In a ruling handed down today, the Australian High Court rejected an appeal by "Big Tobacco" against the Federal Government's "Plain Packaging" legislation.

From December 2012, all cigarettes and tobacco products must be sold in drab olive packaging. The decision effectively shuts down Big Tobacco's last remaining advertising stronghold, and is expected to be adopted by other governments around the world following the court decision.

Big Tobacco is an industry that needs to recruit around 300 new smokers a week (in Australia alone) to replace those that die from smoking related diseases, and this decision has been welcomed by anti-smoking lobbies world wide.

So when does the plain packaging for alcohol come into effect so the government can say they're stopping the bad, naughty drinkers and "Big Alcohol"? Looks like the Puritans pulled up stakes in Salem and sailed off to run the government in Oz.

I noticed as well that cigarettes are kept in a closed cupboard and not on open display in shops anymore.:ok:

The government are such a bunch of hypocrites and bull****ers. If they really want to do something helpfull to curb smoking they should donate all the tax they collect to anti smoking campaigns and health care to get smokers to kick the habit instead of just pooring it all into general revenue. This stupid plain packaging law is just a ploy by the government to appease it's core voters, the huggy fluffy jokers that have replaced the old core, the workers.

Btw I'm a non smoker and can't stand the bloody things. I just don't like to see the government pick on a legal product. It should be unconstitutional but it seems Gillard has stacked the High Court with compliant left wing judges.

And, something that may have slipped by people, all these big scary warning labels and pictures on cigarette packs have no effect on deterring people from smoking (according to a study from the University of Maastricht).

Angstaanjagende waarschuwingen schrikken rokers niet af - Het Nieuwsblad (http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=DMF20120813_096)

Putting packs of cigarettes in plain packaging and making sure they are kept under the counter will have EXACTLY the same effect, as in NONE, and the plain packaging will probably only increase counterfeiting which will lead to some far more dangerous substances appearing in what people think is their regular pack of Marlboro.

If they want to "do something" about smoking they have to go further and ban tobacco, but since that would mean losing a valuable revenue stream you know that's the last thing they want to do.

Regardless of Auslander opinion the High Court decision on tobacco packaging has the overwhelming support of the vast majority of thinking Australians.

Dissenters appear to fall into two noisy minority groups.

1. Those selfish few individuals who continue to indulge in the unhealthy and socially unpleasant smoking habit regardless of the impact on others and the environment.

2. Those who are politically in bed with Big Tobacco. And not ALL of those either - there was considerable dissent among the naturally Right-Wing NoAlition.

As was pointed out at the time the legislation was being opposed by those in receipt of Big Tobacco political donations (http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/abbott-out-of-puff-on-policies/story-fn6ck620-1226065909112) "........it beggars belief that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott - a fitness fanatic and former health minister - would oppose this planned legislation, much to the unease of many in his party room, it would appear.

As a world-first, the impact this initiative may have on smoking rates remains to be seen but just because it hasn't yet been tried anywhere else does not mean it is not worth doing.

We've had Tony Abbott the Iron Man.

Now we have Tony Abbott the Marlboro Man - the champion of Big Tobacco's corporate rights and grateful recipient of their political donations."

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2011/05/30/1226065/912210-marlboro-man.jpg



"Maybe the Liberal Party could devise a new campaign slogan along these lines. Instead of "Come to where the flavour is. Come to Marlboro Country" we might see something along the lines of "Come to where the policy stops. Come to Just Say No Country".

In light of this somewhat unfathomable policy stance, one has to wonder if the Abbott Liberals have any policies at all beyond mindless negativity and opposing everything the Government puts forward regardless of its merits. The tobacco debate reveals Abbott as little more than a political thug, hell-bent on waging a campaign of fear and destruction, while at the same time offering no alternative to replace what he sets out to wreck. That is just sheer vandalism."

Take it elsewhere, Matt, there is a thread for you posting that political nonsense.


