UK Government Moves Ahead With Plain Packaging on Cigarettes
65 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Oizen;44444556]People who dont smoke will continue to not smoke
People who smoke will continue to smoke.
This is just dumb.[/QUOTE]
not about today. Its about the future.
[QUOTE=Niko_38;44444557]It's okay to have colorful bottles of liquor, but you can't show logos? What a load of bull, how the hell will that help?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/calls-to-quitline-soar-after-plain-packaging-laws-20140113-30qvf.html[/url]
Solid data that it has helped. Obviously we won't notice any significant drop in cigarette sales in the short term, given how addictive they are and how hard it is to quit, but it's done its job by further spreading awareness.
Also, alcohol isn't bad for you in moderation, some studies even claim it can be good for you. I don't think I've ever read anything anywhere which has said that tobacco is good for you in moderation. If there's one other thing that warrants plain packaging it'd be fast food, but even then we've made huge leaps over the years in making that healthier.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;44443621]but under the current laws you can't even see cigarette packaging because they hide it in units with sliding doors on them[/QUOTE]
iirc isnt this law for stores over a certain size, ie small shops dont need to do this
i cant remember seeing sliding doors in my local tesco express
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;44444648]iirc isnt this law for stores over a certain size, ie small shops dont need to do this
i cant remember seeing sliding doors in my local tesco express[/QUOTE]
About this whole debate of not being able to see the packaging on display; I don't think it matters. A smoker will buy a pack of cigs and they will more than likely display a curiosity if the pack they get one day has different packaging. Not many, if any, stores in Australia keep the cigarette packs in sight but the plain packaging still seems to be working.
How does Branding make children want to smoke them?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;44444634][url]http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/calls-to-quitline-soar-after-plain-packaging-laws-20140113-30qvf.html[/url]
Solid data that it has helped. Obviously we won't notice any significant drop in cigarette sales in the short term, given how addictive they are and how hard it is to quit, but it's done its job by further spreading awareness.
Also, alcohol isn't bad for you in moderation, some studies even claim it can be good for you. I don't think I've ever read anything anywhere which has said that tobacco is good for you in moderation. If there's one other thing that warrants plain packaging it'd be fast food, but even then we've made huge leaps over the years in making that healthier.[/QUOTE]
I stand corrected.
[QUOTE=Tuskin;44444682]How does Branding make children want to smoke them?[/QUOTE]
If you brand your children every time you find them smoking I imagine they'd quit rather quickly.
Also, the EU will be prohibiting the sale of 10-pack cigarettes and menthol cigarettes by 2016.
It really wouldn't surprise me if cigarettes were banned altogether in the UK by 2020.
[QUOTE=demoguy08;44444606]Umm nope how could that possibly be the case?? At any rate it's not the point of the state to make money; it's supposed to care for its citizens.[/QUOTE]
In the UK the cigarette tax has earned the government [url=http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_121.pdf]£18.3 billion, while the cost of healthcare expenditures was £13.74 billion.[/url] This also includes campaigns to stop people smoking and other fairly distant factors that are at best, straw pulls.
In the US, this is not the case. But a terrible healthcare system is to blame there rather than the act of smoking itself.
Raising the taxes on cigarettes even by mere pence or cents, would earn the government billions, and would also work far better at halving smoke rates than by using stupid scare-tactics that most ignore.
[QUOTE=Noss;44444917]Also, the EU will be prohibiting the sale of 10-pack cigarettes and menthol cigarettes by 2016.
It really wouldn't surprise me if cigarettes were banned altogether in the UK by 2020.[/QUOTE]
Christ.
What're they doing with regards to rolling tobacco?
[QUOTE=Melnek;44445025]In the UK the cigarette tax has earned the government [url=http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_121.pdf]£18.3 billion, while the cost of healthcare expenditures was £13.74 billion.[/url] This also includes campaigns to stop people smoking and other fairly distant factors that are at best, straw pulls.
In the US, this is not the case. But a terrible healthcare system is to blame there rather than the act of smoking itself.
Raising the taxes on cigarettes even by mere pence or cents, would earn the government billions, and would also work far better at halving smoke rates than by using stupid scare-tactics that most ignore.[/QUOTE]
You didn't read the sheet properly.
£18.3 billion was the amount [I]spent[/I] on tobacco in 2011 while the [I]tax revenue[/I] was £12.1 billion.
It's been like this for a year now in Australia and no-one really notices it. It kinda sucked at the start where everyone would accidentally take other peoples cigarette packs since they all looked the same, but now everyone is more careful.
