually be far more effective than the ban on marijuana, cocaine, etc. A person could smuggle a year's supply of cocaine in a container the size of an Altoid's tin, marijuana in something the size of a shoebox. A year's supply of marijuana could also be grown locally in a few square feet of soil. Tobacco would require a much larger container to smuggle and much larger area to grow, making it easier to detect.

Not that I'm advocating that.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

Why on Earth would a pot smoker want tobacco made illegal? No one smokes pure joints unless they've got lungs made of steel and are a bit insane.

Very few people in the US mix pot with tobacco. The first time I ever saw that done was when I was in Canada in 1992. I've never seen that done in the US.

[Rasmus]

Originally Posted by dafydd

There's not much advertizing on this packet and it doesn't look very glitzy but they sell like hot cakes all over the world.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...b7ca610626.jpg

Can we pretty please with sugar on top stop using this fallacious argument?

Unless there is any data on how well hash, crack or cocaine sell when there is branding and advertisement, this is just a meaningless sound bite.

A full ban will most likely not lead to a stop of consumption - it hasn't for alcohol or other drugs, anywhere, ever.

But nobody claims that this is going to happen here, right? The claim is that without branding, consumption will fall. That unbranded drugs can still sell doesn't address that claim in the least.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

Errr... because plain packaging is on the agenda here too? Or is this an 'Australia only' thread?

The clue is in the title of the thread.

[TheGoldcountry]

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

The clue is in the title of the thread.

Some of us foolishly thought that since the topic was posted on an international public forum, that the OP was inviting input, information, and viewpoints from other places.

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Actually Manopolus' profile says Kansas.

In the UK, the incidence of outside heaters and gazebos for smokers in beer gardens has increased. Certainly for me, the least pleasant part of going to the pub has been removed. I no longer need to wash the smell of stale smoke out of everything the instant I get home.

My bad. It does say he's from Kansas.

Bars actually decided to go ahead and put in heaters and gazebos outside specifically for smokers over there?

That's kinda funny. I an just see all the smokers standing around a tiny little space heater, all huddled close while they smoke their cancer sticks.

I'll tell you the reason why I had a strong feeling that the claim that the smoke ban in bars would decrease business was false. My family owns several restaurants, and two bars. We never allowed smoking in any of our establishments. Non-smokers always FLOCKED to both of our bars. Actually, it was great. We pretty much had no competition, and were killing it.

Now that I think about it, I kinda wish the smoke ban was never instituted.....

Originally Posted by jimbob

I am not so sure the laws are lame. I am not sure they do violate free speech particularly: they neither curtail religious nor political expression, just specify that if you sell a product, its packaging has to conform to pretty rigorous criteria - unlike prohibition which would obviously prevent any any packaging of tobacco. Similarly, I believe that Rastafari argue that prohibition of marijuana is a curtailment of their religious freedom.

You have to understand. I am fiercely against censorship of any kind without VERY good reasons. Only when the public may be in immediate danger, (and I mean immediate, like yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater kind of immediate danger,) and false advertisement.

I cannot think of any good reason to prevent cigarette companies from making neat little fancy packages. (Obviously, so long as they do not violate the rule of "false advertisement.") I am even sort of shaky on the idea of the laws that prevent them from using mascots, especially on their own packaging.

Quote:

As to the levels of smoking - it will be interesting to see what happens in Australia.

Not really. Considering that the numbers of smokers is naturally decreasing anyway, you cannot really draw the conclusion that it was plain packaging that has caused a reduction in smoking in the future. At least, I don't see how.

Quote:

That is a fairly recent development - indeed I am not entirely sure whether tobacco companies yet accept that passive smoking has been a problem. There is also the bit which can't be legislated for, which is exposure of family members in the home. Reducing total smoking will probably reduce that as well.

I doubt that. It has been mentioned that current smokers will continue to smoke regardless of what kind of package it comes in. It has been argued that the law is meant to prevent future smokers from starting at a young age.

