Plain cigarette packaging passes in Australia.

[Amak8]

Last edited Tue Aug 14, 2012, 09:47 PM - Edit history (1)

http://theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/high-court-clears-way-for-plain-packaged-cigarettes-to-be-sold-in-australia/story-fn59niix-1226450705366



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_cigarette_packaging

I really envy other Western democracies where public good mostly triumphs over small special interests.

[Odin2005]

1. Good for the Aussies!

[Travis_0004]

2. I'm curious to see what percent of people here think this is a good idea

I personally don't. I think its too much of a nanny state, much like I'm against Bloomberg limiting pop sizes. It seems smokers are marginalized every change possible. If its so evil, why not just ban it? (Note: I don't support a ban, and I don't smoke)

[Amak8]

3. Colorful logos are for marketing to children.

As for nanny state, get real. We already are paying for smoker's healthcare costs so society has a lot invested in people's personal decisions about smoking.

[Travis_0004]

4. So lets ban smoking then

Where do we draw the draw the line. Ban McDonalds, alchol, Twinkies?

Only allow subway restaurants? (no mayo, and no footlongs though)

[Logical]

5. Smoking impacts other peoples health. Eating does not.

[WooWooWoo]

6. except when you're a kid and your parents buy you twinkies and ice cream and cake and cookies...

and don't encourage you to go outside and play.

Which lets you grow up (and out) into a fat, lazy adult with diabetes and heart problems.

Other than that, yeah, food has no impact on others' health.

[Logical]

9. Well, if you like that stupid argument I guess the parents could make the kid smoke also. LOL, wow.

[Fawke Em]

42. How is that a stupid argument?

It's a very real one. Many poor and working class parents cannot afford anything other than fast food deals and cheap carbs from the store.

No one forces the kid to smoke, but many parents don't realize they're forcing obesity, diabetes and heart conditions on their children by letting them eat food even the parents don't realize is crap.

[Green_Lantern]

58. that is why we have nutritional school food programs and other things...

We don't just do nothing about child nutrition.

But comparing cigarettes to a cheeseburger is hyperbole.

You can eat fast food in moderation and live a healthy life.

[Amak8]

11. That would be tyranny.

Telling the truth about a product isn't an attack on freedom.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

14. No, but I do agree with the forced nutritional info. nt

[Zoeisright]

10. When smokers can keep that shit in their own lungs,

then you can talk. Until then, with every puff you're endangering someone else's health.

[Luminous Animal]

13. When auto drivers can keep that shit in their own lungs...

then we can talk. Until then, with every mile you're endangering someones health.

[Cooley Hurd]

17. woke up from a sound sleep to say +1000000

I love how someone who will stand next to (or ride in) a running automobile will have the audacity to complain about cigarette smoke.

[Luminous Animal]

20. I'll be out in the wilderness with 10 smokers and smell mostly only fresh air...

and on the drive back towards "civilization", the smell of the internal combustion engine becomes more and more prevalent until it's prevalence has no smell at all.

[lapislzi]

30. Though they are long-dead from complications of smoking-related diseases

I have never quite forgiven my parents for involuntarily making me a 4-pack a day smoker (each smoked 2 packs) for the first 18 years of my life.

OK, sometimes I was at school and away from smoke. But when I was at home, and until I was 5, I was a chain smoker.

I remember blowing my nose once after one of their card parties and it came out black.

If that's not child abuse, I don't know what is.

[joeybee12]

24. Studies show passive smoke is more dangerous than car exhaust

So nice try, but your addiction is talking...when you get over that THEN we can talk.

[LTX]

43. What studies? n/t

[Green_Lantern]

37. auto exhaust is heavily regulated so with your example you

Should welcome heavy regulation of cigarette smoke.

Secondly running car exhaust indoors would kill people so if you are comparing exhaust to cigarettes you are admitting they are pretty deadly.

[Fawke Em]

44. No it's not.

Most smaller counties don't have any form of auto emissions testing. Hell, I live in a medium-sized city with a university and my county doesn't require it.

[Green_Lantern]

49. sorry, I meant in production of cars...

Emissions testing probably isn't.

[Sivafae]

19. According to the EPA, these are ways we can keep the air cleaner.

Ohai!

Every day tips:

Conserve electricity.
Consider setting your thermostat a little higher in the summer and lower in winter.
Participate in local energy conservation programs.
Look for the ENERGY STAR label when buying home or office equipment.
Keep car, boat and other engines properly tuned, and avoid engines that smoke.
Car pool, use public transportation, bike or walk when possible.
Combine errands to reduce "cold starts" of your car and avoid extended idling.
Consider using gas logs instead of wood. If you use a wood-burning stove or fireplace insert, make sure it meets EPA design specifications. Burn only dry, seasoned wood.
Mulch or compost leaves and yard waste.

