Plain Packaging For Tobacco Products

Amirani

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/american-business-warns-taoiseach-over-tobacco-proposals-1.1473559


I'm not completely sold on how effective this measure will be in stopping smoking, and I do think this is a bit of a nanny state measure. However, the attitude of some of these American lobby groups is quite funny. Trying to bully the Irish Government by suggesting these measures could scupper future EU/US trade deals.

Faith+1

Meah!!:cool:

FatherLen

This is going to do sweet fuck all to stop people smoking.

All it will do is make illegal distribution easier.

kneemos

You could still buy a particular brand then rather than a generic pack of cigerettes I presume.

Lapin

FatherLen wrote: »

This is going to do sweet fuck all to stop people smoking.

True. Although the lack of any visible branding may be a factor in stopping young people taking up the habit in the first place.

Lapin

kneemos wrote: »

You could still buy a particular brand then rather than a generic pack of cigerettes I presume.

Yes. There just won't be any trade marks, logos, or brand slogans on the pack.

Just the name of the brand in plain text.

murpho999

It's not going to have an effect immediately but it will stop recognition of colours and branding which will impact on younger people by not knowing distinguishing brands.

Over the long term I think it will lead to less smokers.

dr.bollocko

Main reason why every smoker I know and I are stopping smoking is the cost. That's why everyone's suddenly smoking rollies from their own tobacco pouch or buying them illegally off dodgy sellers.

It's cheaper.

kneemos

FatherLen wrote: »

This is going to do sweet fuck all to stop people smoking.

All it will do is make illegal distribution easier.

If the tobacco companies are against it there probably is some benefit in implementing it.

KingOfFairview

Folks, if the packaging, brand identity and logos didn't encourage people to but smokes then they wouldn't be spending millions designing them.

Dravokivich

KingOfFairview wrote: »

Folks, if the packaging, brand identity and logos didn't encourage people to but smokes then they wouldn't be spending millions designing them.

Any company with a logo will spend a lot of money on it. Recent example being McCambridges taking Brennan's in for similarities in their packaging.

KingOfFairview

Dravokivich wrote: »

Any company with a logo will spend a lot of money on it. Recent example being McCambridges taking Brennan's in for similarities in their packaging.

What does that tell you? Logos and packaging help sell products

FatherLen

kneemos wrote: »

If the tobacco companies are against it there probably is some benefit in implementing it.

The tobacco companies are against it because it eliminates brand awareness.

Karl Stein

Tobacco companies are scum. Anything that has a remote chance of helping reduce the number of people they make money from can only be good.

Also, people should learn the different between 'nanny state' (trying to ban/restrict access to porn) and public health (banning the advertising of extremely harmful products).

Dravokivich

KingOfFairview wrote: »

What does that tell you? Logos and packaging help sell products

It makes a difference in branding, you'd have to be interested in the type of product first.

Amirani

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Also, people should learn the different between 'nanny state' (trying to ban/restrict access to porn) and public health (banning the advertising of extremely harmful products).

You've made up that definition to suit your point of view.

the purple tin

Sure we'll give it a go. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

Gbear

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Also, people should learn the different between 'nanny state' (trying to ban/restrict access to porn) and public health (banning the advertising of extremely harmful products).

There is no difference at all.

In either case it's "our betters" making decisions on our behalf. Ah sure it's grand. It's for our own good.:rolleyes:

I was fully in favour of the public smoking ban - you shouldn't be able to force others to smoke.

Other than that though, the government should **** off and mind it's own business. They already tax the **** out of cigarettes to the point where it's counter-productive.