It has also been shown that children of smokers will generally grow up to smoke at a higher rate than children of non-smokers.

If plain packaging will not deter current smokers, and if the children of smokers grow up to be likely smokers, then plain packaging will not be really all that effective against the children of smokers.

In my case, I have a father who smoked since before I was even born. I abhor those things. Always have, always will. Mostly BECAUSE my dad smoked, and he always smelled terrible, and his teeth were always this nasty yellow, almost greenish tint. Completely turned me off. NOt to mention, a lot of really hot girls have told me how they HATE guys who smoke.

Had nothing to do with packaging, but everything to do with health, image, and social stigmas. I think those three reasons will ALWAYS trump packaging throughout society.

(A great ad I remember seeing when I was in high school. A boy at his locker is approached by a really hot cheerleader. She ppulled out a cigarette, and her head turned into a giant trout's head. Was funny, and sent a fairly powerful message.

A more recent commercial was with this....I dunno....50? 60? year old woman who was....DECREPIT-looking, and had to use one of them voice thingies to talk. She was putting on a wig, getting ready for the day and explaining her routine through that disgusting voice. Also a very powerful commercial.)

There are far more effective means of reducing smoking than creating lame laws which potentially effect free speech, and intellectual property rights.

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by Manopolus

Really? You've never heard of Kansas? My "location" field is set to where I actually live... although at the moment I'm back in college in a slightly larger town... Emporia, KS, and that's where I'm talking about. It most certainly isn't in the UK.

My bad. Excuse me for not paying attention to your little locator thing.

Last person I was speaking with, was from the UK. I just assumed the majority of people posting in here are non-Americans.

Quote:

All I know is that pretty much ALL the truly local bars have shut down since the last time I was here (I moved shortly after the ban was implemented). The only ones left are the ones that cater primarily to college students, and they were here for quite a while before the ban took place... so it wasn't due to new competition. In the bars I went to, something like 80% of their base was smokers. I'm not talking about the bar/grille combos, but the strictly drinking joints. Oh, and note that these places did not have an outdoor area where you could drink. While the original ordinance did not even allow smoking at outdoor enclosures where you could still drink, that was changed later... so some thing that wasn't particularly important when you set up your bar, years ago, has become an absolute necessity if you want to stay in business. That's a bit unfair, don't you think? I actually knew some of the owners of these beer joints fairly well... good people, some of them. I guess the militants don't particularly care that they just screwed them out of a business.

As far as restaurants, I may have exaggerated a little bit. It's hard to tell the effect, since restaurants tend to go out of business regularly, and i was never much of a foodie in any case. In contrast, many of the bars I was talking about were around for like 50 years or more (one in particular I think was a family owned business for like 90 years). I don't think that their collectively small window of time of closure was coincidence.

LOL at the bolded.

Again, there could have been any number of reasons why these local bars closed down. We were (still are) in an economic slump. The worst since the Great Depression. You did mention there was a whole slew of chains that opened up. Kinda hard to pin it on exclusively the smoking ban. And kinda hard for me to believe that it actually hurt the bar scene in your town, since even in Kansas smokers are vastly outnumbered by nonsmokers.

Soooo....yeah....

Quote:

Please note that I'm talking about small town America, where individuals count (pop 25k), not about some large city where you only care about demographics and ignore the specifics.

So? I am also talking about small town America as well. My hometown is Williamsport, PA. (You might see it on TV if you tune into ESPN over the course of the rest of this week.)

Population: about 30k. Closest "cities" to Williamsport:

Harrisburgh. Population: 50k. Distance: 85 miles
Scranton/Wilkes Barre. Poulation: about 80k. Distance: 102 miles.
State College. Population: 42k (year-round.) 112k with students. Distance: 63 miles
Corning NY. Population: 11k. Distance: 79 miles.

average distance: 82 miles away.

