Tobacco giant threatens gov with legal action

TheDoc · 17-02-2015 3:03pm

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Untrue. Ireland has one of the highest instances of respiratory diseases in the world, from the extreme like CF to the manageable like asthma, for some people even a "whiff" while standing at a bus stop can trigger a severe reaction.

On top of that, it's just bloody ignorant to be walking around blowing your disgusting noxious fumes in peoples faces while you're standing outside clogging up the entrances to shops, pubs, bus stands and public buildings.

The last independent study I read, which was conducted in Greece I think, showed that it required twenty minutes of directly inhaling second hand smoke, before blood vessels began to thin, and air passages began to suffer.

Yeah, of course if someone has a predisposed condition like asthma or the likes, it's going to be rough on them. There are a number of cycling lobbies, lobbying Dublin City Council to introduce measures to combat diesel engines in the centre, due to an increase in asthma attacks being experienced by cyclists inhaling diesel fumes in heavy traffic areas.

While I'm all for being considerate, there is a certain length to go, before unfortunately there has to be some acceptance on the part of the affected individual, that if they have a condition that is highly reactive to social environments, that not everyone can be accountable for it.

I'd tend to agree though with the ignorant comments above. Personally I don't in my day to day find myself smoking in areas of crowded people. There is a designated smoking area in work, and I smoke exclusively out the back garden at home. I'd normally stay away from the doorway of a shop or building if I'm smoking, and when I was on public transport a few years back I normally stood to the side of the queue if I was smoking, and rejoined when I was done.

But then some people find it just as ignorant being in the company of people blaring music on their phone out loud, or having their music loud in their headphones. Some would find it ignorant with people having load telephone conversations on public transport and the likes. While I'm not putting it on par, it feeds into that fabric that smokers are lepers that should be shunted into corners and alleys to consume their filthy addictive habbit.

Just a little Samba · 17-02-2015 3:09pm

TheDoc wrote: »

The last independent study I read, which was conducted in Greece I think, showed that it required twenty minutes of directly inhaling second hand smoke, before blood vessels began to thin, and air passages began to suffer.

Yeah, of course if someone has a predisposed condition like asthma or the likes, it's going to be rough on them. There are a number of cycling lobbies, lobbying Dublin City Council to introduce measures to combat diesel engines in the centre, due to an increase in asthma attacks being experienced by cyclists inhaling diesel fumes in heavy traffic areas.

While I'm all for being considerate, there is a certain length to go, before unfortunately there has to be some acceptance on the part of the affected individual, that if they have a condition that is highly reactive to social environments, that not everyone can be accountable for it.

I'd tend to agree though with the ignorant comments above. Personally I don't in my day to day find myself smoking in areas of crowded people. There is a designated smoking area in work, and I smoke exclusively out the back garden at home. I'd normally stay away from the doorway of a shop or building if I'm smoking, and when I was on public transport a few years back I normally stood to the side of the queue if I was smoking, and rejoined when I was done.

But then some people find it just as ignorant being in the company of people blaring music on their phone out loud, or having their music loud in their headphones. Some would find it ignorant with people having load telephone conversations on public transport and the likes. While I'm not putting it on par, it feeds into that fabric that smokers are lepers that should be shunted into corners and alleys to consume their filthy addictive habbit.

So basically your right to damage your own health and drive up the cost of healthcare, insurance premiums and clog up hospitals in your old age because of your, as you put it filthy habbit, should be more important than someone with asthma's right to walk into a building without being effected by your noxious fumes?
What a load of tosh.

edit. my reply was in regards to paragraph 3 and 5 of your post.

I agree 100% about people blaring music from phones and portable speakers in buses/the luas. They should be told to feck off and all.

Also, diesal SHOULD be banned from use in urban areas, it's only cheaper because of tax differences between Diesal and Petrol anyway and it's been proven that the reasons Diesal is cheaper and was beign encouraged by governments for so long (better millage, cheaper to service, less air pollution) is a total crock of sh*t, so why continue to encourage it and give it preference over petrol?

TheDoc · 17-02-2015 3:12pm

murphk wrote: »

But there is encouraging evidence that its working particularily in the teen age brackets

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/tobacco-kff

I read that report over the weekend. I don't think it indicates anywhere that they have been able to ascertain any data surrounding the impact of the plain packaging introduction.

Remember that Australia introduced three years of 12.5% excise increases on Tobacco which drastically increased the price of Tobacco in the country. A number of independant commentators have also advised that it's difficult to track or even provide rough estimates of black market sales, but that there is every possability it could be making up some of the perceived drops in these reports.

