|
Blank packaging on cigarette packets (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| LAdazeNYnights |
:tongue2
I don't smoke anything. Have never smoked cigs..never tried weed (even tho I'm fond of other drugs...) I smoked hookah one time but I was pretty drunk when I did and the next day I had the worst hangover of all time, ever. Muchhh worse than just a booze hangover, so I vowed to never smoke shisha again. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
i dont really give a . yeah, its probably a waste of tax dollars to regulate it all, but it won't have any impact on me otherwise. i cant buy into any of the arguments either way coz i dont care enough.
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
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. |
$13.32 for 20s and $16.99 for 25s in styve classics. and that's the cheap supermarket price. servos are bull. |
|
|
| LAdazeNYnights |
| that's so in expensive |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
$13.32 for 20s and $16.99 for 25s in styve classics. and that's the cheap supermarket price. servos are bull. |
ing hell. Glad I've been smoking rollies since I was 21 :wtf:
Styvie Blues used to cost me $5.80 a pack (20) around 1997/1998 when I smoked them. Nuts. |
|
|
| FuzzQi |
| It will unite smokers, both in common experience and carrying the same object around, further alienating them from non-smokers. There will be horrendous mix-ups at parties as to which cigarette packet belongs to whom. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by FuzzQi
There will be horrendous mix-ups at parties as to which cigarette packet belongs to whom. |
Never even thought of that one :stongue: |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bierheld
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. |
Sorry, I was speaking from the view point of the US where tax money doesn't really go to pay for medical expenses of most people except the very poor and the elderly.
In the US the costs of smokers on private insurance falls back on other policy holders, which can result in increases in rates over time.
| quote: | Originally posted by Bierheld
Huh? Smoking addiction can't be treated? Moderation is impossible? Now you're just taking the piss. |
I don't think you got what I meant. You can drink and then not drink for a long time, or you can drink a small amount every day, and for the most part your risk of getting a disease related to alcohol is the same (very low). Smoking is something that is addictive and is usually unable to be easily moderated like drinking is. A smoker doesn't usually just smoke one or two cigarettes a day and then go "I'm done, I'll save these for later in the week."
| quote: | Originally posted by Bierheld
Really? Where does that leave fast food for instance? |
It should be heavily taxed as well, but that sadly, at least in this country would unfairly affect the poor. If anything taxation of fast food should probably be directly tied to programs that make cheaper nutritious and healthy foods available to low income people. |
|
|
| narcism |
All for it, if it stops the younger generation from smoking.
CBF getting involved in the costs of cancer, stroke, heart disease ect all associated with smoking. I would like high school kids to have excursions to my work, where i can show them what smoking does to you. |
|
|
| Bierheld |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Sorry, I was speaking from the view point of the US where tax money doesn't really go to pay for medical expenses of most people except the very poor and the elderly.
In the US the costs of smokers on private insurance falls back on other policy holders, which can result in increases in rates over time.
|
Ah yes, i figured it would be different there. Still you can't really separate one from the other that easily. For instance the elderly are guaranteed prescription drugs from what i understand, making smokers a tad easier on tax money. I'm in no position to make guesses on whether that alleviates the extra insurance cost though.
| quote: |
I don't think you got what I meant. You can drink and then not drink for a long time, or you can drink a small amount every day, and for the most part your risk of getting a disease related to alcohol is the same (very low). Smoking is something that is addictive and is usually unable to be easily moderated like drinking is. A smoker doesn't usually just smoke one or two cigarettes a day and then go "I'm done, I'll save these for later in the week."
|
Alcohol is less addictive and less harmful physically, but it has a lot of other costs to society. Like inducing aggression, vandalism, traffic accidents, missed incomes due to hangovers even. Also alcohol addiction is less common but has a more severe impact on society off course. A severe alcohol addict usually doesn't go to work every day, or at all for that matter.
I can't really say which one will be worse, but in the end drinking is also a rather pointless activity isn't it?
| quote: |
It should be heavily taxed as well, but that sadly, at least in this country would unfairly affect the poor. If anything taxation of fast food should probably be directly tied to programs that make cheaper nutritious and healthy foods available to low income people. |
Well. Although i take offence to your reasoning, at least you're consistent. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
ing hell. Glad I've been smoking rollies since I was 21 :wtf:
Styvie Blues used to cost me $5.80 a pack (20) around 1997/1998 when I smoked them. Nuts. |
yeah when i started smoking a pack of PJ 20s cost $3.20. cunts.
never really liked rollies, and not just because im lazy. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
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: |
They MAKE something like 60 bn in tax (estimate- they'll make 12bn a year solely from the increase of price that occurred last year) from smokes though LOL.that cost of smoking for health industry is B.S compared to how much they make. Tobacco companies make about a dollar a pack, and packs now sell for 20 dollars. That's 90% to the government ffs.
Such epic bull. Imagine if coke had to remove their labels... all they're doing is taking information away from the public. We can't even know the strength of ciggarettes here. Smoking 14mgs instead of 4s because we can't be told the difference. Genius. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Arbiter |
Conceptually, I don't have much sympathy for the argument that the policy somehow infringes the companies' intellectual property rights. After all, those rights exist only to the extent that the very same government has chosen to create them, so it seems to me that there's no reason that the government couldn't simply legislate them away entirely, if it so desired.
That said, it still strikes me as rather foolish policy. I have a hard time believing anyone will be dissuaded from purchasing cigarettes because of uninspired packaging. On the other hand, if consumers aren't able to readily distinguish between brands, it could have obvious anti-competitive effects on the market. |
|
|
|
|