So yeah. I pretty am talking about literally the middle of bum-**** nowhere PA. Not exactly living Philly-style (which is 180 miles away btw, NYC 190 miles. Pitt: 195 miles. Erie: 228 miles)

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

Some of us foolishly thought that since the topic was posted on an international public forum, that the OP was inviting input, information, and viewpoints from other places.

Which is all well and good, but still has nothing to do with alcohol in Britain and other such stuff.

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I think a ban on tobacco would actually be far more effective than the ban on marijuana, cocaine, etc. A person could smuggle a year's supply of cocaine in a container the size of an Altoid's tin, marijuana in something the size of a shoebox. A year's supply of marijuana could also be grown locally in a few square feet of soil. Tobacco would require a much larger container to smuggle and much larger area to grow, making it easier to detect.

Not that I'm advocating that.

Yeah, that's a good point. You forgot one more:

Tobacco, as I understand it, is a fairly finicky plant about the type of climate that it likes.

I doubt tobacco would be grown all that effectively in the UK, unless done indoors. In which case, you would need a pretty large facility in order to grow any significant amount.

[Manopolus]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

My bad. Excuse me for not paying attention to your little locator thing.

Last person I was speaking with, was from the UK. I just assumed the majority of people posting in here are non-Americans.





LOL at the bolded.

Again, there could have been any number of reasons why these local bars closed down. We were (still are) in an economic slump. The worst since the Great Depression. You did mention there was a whole slew of chains that opened up. Kinda hard to pin it on exclusively the smoking ban. And kinda hard for me to believe that it actually hurt the bar scene in your town, since even in Kansas smokers are vastly outnumbered by nonsmokers.

Soooo....yeah....



So? I am also talking about small town America as well. My hometown is Williamsport, PA. (You might see it on TV if you tune into ESPN over the course of the rest of this week.)

Population: about 30k. Closest "cities" to Williamsport:

Harrisburgh. Population: 50k. Distance: 85 miles
Scranton/Wilkes Barre. Poulation: about 80k. Distance: 102 miles.
State College. Population: 42k (year-round.) 112k with students. Distance: 63 miles
Corning NY. Population: 11k. Distance: 79 miles.

average distance: 82 miles away.

So yeah. I pretty am talking about literally the middle of bum-**** nowhere PA. Not exactly living Philly-style (which is 180 miles away btw, NYC 190 miles. Pitt: 195 miles. Erie: 228 miles)

LOL. Interestingly enough, I've actually been there... worked in Towanda as a travelling photographer/vendor in Wal-Mart, then had to go near Pittsburgh for my next gig. Didn't really stop there, but passed through (not so sure that I didn't pass through a second time from a different direction). Sorry if I made a wrong assumption (This was back when the portrait studios in Wal-Mart had a travelling division, and before their last bankruptcy, after which they sold out to the same folks that operate out of Sears (CPI)).

Admittedly, a bit of an aside here...

(edit) oh, wait... i actually worked there once. For some reason when I was working in Punxutawni (not sure if I spelled that right) they had me switch with the guy they had at Williamsberg halfway through the week. I was only there for like 2 days though, not my normal weekly stay. Anyway, they had me fly up that way and sub in towards the end of the travelling division so they wouldn't have to hire new people just to shut it down. I was up that way living out of hotels (not unusual for me at the time, anyway) for something like 6 months, off and on... two separate trips with a post-Katrina tour through LA, Mississippi, and 'Bama in between (and damn, it was hard to find a hotel down there).

Anyway, I digress... back to the thread... [/random trip down Memory Lane]

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

A quick web-search tells me that there is no nicotine in marijuana. (But there is more tar and cancer-causing chemicals.)

Unrelated but definitely interesting, the real carcinogenic problem with tobacco is the way the phosphate fertilisers we use coat the tobacco leaf with polonium:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...13/3451931.htm

Quote:

Developed countries use fertiliser that is manufactured from apatite rock, and this rock naturally contains uranium which then decays to radioactive polonium-210, which enters the tobacco plant through both the leaves and roots.

When the cigarette burns, it reaches temperatures of 600–800°C, hotter than the melting point of polonium.

