Packaging of cigarettes

[Fat Bob]

Saw thisand see that it's a continuation of years of hitting the tabocco companies. OK, I doubt the tobacco companies are particularly white, but I'm thinking the governments are complete hypocrites: if cigarette smoking is so bad for people, why does the government condone the sale of these at all? Why does it make so much money off tax etc on these things?

Personally, being a non-smoker, I'm getting a bit pissed off. Either bans fags completely or shut the f$ck up.

And yes, I know why governments probably don't do anything: they probably generate such revenues off the smokers in tax that that money far out-strips any costs associated with healthcare costs and, in countries that have national pensions, cigarettes kill people a few years earlier and therefore that's a further saving to the Treasury as less payments are made to cigarette smokers than those who don't. That would be a statistic to look into.

[BoD]

It strikes me that in the future historians will look back and think WTF! So you knew that cigarettes are harmful, so you restrict advertising and impose health warnings - good. Yet at the same time you rely on the revenue from duty.

[baloo]

All smokers should be shot.

[Morrolan]

still in withdrawal, b?

[baloo]

Nah, coming up to 5 months now and despite the odd mad urge to light up, it's going pretty good.

[Burbage]

It's probable that sugar has more impact now on health and health spending than tobacco, particularly in most western countries. And it isn't even taxed.

[slinky]

Personally, being a non-smoker, I'm getting a bit pissed off. Either bans fags completely or shut the f$ck up.

I hadn't really thought about it, but I suppose there is a fair bit of time, effort and money being spent on all this packaging stuff, so, yeah, if you're going to continue to allow the stuff to be sold legally anyway, put all that time, effort and money into an area where it's really needed. It's not like it would be difficult to find a worthy cause.

[daffodil]

Agree. I don't quite understand where / what the win is here.

[Tas]

Its very YES MINISTER indeed.

Imagine Sir Humphrey explaining it to the juniour bureaucrat about being seen to be tough on health and keep your pennies and various ins and out of the game and you'll quickly go ahhhhhh.

Personally from a health and survival position Id be FAR FAR happier if they banned 4WD from cities with population above 1million, allow permits only for evidenced logged use. At least people can chose if they want to smoke. They have no choice about going through traffic with the most dangerous incompetent drivers with stupid child on board signs as if it's some justification for their shit driving. [AND you knock on the enviro policy if you want a genuine Carbon Policies - f they were remotely serious about carbon emission they'd restrict vehicle types and vehicle numbers but that's too frigg'n obvious]

[slinky]

They have no choice about going through traffic with the most dangerous incompetent drivers with stupid child on board signs as if it's some justification for their shit driving.

Ahhh, that made me laugh, Tas. Good stuff! I remember when those child on board signs became popular and wondering what they were supposed to accomplish -- now I know!!

[JJ]

Its just stupid and frankly an infringement of marketing rights (to adult smokers btw). As an existing smoker, I have already decided to enter the category, searched out the limited sales area, confirmed I am over 18 and so you think that because I cant see colours and brand names properly i am going to give up altogether. What a load of...

[Monkey Hanger]

Personally, being a non-smoker, I'm getting a bit pissed off. Either bans fags completely or shut the f$ck up.

Personally, being a smoker, I'm getting a bit pissed off. Either ban fags completely or shut the f$ck up.


And what Tass said.

[cromasaig]

I don't disagree with much of what you've said, but I can't help noticing that a lot of these 'ban it' calls are coming from the same people who regularly criticise what they see as signs of a 'Nanny State'.

Pick your team, people...

[slinky]

Both sides of the argument are signs of a 'Nanny State' if you ask me. "Spend all kinds of money to make the packaging scary so people won't smoke" = being a nanny and "Ban the sale of cigarettes entirely" = being a nanny. No?

[Fat Bob]

I think my issue is not about nanny-state like or dislike. It's more about a consistent message from the Government.

If the Government really believes smoking is a major issue to health, life expectancy etc, then they should ban it completely. Just like you can not buy cyanide in the supermarket (which can kill you too), then you shouldn't be able to buy something that is THAT harmful to you.

OR

If the Government want to continue reaping the benefits of smokers (i.e. duty and tax) then they should accept the risks that go with it and let them just get on with it (barring simple things like selling to children etc). Packages shouldn't be blanked out, "shocking" photos shouldn't be used and warnings should be minimal. People should be able to make an informed choice or smoke the cigarette that their favourite cowboy promotes. The Government should also accept the higher cost of healthcare which is more than covered by the duty and tax generated and accept that people will die because of their choices.

[Joseph27]

Got a little silly the other day and had a samporna after a 9 year break - damn I want another one right now but I am resisting the temptation.