anti plain package smokes ads

[Ridin-High]

Yes because that's all more important then saving someone's life! Who care's if they get cancer right? Who cares if tax players money goes towards hospitals where patients are in their because their smoking habits have given them cancer! Brilliant! Didn't say it be easy though.

Nikolina, even tho your intention is great the plan to ban is unrealistic and wouldn't work... it's impossible to completely control human behavior, I'm guessing you don't smoke... neither do i..

People who want to do it are going to do it regardless, i think it's better that its legal and the Govt gets money to use for awareness/education campaigns, they ain't going to save everyone, but they will save a few. Taxing the crap out of it just makes things more painful for families with smokers (who won't quit).

I think the above theory should be applied to all drugs, make them legal and have the govt supply them.

Pro's of the above approach

*Drug lords don't get money (as much)
*Govt gets money to use for awareness/education campaigns.

Even if all the hardcore narcotics were legal, i still wouldn't use.

Regards,

RH

 

[Corey Batt]

Nikolina, even tho your intention is great the plan to ban is unrealistic and wouldn't work... it's impossible to completely control human behavior, I'm guessing you don't smoke... neither do i..

People who want to do it are going to do it regardless, i think it's better that its legal and the Govt gets money to use for awareness/education campaigns, they ain't going to save everyone, but they will save a few. Taxing the crap out of it just makes things more painful for families with smokers (who won't quit).

I think the above theory should be applied to all drugs, make them legal and have the govt supply them.

Pro's of the above approach

*Drug lords don't get money (as much)
*Govt gets money to use for awareness/education campaigns.

Even if all the hardcore narcotics were legal, i still wouldn't use.

Regards,

RH

Ridin - But what about the argument of banning cigs and legalise e-cigs. I've yet to meet a single person who doesn't like them, and know of at least 10 people who smoked for 20+ years who think they're great, superior to cigarettes. They're cheaper, don't have all the toxic chemicals and have no smell. They provide a viable alternative for people who would be in a lurch should a ban be put in place. I can't seem to find a single problem with them other than them not being taxed up the wazzoo as of yet.

 

[locko24]

No way will the Gov. ban cigarettes! Imagine the amount of revenue they'd lose. Sure, they pay out for medical expenses, but no-where near as much as what comes in!!
I'm sure the Gov. doesn't care if people die from it either!

 

[Aaron_C]

it is a delicate balance between allowing personal freedoms (i.e. personal liberty) against the common good of banning toxic chemicals from being available for consumption. There's no 'right' answer...

 

[AlmostBob]

Governments everywhere, hope the smokers die before they cost more than the taxes they pay smoking
giving up; makes you feel just as bad as starting did, smokers were able to sicken themselves starting to smoke . . . no problem
making it illegal without a valid alternative, problem because the suckers are addicted
just googled e-cigs, hadnt heard of them before, I think that would probably work, a bloody good idea,
and my shirts wouldnt stink walking through the fog around every public doorway

 

[BuildingBlocks]

Need some sort of incentive/education to stop people smoking in the first place.

Just a matter of finding something that is effective.

Does anyone have stats on the percentage of the population who smoke over the last 50 years? The cut backs in advertising have only really been pushed since the early-mid 90s imo.

 

[Macca]

I reckon the govt should ban all the additives in cigs, make it law that they can only have tobacco in there.

If you put a roll your own in an ash tray it goes out, if you put a commercially made one in an ash tray it burns like a slow fuse. I don't know exactly what is in there but it sure smells horrible.

I agree we will probably see a revival of cigarette packet holders soon.

Junk food should not be advertised in kids TV time but apart from that people make there own choices. Just have a look at some of the trolleys in any supermarket or the kids with coke in their baby bottle

 

[myoung]

Make the cigarette companies squirm.

Make cigarettes legal and find an acceptable solution to the situation regarding e-cigarettes.

Half a dozen of my workmates are on these, working wonders - however they are illegal from what I can tell. The argument is they aren't Australian regulated and contain nicotine, therefore could have potential harms. Cynics argue the real reason is that tax is on tobacco, not nicotine.

Come on pollies, get this legalised so we can reduce the health care burden and give people better lives.