The liquefied polonium sticks to tiny particles in the cigarette smoke, and then preferentially lands at locations in your airways and lungs, where one pipe splits into two pipes.

Polonium-210 has a very short half-life of 138 days. It is intensely radioactive, and sprays alpha particles on to the surrounding tissues.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Originally Posted by jimbob

In the UK, the incidence of outside heaters and gazebos for smokers in beer gardens has increased. Certainly for me, the least pleasant part of going to the pub has been removed. I no longer need to wash the smell of stale smoke out of everything the instant I get home.

Bars actually decided to go ahead and put in heaters and gazebos outside specifically for smokers over there?

That's kinda funny. I an just see all the smokers standing around a tiny little space heater, all huddled close while they smoke their cancer sticks.

Pretty much what happens, put some form of roof, and I don't know how much wall is allowed,and they are very crowded, especially in winter

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

I'll tell you the reason why I had a strong feeling that the claim that the smoke ban in bars would decrease business was false. My family owns several restaurants, and two bars. We never allowed smoking in any of our establishments. Non-smokers always FLOCKED to both of our bars. Actually, it was great. We pretty much had no competition, and were killing it.

Now that I think about it, I kinda wish the smoke ban was never instituted.....

Mind you, in he UK some pubs have struggled which used to be seen as good places to drink and smoke.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Originally Posted by jimbob

I am not so sure the laws are lame. I am not sure they do violate free speech particularly: they neither curtail religious nor political expression, just specify that if you sell a product, its packaging has to conform to pretty rigorous criteria - unlike prohibition which would obviously prevent any any packaging of tobacco. Similarly, I believe that Rastafari argue that prohibition of marijuana is a curtailment of their religious freedom.

You have to understand. I am fiercely against censorship of any kind without VERY good reasons. Only when the public may be in immediate danger, (and I mean immediate, like yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater kind of immediate danger,) and false advertisement.

I cannot think of any good reason to prevent cigarette companies from making neat little fancy packages. (Obviously, so long as they do not violate the rule of "false advertisement.") I am even sort of shaky on the idea of the laws that prevent them from using mascots, especially on their own packaging.

What about companies advertising pot? If you ban that, without freedom of expression issues, then surely you can specify what packaging a product is sold in. The public health argument is sufficiently strong in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Quote:

As to the levels of smoking - it will be interesting to see what happens in Australia.

Not really. Considering that the numbers of smokers is naturally decreasing anyway, you cannot really draw the conclusion that it was plain packaging that has caused a reduction in smoking in the future. At least, I don't see how.

Look to see how the take-up of smoking in adolescents is trending, and then see if there is a change in the trend when the ban comes in, especially compared to similar demographics in other OECD countries.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Quote:

That is a fairly recent development - indeed I am not entirely sure whether tobacco companies yet accept that passive smoking has been a problem. There is also the bit which can't be legislated for, which is exposure of family members in the home. Reducing total smoking will probably reduce that as well.

I doubt that. It has been mentioned that current smokers will continue to smoke regardless of what kind of package it comes in. It has been argued that the law is meant to prevent future smokers from starting at a young age.

From that PDF I linked to earlier (page 20)

Quote:

A population survey in Victoria, Australia asked adult smokers (of factory made cigarettes) about the degree to which they notice cigarette pack displays at PoS, whether they experience smoking impulses when faced by the display, and their perception of the display as a hindrance to smoking cessation (Wakefield et al 2008). Over half indicated that they always or often noticed cigarette packs displayed near the cash register. The results suggest that displays “stimulate impulse purchases” among smokers:
25% decided to buy cigarettes at least sometimes as a result of seeing the pack display when shopping for something else. And it suggests that displays “undermine quitting intentions and behaviour among established smokers” (p.325): 38% of smokers who had tried to quit in the last year got the urge to buy cigarettes; 61% of these went on to buy cigarettes (Wakefield et al 2008). As the authors state, PoS displays remind people trying to quit or cut back smoking and can tempt ex-smokers at each store
visit with “a profusion of smoking cues” (Wakefield et al 2008, p.322) The study gives an insight into the added difficulties quitters or ex-smokers are faced with when shopping.