Also worth noting that Australia introduced plain packaging ALONGSIDE visual imagery on packaging warning of health. So not only do they have concrete data on the impact, they would further then need to seperate the two.

Again to clarify, I'm not some Tobacco lobbyist, and I know it might be first perceived like that. I just have a serious pain in my hole with all these theories and ideas, instead of tackling the proven areas of success, education of young children.

And considering smokers in this country pay the highest taxation in Europe on Tobacco, I don't think its an excuse for the Government of the day to recite "resourcing and capital" as the excuse for not having proper education campaigns.

darkpagandeath · 17-02-2015 3:13pm

Anyone any ideas of how to replace the 80% revenue per pack out of €10 the government gets off them ? 2013 only 2bn of that was spent on treating people with tobacco related conditions. Quite the money maker.

Karl Stein · 17-02-2015 3:21pm

TheDoc wrote: »

Why does this need explaining?

You're avoiding my question.

While Tobacco companies have their evil stereotyping, which is fair enough considering the product involved, it is still a legal practice, a legal industry and they are legitimate business.

Non-argument. Legal doesn't mean virtuous. Illegal doesn't mean evil.

So a company should sit idly by, while their trademark and branding is removed from their products, on the basis of no encouraging evidence, only an "idea" ?

They should STFU and accept that the government the Irish people have elected are enacting public health legislation. Cheeky bastards.

Would you also side with the state if they removed branding and logos from alcoholic packaging?

If it was shown to reduce the harm alcohol causes to the public? Yeah, sure.

Just a little Samba · 17-02-2015 3:23pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Anyone any ideas of how to replace the 80% revenue per pack out of €10 the government gets off them ? 2013 only 2bn of that was spent on treating people with tobacco related conditions. Quite the money maker.

How much was the take? What is the differential from cost of treatment to tax take? I'd wager it's not all that high and could easily be absorbed.

TheDoc · 17-02-2015 3:38pm

Karl Stein wrote: »

You're avoiding my question.

Then to outline the response to your question, which I believe was along the lines of it the companies are not fearful of the impact of this change, why challenge it legally.

Trademarks and branding is a pretty big deal to any company. It's their imagine, it's their identifying mark. Look I'm not going to spell it all out, your clever enough to know what I'm talking about.

I think the companies in question have a perfectly valid right to challenge the restriction of their brand and logo on the basis of an idea or theory. They operate in a legal market, selling legal products. While we might have issues with the companies, or the products they sell, banning a company from using its trademark and logo is a seriously big deal in the corporate world.

Non-argument. Legal doesn't mean virtuous. Illegal doesn't mean evil.

It is an argument, just because society has moral issues with the company or the product, should not mean that they should sit down and take what's being fed to them. In this case a proposal that would has MASSIVE ramifications for any company operating in the world.

They should STFU and accept that the government the Irish people have elected are enacting public health legislation. Cheeky bastards.

Your clever enough to know that is not how the world works. In a country operating under EU directives and corporate law, alongside it's own sovereign law, a company has every right to defend itself should it feel it's been aggrieved. Just because we don't like the company, or the product/service, doesn't mean a company hasn't the right to defend itself or it's assets.

If it was shown to reduce the harm alcohol causes to the public? Yeah, sure.

This government is wielding out numerous talking shops about combating what is a serious drinking cultural/social problem in this country. Min pricing is being touted as targeting under cost selling, and targeting specifically cheap beer and spirits.

I don't think it's outlandish to suggest there are maybe some ties in relation to the design and marketing of alcohol, similar to tobacco. Although granted Tobacco cant be advertised, or displayed publicly. I'd say the same sort of surveys being done to teens ( in low volumes remembering) would look pretty similar if rolled out in relation to alcohol.

And again to re-iterate, there is no convincing evidence available that plain package smoking curbs overall smoking, or reduces take up in the teen bracket.

It's basically just someone with what is perceived as " a good idea", so why the same cannot be applied to alcohol, fast food chains etc. ? I'd argue it's because a state wouldn't have the neck to try it, they have much more neutral suport when doing something like this to tackle the perceived " evil tobacco companies"

Just a little Samba · 17-02-2015 3:45pm

TheDoc wrote: »

It's basically just someone with what is perceived as " a good idea", so why the same cannot be applied to alcohol, fast food chains etc. ? I'd argue it's because a state wouldn't have the neck to try it, they have much more neutral suport when doing something like this to tackle the perceived " evil tobacco companies"

I'd be all for pictures of the effects of obesity and diabetis being put on McDonald's, coca-cola products and on cans of lindin village as well as ban on fast/junk food and alcohol advertising akin to the ban on advertising of tobacco products.

