The Australian Cigarette Packaging Change.

[GothmogII]

Australia makes significant changes to Cigarette Packaging [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8651414.stm]

According to BBC News [http://www.bbc.co.uk/], Australia has introduced a law that forces cigarette companies to remove all branding and color from their packaging and use standardised packaging along with graphic and disturbing images to dissuade smokers.

Now...I'm conflicted on this, I'm not a smoker so, this really doesn't affect me one way or the other, but what really drew me to this was the idea of the standardised packaging. See, in various parts of Europe, the UK and Ireland at least, it's long been the case in cigarette advertising that you couldn't in any way make reference to the fact that it was cigarettes you were selling. This caused graphic designers to get creative, so, you had brands like 'Silk Cut' where you got a poster with a pair of scissors cutting a length of purple silk. So, in essence things actually turned out a little better for those companies, as they now were forced to really work their adverts to those strict specifications. Of course, even then it's rather limited to packaging as, tv is a no go, as are billboards and sporting events.

I was thinking this would be much the same thing with this law. Then of course the standardisation, which is a shame. And even more distastefully, the images they've decided to go with, the video linked in the article shows a packet with a gangrenous foot, yeah. But...is that -really- going to put smokers off?

Doubtful. Unless they've got weak stomachs.

 

[SimuLord]

"You could put 'em in a black pack, with a skull and crossbones on the front, called TUMORS, and smokers would be linin' up like 'I can't wait to get my hands on these fuckin' things. I heard they give you a tumor as soon as you light up!" - Denis Leary

 

[spinFX]

It kinda works on me :S I saw the images and it made me not want to smoke even more.

Maybe I'm weak, but then again I've never smoked in my life and never will. I am too interested in fitness and life

 

[SimuLord]

It kinda works on me :S I saw the images and it made me not want to smoke even more.

Maybe I'm weak, but then again I've never smoked in my life and never will. I am too interested in fitness and life

Which brings up the entire problem of "just who are those warnings really for?" Do smokers really need to be told that smoking is bad for them? Or do they need to have reinforced what asshole nanny-state dicks non-smokers can be, which only strengthens their resolve to smoke?

(keep in mind I'm a non-smoker who has voted in actual city elections for public smoking bans.)

 

[Layz92]

It's not really going to make them quit. However it may stop some from starting so it is still worth it in some way. I don't really get the point of uniform packets though. It's not like the shiny colours are attracting children.

 

[Ziadaine_v1legacy]

From what im told, its to help quitters try and quit, and stop people taking it up for stupid reasons. Like moronic 14 year old kids doing it to fit in or look cool. If any of you are that 14-17 year old who took up smoking for that reason, Your an idiot.

 

[Mr. Mike]

Don't smoke so it won't affect me. It's not going to put off the people who already smoke, it's not like they don't know what it's doing to them, and as for everyone else, they're not already smoking so the packaging colour isn't going to entice them anymore.

 

[NewGeekPhilosopher]

This will lose a lot of smoker's votes I'll bet.

I go to an art school for my university education. An ART - SCHOOL. Do you have any idea how angry the population of my art school is about this? Because up to 50% of them smoke, if they don't already drink and not smoke... one of the students mentioned he had to ask his granddad for help in learning how to do rollies because they're cheaper. I feel sorry for art students who smoke - they endanger my lungs without realising it - but most of the people at Uni started smoking to look cool so they're devo (Ozspeak for "devastated").

I don't smoke so I am unaffected by this law - but other laws this government has tried introduce still mean I won't vote for them.

 

[SimuLord]

It won't stop them, Not even the price hike.

Plenty of people in my school smoke hell, Even some of their parents supply them. What I don't get is why the can't quick, Surely it can't be that hard it's only fucking nicotine, weak minded fools.

Though, the Government isn't any smarter by still letting people make and sell them, Sure it rakes in cash but what about all the damage it does to everyone?

I suppose with illegal drugs being illegal causing more problems than it solves, one more illicit substance to encourage organized crime isn't going to help matters.

 

[Mr Thin]

It's meaningless.

Lifelong smokers who haven't stopped already aren't going to stop because of that, and people stupid enough to start smoking in this day and age [del]deserve to die[/del] are stupid enough to buy it no matter what the cover says.

 

[Meat.Shield]

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.

 

[The Tommunist]

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. Sounds like smart policy to me.

QFT

 

[Mr.Black]

But...is that -really- going to put smokers off?

Doubtful. Unless they've got weak stomachs.

I've spoken to a few (And when I say few, I mean like 2-3, haha) smokers about whether it turns them off smoking, and they all make a game of what picture they have on their pack. Also, those diseases and terrible afflictions people get, they must be a minority because plenty of smokers live long lives without any smoking related sicknesses.

 

[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.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

"You could put 'em in a black pack, with a skull and crossbones on the front, called TUMORS, and smokers would be linin' up like 'I can't wait to get my hands on these fuckin' things. I heard they give you a tumor as soon as you light up!" - Denis Leary

Obviously never tried these.

Packaging restates that cigarettes WILL kill you, but £1 from each pack goes to fight cancer.

Smoked my way through a lot of these.

As for the packaging change, it will do no good. Anyone who seriously thinks cigarettes are cool is probably in flares and deely-boppers. People smoke because of the chemical addiction and peer pressure. Doesn't mean they can't enjoy it, but any change the Government make won't stop them, just drive them underground.

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.

Smokers support your public health system with vast quantities of tax. Tax that non-smokers use a lot more of because smokers die a lot quicker than they donate it. Every smoker that stops smoking is likely to add £1-£3 to your annual tax bill to compensate.

Pack of Marley's was £2.42 when I started smoking; £6 now - from less shops - in less places - with proof of ID - with more ads against - and less for. Overall change in people smoking: Zero.

 

[ENKC]

OP, the shocking images on the packets are not being introduced now - they've been a standard requirement in Australia for years. And of course they're distasteful - that's the entire point. Overall there's a vibe in you post that comes across as though we can be too harsh on ciggarette companies and smokers with restrictions. I don't believe we can.

There was also a massive tax hike introduced concurrently, so the prices went up overnight and smokers stocked up on hundreds of dollars worth of packs in advance.

 

[Meat.Shield]

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.

 

[Meat.Shield]

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.

Smokers support your public health system with vast quantities of tax. Tax that non-smokers use a lot more of because smokers die a lot quicker than they donate it. Every smoker that stops smoking is likely to add £1-£3 to your annual tax bill to compensate.

I'm loving the hyperbole! I barely pay $100 of tax, I very much doubt that each smoker that quits adds as much as 3 pounds to my tax return. Despite the gross exaggeration, 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.