Similar cues are likely on the actual packet. And someone who wants their willpower boosted a bit could easily get a some help if their packet of cigarettes came in one of the proposed designs.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

It has also been shown that children of smokers will generally grow up to smoke at a higher rate than children of non-smokers.

If plain packaging will not deter current smokers, and if the children of smokers grow up to be likely smokers, then plain packaging will not be really all that effective against the children of smokers.

Of course plain packaging isn't the whole answer on its own, but the less attractive the act of smoking becomes, the fewer people will begin, and more will be likely to be tempted to try giving up.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

In my case, I have a father who smoked since before I was even born. I abhor those things. Always have, always will. Mostly BECAUSE my dad smoked, and he always smelled terrible, and his teeth were always this nasty yellow, almost greenish tint. Completely turned me off. NOt to mention, a lot of really hot girls have told me how they HATE guys who smoke.

Had nothing to do with packaging, but everything to do with health, image, and social stigmas. I think those three reasons will ALWAYS trump packaging throughout society..

The highlighted bit is where attacking the marketing and packaging is aimed.

[arromdee]

Why wouldn't it be legal for the government to declare that sugary drinks are a health hazard, and therefore to require that they be sold in plain bottles and prohibiting Coca-Cola from using their trademark?

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Very few people in the US mix pot with tobacco. The first time I ever saw that done was when I was in Canada in 1992. I've never seen that done in the US.

Well, thank you Wildcat, I learnt something new today.

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Bars actually decided to go ahead and put in heaters and gazebos outside specifically for smokers over there?

Yup. The number of applications for outdoor 'smoking shelters' that complied with the law rocketed when the ban came in (I know, I work in town planning).

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

That's kinda funny. I an just see all the smokers standing around a tiny little space heater, all huddled close while they smoke their cancer sticks.

Yup again, that describes the wintertime situation to a T.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by arromdee

Why wouldn't it be legal for the government to declare that sugary drinks are a health hazard, and therefore to require that they be sold in plain bottles and prohibiting Coca-Cola from using their trademark?

Sounds okay to me. What's the problem? Diabetes brought on by abuse of sugary drinks probably kills loads of people. I don't put the desire of sugary drink manufacturers to make a buck ahead of people's lives. That would be fundamentally wacky, on the same level of lunacy as Ayn Rand.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by arromdee

Why wouldn't it be legal for the government to declare that sugary drinks are a health hazard, and therefore to require that they be sold in plain bottles and prohibiting Coca-Cola from using their trademark?

Because sugary drinks aren't a health hazard unless consumed to excess, while cigarettes can still cause cancer and health problems even with occasional use.

And... what health hazards exactly? Diabetes isn't specifically caused by sugar (that's a myth based on the fact that diabetics have to monitor their blood sugar levels), you won't become obese from drinking large quantities of sugary drinks if your calorie intake doesn't exceed your needs, and it's simple enough to take care of your teeth.

ETA: If you're overweight and don't exercise, consuming any food products that cause high blood-glucose levels can increase your chances of developing type two diabetes. This isn't just sugary drinks and candy, but also fruit, rice, potatoes, ect. But if you're not overweight and get plenty of exercise, it doesn't really matter.

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by Manopolus

LOL. Interestingly enough, I've actually been there... worked in Towanda as a travelling photographer/vendor in Wal-Mart, then had to go near Pittsburgh for my next gig. Didn't really stop there, but passed through (not so sure that I didn't pass through a second time from a different direction). Sorry if I made a wrong assumption (This was back when the portrait studios in Wal-Mart had a travelling division, and before their last bankruptcy, after which they sold out to the same folks that operate out of Sears (CPI)).

Admittedly, a bit of an aside here...

