Plain packaging on cigarettes (1 Viewer)

[Annihilist]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-17/plain-packaging-heads-to-high-court/3954122

What do you think of this?

I personally don't think it's necessary and I don't think it has a place in our society. Most of us are intelligent enough to know the risks of smoking and make our choice based on that. The government doesn't need to take responsibility for people who choose to smoke and choose to destroy themselves. I hear arguments about how dangerous and cancerous it is - everyone knows that. You cannot fail to know that. In this case, ignorance really is no excuse.

Personally, I don't understand why we need to take responsibility for what other people do with themselves. Why do we feel the need to pass legislation designed to coerce people into making a particular decision? Everyone already knows the risks of smoking. But what we are doing is making it worse for people who decide to smoke. No one wants to carry around packets that look like that. Not because it reminds them of the risks of smoking, but because of the social stigma attached to it. The government is trying to make choices look unappealing to coerce people into making decisions they want them to.

What's your opinion on it?

 

[boris]

smoking is so bad for you

so good though

 

[soloooooo]

I think it is a good idea although as you said probably won't make much of a difference.

 

[funkshen]

GORGE ORWALL IS ROLLING IN HIS GRAVE

 

[Annihilist]

GORGE ORWALL IS ROLLING IN HIS GRAVE

I saw your name on the thread and thought "this will be interesting".

 

[OzKo]

The only thing which bothers me about smoking is the health care costs which are passed down to tax payers because smokers tend to pick up some nasty things over the long term.

As long as tax on cigarettes is high enough, I really don't care whether packaging or anything else along those lines is changed.

 

[Examine]

How will it actually make a difference?

 

[soloooooo]

The only thing which bothers me about smoking is the health care costs which are passed down to tax payers because smokers tend to pick up some nasty things over the long term.

As long as tax on cigarettes is high enough, I really don't care whether packaging or anything else along those lines is changed.

I agree. Very rough figures from http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/ although in 2011 tax revenue was approximately 5 billion while the total cost of smoking smokers was 31 billion. So cigarettes packet prices would probably need to raise by a factor of 8 or so (at least). I.e. a pack should cost $120+.

 

[boris]

That $31b is misleading though and not representative of the true 'cost'

 

[funkshen]

i support any policy that makes smoking even more badass than it is already

 

[Ealdoon]

How will it actually make a difference?

It probably won't

 

[scarvesss]

i think its important in overturning the outdated notions of it being cool and such. creating a stigma for future generations is almost as effective as banning it, it just gets rid of the role of the 'big brother' which some people believe it is.

 

[kat-]

^
In a way it stops the people who are just doing it for the sake of being "cool" but honestly i don't think it's going to benefit at all. People will smoke regardless of what the packaging is; if they want to then they will and packaging won't change that. And then there will be heaps of complaints from the companies, people etc and it'll just be a whole new debate and a waste of time and money -__-

+ i hate seeing those images of lungs/feet/eyes ugh

 

[Annihilist]

^
In a way it stops the people who are just doing it for the sake of being "cool" but honestly i don't think it's going to benefit at all. People will smoke regardless of what the packaging is; if they want to then they will and packaging won't change that. And then there will be heaps of complaints from the companies, people etc and it'll just be a whole new debate and a waste of time and money -__-

+ i hate seeing those images of lungs/feet/eyes ugh

Thats the thing. I don't mind smoking, and I don't see a problem with me choosing to do so. But the packaging is awful, and I feel as though my freedom to choose has been quelled somewhat. I know my actual choice has not been altered at all, but it makes me not want to. Which, I guess, is mission accomplished for the government. But I don't see the mission as just, I don't think they have the right to intervene in my life, make things I want to do unappealing, to alter my decisions. As I said, it's coercion, and I do not believe that the role of government is to coerce people into safe practices.

I don't want to be seen buying or carrying around such packets. I would probably have to carry them around in a tin or something. My major problem is I think the government is overstepping it's boundaries here by intervening in the realm of personal choice. I don't care if people smoke, and neither should you, and neither should they. And they shouldn't have some agenda to stop people making choices about their lives, regardless of what the choice is.

And don't bring up second hand smoke - that does about as much damage as standing near a campfire. Especially given the declining popularity of smoking, you're almost certainly not going to die from second hand smoke. You are not harming others by smoking.

 

[boris]

How on earth does plain packaging make the act of smoking 'uncool lol you guys are idiots

 

[soloooooo]

Smoking is not great. It leaves a bad taste in your mouth that lasts a day or so. While drunk I understand although I don't get why people would smokewhile sober.

 

[kat-]

Cause like Annihilist said, it's not the greatest thing carrying around a box with a picture of a tar-filled lung.

 

[boris]

Do you smoke?

 

[scarvesss]

Thats the thing. I don't mind smoking, and I don't see a problem with me choosing to do so. But the packaging is awful, and I feel as though my freedom to choose has been quelled somewhat. I know my actual choice has not been altered at all, but it makes me not want to. Which, I guess, is mission accomplished for the government. But I don't see the mission as just, I don't think they have the right to intervene in my life, make things I want to do unappealing, to alter my decisions. As I said, it's coercion, and I do not believe that the role of government is to coerce people into safe practices.

I don't want to be seen buying or carrying around such packets. I would probably have to carry them around in a tin or something. My major problem is I think the government is overstepping it's boundaries here by intervening in the realm of personal choice. I don't care if people smoke, and neither should you, and neither should they. And they shouldn't have some agenda to stop people making choices about their lives, regardless of what the choice is.

And don't bring up second hand smoke - that does about as much damage as standing near a campfire. Especially given the declining popularity of smoking, you're almost certainly not going to die from second hand smoke. You are not harming others by smoking.

by all means you are free to do what you want. but as ozko suggested there is more to it than just personal effects and second hand smoke. i would imagine the medical costs and such that are funded by tax payers would be fairly high, so getting rid of that financial burden would be of much benefit to everyone else. its not just wasted money on something that could be easily avoided.

 

[boris]

abolish public healthcare problem solved