Poll: UK Standardized Smoking Packages Law in Final Stages

[Tuxedoman]

Snipsnip

I believe it started having things really happening in 2011. I also got my timeframe wrong, as it has apparently been boosted to 'Smokefree 2025' instead of 2020. My bad there.

But yeah. The price of cigarettes goes up by about $2 a year, and will probably keep on rising. At the moment, the cheapest pack for 20 you can get is about $18, give or take a dollar.

http://smokefree.org.nz/ is one of my sources

http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health-wellness/tobacco-control/smokefree-law is another source


But yes. Also, after our plain packaging laws were introduces in 2008, a census report found that 19.9% of citizens were smokers, the all time low I mentioned in my previous post.

IUNNO, AS SILLY AS YOU MAY THINK THIS PACKAGING IS, IT WORKS. CAPSCAPSCAPS.

Edit: Got some more shiny graphs and numbers for people. http://www.tcdata.org.nz/TobaccoSectorOverview.aspx
It shows tobacco trends within our country over the past twenty years, as well as other little tidbits like with regions seems to have more smokers, nstuff.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

I personally figured it seemed rather stupid at first, but the research on whether or not it works isn't exactly clear cut. It might work, it might not. Either way, it doesn't really seem all that much of a big deal. There are plenty of other restrictions on how companies are allow to market products.

Either way I think it's stupid. Smokers are adults they should have the right to put whatever the fuck they want into their own bodies and not be harassed for it. If they want to slowly kill themselves with cancer sticks they have the right to do so as long as they're not egregiously bothering others.

Cigarettes have not been banned ...

I don't see where harassment comes into this. They still have the right to buy as many cigarettes as they want.

It is harassment. Every day they wake up to people telling them nonstop "you're going to die, you're killing yourself, you're an idiot for smoking" etc. How is that not harassment?

And what exactly is it?
It's harassment if someone follows you around and tells you "non stop" that you're an idiot for smoking and you're going to die.
It's not harassment for the government to pass laws that require cigarettes to be sold in boring packets.
It's not harassment to air commercials telling of the health effects of smoking, even in a sensationalist manner.

Harass: to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.

I think the definition fits.

You could also argue that vegetarians are being harassed by fast food ads, since the sight of meat would disturb them persistently. Maybe conservatives are disturbed persistently by the idea of of Obama reaching office, hence, his political campaign is harassment.

You can stretch the definition to fit any persistent annoyance you want, still doesn't make it harassment.

So shoving offensive/disgusting images into someones face when they otherwise wouldn't want to see them isn't harrassment? Good, dick pics and gore pics for everyone then!

It isn't harassment after all!

Considering you're mentioning gore and dick pics, it sounds like you're referring to internet harassment, where the victim's social media will be flooded with offensive content. It is harassment to send people offensive images with the intent torment them, just as it would be if these companies banded together to flood smoker's social media with these "effects of smoking" images without the person's consent.
It's not harassment to put a product on a shelf that has an offensive picture on the front.

Also, why does it matter if there are disgusting images on the front. I thought a common argument against them is that people just ignore the images and don't care. If these images are so disgusting that people are labelling them "harassment", then how can people argue that they won't limit smoking? If it is indeed harassment, then you would expect plenty of people would rather no smoke than be "harassed".

 

[Xan Krieger]

I think the biggest problem with this sort of proposal is that its obvious solution, on the part of smokers who want to see the practice as 'cool', would be a revival of the cigarette case.

Spoiler

Sleek, shiny silver(colored) cases, often with some kind of personalization. These things have traditionally been given as gifts to commemorate anything from graduation to promotions, meaning that they would often hold some special significance to their owners.

Pulling out an opulent cigarette case and offering someone a smoke is easily one of the classiest tobacco-related acts popularized by vintage Hollywood productions. Sure, this would still achieve the desired effect of minimalizing the public's tendency of identifying with specific brands - but the CONCEPT of smoking might well be an altogether different matter!

EDIT: Just clicked the poll. Surprise, surprise - NOBODY has ticked the 'Yes (smoker)' - option yet!