Oh, you got a link to a poll where EVERY person in Australia was asked about what they think of the plain packaging of cigarettes? Thought not. Therefore

Regardless of Auslander opinion the High Court decision on tobacco packaging has the overwhelming support of the vast majority of thinking Australians.

is a bare faced lie, unless you are going to try and say that only the Australians who agree with you are the ones who can think..........

Hmmmm.

............is a bare faced lie...........



2. Personal attacks on others are not allowed. To be mortally insulting without getting personal is a artform. Acquire the skill. If you can not counter an argument without attacking the person, then do not post here. If you are going to disagree with someone, please stick to the message rather than the messenger. For example, if someone posts factually incorrect information, it is appropriate to say, “your facts are wrong,” but it is not appropriate to say “you are a liar.”

To return to the issue of counterfeit smokes, and contraband ones, can Matt or another of those who agree with him explain how this new law will cut the level of counterfeit/contraband tobacco used in Australia, something which has been rising year upon year and even shot up by 39% over the period between 2007 and 2009, meaning the Government "lost" $624 million in revenue in 2008/2009 alone? Or what about the estimated figures for 2010 that are DOUBLE that? Over $1 BILLION per year in lost revenue, that would pay for a hell of a lot of nurses..........

Can someone explain how the current "hide, tax, persecute" policies are working when it's clear that, with around 12-15% of all tobacco products consumed in Australia being "illegally sourced", the amount of people using counterfeit/contraband tobacco products is increasing and, since that increase means a decrease in legally obtained tobacco, that means that Government's claims that the amount of people smoking is dropping can only, at best, be described as fantasy?

The same can apply to any country who is following the same type of policies, especially the UK. They like to talk but will do what they must to ensure they always get a certain amount of tax revenue no matter what. Getting people to stop smoking goes against their needs, they have no interest in people doing that. They just need enough people to buy cigarettes legally to cover their revenue stream, nothing more.

Matt

Where did I actually CALL you anything? I said your claim was a lie, nothing more.

And if that is the *best* argument you can come out with............

MattG

You just can't help yourself, can you.........

What is a subject of great importance and interest related to the health of the Australian community is hijacked into a spray about Tony Abbott. Sure there is still debate about the subject with strong arguments from both sides, but I find your contribution offensive. Are you sure you're not one of the 1,500 media spinners working for Gillard?

For me it's personal, because a long-time friend of mine passed away 2 weeks ago from cancer, after many years of smoking.

perhaps you might want to read:

ALP Still Seeking Donations (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/alp-still-seeking-political-donations-from-tobacco-companies/story-fn59niix-1226077398148)

And you might want to read this lifted from an article in Crikey back in 2010

But much of the coverage has neglected to mention that Labor also has a bevy of lobbying links to Big Tobacco. A revolving door of advisers and ex-party hacks routinely pop up singing the praises of the puffing fraternity.

Other Civic directors include former right-wing Victorian ALP state secretary Andres Puig and ex-John Pandazopoulos chief of staff Brett Miller, who both worked for Labor-linked lobbyists CPR before a blow-up last November left them out on their own.

CPR, run by Victorian ALP heavyweight Adam Kilgour, has done loads of work with British American Tobacco in select states over public smoking bans and the like.

And then there’s Victorian ALP phone spam favourites Auspoll, which has previously run numerous projects and surveys for British American Tobacco in the past, including this “retailer and community attitude survey” in 2008 (Auspoll says it has since stopped working with the company for “ethical reasons”). Recently resigned board member and director of research and development John Armitage was a former ALP candidate for Flinders and worked on the ACTU’s Your Rights at Work campaign.

Interconsult also opens doors for BAT — a different firm run by Armitage and ex-ALP national organiser Melissa Horne. Ex-Jenny Macklin staffer Jess Sumich is a shareholder in Interconsult.

CPI Strategic — a firm co-directed by dumped ALP state secretary Stephen Newnham and former Liberal staffer Rick Brown — is said to have done work for Philip Morris, although Brown said the firm wasn’t a current client. “If you want to allege that we’ve done work for Philip Morris, you’re okay,” Brown told Crikey.

