The Australian Cigarette Packaging Change.

[Inuprince]

I am also "interrested in that overrated staying alive business" - so cigarettes and drugs can take a hike - quite a big one then fall down off a cliff to a bloody death

I mean jeez they are expensive and unhealthy - is it really that much worth it?
Why dont they just smash 5 silver plates to there forehead every day

OK, no need to flame smoke if you want to - i wont care if you die sooner or later - but the reason I really hate most smokers - and don't take this up if this description doesn't fit you :
1. The ones who blow the smoke in your face - if they are in a group and are the only ones who smoke - and they still wont take fucking 5 steps away so they wont irritate everyone else around them ...
2. At least don't poison your environment - if you poison your self - I hate it when there's a sunny day or any day you walk down on the street and you can see stubs around just laying on the road or in the grass - is it really that hard to throw it in a fucking garbage bin when they can be found in every street? Or you could just swallow it - even that would do less harm ...

 

[Popadomus Ohio]

i think that the best way to stop people smoking would be to make an dvert which opens with a child smiling, then getting more depressed and coughing. their state gets worse and eventually by the end, they are vomiting blood and screaming for god to end their misery. in the corner put a count of cigs someone is smoking. then close with the words, "this happens to a child every time you smoke". it could work.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I'm loving the hyperbole!

According to reports, there are more than 12million adult smokers in the UK, with smoking-related illnesses costing the NHS an estimated £1.7billion a year. Sound fair?

Now let's say these people smoke 20 a day. So that's 12 million packets of cigarettes per day.
Which is (12 millionx365x£6) = £26,280,000,000 per year spent on cigarettes.
Of which 80% goes to the taxman, so that's £21 billion(ish) that smokers give back while using £1.7...

Oh...

So, our 60 million tax payers will have to find £20 billion pounds a year. £3 doesn't sound that strange now, does it?

I do agree to an extent, in that it makes sense for governments to support smoking. Think about it, they pay more tax than everyone else, and then as soon as they retire, or before, they are killed off by lung cancer or another smoking related illness so we don't have to pay their pension. However on moral grounds I believe people shouldn't meet a terrible death because of their habit, no matter how good it is for our economy.

On moral grounds, it's their choice. What's totally immoral is the government taxing addicts for a legal product, and not taxing suppliers - or "pushers" if you wish.

It took the UK Government less than a month to criminalize "Meow Meow" with three alleged deaths - that also came from mixing drugs.

It's own figures say that 5.4 million smokers will die THIS year, but what are they doing? Changing the packets.

That's the immoral part.

(I understand these figures are UK based, but I doubt America/Australia differs that much)

 

[Fetzenfisch]

Whether it stops them or not, it is still a justified tax as smokers cost our public health system vast quantities of money. Hence it is fair that they are paying for it, not us non-smoking tax-payers.

As for the changing of the packaging, it removes all glamour from smoking, so when this is implemented it won't be "cool" holding your colourful pack of Winfield Blues, it will just look boring and mundane. It sounds like smart policy to me.

Well, old people, fat people and everyone doing dangerous sports are expensive too.

As for old people, they do not choose to get ailments such as cancer and hence it is no fault of their own that they are sick, so we should help them. Secondly they have probably paid tax for 40 or so years therefore it's the least we can do for what they've done for this country.

As for fat people, it is debatable whether it is their fault, but in my experience most are at least trying to lose weight. People who partake in dangerous sports such as BASE jumping, for example, often die without needing medical attention, so they don't cost us.

Well i guess there are for more people injured by sport than just dying instantly. Mountain Climbers, X-Bikers, Skaters, Ski/Snowboarders. All risky shit with a lot of unnessecary injuries.
Even standart sports like football, soccer etc lead to injuries that have to be payed for.
90% of the times i needed to attend a doctor or was in hospital in the last 10 years was because of sport related injuries. Teeth, Knees, Muscles etc.

 

[Keepitclean]

The increased tax is just another cash grab from Kash Strapped Kevo'.

The packaging change won't work at all on established smokers. It may however deter new smokers, though this is unlikely because all the smokers I know started smoking because they think it is cool. No one gave a shit about the brand.