(edit) oh, wait... i actually worked there once. For some reason when I was working in Punxutawni (not sure if I spelled that right) they had me switch with the guy they had at Williamsberg halfway through the week. I was only there for like 2 days though, not my normal weekly stay. Anyway, they had me fly up that way and sub in towards the end of the travelling division so they wouldn't have to hire new people just to shut it down. I was up that way living out of hotels (not unusual for me at the time, anyway) for something like 6 months, off and on... two separate trips with a post-Katrina tour through LA, Mississippi, and 'Bama in between (and damn, it was hard to find a hotel down there).

Anyway, I digress... back to the thread... [/random trip down Memory Lane]

Holy crap! The world is even smaller yet! I worked as a photographer for Wal-Mart (Well, started out in the deli, then started traveling around doing remodels, then was hired by the photography studio in the Wal-Mart in Lock Haven.) I worked for them while I was a student at Penn State University, earning a Master's in secondary education, with a minor in Digital Media.

I think it's funny talking to people from outside the area at Little League. Was over there today watching some of the games, and struck up a conversation with one of the parents from Nebraska. They were asking what Williamsport is like. I told them: "Oh, it's just a usual boring little town like most other towns."

The parent was in awe. They were like: "Really? With such a great event as the Little League World Series?"

I laughed. Hard. The LLWS occurs over the course of 10 days (6 before the expansion a few years ago) at the very end of summer. Other than that: Nope. Just a boring little town in the middle of Nowhere, PA for 355 days a year.

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Pretty much what happens, put some form of roof, and I don't know how much wall is allowed,and they are very crowded, especially in winter

Sucks to be them. Me: I enjoy a nice stiff drink (Guinness is my favorite, Yuengling my cheap go-to) without a cloud of radioactive smoke around me, thank you very much.

Quote:

Mind you, in he UK some pubs have struggled which used to be seen as good places to drink and smoke.

In PA, we called those "dives." Many of them have turned into good places to drink.

Quote:

What about companies advertising pot? If you ban that, without freedom of expression issues, then surely you can specify what packaging a product is sold in. The public health argument is sufficiently strong in my opinion.

What? That doesn't add up. Pot is illegal, period. You can't use an illegal product as a precedent to keep companies from expressing their brand with legal products as an argument against the freedom of speech, press, and intellectual property in the name of "public health."

I would be perfectly OK with outlawing cigarettes altogether.

Quote:

Look to see how the take-up of smoking in adolescents is trending, and then see if there is a change in the trend when the ban comes in, especially compared to similar demographics in other OECD countries.

The problem with this, is you are attempted to express a cause from a correlation. Adolescent smoking is already trending downwards. Without the need for this plain packaging law.

Quote:

From that PDF I linked to earlier (page 20)

Similar cues are likely on the actual packet. And someone who wants their willpower boosted a bit could easily get a some help if their packet of cigarettes came in one of the proposed designs.

"Someone" might get "their willower boosted a bit." [/quote]

Doesn't mean it will actually work on a large scale.

Quote:

Of course plain packaging isn't the whole answer on its own, but the less attractive the act of smoking becomes, the fewer people will begin, and more will be likely to be tempted to try giving up.

I think there are other factors that will (already has, and currently does) cause kids to not take up smoking in the first place. I already listed those things, which are completely outside the control of the law, and I would be really willing to bet is far more effective than the law ever could be.

Quote:

The highlighted bit is where attacking the marketing and packaging is aimed.

You don't need to violate intellectual property rights or right to free speech. The stigma is already in place. Anti-smoking advertisements are already doing a wonderful job.

As I have said, I completely abhor cigarettes. Never could stand even the thought of those things, and I never had to pick one up in my life.

However, I am a digital artist. I teach my trade to high school students. Just to show you where I am coming from. As an artist, the idea of restricting what a company can put on it's packaging just does not, and will not vibe with me. I don't even really like the idea of disallowing cigarette companies from advertising on TV and the radio. The only thing I can conscionable allow for in my mind, is the restriction on false advertisement. Cool little stripes and unique type-faces is not exactly "false advertisement," so I have a really big problem with that.