I'm a drinker who likes a burger now and then but is lucky enough to not have a problem with either issue but at the same time there's no harm in educating people without the same luck or knowledge as myself about the real dangers of over consumption.

There there in lies the difference.

The only time alcohol or junk food are an issue is when they are over consumed. Tobacco is negative effects on both the individual and those around them from even irregular use, having a pint after work on a Friday or a burger on a Tuesday doesn't.

darkpagandeath · 17-02-2015 3:46pm

Just a little Samba wrote: »

How much was the take? What is the differential from cost of treatment to tax take? I'd wager it's not all that high and could easily be absorbed.

Over 5 bn cigarettes sold, Doubt you could replace that revenue.

Just a little Samba · 17-02-2015 3:51pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Over 5 bn cigarettes sold, Doubt you could replace that revenue.

over 5 billion cigarettes sold, but what was the tax take on that?

That's 250 million packets of 20 at approx €10 a pop = approx €2.5billion total spent on smokes.

80% of 2.5billion is, funnily enough, €2billion.

So basically the money raised by taxing tobacco is barely (if even) enough to fund the current cost of treating tobacco related illnesses.

wp_rathead · 17-02-2015 3:54pm

Don't be a maybe

TheDoc · 17-02-2015 4:00pm

Just a little Samba wrote: »

I'd be all for pictures of the effects of obesity and diabetis being put on McDonald's, coca-cola products and on cans of lindin village as well as ban on fast/junk food and alcohol advertising akin to the ban on advertising of tobacco products.

I'm a drinker who likes a burger now and then but is lucky enough to not have a problem with either issue but at the same time there's no harm in educating people without the same luck or knowledge as myself about the real dangers of over consumption.

There there in lies the difference.

The only time alcohol or junk food are an issue is when they are over consumed. Tobacco is negative effects on both the individual and those around them from even irregular use, having a pint after work on a Friday or a burger on a Tuesday doesn't.

Education is surely something that needs to be targeted. I'm out of school not even ten years, and in my final year it was common for teachers to have a sneaky smoke with students in the usual "smoking spots". While it wasn't frequent, it happened. And 10 years is not a lot for a cultural change to take place.

I smoke outside my back garden, never in my house. Even when I go to other peoples houses where it's a smoking environment, I still feel weird and go outside. I don't smoke in my car as I have a child.

I took that lead from my father. He was a heavy smoker, but never smoked around me, or in the car with me, and always went out the back. When he found out I had started smoking, he was pretty clear in that I was stupid, but he gave me one of those fatherly son education sessions ( ironically while we smoked out the back together).

He is off the smokes a good few years now, but never gives me grief. Just every so often saying if I want to quit let him know, he'll help me out etc.

There is simply **** all education in schools. Not once did I get any sort of class, lecture or comment on smoking. Yet I can recall designated curriculum time to tell me how to wash my face properly, and shower. (CSPE or some rubbish subject) Like come on.

And the kicker? We had our first child back there last summer. The girlfriend is a smoker also, and when going through the motions during checkups and then the eventual labour, the amount of pregnant woman smoking was UNREAL. I'd have never believed anyone if they told me how frequently it happens. I was going outside the hospital, down the road and around the corner to the carpark to have a smoke during my time there. But the rake of people smoking outside the hospital, pregnant woman, men around pregnant woman etc.

I don't know if every doctor says the same, but during checkups etc. when my girlfriend was asked about smoking she'd respond she did smoke but had stopped when she found out she was pregnant. The response from two different doctors was along the lines of " Well look if you have one or two every now and then it's fine, but obviously if you are on 20 a day you can't be doing that"

Education is smack in the face obvious to me as the route to tackle this.

TheDoc · 17-02-2015 4:07pm

Just a little Samba wrote: »

over 5 billion cigarettes sold, but what was the tax take on that?

That's 250 million packets of 20 at approx €10 a pop = approx €2.5billion total spent on smokes.

80% of 2.5billion is, funnily enough, €2billion.

So basically the money raised by taxing tobacco is barely (if even) enough to fund the current cost of treating tobacco related illnesses.

the latest revenue report indicated that illicit tobacco, at 14%, had an estimated value of €200m to the exchequer, so I guess we could work out the overall estimated take from that?

Had a quick glance on revenue and Dept. of Finance but don't know how you go about finding specific tax revenue intake for the previous year. Probably buried in one of the budget docs or exchequer docs ( but their monstrous).

also if I'm not mistaken the current HSE allocated budget is around €12 billion. I'd somehow think if €2 billion was being spent on Tobacco related disease, it would be much more of a thing.

The below was July 2011, where a Junior Minister claimed smoking costs the state €1m a day and would cost €23b over the next decade, however that was then debunked as scaremongering and wildly inaccurate if I remember correctly.