 

[scrambledeggs]

I don't smoke, but at work I sell them. They're going to be very difficult to locate now :S.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

Obviously never tried these.

Damn they don't produce anymore? I was instantly about to order some online Looking great.
Now i have to stay with my black devils

 

[scrambledeggs]

Whether it stops them or not, it is still a justified tax as smokers cost our public health system vast quantities of money. Hence it is fair that they are paying for it, not us non-smoking tax-payers.

As for the changing of the packaging, it removes all glamour from smoking, so when this is implemented it won't be "cool" holding your colourful pack of Winfield Blues, it will just look boring and mundane. It sounds like smart policy to me.

Well, old people, fat people and everyone doing dangerous sports are expensive too.

As for old people, they do not choose to get ailments such as cancer and hence it is no fault of their own that they are sick, so we should help them. Secondly they have probably paid tax for 40 or so years therefore it's the least we can do for what they've done for this country.

As for fat people, it is debatable whether it is their fault, but in my experience most are at least trying to lose weight. People who partake in dangerous sports such as BASE jumping, for example, often die without needing medical attention, so they don't cost us.

Well i guess there are for more people injured by sport than just dying instantly. Mountain Climbers, X-Bikers, Skaters, Ski/Snowboarders. All risky shit with a lot of unnessecary injuries.
Even standart sports like football, soccer etc lead to injuries that have to be payed for.
90% of the times i needed to attend a doctor or was in hospital in the last 10 years was because of sport related injuries. Teeth, Knees, Muscles etc.

Compare the number of smokers in Australia to the number of people who play sport at a level where significant injury is dangerous.

And besides, smoking is a habit that kills you almost inevitably over extended use, whereas sport is a risk-entailing but not guaranteed injury-giving pastime.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

It's a smokers choice whether he smokes or not and not the governments. As long as his smoking does not affect other people there's nothing wrong with it. Using shock will do jack shit to smokers since they don't care about the effects. What effect this will have on soon to be smokers? Personally, I think none. I've yet to see someone considering smoking care about the pictures on the package.

 

[Sven und EIN HUND]

It isn't going to stop people smoking. Come on. I know more people that don't smoke than do nowadays anyway. Also, the people I know who smoke are (aside from the fact that they smoke) complete fuckwits that would improve the gene pool by removing themselves from it. Sad but true.

 

[Meat.Shield]

On moral grounds, it's their choice. What's totally immoral is the government taxing addicts for a legal product, and not taxing suppliers - or "pushers" if you wish.

It took the UK Government less than a month to criminalize "Meow Meow" with three alleged deaths - that also came from mixing drugs.

It's own figures say that 5.4 million smokers will die THIS year, but what are they doing? Changing the packets.

That's the immoral part.

(I understand these figures are UK based, but I doubt America/Australia differs that much)

I could continue to argue your generalisations about a totally different system (the UK public health system is in general better than ours, we have huge waiting lists, fewer and fewer doctors etc.) but lets stick to morals. Sure, it is their choice to smoke, but it is dangerous policy to give people freedom to do some things, just look at gun regulation, so it is a case of saving us from ourselves. Especially since the poorer and less educated you are, the more likely you are to smoke. Hence it would be immoral not to educate the people, but the Australian government does do that (how effectively is another matter). Changing the packets is only a small but possibly effective part of overall policy. As it is so easy to legislate because of the anti-smoking political willpower, I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner.

 

[Superior Mind]

The graphic pictures on packets do put me off a little. I'm a cigar smoker - not often. Every now and then though I get a packet of cheap White Owls just so I have an excuse to sit alone on my deck with a scotch without wasting an expensive cigar and since those packets come with the pleasant graphics I do try to pick one of the less-gross ones. Seems to work with others too because the "more pleasant" graphic boxes are always the first to go.

Thing is with your run-of-the-mill cigarette smoker, he or she is probably addicted so a gory picture isn't going to frighten them off. Beginner smokers, people who aren't addicted though - sure, I think it's a decent attempt to keep people from smoking.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Smokers are gonna smoke. This won't matter.

 

[Cav Clayton]

You guys are missing the point here. The government just wants to make it look like they are actually doing something so people get off their backs.

Truth be told, that tax revenue generated from smoking is too hard for them to say no to.

