BleepingComputer.com: Smokeres This is just incredible!

Thanks for the welcome, and dear god I can predict the future
At this day and hour 30 years from now I will quit smoking

An interesting twist to the Saga.

AUSTRALIA is about to become the first country in the world to pass legislation requiring all cigarettes to be sold in plain packs devoid of branding.

Big tobacco has vowed to challenge plain packaging in the courts once the legislation passes parliament.

British American Tobacco Australia insists the commonwealth will be unlawfully acquiring its intellectual property rights and could have to pay billions of dollars in compensation.

Link. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/tobacco-plain-packaging-to-pass-senate/story-e6freonf-1226190633343

Ray.

I don't see how plain packaging will have any impact on people smoking, but I do believe it infringes on the rights of the companies selling the products. Nobody should have the to right to dictate to any company what the package of their product looks like, as long as it is not obscene. This just makes no sense to me.

Many non-smokers seem to feel quite superior to smokers, like they are more worthy people than smokers so they can dictate to smokers and put them down for what they do and tell them all the horrors that smoking can cause, like that is really going to make a difference.

I do find it quite amusing that non-smokers are more than happy to use up all that money that smokers pay in taxes.

This post has been edited by Stang777: 10 November 2011 - 01:41 AM

The tobacco industry has shown itself to be dishonest and willing to do whatever it takes to manipulate the public and hide the facts, so I'm all for government intervention in this case.

This is a good article about how the tobacco industry created astroturf groups to spread propaganda and create doubt about facts released by various reputable agencies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2?INTCMP=SRCH

Excerpt from the article:

In December 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency published a 500-page report called Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking. It found that "the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact. In adults: ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in US non-smokers. In children: ETS exposure is causally associated with an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. This report estimates that 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to ETS."

Had it not been for the settlement of a major class action against the tobacco companies in the US, we would never have been able to see what happened next. But in 1998 they were forced to publish their internal documents and post them on the internet.

Within two months of its publication, Philip Morris, the world's biggest tobacco firm, had devised a strategy for dealing with the passive-smoking report. In February 1993 Ellen Merlo, its senior vice-president of corporate affairs, sent a letter to William I Campbell, Philip Morris's chief executive officer and president, explaining her intentions: "Our overriding objective is to discredit the EPA report ... Concurrently, it is our objective to prevent states and cities, as well as businesses, from passive-smoking bans."

This post has been edited by Ted Striker: 09 November 2011 - 03:20 PM

@ Ted Striker ,

Obvisiusly you are a non smoker and just epotomised Stang777, comment,as below.

I do find it quite amusing though that non-smokers are more than happy to use up all that money that smokers pay in taxes.

The actual cost to a Country from smoking is nothing compared to the Taxes generated by it.

Ray.

plain packs devoid of branding

What that means is that the product name must be displayed in small type in a standard colour and font on the bottom of the packet. So you will still be able to identify the producer.

Thank you Budapest. In that case, most of my post is rather meaningless...with the exception of one part. I will go edit it now so it is not so meaningless.

In my opinion, the problem with this bill is not the untrue facts, although that is quite a glaring problem.

What i find to be proposterous is that free will is esentially being thrown away. If a smoker wants to smoke and ruin his health and his life, its his choice, and he should have every right to do that. if tobacco companys want to make a living off of those people, then so be it! why should they be punished for supplying a demmand? Thats capitolism people. Its the same thing i see with fast food companys in America. All that there trying to do is make a proffit, yet health activists insist on limiting their right to do that, for no other reason than "its not healthy". Let me tell you somthing, and i know that this is going to offend alot of people, but it needs to be said: if your fat, its your fault!!! heres an example. My father is 62 years old, and untill reacentley, he was 300 pounds. His family has a history of obesety, so in part, it was in his genes. But do you know what he did? He stoped eating crap!!! He started hiking, then backpacking, then running! last summer we went to Philmost scout ranch in New Mexico, and did one of the most difficult trecks, 72 miles in 10 days, and he was outhinkin the young, strong scouts. He decided that he wasnt going to be fat anymore, and he DID SOMTHING ABOUT IT!!!

I just to pass on this little Gem, much more to come.

As Budapest has said, as to the actual Rules about it.

What that means is that the product name must be displayed in small type in a standard colour and font on the bottom of the packet. So you will still be able to identify the producer.