Does fit in with the 2bn figure being mentioned though

http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/smoking-costs-the-irish-economy-e1m-a-day-minister-179422-Jul2011/

whisky_galore · 17-02-2015 4:08pm

TheDoc wrote: »

Education is smack in the face obvious to me as the route to tackle this.

Unless you're a complete dumb ass and an illiterate that can't read a health warning on a packet, the fact that cigarettes are harmful shouldn't escape you.

YFlyer · 17-02-2015 4:08pm

TheDoc wrote: »

I don't know if every doctor says the same, but during checkups etc. when my girlfriend was asked about smoking she'd respond she did smoke but had stopped when she found out she was pregnant. The response from two different doctors was along the lines of " Well look if you have one or two every now and then it's fine, but obviously if you are on 20 a day you can't be doing that"

Education is smack in the face obvious to me as the route to tackle this.

Spanish medical doctors conference was cancelled in Dublin when the smoking ban began here in Ireland.

vienne86 · 17-02-2015 4:16pm

I'd prefer them to ban fags altogether - probably draconian though. By all means put them in horrible unattreactive packaging.

Dravokivich · 17-02-2015 4:20pm

They can also sell branded cigarette holders.

TheDoc · 17-02-2015 4:22pm

whisky_galore wrote: »

Unless you're a complete dumb ass and an illiterate that can't read a health warning on a packet, the fact that cigarettes are harmful shouldn't escape you.

Can't remember if it was a University in Galway or Limerick, but they ran an interesting social survey that Newstalk shared there last year on the breakfast show.

They asked 100 smokers on the street if they could recount three health warning texts on tobacco products, and two images portrayed on tobacco boxes.

I won't give false stats, you can google it to find it, but there was a massively high % of smokers who couldn't resite the text warnings. There was a high % of those surveyed who could recount the images.

So the initial find was that the visual images were more impact then the text warnings. I think that's fair enough

The final question was to recount the text warning that accompanied the picture that they remembered. It was single digit % that recounted the text.

Do you read the contents,calorie intake and all that jazz on fizzy drinks, alcohol, food? I can't recall the last time I ever read the nutrition content on anything I bought.

Karl Stein · 17-02-2015 4:25pm

TheDoc wrote: »

Trademarks and branding is a pretty big deal to any company. It's their imagine, it's their identifying mark.

It's a big deal because branding is marketing and marketing is how you reach consumers. They're fighting it because they're worried that it will hit their bottom line and the health of their bottom line is inversely proportional to public health.

banning a company from using its trademark and logo is a seriously big deal in the corporate world.

I'm sure the government thought about that and weighed up the pros (public health) with the cons.

It is an argument, just because society has moral issues with the company or the product, should not mean that they should sit down and take what's being fed to them.

The public vote in the government to act on behalf of the public - nobody elects the board of directors of a company that deals in a lethal product.

I don't think it's outlandish to suggest there are maybe some ties in relation to the design and marketing of alcohol, similar to tobacco. Although granted Tobacco cant be advertised, or displayed publicly. I'd say the same sort of surveys being done to teens ( in low volumes remembering) would look pretty similar if rolled out in relation to alcohol.

Then any rational person would support it surely?

And again to re-iterate, there is no convincing evidence available that plain package smoking curbs overall smoking, or reduces take up in the teen bracket.

Which brings us back to my original point - why fight it tooth and nail then?

It's basically just someone with what is perceived as " a good idea", so why the same cannot be applied to alcohol, fast food chains etc. ?

It probably could and I've little doubt it will be in time. We're facing an obesity time bomb by all accounts and I'm sure that the proven harm reduction model that was used to reduce the impact of smoking related disease will be rolled out

I'd argue it's because a state wouldn't have the neck to try it,

Right now that's probably correct but in time there may well be inertia behind government measures that will tackle those issues too.

" evil tobacco companies"

Tobacco is a very harmful product and nicotine is incredibly addictive substance that has no nutritional value unlike food. Also, tobacco companies have shown themselves to be ethically bankrupt and without scruples.

Fuck 'em.

TheDoc · 17-02-2015 4:26pm

vienne86 wrote: »

I'd prefer them to ban fags altogether - probably draconian though. By all means put them in horrible un-attractive packaging.

The immediate problem to the state is are they happy to do without the revenue generated from the companies who supply tobacco here, and the tax revenue from consumers? The short answer is no.

The second problem, is that it sets precedent for the state to ban something where they feel there is enough moral support in order to "serve public health".

Karl Stein · 17-02-2015 4:27pm

vienne86 wrote: »

I'd prefer them to ban fags altogether

Prohibition doesn't work. Harm reduction does.