 

[Queen Michael]

As anti-smoking man Allen Carr put it, it doesn't help to point out the health hazards of smoking because 1. smokers know about them already, and 2. talking about that kind of stuff makes smokers nervous, and the first thing smokers do when they're nervous is light a cigarette.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I could continue to argue your generalisations about a totally different system (the UK public health system is in general better than ours, we have huge waiting lists, fewer and fewer doctors etc.) but lets stick to morals.

You could, but I'm certain the magnitude of the figures would be similar.

Sure, it is their choice to smoke, but it is dangerous policy to give people freedom to do some things, just look at gun regulation, so it is a case of saving us from ourselves.

Let's look at gun legislation. Despite my feelings on it, would you be happy with 80% of the gun price going towards the legislators, and every gun requiring the user to watch a show of someone getting shot? And would that make up for every third shop being legally allowed to sell any sort of guns as long as you can prove you're over 18?

Especially since the poorer and less educated you are, the more likely you are to smoke.

Have to call for a citation on that.

Hence it would be immoral not to educate the people, but the Australian government does do that (how effectively is another matter).

As effectively as 18+ videogames and 18+ videos?

Changing the packets is only a small but possibly effective part of overall policy.

Which has proven almost completely ineffective, in fact a lot of smokers I know deliberately collect those photos like cards. That's not to mention the number of single mothers who take up smoking because "it lowers the birth weight".
(Insane, but true)

As it is so easy to legislate because of the anti-smoking political willpower, I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner.

This is where the system collapses. People hate smoking more than they hate real killers like cocaine. It also subtly disallows the de-criminalisation of cannibis for medical experimentation. (And marijuana is WAY less toxic than tobacco)

An effective soloution against smoking would be to tax the cigarette manufacturers for each medical emergency they cause. That's £1.7 billion per annum off Phillip Morris and co.
Given their annual income is $3.21 billion (after they changed their name to Altria), that would be enough of a shock to permanently stop the import of cigarettes.

Said billion could be used to fund the anti-smoking bills and rehab for those already addicted, while leaving enough to treat the millions who die from it.

BUT...that would be unpopular and unprofitable, so your "anti-smoking political willpower" is only being used to tax the addicts, rather than those responsible for the addiction.

NO other drug/chemical is treated in this way, so why should a legal product, used in a legal way, be subject to draconian restrictions?

Every smoker knows the dangers of smoking because they have it HAMMERED into them at every oppurtunity. If this did work, we'd have seen intake or overall smoking drop to reasonable levels.

It hasn't. What good will more pariah-work do for them? Nothing. But the anti-smoking lobby get to feel good about being intolerant towards them.

And this is from an ex-smoker.

The government just wants to make it look like they are actually doing something so people get off their backs.

Truth be told, that tax revenue generated from smoking is too hard for them to say no to.

Totally. Without smokers, the government would be crushed under all those extra "healthy" people wanting far more health-care.

 

[Super Toast]

Good. Smoking needs to die off.

 

[Latinidiot]

I like the dutch system, except for one thing. The companies aren't allowed to market their product, and there are warnings on every box of every threat cigarrettes. What's a bit more debatable, is the huge taxes they put on cigarrettes. A pack of 12 can cost you more than 4 euros.

 

[Iron Mal]

You can change the packaging of cigarettes around all you like but this doesn't change the fact that they are a drug and people are addicted.

You print pictures of cancerous and diseased tissue on the boxes and people will either ignore it or will simply laugh at it.

You raise the prices and people will put other things on hold to cover the cost of their smokes.

You make it mandatory for smokers to stand out in the cold wind and rain to have a puff and they'll do it with a grim determination while thinking you're a prick for making them do it.

I do try to pick one of the less-gross ones.

Seems to work with others too because the "more pleasant" graphic boxes are always the first to go.

This reminds me of when Bill Hicks made a point about the old written warnings on cigarette packets, he'd skip the ones that had 'lung cancer' and 'death' written on them in favor of the ones with 'low birth weight' (why should I worry about the baby I biologically can't carry being affected by my smoking?).

 

[Zorg Machine]

Smoking (outside of parties and/or special occasions) is really fu**ing stupid. not only are you killing yourself but here in Sweden, I have to pay for you to get better.