People have to be trusted to make their own decisions and look after their own kids. They're the only ones that have a stake in the decision and as such should be the only ones allowed to make it.

seamus

They've done this recently in Oz, and preliminary figures and studies seem to suggest that this does in fact make a difference.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57595154/plain-cigarette-packaging-may-encourage-more-smokers-to-quit/

Don't underestimate the power of branding. Our enjoyment of a product is affected not only by the product itself, but also associations - look, feel, smell & sound plays a big part in it. Someone will tell you (hell, I'll tell you) that a pint out of a glass tastes better than a pint in a plastic cup. It doesn't. It's the same pint, but there's a psychological difference in the glass that makes you feel better about the pint and thus enjoy it more.
Likewise, some people have a ritual in their tea - you have to scald the cup first, or you have to rinse the pot, or whatever. It's all nonsense, it's in your head, you feel better when the ritual is followed and thus you think it tastes better.

Same for cigarettes, the colouring on your favourite brand's package is a psychological cue. If you take the cigarette from the a plain package, you miss that cue, and you don't enjoy the cigarette as much. I can guarantee you that if someone put your favourite brand into another brand's box (without telling you) and gave you one, you would tell me that it's not the same, it tastes different.

What I find interesting is that if people think this won't make a difference, then why oppose it? If the branding means nothing to you, what's the big deal?

Dravokivich

It's not the branding to the consumer, it's about forcibly removing branding from a producer.

kylith

I'm not sure it'll make much of a difference. It'll reduce brand recognition but if a kid wants to start smoking all they'll have to do is to find out the name of a brand and ask for that.

I'm never convinced that the government actually wants to stop people smoking; they're making too much money off it.

Fratton Fred

Dravokivich wrote: »

Any company with a logo will spend a lot of money on it. Recent example being McCambridges taking Brennan's in for similarities in their packaging.

Which would probably affect my decision on which brand to buy, but by that time I would have already made the decision to buy a loaf of bread.

humbert

Branding and the money spent on it is generally so that you'll buy one brand over another rather than encouraging you to that product in the first place.

You'd think the general stench and visible negative impact on the person's appearance would put people off smoking. If that has failed I do wonder how much difference plain packaging can make!

Dravokivich

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Which would probably affect my decision on which brand to buy, but by that time I would have already made the decision to buy a loaf of bread.

That's what I was saying initially, but I had to stretch it out for the other guy.

Ishmael

Meh, so long as the taste the same, couldn't really care less about this.

Will this not save the tobacco companies millions also? No need for fancy packet designs and production cost is reduced due to less printing.

shruikan2553

If the government really wanted to stop smoking they would just ban them and bring in those e cigarettes for awhile so people could ease themselves off of them. Instead they are just making it look like they care for our health.

ScumLord

Lapin wrote: »

True. Although the lack of any visible branding may be a factor in stopping young people taking up the habit in the first place.

It will confuse the face off our young media feed, consumer pig generation.

seamus wrote: »

Don't underestimate the power of branding. Our enjoyment of a product is affected not only by the product itself, but also associations - look, feel, smell & sound plays a big part in it. Someone will tell you (hell, I'll tell you) that a pint out of a glass tastes better than a pint in a plastic cup. It doesn't. It's the same pint, but there's a psychological difference in the glass that makes you feel better about the pint and thus enjoy it more.

That's like an affect of service on top of product. I don't think the brand will have as much of an effect as good service but it can be associated with good service (which can go on to backfire if people expect the service to be better than it actually is).

I think the majority of big companies are effectively eroding the effectiveness of brands these days, people are used to the brand trick and now it's mostly used for identification again. Outside of the big dependable brands good branding will only get a product noticed these days. A smaller company fighting up from obscurity won't have the same impact with their brand no matter how good they are.

readyletsgo

A bit of common sense is needed here...

This is not for adults who smoke right now, its for young kids (ages from 4/5 to 14/16) who will not notice the packaging. Thats it! Of course kids will try smoking, others wont.

The sad fact is (as a smoker myself) the govt. get something crazy like 79% in tax from each smoker each day, the tobacco company gets like 19% and the shop maybe 1% or 2% (keeping in mind that it costs the tobacco company something like 0.1cent per pack of 20 smokes to produce them). The Govt. doesnt want ANYONE to stop smoking and they know blank packaging is not going to stop people smoking, but they have to do something to show they 'care' and that they want the Irish public to be none smokers.