As a smoker I love my cigarette case and zippo lighter, really adds to the classiness of any outfit.

OT: No, anti-smoking tactics by the government and other organizations (like Truth) generally come across as dickish which is a cancer to society instead of individuals. If those things would go away the world would be a better place (see Truth's leftswipedat campaign for proof of dickishness).

 

[Muspelheim]

Bah. It's just an all-round good deal for everyone.

The authorities get some goodwill, and get to feel they're doing something positive, the tobacco companies doesn't lose anything particular save the carton design expenses, the anti-smoking campaigners get another victory on the way and no one else is affected either way.

If there are nasty images plastered all over the carton, you can just keep a few nice ones around that you can refill, or better yet a proper cigarette case.

Everyone wins, basically. It won't go anywhere towards a glorious smokefree future, but it'll look like that, at least.

 

[default]

They've had it here in Australia for a few years now, it didn't really change shit. Just made it so you had to closely check the package the cashier put on the counter before you buy it to check if it's the right one. Smokers and non-smokers alike already KNOW that smoking is bad for you, people don't smoke because they don't fucking know the health risks. However, they might not fully realise it, so I think the big plain warnings are a good idea.

I don't even look at the package anymore, doesn't even register in my head. I think that any measure that encourages even just a few people to not take up or quit smoking is a positive, but this just wasn't very cost effective. Takes a bit of getting used to for the first couple of weeks, but after a while you don't even notice.

Also, people seem to have no fucking clue what moderation is anymore. To them you either don't smoke at all or you are hopelessly addicted and killing yourself, which is utter bullshit. Treat smoking like a treat. A cigarette once a day or every few days. Cut down on the sugar you eat to balance it out if you feel guilty. We're all just gonna be dead someday, I'm not going to miss a few years of dementia and bingo if I can enjoy a cigarette, a cake or a glass of whiskey today.

 

[faeshadow]

How about this: you keep those pictures of ruined lungs on cigarette packages, but only if you start putting pictures of clogged arteries or feet covered with ghastly diabetic wounds on packages of fatty foods.

What? We won't do that? Only to smokers? Of course. Because to talk about the risks of fatty foods is fatshaming. Smokers are just dirty people who are too stupid to know the risks and have to be shown.

Meh, whatever. Nothing is going to change.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Smoking's not something people just randomly decide to get into one day.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. My 25 year old cousin started smoking one summer when he was on break from nursing school, the reason he gave was "he was bored."

Are you sure he wasn't already smoking at that point? For some reason I've never known a nursing student who didn't smoke like a chimney. Ironic, but true.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Smoking's not something people just randomly decide to get into one day.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. My 25 year old cousin started smoking one summer when he was on break from nursing school, the reason he gave was "he was bored."

Are you sure he wasn't already smoking at that point? For some reason I've never known a nursing student who didn't smoke like a chimney. Ironic, but true.

Pretty sure, before that he would have a cigar once in a while, but not cigarettes. After, school started again he quit with nicotine gum. Then the next summer he started and quit again. I don't really understand him.

 

[catalyst8]

While I don't agree with the proposal that tobacco should be sold in plain packets, I find it very disturbing that companies can sue sovereign states for the laws they pass. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/03/11/uk-britain-cigarettes-packaging-idUKKBN0M70OY20150311

The threat of British American Tobacco et al. to sue relies on a perceived right on their part to directly interfere with domestic legislation not only for advertising, but legislation directly regarding public health & so also national infrastructure in the form of the NHS. From various leaks (e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/.../bsp/hi/pdfs/26_02_2015_ttip.pdf) & other titbits, it would seem that once the TTIP is agreed then not only would these organisations be entitled to levy ultimatums against proposed policy, they would have a contractual precedent to directly interfere with a country's governance..

The potential is horrendous. Imagine petroleum companies not just lobbying against renewable energy any more, but overtly sabotaging subsidies for renewable sources or challenging emission targets. One might wonder where employment legislation & human rights could be eroded by Group4 Security & their ilk, who run numerous prisons & other infrastructure.

