Rudd to ban fancy packaging

[Dan366757]

Just wondering what your thoughts are on rudd making cigarette packaging less fancy to deter people from smoking, personally i dont see it doin alot, just another one of those polly half-arsed ideas and why not on alcohol to. Anyway whats your thoughts.

[stocky]

How pointless. Another way to annoy his beloved working family voting base

[Calaber]

This one will only upset smokers. Non-smokers won't give a rat's arse.

[Astranomical]

I don't think it'll do a thing - lets face it...how good a job has their current scheme (putting graphic images of rotting teeth and the like on packets) done deterring people from smoking? It hasn't.

[Jesterarts]

What Calaber said. My care factor on the matter is 0 UNLESS it involves him spending taxpayer funds on acheiving this.

[kane88]

Should be the same for grog.

[stocky]

This one will only upset smokers. Non-smokers won't give a rat's arse.

Except for the non smokers like me that have to sell them. Any slight change in anything and they all whinge and bitch to me. Ill go to work with earplugs in when they bring in the $20 a pack tax thing

[nstone63]

One day we'll end up drinking out of white cans with "BEER" written on it in times new roman.. then you'll know it's a problem..

[Demonica]

I do smoke and quite frankly I don't give a flying f**k what is on the packet. Anyway if you don't like the packet you can buy the fancy covers for them. I swear Rudd sits on his arse and thinks what is the stupidist idea I can come up with today?

[S.T.K.E]

Our tax paying dollars at work..............................................

[flyjoe180]

Tobacco went up 15% here today and cigarettes 10%. We have those pictures on the packets here too. It won't change much I don't think, the tax money goes into other things anyway so it's a way of increasing taxation and making out that it's for the good of the nation. They (NZ Govt) quote $1.2 billion spent each year on smoking related illneses. How much tax I wonder does the NZ government collect on tobacco and cigarettes in total; I would be very surprised if the tax alone did not more than cover the medical expenses of caring for smokers. One thing is for sure though, some people will resort to crime, such as we see with drug addicts, when it becomes too expensive in order to feed their habits.

[kane88]

Or just suck it up and quit. It hurts, but not that much.

[Anwyll]

Price increases have good evidence for reducing smoking rates but the benefits cap out, France actually has a black market for cigarettes now because their price from stores is exorbitantly high (and their smoking rates are higher too). Pushing the price up will only work so much before the returns diminish as a means of public health action and it just becomes a revenue raising function (like speed cameras).

Packaging is a big grey area, the gross pictures are most effective for people who are already nonsmokers, smokers have an array of rather clever and sometimes simple tricks in avoiding their relevance (both physical, like males asking for the baby packs, and psychological, 'odds are I won't get a big freakin hole in my mouth though'). Same goes for the graphic smoking ads, but they win votes because the majority of people are nonsmokers now and it makes the government look like they're doing something worthwhile. I actually work in Population Health research and find the abuse of public education programs bordering on criminal, people are over-judged by government promotion campaigns, especially for smoking, drinking and driving (oh and breast cancer, freakin breast cancer!), and it makes it difficult for new issues to garner air time whereas these more prominent issues have run their courses for public education and require new, more engaging programs (eg defensive driver courses for ALL drivers, not just P platers ffs).

/endrant lol

[BoNeZ-01]

The 'desired effect' was to stop non smokers, mainly teenagers, from taking up smoking, more than to stop or reduce those who already smoke.

But seriously, who really gives a **** what the packet looks like? It's still the same shite inside the cigarette.
I'm a smoker, and the people who always bludge smokes off me never ask me to stop and show them the packet first, before I give them one.
Kids, teenagers, all these under ages who smoke, don't give a rats ass what brand it is, all they care about is not getting caught smoking them.
Some smokers may be brand loyal, but not to some fancy colours or pictures on the outside, they're loyal to the 'taste' they prefer of the smokes inside the packet.

So in reality, this stupid effort by the government ain't gunna do sweet F.A, except maybe cause some drama in the cigarette shops, as has been pointed out.