I'll stick to my Amber leaf anyway, same as half the country (which the Govt. have copped onto and hiked up the price on loose tobacco in the last budget).

Anyone know how much the govt. make annually in tax from sales of tobacco?

mikeym

Teenagers will always want to try out smoking whether or not theres a health warning or a bland pack of smokes.

Over the years the government has brought in drastic changes to deter people from smoking but it hasnt really done much.

The electronic cigarettes seem to be getting very popular and I predict the government will slap a big tax on those aswell.

Karl Stein

NiallSparky wrote: »

You've made up that definition to suit your point of view.

They're not definitions. They're explanations of the difference between 'waa waa waa nanny state' and public health.

Gbear wrote: »

There is no difference at all.

Yeah sure, in your own little fantasy world where everything the gosh darned gubbermint does is the nanny state gone mad.

Other than that though, the government should **** off and mind it's own business.

But not as long as its doing things that make you happy yeah? Like building roads, schools, airports, ports, policing, courts, prisons etc?

People have to be trusted to make their own decisions and look after their own kids.

How many kids would not attend school if their parents weren't compelled to send them? While we're at it shure lets get rid of social workers because, you know, trust parents.

They're the only ones that have a stake in the decision and as such should be the only ones allowed to make it.

Bollocks. Children who take up smoking can end up getting horrible diseases and burdening the health system. Public health campaigns have reduced smoking rates in the west year on year for decades.

Really 'waa waa waa nanny state' is not an argument. Take each government measure on its merits or lack thereof instead of parroting a Daily Mail sound-bite.

Knasher

I wonder if they are going to constantly vary what cigarettes are in which package. I don't smoke, but if I did I think I'd be much more likely to buy eyeball than gangrenous foot.

ScumLord

As long as cigarettes keep their cancerous, smokey goodness inside and remain as additively moreish as they always were they can do what they like to the packet.

up for anything

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Also, people should learn the different between 'nanny state' (trying to ban/restrict access to porn) and public health (banning the advertising of extremely harmful products).

So why then does the nanny state not take it to it's logical conclusion and ban cigarettes totally?

While they're at it they should make the alcohol companies sell their products in plain bottles with plain labeling. It might stop youngsters from thinking that nice bottle with the cool blue stuff in it looks great, or stop silly teenagers from thinking they're great drinking Jack when if they were presented with with four unlabled whisky bottles they wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Then I might not step in puke puddles while walking around town.

Karl Stein

up for anything wrote: »

So why then does the nanny state not take it to it's logical conclusion and ban cigarettes totally?

How is that a logical conclusion? Prohibition has been a disaster and wrecked millions of lives. We should be legalising drugs rather than prohibiting more of them.

up for anything

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

How is that a logical conclusion? Prohibition has been a disaster and wrecked millions of lives. We should be legalising drugs rather than prohibiting more of them.

If that's the case then why change the packaging? The government is sending out a mixed message which doesn't work on children. I discovered recently that my daughter is smoking. I never thought she'd take them up, she moaned about me smoking, moaned about how much money I spent on them that could be better spent on her, wants to be a singer and spent the last three years in a youth group in which they were learning to educate their peers about the the dangers of smoking, drugs and teaching about safe sex. Why did she take it up - all her friends smoke, I smoke so why shouldn't she smoke. At 18 you'd think that she'd have gotten past that. All that education and negative example wasted. Nothing to do with packaging.

Roger_007

up for anything wrote: »

So why then does the nanny state not take it to it's logical conclusion and ban cigarettes totally?..........

The answer to that is simple........tax revenue, ( €2 billion annually). If everyone gave up smoking in the morning the bods in the Dept of Finance would sh1t a brick. You will never hear any politician or anyone from the health service proposing a ban on the sale of tobacco. Vested interests abound on both sides.
But, paradoxically, doing away with branded packets will be a godsend to the illegal trade because the most difficult thing to counterfeit is the packet. They will be able to put any old rubbish in any old box and sell them as John Player or Bensen & Hedges etc..