Tips for days when particle pollution is expected to be high:

Reduce the number of trips you take in your car.
Reduce or eliminate fireplace and wood stove use.
Avoid using gas-powered lawn and garden equipment.
Avoid burning leaves, trash and other materials.

Hmmm, don't see stop smoking.


And why is it that near ports where truckers leave their rigs idling for hours at time there are higher incidents of asthma and other respiratory complications for young people?

just saying...

[Travis_0004]

21. I've never been forced to breathe in second hand smoke

First off, my state has a smoking ban, so nobody smokes inside public places. 99% percent of businesses follow the ban, although there are a few that don't because enforcement is lax. I've walked into a place that allows smoking, (despite the ban), then walked right out. Nobody forced me to breathe in second hand smoke. Even before the ban, there were plenty of places that banned smoking because it was good for business.

[Green_Lantern]

38. that is good enough for me...

As long as smoking is banned in most public places I don't mind too much.

But, few smokers are that reasonable.

I am disabled and wear a breathing machine and people will smoke right next to me.

They don't give a shit.

[KamaAina]

31. So why are the smoking police trying to ban e-cigarettes?

No secondhand smoke there. Could it be they're just trying to control others' behavior after all?

[Major Nikon]

16. I think it's a bad idea

I just see it as a slippery slope issue that can be used on all sorts of things the government deems "bad".

[frylock]

28. yep..

next up is a pic of a diseased liver on my bottle of craft beer. FTS.

[Major Nikon]

32. Or how about a pic of a fat laden heart on your McDonald's bag?

[Green_Lantern]

39. not everyone who eats McDonald's has heart disease..

No doctor would tell a patient "Never eat McDonalds."


If people think hamburgers are as deadly as cigarettes then clearly they need to be educated about smoking.

[Major Nikon]

50. Who said anything about equivalence?

[Green_Lantern]

51. they aren't even close...

You can be perfectly healthy and eat fast food in moderation.

Cigarettes cause immediate health issues and contain addictive drugs.

[Major Nikon]

52. Who said they were close?

That's pretty much the whole point here.

[Green_Lantern]

54. well if it isn't a close comparison then...

There is little concern that allowing the govt. to do what Australia did to cigarettes will mean it'll be done to fast food.

[Major Nikon]

60. So where does it end?

When the government starts abridging free speech for the betterment of society, who gets to decide where the line is? Keep in mind that there are large areas of this country which are under the full control of wingnuts which I have zero confidence in their ability to handle such power reasonably. So if you don't like the fast food example, there's plenty more. The liquor store was a good example. Imagine the state forcing clinics that provide abortion services to hang posters of aborted fetuses on their door or imagine the state forcing casinos to post posters of destitute people. Thanks, but no thanks. If I ever have a hankering to be shamed by someone, I would just go to church.

[Green_Lantern]

63. regulation of commercial activity isn't decided state by state...

Cigarettes are an addictive drug unlike the slippery slope items.

[Major Nikon]

64. So is alcohol, caffeine, and masturbation

I'm not sure what being addictive has to do with it. Only about a third to half of all smokers meet the DSM-IV standard for nicotine dependence anyway. Do you believe that if the government had such power they would limit it to addictive substances? Even in the off chance they did, that still means I get a picture of a FAS baby on my beer bottle.

States regulate commerce all the time. Each state imposes their own cigarette tax. Many states have their own vehicle emissions standards. There are lots of other examples.

[Green_Lantern]

71. well cigarette ads are banned on tv and that hasn't resulted in all ads being banned...

So evidently the govt. has been able to regulate tobacco in ways other products aren't.

The issue isn't the addiction but that the product causes severe health issues and the addictiveness of nicotine makes just occasional use unlikely.

Plus cigarettes involve putting high levels of carbon monoxide into your body and the body of those around you. That level of stupidity requires govt. treating you like a child.

[Major Nikon]

72. And what good did that do exactly?

The cigarette manufacturers were still able to effectively market their products, and the cigarette ad ban did have an effect on other things. Liquor distributors imposed a self TV ad ban on themselves because they knew if they didn't the government would go after them as well. The current mayor of NYC is advocating a ban on large soft drinks and he has his supporters, including right here on DU. So absolutely it is a slippery slope issue. Once you go down the road of social engineering, there is no end to it until someone takes a civil libertarian stand.

I take a more common sense approach to such things. If you're trying to mitigate a problem, the smartest approach is to attack the problem itself rather than the symptoms. I'm all for banning smoking in the workplace or any other inside location where other people have to be which includes the homes of people with kids. However, regardless of how stupid it is I'm against telling other people what they can do with their own bag of meat so long as it isn't harming anyone else. Other than very infrequent pipesmoking, I'm not a smoker and I've never had a use for cigarettes. I'm not going to tell someone else they can't and neither am I going to support my government doing it by proxy, because inevitably the day will come when the government will come after my vices. I know this because they already have and they will continue to do so as long as society allows them.

