Poll: UK Standardized Smoking Packages Law in Final Stages

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

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.

Fortunately, it does. Evolution just have to prevent one from smoking and such individual is more likely to successfully breed.
(from either early death or less chance of dysfunctional sexual organs)

Either nosebuds or tastebuds more sensitive to the cigarette related chemicals, brain with immunity against nicotine, mild allergic reaction against cigarette related chemicals, etc.

Unfortunately, it will takes hundreds of million years but by then then future descendants will hate smokers.(even more than us.)

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.

Meh, pretty mild picture compared with actual warnings I've seen.
I guess it can be disturbing depending on which country you live in, and what signs you are exposed to.

I would like to post the ones I saw, but I think I will be banned due to... disturbing-ness of the picture.

 

[Starbird]

I think it's less about stopping people from smoking and more about homogenizing the product. If all the packages look the same then people won't be able to identify them as readily, if people can't identify them as readily then advertising is going to be less effective at selling cigarettes (people will still smoke but won't care as much about what particular brand they're smoking), and therefore there will be less advertisements for smoking which might discourage people from smoking a little bit.

At least I believe that's the logic behind it.

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.

This. I don't really care to be honest. I am a longtime smoker who recently quit (and moved onto vaping) although I occasionally smoke a pack when the mood strikes me (like once every 3 months).

I agree that it makes advertising more difficult but honestly...meh. The whole anti smoking thing is starting to get silly. Either just ban the damn things already, or let smokers smoke in peace.

 

[Starbird]

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 enjoy the smell. Always have. My dad smoked when I was very young, and my first longterm girlfriend was a smoker. The smell has a pleasant association for me.

However I know a lot of people dislike the smell and so it's common courtesy to not smoke where it could *reasonably* disturb others. Note: reasonably. There are people who are unreasonable about it and will not be happy if they know you are smoking, regardless if they can smell it or not.

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.

Mm. It is starting to go too far. I live in a country where smoking is really common and still an acceptable social vice. There are strict rules about not selling to kids and teachers aren't allowed to smoke on school property, but aside from that you can smoke in parks, in bars and in smoking areas in most restaurants, ski slopes and arcades.

If your goal is to inform people about the risks of smoking, fine. If your goal is to prevent advertising aimed at non smokers - okay (although honestly alchohol is guilty of this too). If your goal is to stop people from smoking altogether - just ban them.

 

[Creator002]

Snip

Yeah. It doesn't. Nearly every pack my sister buys has that image on it and she still smokes close to 10 a day.

 

[Angelous Wang]

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.

Accept for the fact that smoking can give others cancer via second hand smoke.

I'm very much of the opinion people "should have the right to put whatever the fuck they want into their own bodies" like you. I'm all for legalizing and legally controlling most drugs.

However smoking is pretty much the one drug I do think should be illegal. Because it can potentially kill (give cancer to) those who never do it, just because someone that does decided to do it near enough to them.

And if you've ever seen a the UK TV non-smoking campaign you'd see that the AOE on smoking smoke is much greater range than the little visible puff of smoke, there is enough invisible smoke from one cigarette to effectively hot box a house.

 

[Jack Action]

Snip

Yeah. It doesn't. Nearly every pack my sister buys has that image on it and she still smokes close to 10 a day.

If it makes you feel better, 10 a day really isn't that bad, especially if she's got a stressful life.

Okay, it might be for her wallet, because afaik smokes are stupidly expensive in AU/NZ.

 

[catalyst8]

Fortunately, it does. Evolution just have to prevent one from smoking and such individual is more likely to successfully breed.
(from either early death or less chance of dysfunctional sexual organs)

Either nosebuds or tastebuds more sensitive to the cigarette related chemicals, brain with immunity against nicotine, mild allergic reaction against cigarette related chemicals, etc.

Unfortunately, it will takes hundreds of million years but by then then future descendants will hate smokers.(even more than us.)

Not at all. While smoking increases the risk of various diseases there's no demonstrated genetic predisposition to smoking itself. If anything natural selection would actually work to produce a species more resistant to the hazards associated with tobacco smoking, since the subjects most susceptible would stand a greater chance of earlier fatality, thus reducing the likelihood of inherited vulnerability.

'Nosebuds'? I'm not sure what difference you think a heightened olfactory sense would have, especially when one considers the pungent intensity deliberately cultivated by cigar manufacturers.
A 'brain with immunity against nicotine' is highly questionable. It certainly hasn't made much difference to our consumption of alcohol or other narcotics over the last few thousands of years, except to increase the strength of that alcohol & our increased ability to safely metabolise it.

It's worth pointing out that the fossil record & genetic diversity analysis suggest that our species has only been around for roughly 200,000 years. Our species' genetic changes take a lot less than hundreds of millions of years; possibly only tens of generations in the case of alcohol (dehydrogenase enzymes & the alcohol dehydrogenase mechanism), & possibly only a few if Bee Wilson's overbite hypothesis is successfully demonstrated (incidentally the Bree Wilson bit's a joke).

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Snip

Yeah. It doesn't. Nearly every pack my sister buys has that image on it and she still smokes close to 10 a day.

If it makes you feel better, 10 a day really isn't that bad, especially if she's got a stressful life.

Okay, it might be for her wallet, because afaik smokes are stupidly expensive in AU/NZ.

Depends where you buy, what you buy and in what quantity; some 25 packs are like $12.


I can't see this making a blind bit of difference; it hasn't really made one in Australia.

 

[Jack Action]

Depends where you buy, what you buy and in what quantity; some 25 packs are like $12.


I can't see this making a blind bit of difference; it hasn't really made one in Australia.

Wait, wait... You can get packs of 25? Holy fuck. We've only got packs of 20 over here.