RayM

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

How is that a logical conclusion? Prohibition has been a disaster and wrecked millions of lives. We should be legalising drugs rather than prohibiting more of them.

I don't think (strictly-enforced) prohibition of tobacco products would be such a disaster. Alcohol, cannabis and other drugs are immediately pleasurable. Cigarettes aren't. Also, most smokers want to quit. If manufacture, supply and possession of cigarettes were illegal, would smoking be worth risking a criminal record for?

Plain packaging is a good start, but governments should be aiming towards an eventual total ban.

power101

Roger_007 wrote: »

The answer to that is simple........tax revenue, ( €2 billion annually). If everyone gave up smoking in the morning the bods in the Dept of Finance would sh1t a brick. You will never hear any politician or anyone from the health service proposing a ban on the sale of tobacco. Vested interests abound on both sides.
But, paradoxically, doing away with branded packets will be a godsend to the illegal trade because the most difficult thing to counterfeit is the packet. They will be able to put any old rubbish in any old box and sell them as John Player or Bensen & Hedges etc..

The revenue from taxes of 2 billion is the same as the cost of treating smoking related diseases. We would all be healthier if people stopped smoking. The reason for the changes in these packages is not so much "plain packaging" but that there will be pictures of the aftermath of smoking. Destroyed teeth & gums, cancer & rotting lungs but to name a very small few side affects will be printed on every box. It will definitely discourage smoking which is what we should all be aiming for.

50% of smokers will die due to a smoking related disease.
Smokers will die on average 10-15 years younger than normal people and have a much worse quality of life.
A 20 pack a day smoker will spend 3650 per year.

Why would anyone waste their money, health & future on this rubbish and worse defend themselves using them. Smokers affect everyone around them with passive smoking. They take up a huge quantity of resources in our health service . They fund organized crime when they don't buy cigarettes legally.

hfallada

I think the government seriously needs to reevaluate how it stops young people taking up the habit. A 14 year old boy with the lads doesn't care about reduce fertility or lung cancer. Neither does a young girl care about its connection with heart disease.

The government should show smoking destroys your hair and skin for girls. And reduce performance in sport. But what do any of the government officials know about teenagers when they cant even come with policies for thirty something's

Karl Stein

up for anything wrote: »

I discovered recently that my daughter is smoking [...] Why did she take it up - all her friends smoke, I smoke so why shouldn't she smoke.

Yep. Kids tend to watch their parents and peers and take cues from them. That's exactly why we, the public, should make it as difficult as possible for tobacco companies to push their products (which is essentially what advertising is).

RayM wrote: »

I don't think (strictly-enforced) prohibition of tobacco products would be such a disaster.

Em... there's already a multi-million euro smuggling business. Banning cigarettes would just create another revenue stream for sumbags and thugs.

RayM

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Em... there's already a multi-million euro smuggling business. Banning cigarettes would just create another revenue stream for sumbags and thugs.

If possession of cigarettes was illegal, I think most smokers would sooner give up than risk a criminal record. It's not an easy habit to hide.

Karl Stein

RayM wrote: »

If possession of cigarettes was illegal, I think most smokers would sooner give up than risk a criminal record. It's not an easy habit to hide.

We're doing quite well reducing the number of smokers by public health campaigns. Why make a whole new field of illegality? Prohibition doesn't work and has been a costly disaster.

RayM

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

We're doing quite well reducing the number of smokers by public health campaigns. Why make a whole new field of illegality? Prohibition doesn't work and has been a costly disaster.

People said that the ban on smoking in the workplace wouldn't work. It's been a resounding success because the vast majority of people are law-abiding. Nothing would reduce the number of smokers as effectively as the prospect of an eventual all-out-ban.