[Green_Lantern]

73. Apples and oranges

I'm not advocating banning smoking but making it taboo to do it because many places still allow smoking. You aren't just effecting yourself.

Drinking a soda doesn't inject sugar into everyone around me.

Thirty years ago people smoked everywhere and now wouldn't even dream of it so anti-smoking campaigns have worked.

[Major Nikon]

77. Actually the reason why there aren't as many smokers has little to do with such campaigns

Much of it has to do with the crackdown of tobacco sales to minors and banning smoking in the workplace and other public places. The TV ad ban on cigarettes had next to zero effect. People still smoked the hell out of cigarettes even when they knew it was bad for them. Being sent outside in the rain, freezing cold, or stifling heat to get your nicotine fix is a strong motivator to quit. Also if people don't pick up smoking by the time they are 18, the chances of them ever becoming a smoker are greatly reduced.

[Green_Lantern]

82. you make a good point....

Usually people don't start smoking at 22.

[Green_Lantern]

36. because just banning it won't stop it...

For instance banning drugs hasn't stopped drug abuse as much as hitting the demand side has.

It is easier to regulate a legal product and advertisement and frankly smokers need a little pushing...they can be unreasonable in their desire to smoke.

Most I know have lives revolving on finding a way to smoke. They aren't evil, just addicted.

[GoneOffShore]

56. Bloomberg is trying to reverse the fast "food" industry's social engineering -

Which they've been doing successfully for 40 years.

I don't see anything wrong with that attempt.

If you limit the size of a drink that people can buy and they want more they can buy a second one. However by making the smaller size the default, it is likely that they won't opt for two servings.

[Travis_0004]

66. So you are saying that people are idiots and need to be told how to act?

[GoneOffShore]

67. People are easily manipulated - Hence the idea of "Supersizing"

If your plate is bigger you eat more. If you can buy the humungous size drink for only $0.50 more you will.

As I said, the fast "food" companies have been experimenting on us for 40 years. And it looks like they've succeeded in making us all fatter.

And that whole thing about people being idiots - Think back to 2000 and then again to 2004 and again to 2010 - How many idiots are there out there?

People need to be educated as to the manipulations of marketers. And sometimes that whole "nanny state" thing can be a good idea.

[Green_Lantern]

75. smoking is very idiotic

Smokers purposely put high levels of carbon monoxide in their bodies.

[yawnmaster]

7. I, personally, don't think it will make any difference...

but we'll see.

[-..__...]

8. Might as well place images of STD ravaged genitaila...

or pregnant pre-teens on the boxes/wrappers of rubbers while they're at it... still isn't going too amount to any change in behavior or lifestyle (enjoying a Marlboro Light as I type this ).

[Dokkie]

40. Damn

I hate seeing people on my side smoke. Let it be the repubs who smoke and eat all the fatty foods. Anyway, I hope you find the strength to quit. Good luck

[Electric Monk]

65. Sure, if rubbers *increased* the likelyhood of pregnancy or STD transmission, then that'd make sense

[-..__...]

68. Not at all...

does it really need to be spelled out that the pics represent/warning/reminder of what could happen if one didn't use them?

[Electric Monk]

70. That makes as much sense as putting pictures of healthy lungs and healthy mouths on cig packs

as a reminder of what could happen if one didn't use them.

[The Straight Story]

12. Next up, they will have pics of aborted babies at clinics

Just to make sure there is realism and we can do what we can to influence people to make choices we don't like.

Hopefully, someday, we will have similar pics relating to owning a car, using electricity, etc and so on.

And before anyone whines "Are you equating abortion with smoking?" no - I am talking about the tactics people use to control choices others make.

If you want realism, let's have it across the board.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

15. Hopefully pictures of disfigured bodies at military recruiting centers. nt

[rDigital]

18. Agreed. It's a slippery slope and I also think there are serious 1st Amendment concerns as well. nt

[Green_Lantern]

45. I don't think the slippery slope argument works with smoking..

Because it always concedes the point that smoking is just like [name any horrible negative result of modern conveniences].

I know you aren't comparing cigarettes to abortion but here is why tactics would be different:

Smokers enjoy cigarettes and are addicted to them...abortion isn't like that at all.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. If tobacco were a new product, it'd never be allowed on the market

The obvious health risks would mean a complete ban. It's only being allowed because people are already addicted, and the tobacco industry still has significant influence. Pretty much any regulation of it is justified; I'd support nationalising the producing companies, and stopping all marketing. Just turn it into a pharmaceutical product, of interest only to the addicts, but with the extensive side-effects well publicised.