E Cigs aren't illegal dispite the misreporting in the media. The sale of liquid and cartridges containing nicotine is prohibited in Australia. You can buy all ECig gear locally, just not liquid with nicotine. You have to buy nicotine liquid/cartridges from China, NZ, Malaysia, UK or the US, where it is legal.
Same results in my workplace too, 7 or so heavy dedicated smokers(including myself) have been off smoking and "vaping" for 5 -6 months.
Nicotine itself isnt the killer(it's a highly addictive stimulant), it is the tar and the other crap you take in from inhaling tobacco smoke that is.

i agree, if the Govt really wanted people to stop smoking they would ban cigarettes and allow NRT through ECigs. They are too addicted to tobacco tax and too heavily lobbied by the drug companies though to do that.
QLD has even gone to the length of introducing fines now for Ecig liquids containing nicotine to protect the existing industries.

 

[jaycee]

I reckon the govt should ban all the additives in cigs, make it law that they can only have tobacco in there.

If you put a roll your own in an ash tray it goes out, if you put a commercially made one in an ash tray it burns like a slow fuse. I don't know exactly what is in there but it sure smells horrible.

I agree we will probably see a revival of cigarette packet holders soon.

Junk food should not be advertised in kids TV time but apart from that people make there own choices. Just have a look at some of the trolleys in any supermarket or the kids with coke in their baby bottle

I reckon this is another urban myth

why the deveil would a cigaretter company make harmful extra sddictive tailor made smokes with additives, and then make alternative rollies which are supposedly healthier... The number of rollie smokers who have told me they are smarter than their tailor made smoking buddies cause their choice is healthier has always surprised me.

 

[Casserole Dish]

My daughter asked me the other day "What's a smoke, Mum?". She is 6 but had no clue about cigerettes. I, however, grew up with smokers everywhere including my parents, and watched as loved ones died from cancer. Smoking used to be cool when I was at school but the tide is turning on this. Out of all my friends only one smokes (and he's trying to quit). The tobacco industries can see this and are getting desperate.

So to my mind, hiding the items and plain packaging works. I'm also stoked that smokers can't smoke indoors anymore. That was a good move, also.

Alcohol, junk food? You've gotta ask, who's trying to shift the focus here? Different problems for a different day... don't let the tobacco industries fool you!

 

[Ausprop]

No way will the Gov. ban cigarettes! Imagine the amount of revenue they'd lose. Sure, they pay out for medical expenses, but no-where near as much as what comes in!!
I'm sure the Gov. doesn't care if people die from it either!

would be interested to see your calcuation on this. my guess is that a decent heart operation would be $100-$150k? a cigarette would contain, dunno...$10 a packet tax???? less collection costs. say $8... you would possibly need to buy a packet a day from todays tax rates for about 50 years to pay for your operation. i think the governent would prefer you working, paying tax and going home to see your kids at night.

 

[Aaron Sice]

 

[Corey Batt]

would be interested to see your calcuation on this. my guess is that a decent heart operation would be $100-$150k? a cigarette would contain, dunno...$10 a packet tax???? less collection costs. say $8... you would possibly need to buy a packet a day from todays tax rates for about 50 years to pay for your operation. i think the governent would prefer you working, paying tax and going home to see your kids at night.

You're on the money. I've said this time and again, there is a Multitude of efficiency structured research funded by the government which shows that overwhelmingly the tax dollars don't come anywhere near to the burden on the health sector, and the less talked about cost - reduction in worker efficiency.

 

[tom32]

Make the cigarette companies squirm.

Make cigarettes legal and find an acceptable solution to the situation regarding e-cigarettes.

Half a dozen of my workmates are on these, working wonders - however they are illegal from what I can tell. The argument is they aren't Australian regulated and contain nicotine, therefore could have potential harms. Cynics argue the real reason is that tax is on tobacco, not nicotine.

Come on pollies, get this legalised so we can reduce the health care burden and give people better lives.

+1 here. I cannot find the thread here where they were recommended to me, but I have not had a smoke for 2 months odd on these e ciggarettes! It is possible somersoft saved my life! Did you recommend them to me?

They are magic!