If they really want to do something helpfull to curb smoking they should donate all the tax they collect to anti smoking campaigns and health care to get smokers to kick the habit
that is something that's really puzzled me (well, not on a daily basis, but). Why produce something that is harmful? Same goes about fizzy-sweety drinks (bad for kids in more than one way), transfats, stuff that's bad for the environment (like it used to be with leaded petrol until fairly certain it's bad etc. Of course the buyer could make an educated choice (or not buy something), but...

I think people who are drinking several times a week and/or people who are smoking are actually a bit "simple" (and not the good way)

Well, KAG, to try and accuse people who smoke and drink alcohol of somehow being "mentally underdeveloped" is, even by your standards, one of the most offensive things I have read.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but there are times when it would make more sense for you to keep it to yourself. This latest one is a prime example of that.

I'm a smoker and I'd be happy if the sale of cigarettes was banned.But that won't happen,as HB says,because governments are raking in too much coin on the tax.

that is something that's really puzzled me (well, not on a daily basis, but). Why produce something that is harmful? Same goes about fizzy-sweety drinks (bad for kids in more than one way), transfats, stuff that's bad for the environment (like it used to be with leaded petrol until fairly certain it's bad etc. Of course the buyer could make an educated choice (or not buy something), but...

How far do you take that argument, probes? Ban red meat? Ban eggs? Ban electricity because of the pollution from coal/oil/gas/nuclear power stations? How far do you go?

Or, better still, why not just do what you said at the end, but ensure people are educated properly so they can make an educated choice. After all, we all know the harmful effects of smoking, but the amount of people smoking has not dropped as drastically (if it has dropped, see the bit about "illegal" tobacco in Australia and the UK for that but) as those who wish to dictate to us and control our lives expected, despite all the measures already in place like advertising bans, smokes kept "under the counter", etc. Millions still start smoking annually, yet most of the "triggers" like advertising are not there any more. Putting tobacco product in plain packages will do NOTHING, especially as it's known that the bigger, more graphic, health warnings have no effect on the uptake of tobacco smoking. So they have to stop "blaming" Big Tobacco for the reasons are far closer to home and no amount of tinkering at the edges of the issue will do anything to affect it..

But, as I said, actually getting people to stop smoking will upset a major revenue stream so there is no government who will actually do that.

I wonder if sales of cigarette containers will go up? Smokers can just by a pack and decant the contents into a nice pocket sized container and chuck out the olive drab packet.

Would it make a difference at all? After all, find me an example of ONE smoker who admits that he/she uses the pack as some sort of "status symbol" and would be so vain he/she would not be seen with a "drab" pack in his/her possession.

As far as I know, cannabis, cocaine, ecstacy tablets etc are all sold "under the counter" in plain packaging and none of them are advertised on tv or in the print media.

Doesn't seem to have affected their popularity so I doubt if this move will make a blind bit of difference.

Live and let die I say!

TTN (non-smoker).

it seems Gillard has stacked the High Court with compliant left wing judges

Could hardly be more incorrect: of the seven justices on the High Court, only two have been appointed since the advent of the Rudd and Gillard governments. Details are here: About the Justices - High Court of Australia (http://www.hcourt.gov.au/justices/about-the-justices)

:) - hellsbrink,
How far do you take that argument, probes? Ban red meat? Ban eggs? Ban electricity because of the pollution from coal/oil/gas/nuclear power stations? How far do you go?

How far? I'm not sure about eggs, probably just the ones that get dioxine in them 'somehow'... and the 'farms' where hens are mutilated by being packed side-by-side, treated like egg-machines.
But more seriously, it's about what is or isn't reasonable. There are bans most people consider 'not too far'. In most countries porn is not 'on the counters', although there would be abundance of customers. Or drugs.
I'm just saying it seems weird to produce something and at the same time spend money on campaigns explaining the product is harmful.

But thou shall not upset "major revenue streams", of course.

Could hardly be more incorrect: of the seven justices on the High Court, only two have been appointed since the advent of the Rudd and Gillard governments.

And at least one of them is notionally a Liberal, Chief Justice French, appointed by Rudd, although some of his views may not be seen as "typical" of an Australian Liberal.