My name is URL · 17-02-2015 4:29pm

hoodwinked wrote: »

the only good thing about that is my eating mc donalds won't affect anyone else but me, where as smokers affect anyone who inhales their second hand smoke.

What about the terrible parents that feed their kids on nothing but processed, sugar filled fast foods? In that case it's not just the 'individual' that's been harmed, it's kids that have no other choice on the matter, and society in general via increased healthcare expenditure

Anyway, my point was just that it's understandable (to me anyway) why tobacco companies would vociferously contest such laws as it's damaging to their brand, just as it would be damaging and contested to the fullest extent if the same law and reasoning behind it was also applied to the likes of McDonalds etc.

whisky_galore · 17-02-2015 4:33pm

TheDoc wrote: »

Can't remember if it was a University in Galway or Limerick, but they ran an interesting social survey that Newstalk shared there last year on the breakfast show.

They asked 100 smokers on the street if they could recount three health warning texts on tobacco products, and two images portrayed on tobacco boxes.

I won't give false stats, you can google it to find it, but there was a massively high % of smokers who couldn't resite the text warnings. There was a high % of those surveyed who could recount the images.

So the initial find was that the visual images were more impact then the text warnings. I think that's fair enough

The final question was to recount the text warning that accompanied the picture that they remembered. It was single digit % that recounted the text.

Do you read the contents,calorie intake and all that jazz on fizzy drinks, alcohol, food? I can't recall the last time I ever read the nutrition content on anything I bought.

They might not be able to recite a line of text or recall a pic, but surely to god they know intrinsically that cigs aren't perfectly ok?

In fact I do look at calorie contents on occasion, and I've got enough smarts to know that eating chipper food every day of the week will turn me into a fat b*stard. Doesn't take an Einstein to work that out.

Roger Hassenforder · 17-02-2015 4:49pm

TheDoc wrote: »

There is simply **** all education in schools. Not once did I get any sort of class, lecture or comment on smoking. Yet I can recall designated curriculum time to tell me how to wash my face properly, and shower. (CSPE or some rubbish subject) Like come on.

And the kicker? We had our first child back there last summer. The girlfriend is a smoker also, and when going through the motions during checkups and then the eventual labour, the amount of pregnant woman smoking was UNREAL. I'd have never believed anyone if they told me how frequently it happens. I was going outside the hospital, down the road and around the corner to the carpark to have a smoke during my time there. But the rake of people smoking outside the hospital, pregnant woman, men around pregnant woman etc.

I don't know if every doctor says the same, but during checkups etc. when my girlfriend was asked about smoking she'd respond she did smoke but had stopped when she found out she was pregnant. The response from two different doctors was along the lines of " Well look if you have one or two every now and then it's fine, but obviously if you are on 20 a day you can't be doing that"

Is this some kind of endorsement of smoking, that there's loads of pregnant women smoking around maternity wards? Who advocates for the rights of the foetus not to be born underweight, premature, have a cleft lip, not to die from SIDS, not to be miscarried, not to have cerebral palsy or retardation.

The 2011 'growing up' survey found all kids were aware smoking is bad for you.
So the state failed to educate you with regard to dangers, but now is infringing your rights to smoke, or make it less desirable?

Your kid will no doubt see you smoking, and think it's OK. I'm glad to hear your old man has given then up, hopefully he will be around to see his grandkids grow up, and not dead before 70 with gangrenous legs, lung cancer, COPD etc
as will 50% of smokers. He could well be outlive you based on your support for Philip Morris et al.
For your kids sake, give them up.
They won't thank you, but your wallet will.

TheDoc · 17-02-2015 4:50pm

Karl Stein wrote: »

Good response, just cutting it out to stop quote spam

My main response would be in relation to what was my opening statement in the thread that no doubt raised some eyebrows.

Banning the use of a trademark or logo on a theoretical/good idea with no concrete evidence or basis of fact, is a dangerous game to play.

I just don't feel it's an acceptable measure to take, and be easily dismissed just because it's a tobacco company.

I don't need to get into hypothetical, but it wouldn't be acceptable for any other company or industry. Sure there are obvious differences and tobacco has pretty obvious issues, but it just feels like an excuse and copout for the state, to avoid having to be innovative, or tackle the issues properly.

al22 · 17-02-2015 4:57pm

Should all juce and sugary drinks be plain or ugly labelled?
Shugar Is Bad To You! ;-)

TheDoc · 17-02-2015 5:03pm

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Is this some kind of endorsement of smoking, that there's loads of pregnant women smoking around maternity wards? Who advocates for the rights of the foetus not to be born underweight, premature, have a cleft lip, not to die from SIDS, not to be miscarried, not to have cerebral palsy or retardation.