Nicola Roxon calls them evil and yet scientists from the USA (with no vested interests in either drug companies nor tobacco) have said that if all smokers moved from analogues to e cigs between 400 and 4000 people would die per year from the nicotine as opposed to the 400,000 who currently die from cancer causing components in burnt tobacco.

Interesting it turned out roxon took money from big tobacco and she says well they have got nothing back for it, maybe it was her calls on e cigs.

The trouble for anti smoking lobbyists is philosophically they hate the idea of people getting their fix and now without the health risks!

It is hard to justify taxing as well, so now I can get my nicotine fix without paying stupid money for it plus with a much reduced chance of ill health.

 

[jaycee]

My daughter asked me the other day "What's a smoke, Mum?". She is 6 but had no clue about cigerettes. I, however, grew up with smokers everywhere including my parents, and watched as loved ones died from cancer. Smoking used to be cool when I was at school but the tide is turning on this. Out of all my friends only one smokes (and he's trying to quit). The tobacco industries can see this and are getting desperate.

So to my mind, hiding the items and plain packaging works. I'm also stoked that smokers can't smoke indoors anymore. That was a good move, also.

Alcohol, junk food? You've gotta ask, who's trying to shift the focus here? Different problems for a different day... don't let the tobacco industries fool you!

I dont think anyone's trying to shift the foucs, people just asked "what about the bleeding obvious you are ignoring ?"

and get no answer execpt being accused of hindering the antismoking campaign or being naive & sucked to believing the tobacco companies' lies

 

[tom32]

I reckon this is another urban myth

why the deveil would a cigaretter company make harmful extra sddictive tailor made smokes with additives, and then make alternative rollies which are supposedly healthier... The number of rollie smokers who have told me they are smarter than their tailor made smoking buddies cause their choice is healthier has always surprised me.

customs were originally marketed as a healthier alternative. They are a healthier alternative but because they are not healthy in an absolute way still bloody unhealthy the anti tobacco lobbyists rightfully said we do not want people misrepresenting cigs as healthy at all.

Cig companies have actually gone to great lengths to invent healthier tobacco products including smokeless cigarrettes and other alternatives but because they cannot be advertised as healthier they do not bother. Who would buy a smokeless cig if they did not understand the health implications.

They were actually taking off here for a while here in Australia till the government moved in and taxed them to being unviable but in some places like the USA where they tax based on risk they are taxed lower. their for example pipe tobacco and chewing tobacco, cigars etc are taxed differently as they all have lower health risks than conventional smokes.

The issue is that harm reduction in everything from the war on drugs to the war on tobacco is not considered part of the mix when it comes to health reform. It must be total harm prevention, which for the life of me I think is driven by philosophical anti drugs campaigners rather than hard science.

Once you know someone who is otherwise a productive member of society on heroin or other hard drugs who has died from a OD you then start to question why does the government not try to control this rather than losinig a battle to ban it.

when you ban something it has the effect of making it more expensive. Once it is more expensive it becomes more lucrative to import it. The irony in teh war on drugs is the supply side being the capitalists they are the more successful the war is for governments the more cash their is in the import of illegals. For the economists out there, being addictive the demand side is relatively inelastic but the supply side is not and most economists would understand that a total prohibition does not work for an addictive substance due to this mismatch... The drugs still get in, the question is simply, at what price will the curves intersect...

 

[Olly]

If you put a roll your own in an ash tray it goes out, if you put a commercially made one in an ash tray it burns like a slow fuse.

Something got added to tailor mades last year that now make them go out too.

Let's put aside our emotions for a moment and whether you like or hate smoking and whether you believe one vice is worse than another and look at things from a purely business point of view.

The tobacco industry has been targeted for a number of years now and a lot of legislation put into place to limit advertising and where you can smoke. All good things and nothing the industry whinged about (except banning advertising initially). Finally, they're fighting back because their very name/brand is being challenged and I say go for it and I hope they win. And here's some reasons why.

Recently consumption of alcohol was positively linked with cancer. The reporter said to the doctor that he would probably go after the liquor industry next (as well as) the tobacco industry and the doctor said yes. The reporter said you'll have a tough battle on your hands and the doctor agreed. Project a few years down the track when they try to make all alcoholic drinks plain packaged. (How will you recognise your favourite drop?) Absolutely no way will that be allowed. Too strong an industry to deal with, vineyards closing down, 100's losing jobs, export sales down and so on. It will never happen. BUT the government can have a damn good try if they set the precedent with tobacco. Then, if plain packaging gets through on tobacco but not on alcohol then the tobacco industry has a case to have their decision overturned (if that's the way it goes). So they're messing with a minefield.