Don't tell me...they all worked for Slater & Gordon at some stage? :}

(Oh lookout. Here comes the Troll again!) :rolleyes:

I wonder how KAG and the rest of the sanctimonious “we know best” brigade can cope with this:-

Bradley Wiggins celebrates Olympic gold with wine and cigarette in Majorca - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/cycling/9476594/Bradley-Wiggins-celebrates-Olympic-gold-with-wine-and-cigarette-in-Majorca.html)

Pictures showed Wiggins, dressed in his Fred Perry range of clothes, holding a glass of chilled white wine in one hand and a cigarette in the other outside a local pizzeria restaurant.

Oh, the delight of it. To win the Tour de France (thus beating the French at their national race), get a few gold medals at the Olympics - and then have the effrontery to actually be seen out enjoying himself!!!! with a glass and a fag in hand.

Top man!

Wiggins rides a bike. And is still young and healthy enough to quit and survive.

Marlboro Man rode a horse and was once young and healthy too.

http://www.nomad4ever.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/the_future_of_the_marlboro_man.jpeg

Cattletruck

Well said.


Like the photos / pictures they put on the packets, it didn't make a damn
bit of difference because as has just been shown with the TAC Graphic
car crash adverts, nearly everyone has been desensitised to blood and gore.

The 'cigarettes are legal so how can you restrict their advertising?' argument fails because the promotion of plenty of other legal products is restricted.

The concern here is the thin edge of the wedge argument. Why not restrict alcohol, fatty foods, sugary foods...sleeping in, not exercising regularly, not wearing warm clothes when it's cold etc etc.

Are we here for the state's benefit or is the state for our benefit?

At what point do personal responsibility and personal freedom begin to regulate our lives rather than the likes of 'Nanny Roxon' and monomaniacal doctors-with-a-mission?

Tobacco is addictive. That's the only reason why anybody smokes. (Including me, for over 30 years) Anybody who says different is a bare faced liar. (No apologies).

If children get hooked before they are 18 they likely will smoke for the rest of their lives. If they can get past 18 without picking up the habit, the probably will never smoke (their own smoke, that is). Not 100% but high percentages.

Tobacco companies, while denying it, try to hook the children. Remember Joe Camel? Having boring packaging in puke green may be less appealing to this age group. It will have little, if any, effect on adult nicotine addicts. Advertising aimed at them is intended to get them to switch brands, often by misleading them by suggesting their brand is less harmful than the other guys.

I agree it's a dilemma for governments to make lots of tax money at the same time as they try to get people to never start, or to quit. However this dilemma is not reason enough to stop the governments efforts.I would gladly pay more tax (VAT, income, house, etc.) if it meant fewer smokers.

Much more needs to be done to help the addicts get over their addiction. Making it more difficult to smoke, making smoking less appealing, stigmatising smokers all work towards this. But more needs to be done to help the addicts. Different things will work for different people, there is no single solution to nicotine addiction, but more effort needs to be made.

So bravo to the Australian government for doing something. It isn't the answer, but it is an effort in the right direction.

Notice ----> I am not blaming smokers for their addiction, I just want them to be able to overcome it.

But, ExXB, how does that tally in with the total ban on advertising nowadays? You don'thave the "Joe Camel" or "Marlboro Man" nowadays, yet youngsters keep on starting to smoke. Advertising is banned, so how does it make older smokers change brands? There may have been something in that argument in the past, but it doesn't stand up nowadays.

Let's face it, deciding to start smoking, especially with all the knowledge we have right now, is not something that is done on a "whim". The "external" triggers, like peer pressure and "keeping in with the crowd" are the reasons people start to smoke at a young age, especially as they are "rebelling" against what they are being TOLD to do, are the reason youngsters take up smoking and, like the big scary health warnings on packs, putting smokes in plain packaging will do the square root of bugger all to remove one or all of these triggers and will therefore do the same amount of bugger all to stop young people from taking up smoking.

