So apparently plain tobacco packaging is a threat to our economic recovery...

Hotfail.com

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/plain-tobacco-packets-will-hurt-recovery-279302.html

What do ye all think? Sounds like absolute nonsense to me. Isn't the whole point of this packaging to discourage people from buying cigarettes? Which would obviously lead to a lower amount of money brought in through tax? If so then it's surely going to do the job it's supposed to..? Don't see why it's Germany's problem either tbh.

Yes I know it's late to start threads about this sort of thing, but I've nothing better to do.

whirlpool

I don't want to live in a world where politicians are actually raising "plain tobacco packaging posing a threat to a country's economic recovery" as an issue. There isn't a sigh deep enough to express my feelings on the matter.

The other fella

They want the best of both worlds....they put forward this plain packaging plan and now they are afraid it might actually work.

The previous genius plan of putting the price of fags up every year "to discourage people from buying them" was fine because they knew people were addicted and would keep paying.

Clandestine

There should be no government intervention in business like this. The companies should be allowed to put whatever designs on the packages they want. More nanny state nonsense

The other fella

Clandestine wrote: »

There should be no government intervention in business like this. The companies should be allowed to put whatever designs on the packages they want. More nanny state nonsense

I agree fully but this time i think it might be for the greater good.

whirlpool

"Nanny state" has, surely, got to be the most irritating phrase of the past twenty years. Can we please replace it!

Clandestine

whirlpool wrote: »

"Nanny state" has, surely, got to be the most irritating phrase of the past twenty years. Can we please replace it!

I don't like it myself but I couldn't think of another phrase to use. Sorry dude

Sir Arthur Daley

They will smoke regardless. It cannot be stopped.

Iwasfrozen

whirlpool wrote: »

"Nanny state" has, surely, got to be the most irritating phrase of the past twenty years. Can we please replace it!

It's effective and gets the point across.

On the issue. I'm usually against government interference in business but I despise cigarettes and those who smoke them so I'm actually ok with this.

miss tickle

So now that we know that smokers have been propping up the economy for years, will there be a ban on NRT treatments, for the good of the country of course. Now, we know why they are so riled by 'vaping', and are trying to ban it in public places, they're not afraid it will encourage people to smoke, they're afraid it will catch on and reduce tobacco use, and they don't have the taxation method in place yet.

The other fella

I honestly think that without the fancy packaging of John Player Blue boxes i saw as a kid i would never have started smoking. There seemed to be something very attractive about the fancy gold print of the name on the box and the gold paper that covered the cigarettes inside.

Clandestine

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm usually against government interference in business but I despise cigarettes and those who smoke them so I'm actually ok with this.

So government interference is only grand when you agree with it? I think less people smoking would be a good thing, but I don't think its the governments nor anyone else's place to impose a restriction like this. Companies should be allowed to advertise, and people should be allowed to buy...

ZeroThreat

miss tickle wrote: »

So now that we know that smokers have been propping up the economy for years, will there be a ban on NRT treatments, for the good of the country of course. Now, we know why they are so riled by 'vaping', and are trying to ban it in public places, they're not afraid it will encourage people to smoke, they're afraid it will catch on and reduce tobacco use, and they don't have the taxation method in place yet.

Surely the reduced spend in health will largely cancel out lost revenue?

Ihatecuddles

I smoked regardless of the ads, the pictures on the boxes, my father getting cancer.

I only gave up because I want to have a baby in the next few years.

Being honest, as awful as it sounds, nothing else could make me give up. I know its a horrible disgusting addiction. I smoked 20 a day at least for 6 years, but children mean so much to me that I'd do anything to have them.

My husband says we can start trying when I'm off them 6 months. I'm only off them a week but it feels like a huge step. Never thought I'd be there.

Tldr, pictures, warnings, ads, family deaths, nothing made me give up. Except the thought of having kids.

I gave up when I was pregnant with my first son, but started again when he had a stroke. I'll never make that mistake again.