Dear god no!. I was using it as a personal example to outline my point of education. Sorry if it wasn't clear. To re-iterate that example is not to promote smoking and using that as an example of "ah its grand" but to highlight what I feel is a total lack of education and awareness, that a building operating as a maternity hospital had such a high volume of smokers outside, of whom were the mother, or an individual or group smoking in the presence of a pregnant mother.

The 2011 'growing up' survey found all kids were aware smoking is bad for you.
So the state failed to educate you with regard to dangers, but now is infringing your rights to smoke, or make it less desirable?

I'll google for that survey to see volumes. I'm not advocating that at all. I'm not doing the "irish" thing of pointing my finger blaming elsewhere. I made a very conscious choice to smoke at an age where I was fully aware of the dangers and issues, and I went ahead with it.

The state isn't infringing my right to smoke( thats not a real thing), I won't be affected by this, nor was I affected by the smoking ban or annual tax increases, or anything else. I'm an adult, I'm making a conscious decision. I'll stop smoking when a circumstance arises when I want to quit, I'd imagine.

I appreciate that any campaign or initiative is trying to cut off the initial exposure of smoking to teens/youngsters. I just think it's obscure there isn't more targeted stuff.

Your kid will no doubt see you smoking, and think it's OK. I'm glad to hear your old man has given then up, hopefully he will be around to see his grandkids grow up, and not dead before 70 with gangrenous legs, lung cancer, COPD etc
as will 50% of smokers. He could well be outlive you based on your support for Philip Morris et al.
For your kids sake, give them up.
They won't thank you, but your wallet will.

I don't know who Philip Morris is, but hopefully you havn't painted me as some fringe element/group supporter. I'm not a smoking advocate, I just hate these toothless initiatives that get celebrated as some form of progress or achievement.

I also don't think my child will think it's "ok" to smoke. Just like my child won't be of a generation where she needs to question is being a gay couple "ok" or is being a racist "ok". Thankfully a new generation is a chance to shape new cultures and values.

In my immediate circle of friends, I'm one of I think three full time smokers. In a group of 20. That would be the opposite in say my fathers generation. So there is probably real and tangible progress being made in some regards. But there will always be those who make a conscious decision.

I think it's a bit of a myth in recent times of "monkey see monkey do" when it comes to smoking. Sure I saw my Dad smoking. I saw him smoking out the back or out playing golf or whatever, for the guts of 7 years, before I actually had my first cigarette. I think it's disingenuous to a teenager to think they arn't cognitive enough to make a conscious decision, rather than copy a parents choices. Meh, maybe I'm in the minority on that one?

TheDoc · 17-02-2015 5:10pm

whisky_galore wrote: »

They might not be able to recite a line of text or recall a pic, but surely to god they know intrinsically that cigs aren't perfectly ok?

In fact I do look at calorie contents on occasion, and I've got enough smarts to know that eating chipper food every day of the week will turn me into a fat b*stard. Doesn't take an Einstein to work that out.

I think what is always omitting from this discussion is that people are human beings, with cognitive functions, who make choices.

Like just as an abstract example, over the weekend passed I had a take out pizza and a chipper in the space of three days. I'm fully aware that it's not "good" for me, and that I probably would have been better served eating a healthy meal, but I made a choice to not do so, and order two meals that I wanted.

At some point when you have exhausted all avenues of educating and the likes, you need to accept that there is such thing as choice, and people will make a decision that might be totally illogical to someone else.

I for the life of me will never understand why someone takes Ecstasy, snorts cocaine or injects heroin. I tried a joint when I was about 15 (ironically hadn't smoked at the time) and yeah could see why people did it, but wasn't for me. I never touched of a drug again or even felt the incling to try.

How do you go about reducing the use or purchase or intake of something, illegal or legal, by removing the element of choice?

darlenmol · 17-02-2015 5:55pm

degrassinoel wrote: »

Stupid idea is stupid - if people want to smoke, a blank ciggie package wont stop them. Sure they cant advertise cigarettes in shops, billboards, magazines etc.. anymore anyway, that's been law for at least 10 years now.

imo it's just FG trying to score votes again with a crappy idea

Not so sure about that. I think the more little things we can do to help people quit the better. They all add up and help tip you over the brink into packing them in. I think it was the case for me when I gave up a year ago.

ThisRegard · 17-02-2015 6:56pm

Ironically named poster of the year has to go to TheDoc.

And it's laughable that it's everyone's fault but smokers that they smoke.

Roger Hassenforder · 17-02-2015 7:58pm

TheDoc wrote: »

I'm making a conscious decision. I'll stop smoking when a circumstance arises when I want to quit, I'd imagine.