Today, after running out of smokes, I asked my neighbour, Phil, a non Smoker, to get me some of my normal Brand, which is Horizon Menthol Light. Pack was coloured coded Green to denote Menthol and yellow lines to denote Light, the Print on the Packet was quite large. I got quite a shock when he returned with the latest Pack and could not help myself laughing. I will scan the different Packs when I can just to show how silly this whole thing is and hope you get as much of a laugh out of it as I have.

The new pack is coloured green, quite bland, the Brand on the Pack has the font size in the same size and similar colour as the No Smoking Warning. The quantity of the pack is highlited with yellow and a very small font says Menthol Yellow. Very acceptable under this silly Law that was never really properly researched nor discussed with the very people concerned with it, just rushed through Parliment. Now it comes back to bite so hard.

The Local Tobacco Companies rattled their swords at the Government, but in the meantime were setting up a brilliant Ambush for them. The Government maybe is still not aware of it? and faces ridicule from the World. For a minority Government that is very dangerious, but a lesson must be learnt out of this.

The crazy part of this is that the local Manufacturers have so much time to train their Customers in it all.

What a brilliant move.

Ray.

Well I'm a smoker, and tbh I don't see it affecting the amount of people smoking. We'll continue no matter what the packs look like. The only reason why I would be against such a law is that no other industry that I can think of is restricted from using their logos and branding, then why this one? Because it causes health concerns? Then they might as well just ban branding on fast food, candy, alcohol, etc. Just doesn't make sense to me.

To crack a new nut in this argument, regarding smoking and the meaningless proposed legislation regarding plain packaging.
The whole thing is aimed at the idea of reducing and eventually stopping people smoking. Fine in one sense as even a smoker myself I see enough evidence to support the fact it is at the very least not good for you, but as has already been mentioned, the reduction in tax income to any government far outweighs any reduction in smoking related illness, this would mean increased taxation on everything else if smoking was stopped in total.
However, in will not do anything at all to the other major causes of illness, and one of great importance, unprovoked attacks on others resulting in hospital admissions.
The incidence of hospital admissions due to violence is rising daily, at least in the UK and what is the greatest cause of this?
The one substance that no government is prepared to try and reduce consumption of other than a few of the northern countries such as Sweden, Norway perhaps, and Finland.
I am of course talking about alcohol, now there may not be such a thing as passive drinking, but there is such a thing as being a victim of a drunken yob.
There are daily reports in the media about various family and unrelated members of the public being assaulted by someone in a drunken state.
If the governments of the world are concerned about health of their subjects, it is high time something was done about regulating the consumption of all alcohol, as it also does serious damage to the drinker in liver and kidney damage, not to mention heart and circulatory problems, as much as the damage the drinker does while drunk.
At least you don't see reports of someone beating up his wife because he smoked a pipe, cigar, or cigarette.
Lets start getting a lot more serious about the dangers of alcohol, not so much to the user, but to the innocent bystander as well, who got his brains kicked out by a drunk.

Nev.

Well forbidding alcohol did not turn out to be for the best here in the States. Just led to more crimes.

Yes need TOS, we know forbidding it doesn't work, the same will apply to tobacco too, but better control of its sale will. We used to have fairly rigid controls here in the UK.
Sale on licensed premises was limited to within prescribed hours, sales known as off license were limited to even shorter hours.
Granted there was still some drunkenness with the odd drunk meandering his or her way home, but very little violence due to being under the influence as there is today.
The original laws were relaxed and we now see the horrendous results, with especially the young going on binge drinking sessions to see how stupidly drunk they can get in as short a time as possible, all because alcohol can now be bought at whatever time the retailer is open till.
These drunken binges mean the drunk has no control, the slightest thing which would be laughed off if sober, sends the drunk into a kicking punch throwing lunatic.
We desperately need those original controls back in force, landlords of licensed premises have better control of their customers than the off license ever can.
Unfortunately the supermarket chains have the government in chains over it, and refuse to give up their right to sell alcohol to any tom dick or harry regardless of what condition or state he is in.

Nev.

This post has been edited by Plastic Nev: 18 December 2011 - 04:55 PM

The thing is people will always find a way to get it no matter what measures are taken to restrict it's sale. Thats just how it works, same with the underground drug market, it's always going to be there. Not much can truly be done.