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Because sugary drinks aren't a health hazard unless consumed to excess, while cigarettes can still cause cancer and health problems even with occasional use.

And... what health hazards exactly? Diabetes isn't specifically caused by sugar (that's a myth based on the fact that diabetics have to monitor their blood sugar levels), you won't become obese from drinking large quantities of sugary drinks if your calorie intake doesn't exceed your needs, and it's simple enough to take care of your teeth.

ETA: If you're overweight and don't exercise, consuming any food products that cause high blood-glucose levels can increase your chances of developing type two diabetes. This isn't just sugary drinks and candy, but also fruit, rice, potatoes, ect. But if you're not overweight and get plenty of exercise, it doesn't really matter.

I am also a little bit of a health-nut.

The last part is not QUITE true. For the most part, it is, but:

Bad advice for those who are already overweight and are trying to lose weight. 75% of the battle for better health, or good health maintenance, is diet.

It is true that if you limit your caloric intake to less than your caloric output, you should see results, and maintain a health body weight. But watching what you eat, eating the correct things (veggies and fruits) is far more important than activity level.

As for sugar, it is hazardous to your health. Sugar is best consumed for health purposes if there is an appropriate level of fiber to go along with. Hence: Why fruits are much more preferable than soda, even though they contain comparable amounts of sugar. (And it doesn't matter what type of sugar you consume. Sugar is sugar. Your body treats HFCS the same as naturally-occurring sugars in fruit.)

But yeah. The goal is to get your body to burn carbs and fats. When you consume sugars in large quantities even if your caloric intake in 95% of caloric output, it is harder for your body to burn fat. Whereas, if you consume very little sugar and your caloric intake remains the same (95% of your output), you will burn fat much more efficiently.

Large quantities of sugar retards your body's ability to maintain a healthy body fat percentage versus a diet with the same exact consumed calories but with much less sugar involved.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

The last part is not QUITE true. For the most part, it is, but:

That's why I added the ETA. It's not the sugar itself, but the sudden rise in blood-glucose levels that products containing concentrated sugars cause. If the sugar is bound up with a lot of fiber, it may slow down the absorption of sugar, resulting in a more stable blood-glucose level.

But yes, I do agree that if you're in a high-risk category for adult-onset diabetes, chugging down large quantities of high-sugar beverages on a regular basis is a pretty risky thing to do.

[Morrigan]

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

Err... me? And I don't know any of my pub posse who want to quit. We all happily sit round of a Friday and Saturday evening rollin' and smokin' and enjoying the pleasure (aside: no one I know smokes 'real' fags) and no-one has ever pipped up "I wish I could quit".

"All/most smokers want to quit" is a myth propagated by the tobacco prohibitionist movement. It was the same in the days of the temperance movement; all drinkers, even light drinkers, were painted by the prohibitionists as booze-soaked addicts who couldn't help themselves around the demon drink and were crying out for 'salvation'.

And so it goes....

I agree. How silly of him to believe in such myths and assume such things about all smokers. I for one would never assume that all smokers were smart and sensible enough to want to quit.

[Dipayan]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

Precisely. But advertising seeks to change social attitudes, that's its mission statement.

Agree. That is a valid point.

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

Banning advertising on packaging won't in itself change people's behaviours but the long term de-normalisation of smoking will.

Packaging is not advertising, per se. We only look at the packaging of a product when we are considering buying it. This is more true for something like cigarettes, where you cannot interact with the product - packages are mostly kept out of reach of consumers. If I am looking at cigarette packets, it's probably because I'm already thinking of smoking, and not the other way round. In such a situation, I'm not sure how making packaging uniform would really matter.

Note that I'm not saying it's pointless - just that I'm unsure. I just believe that there are better ways of going about this than infringing on private businesses. No point in creating laws because 'IT KILLS!', and still keeping it legal.