Roger_007

power101 wrote: »

The revenue from taxes of 2 billion is the same as the cost of treating smoking related diseases. We would all be healthier if people stopped smoking. The reason for the changes in these packages is not so much "plain packaging" but that there will be pictures of the aftermath of smoking. Destroyed teeth & gums, cancer & rotting lungs but to name a very small few side affects will be printed on every box. It will definitely discourage smoking which is what we should all be aiming for.

50% of smokers will die due to a smoking related disease.
Smokers will die on average 10-15 years younger than normal people and have a much worse quality of life.
A 20 pack a day smoker will spend 3650 per year.

Why would anyone waste their money, health & future on this rubbish and worse defend themselves using them. Smokers affect everyone around them with passive smoking. They take up a huge quantity of resources in our health service . They fund organized crime when they don't buy cigarettes legally.

I am not a smoker, so I am not defending anything. I do not want to see everyone giving up smoking because I don't want to pay any more tax to replace the loss of revenue. The stats you quote mean nothing to me, ( I could never any source for these stats anyway). If, as you say, that smokers die much younger than non-smokers, then that that is actually a huge saving for the health service. Most of health service expenditure goes on the under 10s and over 70s.
So just look at it like this:- every time you see someone lighting up a cigarette just say to yourself: 'there's a bit of tax I won't have to pay and there goes someone I won't have to support in their old age'. It makes me feel better and it might work for you.

jank

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

How is that a logical conclusion? Prohibition has been a disaster and wrecked millions of lives. We should be legalising drugs rather than prohibiting more of them.

That makes no sense at all. You support the government compelling producers how to package a product yet support legalising herion? You are making moral and emotional judgement call on what you think the government should do or not.

Karl Stein

jank wrote: »

[you] support legalising herion?

Prohibition doesn't work and has been a catastrophic and costly failure. Drug abuse is a social problem not a criminal one and should be treated as such. People should have the freedom to take drugs if they choose - it's their body.

jank wrote: »

You support the government compelling producers how to package a product

. Allowing corporations, or whoever, to push the the consumption of extremely harmful products is immoral and costly to society so should be frustrated as much as possible.

It's that simple.

Roger_007

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

. Allowing corporations, or whoever, to push the the consumption of extremely harmful products is immoral and costly to society so should be frustrated as much as possible.

It's that simple.

The real question is: why are'extremely harmful products' allowed to be sold at all? Health authorities claim that 5000 people in Ireland are killed by this product every year, yet they do not propose to ban it's sale or consumption now, or at any time in the future. Compare that to the banning of magic mushrooms because of one death was allegedly caused by them. Marijuana is banned even though few, if any, deaths result from it's use.
Why do governments and health authorities not ban the sale of tobacco products. They have been rabbiting on about it for about 30 years or so yet they fail to act decisively and make tobacco a banned substance.
There seems to be a great deal of hypocrisy going on here.

Karl Stein

Roger_007 wrote: »

The real question is: why are'extremely harmful products' allowed to be sold at all?

Because banning them only hands massive profits, from sale and distribution, over to thugs and scumbags and makes criminals out of users.

Mike 1972

Roger_007 wrote: »

Why do governments and health authorities not ban the sale of tobacco products. They have been rabbiting on about it for about 30 years or so yet they fail to act decisively and make tobacco a banned substance.
There seems to be a
great deal of hypocrisy going on here.

Because banning would do more harm than good. Nevertheless there is a big inconsistency between policy on alcohol/ tobacco and most other drugs.

Mike 1972

jank wrote: »

That makes no sense at all. You support the government compelling producers how to package a product yet support legalising herion? You are making moral and emotional judgement call on what you think the government should do or not.

It actually makes perfect sense since Im sure the poster doesnt advocate legalised heroin being dispensed in bags marked SWEETS

Roger_007

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Because banning them only hands massive profits, from sale and distribution, over to thugs and scumbags and makes criminals out of users.

To follow your logic then, you would propose that all substances which are currently banned and controlled by thugs and scumbags should be legalised in order to take them out of the hands of the aforementioned thugs and scumbags. Interesting argument.