Flippyfloppy

Clandestine wrote: »

There should be no government intervention in business like this. The companies should be allowed to put whatever designs on the packages they want. More nanny state nonsense

Surely the European intervention ie not wanting to take the shiny packaging away from ciggies, because they know it will WORK is more Nanny Stateology?

At least without the advertising on them people will be able to make their own choice on whether they want to smoke. To actually want to influence people to smoke using advertising as a means of keeping Europeans flipping economy Alive is bizarre.


Hot fail I wished you posted this when more boardsies were awake!!

Hotfail.com

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Surely the European intervention ie not wanting to take the shiny packaging away from ciggies, because they know it will WORK is more Nanny Stateology?

At least without the advertising on them people will be able to make their own choice on whether they want to smoke. To actually want to influence people to smoke using advertising as a means of keeping Europeans flipping economy Alive is bizarre.


Hot fail I wished you posted this when more boardsies were awake!!

Just give the thread a bump in the morning

Sir Arthur Daley

Hotfail.com wrote: »

Just give the thread a bump in the morning

Bump swap for my ads.

Hotfail.com

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

Bump swap for my ads.

No thanks looking for cash on this one.

EyeSight

There are 2 points to this.
1) tax on cigarettes was never to discourage use. It was to raise money.

2) plain packaging is a lame duck way to cut down on people buying cigarettes. It's like the stupid ways they attempt to seem like they are cutting down on binge drinking(e.g. restricting hours where shops can sell alcohol). I don't like smoking, but i don't think packaging will make a difference, it's just another way the government want to seem like they are being proactive.

Just look at the "fat tax" they have been wanting to bring in for a while

Chance The Rapper

Packing cigarette machines in shops is going to be a real pain. It's tedious enough as it is.

Karl Stein

whirlpool wrote: »

"Nanny state" has, surely, got to be the most irritating phrase of the past twenty years. Can we please replace it!

What's even more irritating is how the term is regurgitated thoughtlessly (see below).

Clandestine wrote: »

More nanny state nonsense ... Companies should be allowed to advertise

So you think that tobacco corporations should be allowed to advertise their horribly addictive cancer causing product however and whenever they like? On school books? On cereal boxes?

Philo Beddoe

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

On the issue. I'm usually against government interference in business but I despise cigarettes and those who smoke them so I'm actually ok with this.

So you're a man of principle then.

y0ssar1an22

Karl Stein wrote: »

What's even more irritating is how the term is regurgitated thoughtlessly (see below).



So you think that tobacco corporations should be allowed to advertise their horribly addictive cancer causing product however and whenever they like? On school books? On cereal boxes?

Why dont they just ban them? If your allowed to sell them you should be allowed to advertise them.
Could this principle extend to alcohol, sweets? Basically anything bad for you?

Philo Beddoe

Karl Stein wrote: »

What's even more irritating is how the term is regurgitated thoughtlessly (see below).

Exactly. The term 'nanny state' is applied to instances of the government trying to regulate how people live e.g. criminalisation of recreational drugs. Regulation of businesses is a separate matter entirely and is the responsibility of good government, as they cannot be relied upon to regulate themselves.

Grayson

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

They will smoke regardless. It cannot be stopped.

It's been shown that the packaging can increase or decrease how smoking is perceived, especially with teens. Plain packaging will help prevent teenagers from starting smoking. And to a certain extent you're right, addicts will still smoke. But then again, maybe those who aren't addicted, as in they are too young to have started, won't smoke.

I've been off smokes for three months now. I started when I was 20, I'm now 39. I spent the guts of 20 years flushing away cash every day. I was getting headaches and coughs constantly and I couldn't stop. I knew it was a vile, horrible addiction and I couldn't stop.

Smoking has pretty much zero benefit. It sucks away your life and your money. It's killed hundreds of millions of people. If plain packaging will help prevent a few people from smoking, then it's worth it.