Of course citizens & companies can legally challenge proposed domestic legislation, it's in our constitution after all & a bloody good thing too! But an autonomous foreign entity forcing national policy to protect its profits? That's totalitarian.

 

[Prince of Ales]

It's not harassment to air commercials telling of the health effects of smoking, even in a sensationalist manner.

Well... here's one from the UK a few years back. You can judge for yourself:

 

[ForumSafari]

Smoking's not something people just randomly decide to get into one day.

Well technically it is, people aren't born smoking, they normally try it for some reason or other and some keep doing it.

 

[kasperbbs]

Seems to me like those guys are doing retarded useless shit with taxpayers money. If you want to put me off from buying cigarettes with the packaging then put filthy midget porn on it or something, otherwise i wont care about the cardboard.

 

[Silvanus]

Fairly ambivalent about this, as I don't think there's really enough evidence to come to a conclusion about the level of impact it will have.

If it harms the tobacco companies' advertising capabilities, that might be a plus, but I can't see it having a drastic impact on smoking numbers.

 

[Creator002]

They should go one better and do what we actually have here down under and put dead people on the packaging.

Spoiler: Image possibly NSFW. I really wasn't fucking kidding.

 

[catalyst8]

Eh, let darwin sort those who want to smoke out, the genepool will better for it.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but that's really not how biological evolution works, & the Homo sapians gene pool will remain utterly unaffected. If you'd cited a sample with a genetically hereditary disease then yes, perhaps. But when your sample suffers a post-natal, non-hereditary illness it doesn't work - as far as the inherited genetic predisposition of the species goes, the gene pool is completely unaltered.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

It's not harassment to air commercials telling of the health effects of smoking, even in a sensationalist manner.

Well... here's one from the UK a few years back. You can judge for yourself:

I'm probably going to piss off a lot of people by saying this, but ... it's kind of true. I know people who smoke enjoy the smell of cigarettes, but it smells absolutely putrid to a sizeable portion of the population.

 

[Prince of Ales]

I'm probably going to piss off a lot of people by saying this, but ... it's kind of true. I know people who smoke enjoy the smell of cigarettes, but it smells absolutely putrid to a sizeable portion of the population.

I think everybody already knows that non-smokers dislike the smell of smoke. I'm asking whether this is a sensible use of tax-payers money. This coming from an NHS so poor that hospitals have had to privitise parking spaces.

Do you think anybody changed their mind due to that video? I don't. I think it was nothing more than a very silly waste of public money.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

I'm probably going to piss off a lot of people by saying this, but ... it's kind of true. I know people who smoke enjoy the smell of cigarettes, but it smells absolutely putrid to a sizeable portion of the population.

I think everybody already knows that non-smokers dislike the smell of smoke. I'm asking whether this is a sensible use of tax-payers money. This coming from an NHS so poor that hospitals have had to privitise parking spaces.

Do you think anybody changed their mind due to that video? I don't. I think it was nothing more than a very silly waste of public money.

Is it an effective use of tax payer money? Possibly not. I could not say how effective it is, or how much it costs.

I'm not actually defending these types of campaigns, merely contesting the idea that they are a harassment.

 

[Jack Action]

They should go one better and do what we actually have here down under and put dead people on the packaging.

Spoiler: Image possibly NSFW. I really wasn't fucking kidding.

If the latest picture of a lung cancer corpse is from the 70s, you aren't going to have a lot of success with that.

This is like those all the horrible ways you could die from a car crash campaigns. Sure you could have your entire lower half crushed and die a slow, agonizing death from blood poisoning because all the bacteria in your guts is slipping into your bloodstream, or have your arm end up 40 feet away and slowly bleed to death while rescue crews are desperately trying to rip your car's door off to save your life, or have any of your delicate bits penetrated by one of the thousands of sharp bits present in a car...

But that doesn't stop people from driving.

inb4dozenbutcarsarenecessaryanditsnotthesamething replies: My point is that it's just as effective, which is to say not at all.