And what is plain packaging meant to achieve? If it's to stop current smokers - it won't work. They'll smoke regardless. If it's to stop new smokers starting - plain packaging won't work either. You're never brand specific when you have your first smoke! So once again - if you want to smoke you'll smoke anything. Also, seeing smokers take (and smoke) cigarettes from branded or unbranded packets won't kill the curiosity or experimentation and eventual habit if you take it up. Overall, plain packaging and the advertising going with it is a total waste of taxpayers money!

And lets' remember - smoking is legal! So is drinking alcohol and eating junk food and so on. There's another thread about us becoming a nanny state. This is a classic example of that if every I saw one. Telling us what to do, where to go, what we are and aren't allowed to do etc. None of us like it and fight it as much as it's in our power. Businesses have that right too!
Governments should butt out of businesses that aren't breaking any laws. They're overstepping the mark on this one IMO.

 

[HiEquity]

Then, if plain packaging gets through on tobacco but not on alcohol then the tobacco industry has a case to have their decision overturned (if that's the way it goes). So they're messing with a minefield.

Government has the constitutional right to make laws for the benefit of society. I'm sure the govt has taken a wide variety of legal opinions on this and are therefore confident of this right being able to be defended in court. Big tobacco's arguments on this are a bum steer if ever I saw one.

It's called sovereign risk - if you make products that kill people you should expect government intervention as a risk of doing business...

And what is plain packaging meant to achieve? If it's to stop current smokers - it won't work. They'll smoke regardless. If it's to stop new smokers starting - plain packaging won't work either.

Really? It won't work - at all? And your evidence for this is, exactly what? Your opinion? As the tobacco industry keeps saying, there is no evidence it either will or won't work. It has never been tried before. So, how about we try it first - then we can at least find out whether it works... or not?

You're never brand specific when you have your first smoke!

And once you start, you're "hooked". So, taking away their brand will have no impact on big tobacco then? Nothing at all for them to worry about - so why the advertising campaign?

Also, seeing smokers take (and smoke) cigarettes from branded or unbranded packets won't kill the curiosity or experimentation and eventual habit if you take it up. Overall, plain packaging and the advertising going with it is a total waste of taxpayers money!

Ummm, how exactly is this going to cost taxpayers anything in the longer term? And it's big tobacco paying for the vast majority of the advertising ATM... So the calculation is for govt to spend very little on something that might just make the idea of smoking really undesirable and save lots of lives as a result. Surely, worth a try, no?

Governments should butt out of businesses that aren't breaking any laws. They're overstepping the mark on this one IMO.

The laws take away their brand but not their name. People can still differentiate by the name on the packet. No great precedent here, especially when there is precedent for making similar products illegal instead.

As to alcohol or sugar or the "nanny state", restrictions on how different businesses market their products have existed for many years / decades and this is just another one of those. The alcohol industry or the adult industry, to take two examples, already have restrictions on how they can advertise so there is no great precedent here. Just a restriction on how businesses can market particular products that kill people (and have no other redeeming feature), without impacting our individual "right" to effectively kill ourselves, should we choose to do so. No liberties being compromised here...

....although perhaps smokers should also be treated for attempting suicide?

 

[Cupcakes]

The tobacco industry has been targeted for a number of years now and a lot of legislation put into place to limit advertising and where you can smoke. All good things and nothing the industry whinged about (except banning advertising initially). Finally, they're fighting back because their very name/brand is being challenged and I say go for it and I hope they win. And here's some reasons why.

Finally they're fighting back? The tobacco companies have spent billions of dollars on lobbying the government and trying to deceive the public since the late 1940s!

 

[tom32]

Finally they're fighting back? The tobacco companies have spent billions of dollars on lobbying the government and trying to deceive the public since the late 1940s!

He would mean in recent decades. I have often wondered when they would push back myself, after the tax hikes and ugly images on packs it has taken the potential loss of their brands for them to make a move.