And here's the kicker. the plain packaging will stop new people from smoking. If it didn't, then why would politicians be lobbying against it.

darkpagandeath

Karl Stein wrote: »

What's even more irritating is how the term is regurgitated thoughtlessly (see below).



So you think that tobacco corporations should be allowed to advertise their horribly addictive cancer causing product however and whenever they like? On school books? On cereal boxes?

Well they advertise sugary foods , fatty foods , fast food joins everywhere. that causes heart disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes that are all worse problems than what smoking currently cause. And type 2 diabetes will be the biggest problem in the next decade. So plane packaging for all food high in the bad stuff, no advertising anywhere.

darkpagandeath

Grayson wrote: »

It's been shown that the packaging can increase or decrease how smoking is perceived, especially with teens. Plain packaging will help prevent teenagers from starting smoking. And to a certain extent you're right, addicts will still smoke. But then again, maybe those who aren't addicted, as in they are too young to have started, won't smoke.

I've been off smokes for three months now. I started when I was 20, I'm now 39. I spent the guts of 20 years flushing away cash every day. I was getting headaches and coughs constantly and I couldn't stop. I knew it was a vile, horrible addiction and I couldn't stop.

Smoking has pretty much zero benefit. It sucks away your life and your money. It's killed hundreds of millions of people. If plain packaging will help prevent a few people from smoking, then it's worth it.

And here's the kicker. the plain packaging will stop new people from smoking. If it didn't, then why would politicians be lobbying against it.

I assume the packaging will be rally easy to counterfeit, I don't smoke anymore I Vape but I would rather put government regulated cancer causing products into my body than unregulated counterfeit ones.

Grayson

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I assume the packaging will be rally easy to counterfeit, I don't smoke anymore I Vape but I would rather put government regulated cancer causing products into my body than unregulated counterfeit ones.

It's not like they're hard to counterfeit now. It would probably mean a marginal increase in profit for the counterfeiters. I'd imagine making 100k cigarettes and boxing them is pretty damn hard. Printing the boxes probably isn't as hard.

darkpagandeath

Grayson wrote: »

It's not like they're hard to counterfeit now. It would probably mean a marginal increase in profit for the counterfeiters. I'd imagine making 100k cigarettes and boxing them is pretty damn hard. Printing the boxes probably isn't as hard.

My point is, Most of the counterfeit stuff the customs guys take is random named made up. This will make it infinitely easier.

griffdaddy

whirlpool wrote: »

"Nanny state" has, surely, got to be the most irritating phrase of the past twenty years. Can we please replace it!

How about 'Granny state'?

rubadub

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I assume the packaging will be rally easy to counterfeit

We are only 1 market for counterfeiters, I expect other countries will have different ideas of what plain wrapping is. I have read many are in China and would presumably do big brands.

Branded packs will still be out there, I presume you will still be able to buy them duty free and bring them home. So you will still see people with branded legitimate packs. The street sellers will still be getting both legit and counterfeit branded packs.

So its not like the gardai or anyone will be on the look out for smokers with branded packs and be able to say they must be black market ones.

many will say the unbranded packs will have zero effect on them, which is sort of similar to saying advertising has no influence on them. This might be true for that individual but saying it won't have an effect on anyone is like saying the advertising industry is a waste of time and has zero effect, -obviously it does..

whirlpool wrote: »

"Nanny state" has, surely, got to be the most irritating phrase of the past twenty years.

since the last 20 years whenever I hear nanny now, I am presuming they are talking about a babysitter who physically abuses children.

Karl Stein

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

Why dont they just ban them?

It doesn't work and it creates a revenue stream in the black market. The war on drugs people has been a catastrophic failure.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

type 2 diabetes will be the biggest problem in the next decade.

It will, which is why governments will need to tackle it by carrying out actions like those used to reduce the number of smokers.

shruikan2553

Damn, I thought about starting to smoke but none of the pictures were pretty enough. Guess I'll go back to licking windows.

Im not sure which is worse, the idea of plain packaging or thinking it will actually work, never mind to the point were the loss of revenue is a problem.