I just think it's obscure there isn't more targeted stuff.

I just hate these toothless initiatives that get celebrated as some form of progress or achievement...
...
...
...So there is probably real and tangible progress being made in some regards.

I used to smoke, and yea, they were lovely. Especially after a feed, or with booze. But, I'm glad i gave them up. It wasnt I wanted to, but saw my mates friend dying in a hospital (dies the day after I saw her), walked out and tossed 18 Rothmans into a bin.

You're kind of acknowledging these measures are having an effect, less of your peers are smoking. very few of my friends now smoke, those that do are almost pariahs. i think the only thing that could be more targeted is a ban of the damn things! which would be pointless, as people would still smoke, and the tax take would be down.

FloatingVoter · 17-02-2015 8:06pm

I've been smoking for 25 years. I can blame many things for making me start and continue...most of them self-inflicted. Never in all that time did I smoke one cigarette because the packaging looked cute. Or because I had a crush on the Marlboro Man. Or because Bacall looked cool with a cigarette. Marketing doesn't work.
Apologies to all of you who work in marketing - but I'm guessing you're just collecting the cheques and hoping nobody catches up with you before retirement.
Addictive drugs do work. Have done since the dawn of time. Last time I checked we had a heroin problem.....that's sold in clear translucent baggies.
Irish Government - solve real problems, stop making up new problems with childish "solutions".

baaba maal · 17-02-2015 8:09pm

As somebody mentioned previously- Arthur Cox are representing the tobacco companies. While it isn't illegal it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth that a law firm that has hoovered up millions in fees from government departments and local authorities can waltz into court with their new BFF. And tomorrow they will be representing "us" again. The small coterie of legal and accountancy firms at the heart of Irish governance is the cause of many, many of our current problems.

No offence to The Doc, but your argument doesn't stand up. You claim that education is the key measure to be taken to reduce smoking in spite of the fact that you consciously chose to smoke in spite of knowing the risks (and therefore received enough education on the matter 10 years ago). It isn't the most coherent of arguments.

Whether the current measures work or not remains to be seen, but it is certainly worth a try. As an indication of the tobacco industry, two brief illustrations.
In 1983, I, as a 14 year old in a school uniform, was walking down Marlborough St in Dublin when I was approached by a woman who had a clipboard. She asked her few questions and then handed me a special three pack of Johnny Blue. Not a marketing strategy likely to be deployed in this part of world nowadays. However....
In 2002 I was in Senegal in west Africa. Not only are cigarettes marketed on billboards and in the general media, but I was again offered free cigarettes (Marlboro Red), this time at a concert.
The point is, the tobacco industry pushes back as hard as it can and will do all in it's power to undo progressive legislation. Tobacco isn't a 'normal' product (in the same way as alcohol and firearms). It's sale should be carefully controlled the removal of as much of the branding as possible is a legitimate tool by the government. It is telling that I can recall both cigarette brand names after all this time. I should point out that I was not a smoker in 1983, was a smoker in 2002 and quit two years after that.

My name is URL · 17-02-2015 8:12pm

As somebody mentioned previously- Arthur Cox are representing the tobacco companies. While it isn't illegal it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth that a law firm that has hoovered up millions in fees from government departments and local authorities can waltz into court with their new BFF.

Bill O'Herlihy lobbies for the tobacco industry here too doesn't he?

conorh91 · 17-02-2015 8:22pm

On the one hand I can understand the tobacco companies' frustration. Do we want to ban cigarettes or not? Piss or get off the pot.

The tobacco company in question paid €600 million in tax in Ireland in 2013. We're happy to appropriate some of their profits, whilst simultaneously claiming to be repulsed by their business activities.

On the other hand, the idea of a tobacco company seeking to impede the work of Parliament is disquieting, and seems to have little chance of success.

Similar legal arguments have already been dismissed in the Australian courts, and there are convincing reasons for doubting that the Irish courts would agree with JLT's claims.

It would set a disturbing precedent if JLT succeeded, which it probably will not.

ThisRegard · 17-02-2015 8:53pm

end of the road wrote: »

fair play to them. this legislation is a waste of time.

You bring madness into every thread you post in.

end of the road · 17-02-2015 8:59pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

You bring madness into every thread you post in.

doesn't change the fact the legislation is a waste of time. people smoke because they want to and like it. then they become addicted

listermint · 17-02-2015 9:02pm

conorh91 wrote: »

On the one hand I can understand the tobacco companies' frustration. Do we want to ban cigarettes or not? Piss or get off the pot.

