Iceland - cigarettes only in pharmacies, on prescription.

biko

http://www.stuttgarter-nachrichten.de/inhalt.gesetzesinitiative-in-island-zigaretten-bald-nur-auf-rezept.998e7a07-47c0-47c0-8e9f-cbe4d68e8887.html

English
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stuttgarter-nachrichten.de%2Finhalt.gesetzesinitiative-in-island-zigaretten-bald-nur-auf-rezept.998e7a07-47c0-47c0-8e9f-cbe4d68e8887.html&act=url

Currently smokes must not be visible in shops, you have to ask for them.
With this new proposal they want to make it obligatory to visit a doctor to get access to smokes, this in an attempt to keep the population healthier.

Bit big brother-ish but probably well-meaning.

allydylan

yes it is a little big brother-ish, i fear that we'll soon be run by a NannyState, if people want to smoke let them smoke they know the risks of what there doing so why doesn't the state just let them do it?

briany

Sounds like business is going to pick up for the Iceland's cigarette black market.

the_syco

The government would loose an awful lot of tax money if they did that...

I think a packet of 20 in Iceland is "only" around the €5.50 mark. Compared to what? €8 point something here?

Now, imagine all that tax, esp the extra tax they just added on, disappearing? They can say how unhealthy it is, but I can't see them cutting off the tax that easily...

Captain Chaos

allydylan wrote: »

, if people want to smoke let them smoke they know the risks of what there doing so why doesn't the state just let them do it?

Because it costs the state to have smokers. They cost health care with all the illness involved, they cost the state to tidy up after them and provide extra bins, second hand smoke health costs to people who have to hang around smokers. etc. Its costs more to support them than the tax they make off it.

allydylan

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Because it costs the state to have smokers. They cost health care with all the illness involved, they cost the state to tidy up after them and provide extra bins, second hand smoke health costs to people who have to hang around smokers. etc. Its costs more to support them than the tax they make off it.

taxpayers run the country so in truth smokers and non-smokers are paying the costs, which i know isn't fair on the non-smokers but how far do you go with it, should the governments go around supermarkets to see what you buy to make sure you don't buy more than you need or come to your house to make sure you are eating right and getting exercise because diseases related to obesity sort the state alot as well, and most litter is food wrappers rather than cigarette butts

Gran Hermano

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Because it costs the state to have smokers. They cost health care with all the illness involved, they cost the state to tidy up after them and provide extra bins, second hand smoke health costs to people who have to hang around smokers. etc. Its costs more to support them than the tax they make off it.

Absolute bollox, anyone with even the most basic knowledge of welfare economics would know that smokers are net contributors to an economy. Smokers pay more tax than non smokers and shorter life expectancy means they claim less in pensions, housing, healthcare etc

allydylan

Gran Hermano wrote: »

Absolute bollox, anyone with even the most basic knowledge of welfare economics would know that smokers are net contributors to an economy. Smokers pay more tax than non smokers and shorter life expectancy means they claim less in pensions, housing, healthcare etc

thank you you brought up more examples than i thought of at the time i wrote my last post

The Hill Billy

Read the forum charter please. This forum is for the discussing the positives of smoking.

HB

nesf

Wouldn't work here, it would just drive people into the arms of the black market sellers.

Nice idea in a perfect world though.

drunkmonkey

nesf wrote: »

Wouldn't work here, it would just drive people into the arms of the black market sellers.

There already there, it's trying to get them out of the black market we should be doing. Reduce smokes to about €4.50/€5 per packet and that's an extra €30pw smokers will spend on other legal goods and services.
At the moment the government are getting nothing from the majority of smokers as a lot of people either buy on the black market or bring them in themselves.
I don't buy on the black market any more are there are a lot of fake cigarettes about. It's easier bring them back from a short trip.

murphym7

I have to say the keeping the tobacco products from public view in Ireland might be an idea that might work.

I recently moved from my beloved B&H to start smoking rollies. I went to the local garage to buy mu papers, filters and tobacco and froze - I did not have a clue what to choose, nothing was on show. I evetually bough some Samson out of panic. Drum is what I have been smoking since.

Not having the choice on display does have a big effect, stumped me anyway.!!

the_syco

murphym7 wrote: »

Not having the choice on display does have a big effect, stumped me anyway.!!

Not seeing it means you're not tempted. Personally, I like to smoke at the weekends, and although I know there is rolling tobacco behind the counter, it's nice not having it in my face.

54kroc

murphym7 wrote: »

Not having the choice on display does have a big effect, stumped me anyway.!!

Your not alone there, a couple of months back I was looking to change tobacco's, so I went to a shop down the road from me and asked the lady behind the counter could I see what they stocked, she said no she's not allowed, fair enough I thought so I asked her what tobacco brands they stocked and she told me she couldn't tell me as she would be braking the law :eek:

ArmaniJeanss

I guess the display rules make it pretty much impossible to launch/market a new brand now.

So the only brands available in 50 years will likely be those currently available. But obviously not all current brands will survive as tastes change (Sweet Afton, Major, Rothmans, Dunhill, Carrolls would be my guess for those which will cease to be sold in Ireland).
Sort of interesting to see what happens.

Rothmans

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I guess the display rules make it pretty much impossible to launch/market a new brand now.

So the only brands available in 50 years will likely be those currently available. But obviously not all current brands will survive as tastes change (Sweet Afton, Major, Rothmans, Dunhill, Carrolls would be my guess for those which will cease to be sold in Ireland).
Sort of interesting to see what happens.

Oh no :eek:, I was hoping for longer than that

johnmcdnl

cork45 wrote: »

Your not alone there, a couple of months back I was looking to change tobacco's, so I went to a shop down the road from me and asked the lady behind the counter could I see what they stocked, she said no she's not allowed, fair enough I thought so I asked her what tobacco brands they stocked and she told me she couldn't tell me as she would be braking the law :eek:

in the spar beside my college gaff they have a pricing list up so... someone is wrong somewhere

don't shops have to advertise the price of products so they'd legally have to display the price of cigarettes too???

and from citizen's information

it would appear that they have to have a list of prices for tobaccos and cigarettes just like they have to show the price of everything else in the shop to be keeping the law but no doubt there's an exception for cigarettes somewhere in the law

I dunno - going to need some legal expert to tell us I suppose

54kroc

johnmcdnl wrote: »

in the spar beside my college gaff they have a pricing list up so... someone is wrong somewhere

don't shops have to advertise the price of products so they'd legally have to display the price of cigarettes too???

and from citizen's information

it would appear that they have to have a list of prices for tobaccos and cigarettes just like they have to show the price of everything else in the shop to be keeping the law but no doubt there's an exception for cigarettes somewhere in the law

I dunno - going to need some legal expert to tell us I suppose

Sweet, I think I'll take a trip to the shop tomorrow, I've not noticed a list in there but worth a shot to piss your one off.

johnmcdnl

cork45 wrote: »

Sweet, I think I'll take a trip to the shop tomorrow, I've not noticed a list in there but worth a shot to piss your one off.

Let us know what happens.. I'm actually quite interested to see what the actual law is about this