Oh, and being seen to "do something", like this latest one from Aus, is a far cry from actually "doing something". For them to actually "do something" they would have to ban tobacco products completely and then crack down hard on the black market. But that will never happen due to the aforementioned revenue stream which would disappear. So all the latest "doing something" will actually do is

1) Increase counterfeiting due to it being simpler to make the packaging, reducing revenue
2) Increase the amount of contraband tobacco due to the tax rises that are going to accompany this "plain packaging" scam, reducing revenue
3) Increase the chances of youngsters smoking "because it's so bad they won't even allow shiny packs. Sheeoot, Shirl, we gotta do this because everyone says we shouldn't", therefore INCREASING or stabilising the revenue stream as older smokers either die or give up the weed.

This decision says all lot about where Western society is going. No longer are citizens free to do as they wish, the Nanny State rules all. The right to free speech is gone, too. And don't say businesses don't have any rights, they are a collection of people, employees, buyers of a legal product. Their rights extinguished because the "majority" support the government's desire to control its citizens.

Slouching towards Serfdom, it is.

GF

galaxy

We have a few states in Australia that are well known for being
"Nanny states" including the one I live in, Victoria.

The common joke around is that soon we won't be able to
go out of our houses without permission.

I think you will see a huge increase in counterfeit cigarettes.


We will go from Brown paper bags of "chop chop" to
full blown cigarettes because no one will be able to
tell the difference.


* I have only been told that is how chop chop (loose tobacco)
is sold.

OK Hellsbrink,

How would you do it? The objective is to reduce substantially the number of people and amount of tobacco smoked?

I'm not asking if this objective is right, but how would you would accomplish it. If you don't think this is a valid objective, then there is little point debating this.

Or, I'll give you a simpler one. How do we stop children from taking it up in the first place.

No limits. How would you do it?

Simple, ExXB, and I've said it more than once in this very thread, and even in my last post which you obviously did not read fully.


But no government will do that because it will upset their revenue stream.

EDIT

Oh, I'll save you the bother of reading the various posts where I say words like "ban tobacco products". If you want to TRULY "do something" to stop people taking up an addiction that is allegedly responsible for so many deaths, then you treat the sales and possession of tobacco like you treat the sale and possession of heroin and cocaine. Simple as that.

But that would bugger up a major revenue stream, so it will never happen

ExXB

Better question: why is it the government or anyone's, for that matter, to tell a person not to smoke? Aside from second hand smoke, well controlled nowadays, it only harms the individual smoker.

I don't smoke, Dad forbid it and I listened. So better parenting would be start. By the way, I do "blame" the smoker; far I know no one is going around putting guns to heads saying, "smoke or else you get it"

Not only the revenue stream, the war on drugs and Prohibition proves, it would bugger up society.

GF

Congratulations to Australia, they did it, and they are right!

Where I live, China, the box of cigarettes are super nice, lovely colors, red with bolded gold marks, the smokers teeth here are not that neat though...
Here, a communist country, you are basically encouraged to drink and smoke.
Of course this is the government responsability to strongly warn their citizen, why shouldn't it be??????? Some parents wouldn't even understand how dangerous it is without informing them, so how to expect all the kid to be taught correctly? Expecting all the parents to be smart and responsible is over optmistic I believe. The ones who got good parents, well, perfect, remains all the other kids...
Anyway, nothing to winne about, still free to smoke and poison yourself in Australia, you are still free to be a slave! This century alcool, cigarettes and suggar have killed more than anything else!

Their new box of cigarettes don't have any brand, mark or anything on it anymore, jus a big warning:
http://s1.lemde.fr/image/2012/08/15/540x270/1746397_3_428d_modeles-de-paquets-de-cigarettes-neutres_3a7c041b9b1ff136818239af0a275e9c.jpg

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

KAG

You think that people who smoke and drink are "mentally subnormal"


I think people who are drinking several times a week and/or people who are smoking are actually a bit "simple" (and not the good way)

so your views are irrelevant.


Yes, dear boy, I made sure that bit was saved for posterity before you deleted it. How dare you insult people who are "simple", or use them in a way to somehow "prove" your position is "just", how dare you treat those who cannot possibly defend themselves in that manner.