[QUOTE=NorthernFall;44445164]Christ.
What're they doing with regards to rolling tobacco?[/QUOTE]
Not sure, so far rolling baccy has had to adhere to the same restrictions as cigarettes. I can't find any mention of banning menthol filters so I think that they might be safe.
[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;44443928]It causes endless amounts of diseases and ailments yet some people feel that 'it helps people relax' is a valid justification when its clearly not. It's like saying 'oh yeah, I cut myself, it helps me unwind'. At the end of the day, they would both amount to harming your body so why would smoking be more acceptable than cutting yourself?[/QUOTE]
This isn't a valid comparison whatsoever.
Should we say the same for people who drink alcohol?
For people who spend too much time sun tanning?
People who eat too much?
People who willingly live in polluted areas?
You have no fucking comprehension of the reasons why people self-harm, do you?
[QUOTE=Melnek;44445025]In the UK the cigarette tax has earned the government [url=http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_121.pdf]£18.3 billion, while the cost of healthcare expenditures was £13.74 billion.[/url] This also includes campaigns to stop people smoking and other fairly distant factors that are at best, straw pulls.
In the US, this is not the case. But a terrible healthcare system is to blame there rather than the act of smoking itself.
Raising the taxes on cigarettes even by mere pence or cents, would earn the government billions, and would also work far better at halving smoke rates than by using stupid scare-tactics that most ignore.[/QUOTE]
Smokers have a hissy fit whenever taxes are raised on cigs, you can't win with them.
[QUOTE=Aman;44443764]I find this "think of the children" attitude so fucking dumb no matter what it is applied to.
Might as well do the same to alcohol, how is it any different?
All alcohol should just be blank green bottles with white text saying the name otherwise children might see a pretty bottle and become an alcoholic.
[editline]3rd April 2014[/editline]
Anything with lots of saturated sugar and trans fats should be in a brown paper bag with the name of the product written on with a sharpie otherwise people will be attracted to the pretty package and eat it and become unhealthy.[/QUOTE]
I don't know the stats for the UK, but in the United States, tobacco related deaths are astronomical.
[url]http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm[/url]
TWENTY PERCENT of our deaths are related to tobacco. That dwarfs alcohol.
Including motor vehicle accidents, alcohol claims about 88 thousand people per year.
[url]http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm[/url]
That is 88k vs 480k. Smoking is a much, MUCH, more serious problem.
[QUOTE=Niko_38;44444557]It's okay to have colorful bottles of liquor, but you can't show logos? What a load of bull, how the hell will that help?[/QUOTE]
Ah but don't you see? Drinking is cool, everyone does it! :+)
The Czech Republic had a really good plan but it pissed a lot of people off since it was morally mediocre.
Let smokers smoke. They know the risks and if they die early from it, the state saves money ultimately; from taxes on the smokes and pensioners.
[editline]3rd April 2014[/editline]
[url]http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/412/million-dollar-idea[/url]
Act three of that has to do with it. Really interesting article on it.
I have sympathy for smokers who are being pushed into a dark corner of society - they're not doing anything wrong per se - it is their body and their health so it is ultimately their choice to make and not Parliaments - but at the same time I'm pleased by moves by the government to discourage smoking in public.
My partner suffers from asthma, and when we go out and someone nearby is smoking she has to physically stop and take her inhaler because of the second hand smoke that is in the air. It's not nice - we either have to hang back a significant distance (you'd be surprised how far second hand smoke travels) or actually divert where we are planning to go to make accommodations because of that individual. If it's in a public space - like a park - we need to move away. If we were there for a long period of time and somebody comes along and starts smoking then we have to move away. That's not right and I don't see why we should - it's a public environment and people with all kinds of medical conditions are about. Why should the victims that are affected by second hand smoke be the ones that have to make allowances for it?
You want to smoke cigarettes/tobacco that's fine by me - I have no problem with you taking the responsibility upon yourself and again it is entirely your choice - but when it does actually impact other people in the area, I can't help but feel you're becoming a bit obnoxious and ignorant to what your activity is doing to those around you - and I don't think that responsibility is being respected.
This isn't something I have beef with with all smokers. There are quite a few who will realize what they are doing and smoke elsewhere where they don't affect anyone else and that's really admirable - or will actual move from walking in front of us to behind us to make sure they don't blow their second hand into us - they have the good grace to do what they want to do without impacting on anyone else and I have tremendous respect for those people. I just wish all who indulged in smoking of any kind had that mindset..