The tobacco company in question paid €600 million in tax in Ireland in 2013. We're happy to appropriate some of their profits, whilst simultaneously claiming to be repulsed by their business activities.

On the other hand, the idea of a tobacco company seeking to impede the work of Parliament is disquieting, and seems to have little chance of success.

Similar legal arguments have already been dismissed in the Australian courts, and there are convincing reasons for doubting that the Irish courts would agree with JLT's claims.

It would set a disturbing precedent if JLT succeeded, which it probably will not.

I wish folks would stop talking about the revenue argument we spend ten times that on tobacco related illness.

ThisRegard · 17-02-2015 9:10pm

end of the road wrote: »

doesn't change the fact the legislation is a waste of time. people smoke because they want to and like it. then they become addicted

So no harm in passing it so is there?

My name is URL · 17-02-2015 9:12pm

listermint wrote: »

I wish folks would stop talking about the revenue argument we spend ten times that on tobacco related illness.

Do you have a source that backs that up? It's an argument often turned out but I've genuinely never seen conclusive evidence of it. Couldn't it also be argued that smokers die younger and therefor cost the state less in healthcare in the long-run?

And couldn't similar arguments be used to force other businesses to not rely on brand recognition etc? If fast food chains, drinks companies etc were forced to drop branding on products and premises would it not also save lives and reduce healthcare costs?

The fact is smokers are an easy target for gathering revenue and for politicians to bring in populist legislation against. Look at how the government went soft and backed away from banning alcohol sponsorship in sports. Alcohol is far more of a blight on this country than tobacco, both in terms of individual well-being and cost to society. Yet most people opposed the idea of banning drinks companies from advertising in and sponsoring sports.

ThisRegard · 17-02-2015 9:20pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Alcohol is far more of a blight on this country than tobacco, both in terms of individual well-being and cost to society.

Debatable. You have one drink you're not likely going to drink several a day to the detriment of your health for the rest of your shortened life and force those around you to take a few sups while you're at it. Smoking is petty much the stupidest thing a person can legally do.

conorh91 · 17-02-2015 9:25pm

listermint wrote: »

I wish folks would stop talking about the revenue argument we spend ten times that on tobacco related illness.

I wasn't making that argument. I was pointing out what I consider to be a contradiction. Sharing in the handsome profits of a business activity you facilitate, but claim to oppose, appears contradictory.

The revenue v health trade-off is a whole different issue.

gormdubhgorm · 17-02-2015 9:28pm

The sad part of all this the government make a profit out of cigarettes even when taking into account the health costs of the cigarettes themselves.

Basically the smokes are a nice earner so tokenism like this is the answer as apposed to an outright ban.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/459157.stm

ThisRegard · 17-02-2015 9:33pm

No, the sad part is everyone who has an issue with this saying it's a waste of time. Let it play out, it's no skin off your noses.

My name is URL · 17-02-2015 9:34pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

Debatable. You have one drink you're not likely going to drink several a day to the detriment of your health for the rest of your shortened life

That depends on the individual. The problem of alcoholism in Ireland hardly needs to be pointed out.

and force those around you to take a few sups while you're at it

No, but those around you may be forced to put up with a whole lot more than inhaling second hand smoke. More people can be shown to be harmed or killed each year by other people drinking than by other people smoking.

Smoking is petty much the stupidest thing a person can legally do.

Tell that to those who have to live with abusive, reckless or violent drunks. They'd probably sooner live with a smoker tbh.

gormdubhgorm · 17-02-2015 9:40pm

[QUOTE=My name is URL;94332759

Tell that to those who have to live with abusive, reckless or violent drunks. They'd probably sooner live with a smoker tbh.[/QUOTE] Unless of course the smoker is also a drunk falls asleep and sets the house on fire....:eek:

end of the road · 17-02-2015 9:42pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

So no harm in passing it so is there?

there is if it causes losses for companies and jobs meaning a loss to the economy

ThisRegard · 17-02-2015 9:43pm

The likelihood of becoming an alcoholic after one drink is a lot less likely than becoming an addict after one cigarette.

The rest is just more whataboutery irrelevant to this legislation.

ThisRegard · 17-02-2015 9:44pm

end of the road wrote: »

there is if it causes losses for companies and jobs meaning a loss to the economy

But how if won't make a difference and is a waste of time as you claim? Make up your mind.

end of the road · 17-02-2015 9:47pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

But how if won't make a difference and is a waste of time as you claim? Make up your mind.

nice twist. it won't make any difference to the amount of smoking, it will damage the companies though which in turn will harm the economy as they won't be able to market their brand, meaning jobs having to be lost within those companies, causing losses to the economy

Tobacco giant threatens gov with legal action

Comments