Yes, if you are informed, and still smoke, you might have a problem (weakness) somewhere.
For alcool, that's maybe slightly different, alcool lobby is still strong, their propaganda is still strong, in France many people believe drinking wine is healthy, like some time ago people believed, thanks to the cigarette lobby, that smoking was healthy, with studies and doctor to prove it...

Anyway, as far as the economical profit will be more important than the heath care spending, the lobby will remain strong and will be able to buy some "scientist" and "doctors". Yes, it's that simple. Money.

I don't have much consideration for the ones claiming to be free, claiming to know what they are doing, convince other people they are right, but in reality are simply weak and slave like a 14 years old fashion victim little girl.

So are you calling me "simple", are you saying that I am "mentally challenged"?

That is, after all, what you are saying, KAG, and in the process you are doing the same to a vast number of people on this forum.

I gave you a suggestion after your earlier, deleted, post (why did you delete that? Think that nobody saw what kind of person you truly are?), it might be best for you if you follow that suggestion because, if you ever had any experience of dealing with relatives who were "mentally disabled" you would realise exactly how offensive these concepts and ideas you have are.

KAG

Your attitude is not very different from the religious fundamentalist you, no doubt, abhor. You are righteous, know what is best and assume you have the right to call on government's coercive powers to impose your ideas.

Liberte, I think not. Marianne is ashamed.

GF

I must admit I have a sneaking admiration for your approach KAG.

Tell em how it is KAG old fellah but then let them 'simple' folk kill themselves in any darned way it pleases them... it is nature's way after all.

Kate Bush - Breathing - Official Music Video - YouTube

Caco

Oz would have to be the most bloody idealist (as against rational) place in
the world. Rampant idealism is always accompanied by inconsistency as well
as impracticality - if you want to eventually outlaw tobacco then you outlaw
marijuana, alcohol and those bloody needle bags on QF aircraft. To pick on a
legal drug and ignore the rest is non-sequitur nor logical. The more I hear of
the silliness of Canberra and its lobbyists, the more I laugh my head off and
quietly thank christ I don't have to put up with all that bullshit any more.

The impracticality of all fluffist thinking is that, like dedicated scotch drinkers
dedicated smokers will find a way around any idiot rules the morons in power
think up. If there's no profitable black market for cheap affordable smokes in
Oz there should be.


Booze will be next. After that - meat.

Caco, in the very nice "communist" (or capitalist maybe, I am lost) country I live in (and where alcohol/tobacco is a culture thing, as such encouraged) there is no access to youtube. Thanks anyway, I am sure I am missing a nice video.

Galaxy, well, I give you that, it could seem I am righteous, I understand what you think.
However you got me wrong.
What I would do is nothing else, nothing more than the australian government, and as such I believe they are doing a great job, and are taking the good decisions.

Now let's get real for a moment. We have heard enough from the smokers and their supposedly freedom (haha! for real???? Addiction is freedom???). We have heard enough from the tobacco industry. The first ones were wrong, the second ones are liars.
That's time today for people like me to speak up, not time to say sorry.

And don't worry, with countries like Australia who has some guts to fight the rich and powerful lobbies, time will come for the alcool industry too, the french wine industry have successfully brainwashed the world this half past century in making us believe drinking wine is healthy (that is so much bullshit! Anything supposedly good in the wine, you could find it somewhere else (other products) without alcool!!!!).
Now even the beer industry is talking bullshit.
Soon the chinese baijiu or russian vodka will be medicine against cancer if we listen to them.

Studies are flexibles when it concerns rich industries, history has proven so.
But when we open our eyes, observe EVERY COUNTRY where alcool consumption has increase, cancer has also increase dramatically.
How much brain does it take to get real?
In fact it seems it takes quite a lot, because people believe everything happened in the past, and in 2012 we are fine, nobody would lie like that, we are so evolved now! All generation think that way, what make us easily brainwashed.
Economy doesn't care about health, not the least, and when it comes to Tobacco, alcohol, suggar, that's only about economy we are talking about.
Economy is sell the most by any mean you can.
People start to believe your products are dangerous? Some more brainwashing, with money everything is possible.

