This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

No-brand cigarette packs

Jump to new
I wonder about the cost if the husband dies at a early age as most smokers are men or the Mother dies what happens to the family without a bread winer or a left behind father trying to rise the children on his own and the cost to the taxpayer????

Fighting drugs also give an income to a lot of people.
 
Glen48 said:
I wonder about the cost if the husband dies at a early age as most smokers are men
Click to expand...
I disagree that most smokers are men. I'd say it's pretty much evenly spread between males and females these days.

There was a time, 10 - 15 years ago, when it seemed that almost literally every female aged 18 - 25 smoked. That seems to have changed, but still plenty of women (and men) smoke.
 
I think it may even be higher among girls, theres a perception that it stops them gaining weight..
 
Well my facts went up in smoke... just assumed more men than women smoked but still means bad news for the family while one of the parents are dying or off work due to bad health.

Suppose if it was not smoking it would be gambling, church donations, closet drinking, affairs, bad money management, pr0n chat lines, so many other thing to wreck a family
 
Sdajii said:
I can't see it affecting sales.If they want to get rid of the labels, yeah, whatever, I don't think it'll do anything, but on the other hand, I don't think it will do anything, so who cares?
Click to expand...
I agree with this, people will buy it no matter what packaging it comes in. In some countries I have seen some really stomach churning graphic photos of Mouth, Lung and other cancers that smoking causes on the packets and if that doesn't deter the smokers nothing will. I think it will be a waste of time for everybody, what else can be done and said about smoking? Those that want to will continue with or without fancy packaging.
 
I think its gone as far as it can go with smoking. If people are going to quit, they will quit.

I still see alcohol more of a problem than cigarettes, must be time to hit their labels
 
Tink said:
I think its gone as far as it can go with smoking. If people are going to quit, they will quit.

I still see alcohol more of a problem than cigarettes, must be time to hit their labels
Click to expand...
Agreed in principle, but I have the choice whether or not I drink alcohol whereas it is difficult to avoid breathing other people's smoke.

My neighbour smokes outside. I thus have no option other than to leave the windows firmly shut even on a nice day. Fair enough if they want to smoke, but they ought to keep it over their side of the fence.
 
I think if the government was truly serious, then they would.

1. Stop supermarkets and convenience stores selling them. Only allow approved tobacco shops and pharmacies to sell them.

2. Make sales recorded and sent to a centralised database. Make provision of information regarding health detriments compulsory with every purchase.

3. Tax higher for people who consume more, and provide tax cuts for people to go on a program to stop.

But I agree wholeheartedly with Julia,

Problems such as obesity / diabetes are becoming huge. It is going to be more important to tackle these issues as well, and will the way we deal with tobacco create a slippery slope?

I do not have any solution to the problem of smoking. It reaches into so many important areas (cost-benefit, ethics, slippery slope etc) that it requires a bipartisan, clearly thought out, evidence based approach with bucket loads of committment and conviction.

It is far too complex for me to consider.
 
Tink said:
I still see alcohol more of a problem than cigarettes, must be time to hit their labels
Click to expand...

Yes. The Nanny State knows better than us what is good for us. If left to our own devices we will drink or smoke ourselves to death and play the pokies at the same tme.

A label like this should go on plain label alcohol containers:

 
Glen48 said:
Suppose if it was not smoking it would be gambling, church donations, closet drinking, affairs, bad money management, pr0n chat lines, so many other thing to wreck a family
Click to expand...
You will have to discipline the kid in your avatar if he starts making donations to the church.
 
I do trust that my Bolivars, Cohibas and Cabanas will not have their delightful brands ripped from their boxes or cigars.

It is all very well for the poor to mourn the loss of their Winfield or Marlboro logo from their packs, but beauty in a cigar should not be sullied by an attempt to protect the masses from themselves.

We should be mindful of the health impacts of cigarettes on Mr. and Mrs. Shoppintrolley, however, to expect connoisseurs such as I to forgo one of the few pleasures left to the rich, would be too much.

Slapping the poor is ok, according to the left, but hey, leave the rich or ex PM's alone
ok.

gg
 
Very very bad legislation. I don't smoke - never have never will - but don't we as Australian's have a fundamental right to choose what we do with our lives (within legal parameters - of which smoking is 1)?

The fact that they've completely abolished companies branding is a very big low. Nanny state 101 - funny days when the government doesn't have the $$$ from the cigs taxes
 
JTLP said:
Very very bad legislation. I don't smoke - never have never will - but don't we as Australian's have a fundamental right to choose what we do with our lives (within legal parameters - of which smoking is 1)?
Click to expand...

Plain packaging doesn't stop anyone from smoking if they want to.

I'm quite happy to see smoking made less attractive.
 
prawn_86 said:
A common myth about smoking. Revenue received from taxes on cigarettes actually exceeds the health costs.
Click to expand...

Correct! Revenue from smoking taxes vastly exceeds the costs.

In reality, the typical smoker pays $50-$100 a week extra tax, works till he reaches retirement age, then contracts an illness and dies quite young, after some expensive, government-subsidised hospital care.

In reality, the typical non-smoker avoids that $50-$100 a week extra tax, works till retirement age, then continues for another 25 years (give or take) living largely at govenment expense (pension and/or massively subsidised via the tax system super), eventually dying after a series of progressively more serious illnesses, which are treated in the government subsidised hospital system at vast expense.

Smokers ought to get a hefty tax break because they save the country an enormous sum of money. The years from 60-80 are the years when the health bill skyrockets, and those are years that (on average) smokers never see. Think it through. There are lots of good argumernts against smoking, but government expenditure is not one of them.

Disclosure: I don't smoke. But I'm honest with facts and I can count, which is more than we can say for the anti-smoking lobby. Or what's left of the tobacco lobby, come to think of it.
 
That's a much more realistic view than you usually hear or see. Sure, smoking might kill you, but people seem to forget that death is inevitable; SOMETHING is going to kill you, me and everyone else from the fattest dole bludging couch potato (likely to die of a heart attack) to the biggest fitness fanatic around. On average it doesn't greatly matter what kills us, what's important is when and how we live before we die. I don't personally care about what a cigarette packet looks like, but I see virtually no positives (the packs already have graphic images, and people smoke because they want tobacco, not because the pack has some emblem on it.

What I do have a problem with is one group of people not liking a particular thing and so unfairly taxing the heck out of it and bullying the users for no good actual reason. If it was about tax or the financial side of healthcare, targetting chocolate and other confectionary packaging would make much more sense. I really don't like injustice even if it doesn't directly hurt me personally. What I see here is smokers being singled out and bullied while I can go and stuff my face at MacDonald's then chocolate then wash the lot down with booze and not see a warning the whole day.

What bothers me is that we have allowed injustice and bullying. It's a nasty precedent.
 
I am surprised by the high court decision, I can't see how this is not restraint of trade for tobacco companies not to be able to differentiate their products. I agree with others who have said that it won't make any difference to smoking rates and that smokers are victimised these days. I also question how bad smoking is compared to other lifestyle choices that may also lead to illness and premature death. This is a classic case of being seen to do something when it won't have any effect on the problem (if you accept that there is a problem). Meanwhile the government keeps collecting their taxes, nice. I also am not a smoker and never have been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...