Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Plain Packaging For Tobacco Products

2»

Comments

  • #32
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #33
    up for anything
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,791 ✭✭✭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.


  • #34
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭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.


  • #35
    up for anything
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,791 ✭✭✭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.


  • #36
    Roger_007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭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..


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭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.


  • #38
    power101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 299 ✭✭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.


  • #39
    hfallada
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,179 ✭✭✭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


  • #40
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭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.


  • #41
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭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.


  • #43
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭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.


  • #44
    Roger_007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #45
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #46
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭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.


  • #47
    Roger_007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #48
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭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.


  • #49
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭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.


  • #50
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭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


  • #51
    Roger_007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭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.:confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,321 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    KingOfFairview wrote: »
    What does that tell you? Logos and packaging help sell products

    Hopefully tobacco products will be cheaper now that the companies wont have to spend so much on packet advertising.


  • #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,321 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    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.

    They better damn well ban alcohol as well then. :mad:

    ;)


  • #54
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    If they were going to ban stuff for harm then sugar would be up there with cigarettes and crack cocaine at the top of the list.


  • #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,321 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Just ban everything, to be on the safe side.


  • #56
    Gbear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


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

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

    In principle, I think the extent of the government should be to protect our rights. I don't see any reason why it should try to protect our health, mental wellbeing or otherwise. That isn't what I want from a government and I don't think most people actually want it either. They just don't bring the argument to it's logical conclusion and see the full extent of that line of reasoning.
    I want to make those decision for myself. Why? Because I'm the one they effect.
    I think it's immoral for the government to make value judgements about what we do - whether that's smoking, taking drugs or watching porn.

    Cathal Cloch wrote: »
    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.

    Trusting parents referred specifically to letting them do their jobs of raising their children. If they fail then the government should step in and protect their rights.
    It's the same argument in the porn thread. It's up to parents to mind their own ****ty kids. It's not just about trust. It's about responsibility.
    Cathal Cloch wrote: »
    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.

    Ultimately that's a circular line of reasoning that's put in place by the government having a public health service.

    Also, if you were going to be logically consistent, you'd ban, tax or ban the advertising of anything that causes any harm to people because of it's cost to the taxpayer.
    Floor tax, because sometimes people slip.
    Ban banks advertising because people have been driven to suicide by their actions.

    What's the cut off point for being allowed to advertise? Why does it include cigarettes but doesn't include, for example, alcohol or cars?


  • #57
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Dunno what the fuss is about seeing as how cigarette packaging is already regulated.

    Besides the obvious health warnings Im sure its pretty illegal to sell (for example) John Player Blue in packets marked "Dunhill"


  • #58
    Mimikyu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,050 ✭✭✭✭Mimikyu


    This post has been deleted.


  • #59
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    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.:confused:
    It's the only way forward. We've criminalised people for a good few decades now and compared to the situation we had before drugs were criminalised things have gotten much, much worse. Illegal drugs are way more popular than legal drugs ever were, the law is increasing drug use not preventing it.

    Many countries are starting to legalise or decriminalise drugs and it's reducing drug crime, it's the only thing in decades that's had any affect on drug consumption and drug related crime.


  • #60
    Brendan Flowers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Brendan Flowers


    This thread just reminds me how much I miss tobacco advertising in sport, especially Formula 1


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Ruudi_Mentari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭Ruudi_Mentari


    Urban camo :cool: bring it


Advertisement
Advertisement