[Chappo_1]

It's ridiculous to think plain packaging will make smoking less attractive. When I heard this on the radio this morning, I thought "How can intelligent people be so bloody stupid!" No one takes up smoking because of the way the pack looks, it usually because your friends are doing it, so you give it a go, and next thing you know, you are hooked. If the government was really concerned about our health, and the cost of health care, they would ban the product, like asbestos was banned. What a bunch of hypocritical wankers!

[stocky]

Packaging is a big grey area, the gross pictures are most effective for people who are already nonsmokers, smokers have an array of rather clever and sometimes simple tricks in avoiding their relevance (both physical, like males asking for the baby packs, and psychological, 'odds are I won't get a big freakin hole in my mouth though').

Yeah I noticed this a lot when the packs first came out with the new pictures. People were always asking for the pack with the graph on it, and not the one with the disgusting foot or similar

[minux]

Easy way for the government to fix smoking.

Reduce taxe's, tax it at the same rate as every other product. Allow advertising. Do everything as it used to be. However, one major change...no medicare for Smokers. Pretty simple fix, make people responsible for what they do.

Fail to see why this is so hard to implement? We need to start making people responsible for their actions.

[BoNeZ-01]

Easy way for the government to fix smoking.

Reduce taxe's, tax it at the same rate as every other product. Allow advertising. Do everything as it used to be. However, one major change...no medicare for Smokers. Pretty simple fix, make people responsible for what they do.

Fail to see why this is so hard to implement? We need to start making people responsible for their actions.

That is a good point minux, but the only problem with that is, what about non-smoking related health problems for smokers?

You can't blame things like a flu virus, or the common cold, or an injury of some kind, on being a smoker.

But maybe if smokers were forced to pay for any and all treatments they need as a direct result of being a smoker, than yes, that may work.

[minux]

That is a good point minux, but the only problem with that is, what about non-smoking related health problems for smokers?

You can't blame things like a flu virus, or the common cold, or an injury of some kind, on being a smoker.

But maybe if smokers were forced to pay for any and all treatments they need as a direct result of being a smoker, than yes, that may work.

Seriously, who gives a **** if they get the flu.

If they wish to smoke, they forego it all. That is the choice they make. As they say, action/reaction. If someone decides to smoke with this place, then they best be able to afford private health at the very least.

For the record, I smoke occassionally, generally when my legs are sore. The thinning of the blood caused by it helps ease the pain. I could take pills, but the side effects are just as bad as having the few cigarettes every week.I could use alcohol, but, the effects of .05 and having a licence are not so good

[BoNeZ-01]

It's ridiculous to think plain packaging will make smoking less attractive. When I heard this on the radio this morning, I thought "How can intelligent people be so bloody stupid!" No one takes up smoking because of the way the pack looks, it usually because your friends are doing it, so you give it a go, and next thing you know, you are hooked. If the government was really concerned about our health, and the cost of health care, they would ban the product, like asbestos was banned. What a bunch of hypocritical wankers!

The government will no sooner ban tobacco because of it's health risks, than they will ban poker machines because of the damage they cause to addicts and their families.
They get far too much tax out of them both, doubt they would wanna give up all that easy revenue.. lol

[Troy711]

I don't understand.. if everyone quit smoking where would all the short fall in taxes come from? Either the countries infrastructure would turn to shit (should I say, get worse) or we would get slugged with taxes elsewhere. You simply can't win either way.

[kane88]

From the reduced strain smokers put on the health system?
I know it would take a while to actually see results here but isn't it at least a partially viable idea that in the long run our hospitals will be better off?

Edit: either that or private health companies will start making a killing...

[ClairBear]

We all know smoking is addictive and for most smokers quitting is very hard. Therefore it doesn't matter how much they charge or what is or isn't on the packaging, fact is people will still smoke.

[Calaber]

I would have thought that packaging wouldn't make any difference either, but it must. The fag manufacturers are threatening to take legal action agains tthe government's decision to market fags in plain packets.

[minux]

I would have thought that packaging wouldn't make any difference either, but it must. The fag manufacturers are threatening to take legal action agains tthe government's decision to market fags in plain packets.

Well, wouldnt you threaten legal action if your business was about to be raped even more by greedy government?