|
Blank packaging on cigarette packets
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Sushipunk |
At some point in the next year or so, the Australian government intends to make sure that all cigarettes sold have packets that are blank of all logos and identifying marks, instead being a dull, olive green in colour, and with large, graphic health warnings taking up most of the pack.
The cigarette companies aren't happy at all, and intend to file legal action against the AU government claiming (among other things) that this infringes on their international branding and intellectual property rights.
I'm curious to know people's thoughts on this. I can understand the cig companies perspective, and obviously the gov's point is to make smoking less attractive in general. My only though is that this isn't going to change all, really - That people will smoke or not smoke anyway. As a smoker myself, I can't see myself giving a about the change, but do you think it would impact any of you guys? |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
Would they get away with this if it were done to alcohol? Or automobiles? Or guns?
Everyone knows about the dangers of the world, and it still doesn't deter them from killing themselves.
It shouldn't be the government's job to coerce companies into informing the public of the obvious. Naturally, there is an aim by more social leaning governments that provide immense healthcare benefits to its population to have a hand in personal health (no matter how misguided it may be), but in the US, it's mostly just bored busybody organizations with lobbying power who somehow think that they can change human behaviour by fear and confiscation. MADD comes to mind. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
social leaning governments that provide immense healthcare benefits to its population |
That is most certainly Australia. Healthcare is extremely inexpensive here, since it's mostly subsidised by the Government. Tobacco related illness in AU reportedly costs the Gov a few billion every year, which I guess is a lot, considering our relatively small population, so it's obviously in their best interest to try to cut smoking down.
I tend to agree with you, in that I don't feel it's really the Gov's role to be doing this - I kind of get the s with what a "nanny state" we're becoming, but it's showing no signs of slowing down.
Edit: I would love to see this kind of thing on alcohol though. "TEQUILA RUINS LIVES" :stongue: |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
Smoking and alcohol contribute to a large number of hospital visits and medical costs. In the end society always ends up picking up the tab.
Drinking is fine, people can do it in moderation and addiction can be treated. Smoking is inherently addictive and can not be moderated and the health risks are far more common and require no risky activity beyond the initial activity of smoking itself.
People should be allowed to do what they want to a degree, but only till they start costing society as a whole for something that is rather pointless to begin with. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Smoking and alcohol contribute to a large number of hospital visits and medical costs. In the end society always ends up picking up the tab.
Drinking is fine, people can do it in moderation and addiction can be treated. Smoking is inherently addictive and can not be moderated and the health risks are far more common and require no risky activity beyond the initial activity of smoking itself.
People should be allowed to do what they want to a degree, but only till they start costing society as a whole for something that is rather pointless to begin with. |
All very fair points, too.
How do you feel about the intellectual property issue I raised? |
|
|
| Lews |
How will people know what their favorite brand is?
I don't really know. Clearly this won't stop anyone from smoking. Everyone knows how bad it is for you and yet thousands of people start every year.
Yet, I also understand how if it's costing the state several billion a year they would definitely want to try to cut that down, even if it probably won't make much of a difference. Maybe they could instead make some change to the health care policies so that people who smoke are more liable in regards to payment when it comes to smoking-related illnesses?
People should be allowed to smoke if they want to, though I do think there should be limits on where they can (since second hand smoke is awful) and tobacco products should be taxed very heavily. That, a small warning on products, and ads/whatever to keep telling people it is bad should be all that is required, imo. This seems too far. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
Edit: I would love to see this kind of thing on alcohol though. "TEQUILA RUINS LIVES" :stongue: |
Devil Tequila :( |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
tobacco products should be taxed very heavily. |
They are here, believe me. A single 50 gram pouch of rolling tobacco costs me $32.00 (add papers and filters to that).
I'm not sure what a regular pack of 20 cigs is these days. $15.00 maybe? PKC can probably tell me, if he drops by this thread. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Maybe they could instead make some change to the health care policies so that people who smoke are more liable in regards to payment when it comes to smoking-related illnesses? |
This.
But then again it would be a rather slippery slope, being fair in the contributions toward what endangers any given individual. Obesity would be next. Then alcohol use. Then how often you drive at night. Then this, then that, etc. I don't really see it ending anywhere. Best thing to do is not subsidize healthcare in the first place. :p |
|
|
| Bierheld |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Smoking and alcohol contribute to a large number of hospital visits and medical costs. In the end society always ends up picking up the tab.
|
This is very very debatable. Especially when tobacco is heavily taxed. There have been quite a few studies here that show the complete opposite may be true. What people don't take into account is that smokers live shorter lives, which makes them cheaper in the long run.
| quote: |
Drinking is fine, people can do it in moderation and addiction can be treated. Smoking is inherently addictive and can not be moderated and the health risks are far more common and require no risky activity beyond the initial activity of smoking itself.
|
Huh? Smoking addiction can't be treated? Moderation is impossible? Now you're just taking the piss.
| quote: |
People should be allowed to do what they want to a degree, but only till they start costing society as a whole for something that is rather pointless to begin with. |
Really? Where does that leave fast food for instance? |
|
|
| LAdazeNYnights |
Stu stop smoking!
We love you and you have to understand that we don't want you to die!
Stop:whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by LAdazeNYnights
Stu stop smoking!
We love you and you have to understand that we don't want you to die!
Stop:whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: |
I started smoking at quite a young age, despite TOTALLY misinterpreting this ad :(
 |
|
|
|
|