[QUOTE=Chrisordie;44443958]About 6 months after them being introduced people will stop paying attention to them.[/QUOTE]
We've had these in Australia for a while now and they're pretty gross to look at to this day. I don't smoke apart from the occasional cigarette from friend's so I can't really say if the plain packaging is helping or not for heavy smokers.
when those come in, people will just switch back to using cigarette cases again
you know, these things
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/OPA's_cigarette_case-inside.jpg[/IMG]
A whole bunch of people I know already do, because it's supposedly also more convenient to carry in your pocket because it's flatter.
surely govt hasn't thought this shit through?
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;44443621]but under the current laws you can't even see cigarette packaging because they hide it in units with sliding doors on them. in fact you have to be ID'd to even ask to see the product range[/QUOTE]
either this hasn't taken effect much here or not at all, because cigarette packages are open for all to see in pretty much every store i've been in recently
[QUOTE=MrPlonker;44443953]Human right act. As long as smoking remains legal, people can smoke as much as they want. If the government are so pissed off about smoking, why do they have to invest more money into packaging? Why not just ban it if they feel that strongly about it? If this is what my tax bill is going towards, there is no hope for us.[/QUOTE]
They don't want to prohibit people from smoking, they want to make people want to smoke less.
incredible waste of time, money, and effort.
If you're a smoker, you're going to smoke.
What does this accomplish, I honestly can't think of anything that will be different because of this.
[QUOTE=Noss;44444917]Also, the EU will be prohibiting the sale of 10-pack cigarettes and menthol cigarettes by 2016.
It really wouldn't surprise me if cigarettes were banned altogether in the UK by 2020.[/QUOTE]
and? if in 2020 they were banned altogether, would you be in support of that? Because I'm pretty sure by 2020 there will not be a 0% demand for cigarettes, and in the event there was a ban on cigarettes with the presence of a demand for cigarettes at the same time, you're just creating another illegal market for criminals to profit from.
[QUOTE=Virtanen;44448212]when those come in, people will just switch back to using cigarette cases again
you know, these things
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/OPA's_cigarette_case-inside.jpg[/IMG]
A whole bunch of people I know already do, because it's supposedly also more convenient to carry in your pocket because it's flatter.
surely govt hasn't thought this shit through?[/QUOTE]
Cigs aren't displayed in cases when sold, though. The point is to discourage people from buying them, not making it hard to carry.
[QUOTE=Krooms;44451361]incredible waste of time, money, and effort.
If you're a smoker, you're going to smoke.
What does this accomplish, I honestly can't think of anything that will be different because of this.
and? if in 2020 they were banned altogether, would you be in support of that? Because I'm pretty sure by 2020 there will not be a 0% demand for cigarettes, and in the event there was a ban on cigarettes with the presence of a demand for cigarettes at the same time, you're just creating another illegal market for criminals to profit from.[/QUOTE]
I never actually said I'm in support of it.. in recent threads I've been extremely against the prohibition of tobacco.
As a non smoker I don't look twice at those anti-smoking adds, the only thought that goes through my head is "that looks disgusting." So why would a person who is addicted to cigarettes care at all? or is the point just that it makes the packet look less cool for younger people?
[QUOTE=Takoto;44443760]This is fucking stupid, I'm sick of seeing anti smoking ads on billboards because everyone already knows smoking isn't healthy and they're just not nice to look at.[/QUOTE]
what I'm sick of is the potential massives lies
[URL="https://www.google.com/search?q=pigs+blood+ciggeretes&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS560US560&oq=pigs+blood+ciggeretes&aqs=chrome..69i57.5255j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8"]"They put pig blood in cigarettes so Muslims will go to hell!"[/URL] etc
it's like, they're acting like cigarette companies go way the fuck out of their way to be assholes
not only that, but the warnings only happen to show the really bad "pack a day, no brushing or showering" types.
I mean yeah I want smoking removed bar none but still.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;44443621]but under the current laws you can't even see cigarette packaging because they hide it in units with sliding doors on them. in fact you have to be ID'd to even ask to see the product range[/QUOTE]
That is a voluntary measure afaik. Many places don't do that.
To be honest I think the whole covering them up thing is just good guy badge wearing bullshit for supermarkets and if they really gave a fuck about reducing the harms of smoking they'd stop fucking selling them in the first place. Uh oh! That's too close to the sacred profits for ethics to matter!
Why are you all rating this winner? It's seriously stupid in my opinion.
Nobody buys cigarettes because of the pretty packaging...
Putting text on the boxes about how dangerous the contents were didn't have any effect, and neither will this.
It's just the government interfering because of "political correctness", no matter if it's actually working towards the goal they're trying to achieve.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.