I had enough to hear from addicted people who will drink all their life (they will never stop, they cannot even stop one month, that's many people in fact) and find 1000 good reasons for that, but will never admit to themselves they are addicted and they are powerful industries' victim while still claiming their freedom as a reason! What a joke!

Seing slaves playing the freedom card will never cease to amuse me.
Thing is, "you" can drink, you can smoke, "you" can eat whatever shit is producing the food industry today (in fact "you" are even encouraged, that's the reality), get all what "you" want, no need to come and cry on pprune: everything is available in unlimited quantity, but don't come here and claim freedom, and explain this is a good way of life, because the first person "you" will fool is "yourself", and the only slave in this story is still "you".



EDITED: "you" is anybody who is claiming freedom to get addicted (like a Rome citizen claiming chains to become a slave in name of freedom), not necessarily one particular poster.

Yes ,alcohol will be next.
How can you have a product that is legal,yet deny the company to have its colored logo,which has been around for years.
They have had smoking regulations where you cant smoke,horrible pictures and warnings on all packs,and people still smoke.and now they are hidden from site at places of sale.
Do they really think a plain packet will stop smoking.Why do people smoke the brand they smoke now as advertising hasnt been around for years.
In my day of being a kid it was the idea of being super cool and doing what you shouldnt.These days its grown to adding drugs to the situation and these dont get advertised ,but come in plain packaging.Seems to be part of the growing up stage of life.
Smokes produce a lot of tax
Speeding fines produce a lot of money,so they will never have speed limiters on cars.
The list goes on.
In my day heart attacks were from fatty foods,now along with every other cause of death ,its tobacco.
Good or bad,if its legal,i think the tobacco companies have the right to argue against it.

Soon the chinese baijiu or russian vodka will be medicine...
Dunno about baijiu, but vodka has been for centuries (not cancer, I guess, though). Got a bottle at home myself - for use externally and internally. (although many Americans believe Coke cures colds, so maybe we've been wrong around here, too. For centuries :uhoh:.)

But I had a very effective measure against even trying to smoke when a teenager - my parents didn't smoke and I'd have been in deep trouble if I did, bec. I wouldn't have passed the smell test.


.

And don't forget how much money the (Oz) Liberals gleefully accepted from Big tobacco....and the wince of pain in Tony Abbott's face as he had to agree to the plain packaging idea.....cos he had to look as though it was the right thing to do, even though he'd take a double revenue loss hit..

For what it's worth.......once a heavy smoker (more than a pack a day), eternally grateful to be weed free nowadays.....but still love the smell:).....still think I'd love to smoke:)....but so pleased to be free of the nasty addiction!:ok:

For what it's worth.......once a heavy smoker (more than a pack a day), eternally grateful to be weed free nowadays.....but still love the smell.....still think I'd love to smoke....but so pleased to be free of the nasty addiction!

Well, you're never "free" of the addiction, you only learn how to control it. That's why you get some "pleasure" from the smell, it stimulates the receptors that were stimulated when you smoked.

But, to go back a bit, you can't just talk about the Libs getting money from "big tobacco", as pointed out earlier in post 11, and you cannot hide the fact that any and every Government in Aus loves the revenue stream. I've found figures that say that the total tax revenue in 2009 for tobacco (duty and VAT) was in excess of AU$5 BILLION, and with the usual increases in duty that revenue stream is likely to have increased despite the rise in counterfeit and contraband tobacco (remember, I found an estimate of over AU$1 Billion in "lost" revenue due to counterfeit/contraband for 2010.) which means that, despite everything, the Government is still going to be raking in a hell of a lot of money, and so are those who "deal illegally". These new "measures" will do NOTHING to prevent that happening, and will do NOTHING to stop people taking up the habit and will do NOTHING to stop billions of bucks going into the hands of criminals.

As I say, no Government is actually interested in having everyone give up the cancer sticks, there's too much money at stake. If they were serious about doing something they would have tobacco on the same list of "banned" drugs as heroin. But they'll never do that, they'll only do what they have to do so they are "seen to be doing something" to appease the shouty ones.

And the world will still turn, and people will still smoke.