[CBGLuthier]

23. Who is stupider, climate change deniers or tobacco=death deniers?

Kind of a tossup I guess.

[joeybee12]

26. +1

[joeybee12]

25. Nice to see all the addicts trying to slam this great idea...

Yep, it's an addiction...you try to convince yourself it's just a habit, but habits are easily broken, addictions are not...seek help.

[RC]

27. And lot of straw men arguments in this thread too.

The subject is cigaret smoke and its killing powers. What is it the smokers don't understand here?

Anything to keep non-smokers from having to breathe in the exhaled carcinogens of other people's addictions.

[Travis_0004]

35. When have you been forced to breathe in second hand smoke.

I know I haven't been forced to breathe it in. There are 2-3 bars by me that don't follow the smoking ban, and allow smoking. I've walked in them before (techincally I was forced to take one breath), then I walked back out, and took my business elsewhere. I think its very easy to avoid second hand smoke.

[Dokkie]

41. Right on

Its the same reason why I dont not go to Casinos or the Bar just a block from my apt. Allow smoking in your establishment and lose my business. It is that simple, but I would content with a non smoking section even though a little smoke usually seeps into the non smoking area.

Shun smoking business the way you shun Fox News channel, its on your cable box but that doesnt mean you have to watch it

[Green_Lantern]

46. that is the basic argument against all regulation such as anti-discrimination laws...

That it is up to the business owner.

It is a public accommodation and you can't just say "if you don't like breathing smoke go somewhere else" when also most places would allow smoking.

Can't smokers eat one damn meal without needing a cigarette.

[Travis_0004]

53. Either way you are discriminating against somebody

Smokers would probably argue that smoking is a legal product. By banning it, aren't you hurting their right to smoke when they want to.

Even though most places would allow smoking, not all would. Before Ohio had a smoking ban, I would sit in the non smoking section, which was good enough for me, or just avoid the place.

[Green_Lantern]

55. having sex is legal, yet I can't do it everywhere...

See....we are arguing circles here.

Ok, first of all places that serve the public are public accommodations that have to abide by certain public health standards. You can't just say "If you don't like it go somewhere else."

Secondly when you smoke other people that smoke whether they like it or not.

It is more of an infringement to have your health threatened by second hand smoke.

[Travis_0004]

34. Just because somebody is against this doesn't mean they are a smoker.

I've never smoked, but I think this is a dumb idea.

[Green_Lantern]

47. no people against it are either smokers or a bit naive about smokers...

Most smokers I know have very little sense about it.

I am disabled and use a ventilator and people will smoke right next to me.

[LiberalAndProud]

29. This might discourage young people from taking up the habit.

As a smoker, my advice would be to never start. I'll be interested to watch smoking trends in Australia after this decision.

[yawnmaster]

57. I suspect it won't discourage them. eom

[Egalitarian Thug]

33. I'll smoke to that. If it makes the tobaccophobic a little less stressed, it's just fine with me.

"They could make the pack black with a skull and crossbones and call them tumors, and we'll still smoke 'em. Make them so expensive we can't afford them and we'll break into your house and steal your stuff to pay for them." - Dennis Leary

Here's an idea. Why don't they just pass a prohibition of tobacco? That always works well.

[Green_Lantern]

48. smokers are either clueless are unreasonable

I am disabled and use a ventilator.


Every year I have a respiratory therapist from the company I get my vent through takes mine to be assessed and gives me a loaner vent.

One time the rt brought a vent that smelled like an ashtray.It was exposed my to his smoke infested car.

[Tikki]

59. The people of the State of California made it nearly impossible to smoke in public...THANK YOU..

It was either stay at home and smoke or get out with the family and go places and not smoke.

I chose to quit smoking...now there isn't any place I can't go.

Thanks Californians for passing the laws to make it clear that smoking isn't an acceptable public activity.


Tikki

[treestar]

61. Picture worth 1000 printed warnings

Wow

[Alduin]

62. I like this.

[Ter]

69. Meh, bring back Joe Camel

n/t

[SOS]

74. The whole thing is pointless

People will just buy a cigarette case, transfer the smokes and throw the pack in the garbage.

[Green_Lantern]

76. even if it makes smoking slightly less attractive

It is worth it.

[jmowreader]

78. Google "cigarette cases australia"

People are already marketing cigarette cases as "plain packaging alternatives."

[reformist2]

79. No it isn't - anything done to discourage smoking is good.

[Amak8]

80. If it was pointless, Big Tobacco wouldn't be going nuts.

[mattclearing]

81. We also have single payer here, so discouraging smoking is in the public interest.

In the States, smoking is more of a "free market" issue between agriculture and the health industry, but tobacco is imported here and healthcare is taxpayer-funded, so there's less resistance by corporate interests to this sort of regulation.