...granted, they're also much cheaper, $12 is obscene. Depending on brand, they go from 2 to 5 AUD (roughly). Though the $2 ones will probably kill you horribly if you actually try and smoke them.

 

[Mutant1988]

It really doesn't change anything. We've had gross out imagery on cigarette packages here in Sweden for a while now.

Anyone with half a brain would toss the package away and put the cigarettes in a different case anyway. Keeping them in a regular packet is a great way to have them go wonky.

I used one of these as a case:

http://www.castavision.com/NintendoControllerMints1a.jpg

Worked pretty damn well. Could fit 7 cigarettes into the thing.

I'm pretty happy that I managed to quit though. Only really started smoking as a way to handle anxiety. Worked all right for that, but yeah, didn't do me many favours aside from that.

So much money gone up in smoke.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

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.

Accept for the fact that smoking can give others cancer via second hand smoke.

I'm very much of the opinion people "should have the right to put whatever the fuck they want into their own bodies" like you. I'm all for legalizing and legally controlling most drugs.

However smoking is pretty much the one drug I do think should be illegal. Because it can potentially kill (give cancer to) those who never do it, just because someone that does decided to do it near enough to them.

And if you've ever seen a the UK TV non-smoking campaign you'd see that the AOE on smoking smoke is much greater range than the little visible puff of smoke, there is enough invisible smoke from one cigarette to effectively hot box a house.

It's already illegal to smoke in most public areas, unless you're outdoors, and outdoors the smoke dissipates enough that no one is going to get cancer from it. If you're worried about smokers giving cancer to other people living in the same house then that's the business of the people living in that house.

 

[Evil Smurf]

I only smoke socially, when drunk. The Packaging is something I ignore, considering how little I smoke, I doubt I'm in trouble.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

What, you did not have that already?
Only the worthless or desperate would breathe smoke from a drug lit on fire

 

[elvor0]

What, you did not have that already?
Only the worthless or desperate would breathe smoke from a drug lit on fire

Wow dude. Wow. Somebody has some desperate overcompensatory issues. I have no idea what smoking would make you desperate for, except perhaps oxygen at the top of big hills.

Also, your avatar is a dinosaur smoking a pipe.

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.

THat's not random though, that's peer pressure or someone specifically asking you for a smoke. I'm saying people don't just walk into a shop to get bread and milk, and are randomly enticed by the colourful packaging.

 

[viscomica]

I mean you're effectively just crying over the fact that fags are bad for you and trying to blame others for telling you that you're killing yourself if you smoke them.

Not at all, anyone with half a brain knows that smoking is bad for you but people should have the right to avoid disgusting imagery if they want too. The imagery is deliberately chosen to provoke disgust, to be offensive and forcing it on to people is wrong.

Driving can cause horrible accidents, should every driver have disgusting gore pictures of car accidents splashed on the windscreen of a car before they drive? What about a 10 second video clip of someone having a caffeine overdose heart attack for every customer of Starbucks?

But driving is not a matter of public health unlike smoking. Even so, the links between smoking and cancer are proven facts by now. On the other side, if you drive carefully you have better chances of not crashing. There is no such thing as "smoking carefully". You don't control those variables.
I don't think the comparison is very accurate, to be honest.

 

[Jack Action]

But driving is not a matter of public health unlike smoking. Even so, the links between smoking and cancer are proven facts by now. On the other side, if you drive carefully you have better chances of not crashing. There is no such thing as "smoking carefully". You don't control those variables.
I don't think the comparison is very accurate, to be honest.

Yes it is. Pedestrians aren't magically immune to 5-ton hunks of steel, plastic and rubber just because they stay on the sidewalks where they belong, and neither are the other cars on the road.

A better argument would be that driving, unlike smoking, is actually useful, or even vital.

 

[viscomica]

But driving is not a matter of public health unlike smoking. Even so, the links between smoking and cancer are proven facts by now. On the other side, if you drive carefully you have better chances of not crashing. There is no such thing as "smoking carefully". You don't control those variables.
I don't think the comparison is very accurate, to be honest.

Yes it is. Pedestrians aren't magically immune to 5-ton hunks of steel, plastic and rubber just because they stay on the sidewalks where they belong, and neither are the other cars on the road.

A better argument would be that driving, unlike smoking, is actually useful, or even vital.

Ok, maybe you're right. But we both agree they are not even remotely comparable.

 

[Jack Action]

Ok, maybe you're right. But we both agree they are not even remotely comparable.

Sure. But as someone pointed out earlier, you aren't really allowed to smoke anywhere that's not outside or your home anymore, and people smoking on the street isn't any more likely to give anyone other than the smoker any form of cancer, at least not any more than any of the other crap in the air.

 

[viscomica]

Ok, maybe you're right. But we both agree they are not even remotely comparable.

Sure. But as someone pointed out earlier, you aren't really allowed to smoke anywhere that's not outside or your home anymore, and people smoking on the street isn't any more likely to give anyone other than the smoker any form of cancer, at least not any more than any of the other crap in the air.

That doesn't mean the state shouldn't give a crap about smoking. If anything, it shouldn't encourage it, quite the opposite. The measure is stupid, and yes, it is against other regulations. But further action decouraging smoking is very much welcomed (imo)

 

[Jack Action]

That doesn't mean the state shouldn't give a crap about smoking. If anything, it shouldn't encourage it, quite the opposite. The measure is stupid, and yes, it is against other regulations. But further action decouraging smoking is very much welcomed (imo)

Meh, if anything the state should stay out of it besides the health warnings. I fully agree that it shouldn't encourage smoking, as a smoker, but it shouldn't be discouraging it Australia-style either.