Plain packaged tobacco- your views?

[Tokis-Phoenix]

"Tougher steps covering the sale and promotion of tobacco products are to be unveiled by ministers later.

The Department of Health in England is expected to say that it will push ahead with a ban on the display of tobacco products in shops in the coming years.

A consultation will also be launched on forcing tobacco companies to put cigarettes into plain packets.

The measures are part of a plan to drive down smoking rates, particularly among young people.

Just over a fifth of adults smoke - a figure which has remained pretty steady in recent years after decades of more rapid falls."

Full Story;

Tobacco displays to be banned from shops

Literally just minutes before i stumbled across this article, i had just read how an NHS hospital that only opened 18months ago has been forced to cut 700 jobs and close wards due to budget cuts ( Queen Alexandra Hospital cuts 700 jobs and shuts wards ).
Then i read this.
Our MP's are wasting public tax payers money discussing stupid Nanny State idea's like plain packaging on tobacco products while thousands of people are loosing their jobs all over the country due to cuts (and sometimes hundreds in just single places like the hospital).

"But Debbie Corris, of the Tobacco Retailers Alliance, said: "There is no evidence this will reduce smoking. If anything, plain packaging will cause a problem with more counterfeiting - plain packets are not that difficult to copy - while banning displays will hit smaller retailers hard. We are disappointed about this.""

I totally agree. The results of the smoking ban have always been controversial and these new measures will cost even more money to put into place, while damaging the economy in the process (small retailers etc). The measures won't save money as tobacco is a highly taxed product that pays for its own problems through tax.
I really don't think young people or ex-smokers are tempted into smoking by cigarette packaging. Would you take up smoking because some cigarettes came in a pretty packet? Highly likely no. Does the government think we're retarded or something?? IMO Those who don't want to smoke will not smoke regardless of tobacco packaging, and those who want to smoke will do it regardless of packaging too etc. I really don't think the look of the packaging has any real influence on whether someone decides to take or not take up smoking. Would you stop eating chocolate if it all came in plain packaging? I also don't see how this is going to help prevent underage people smoking.
The health warnings on tobacco packets also already take up like 70 percent of the packaging and come in big bold black & white print etc (and now with pictures of unhealthy lungs etc), i don't think its necessary to make them any clearer than they already are.
I also think the point about plain packaging making it easier to counterfeit tobacco products is very valid- counterfeiting tobacco products are a big source of income to many criminal gangs, like those involved in drug dealing & human trafficking. Counterfeited tobacco products are also even more unhealthy than legit tobacco products, they tend to contain high amounts of unregulated levels of added chemicals etc.

What do you think?

 

[EmperorHirohito]

I do smoke but really drink alcohol after making my liver bleed. But the packaging on the brand of rolling tobacco that I smoke is quite plain already, it just has its brand name and various health warnings. But how can that be changed in a way that will deter people from smoking, I cant see it at all. If anything there needs to be more warnings on the dangers of Alcohol than Tobacco.

 

[Nuala]

What do the colors on a pack of Marlboro Reds do to me? Absolutely nothing. I started smoking when I was 20 because I wanted to. The colors or images on the packs had nothing to do with it. This is actually quite retarded and as much of a waste of time as putting grotesque images on packs of cigarettes. The latter would only make it unpleasant. The initial shock factor of the images would eventually go away and then what was it? A waste of taxpayer money. Government does this **** all the time instead of focusing on the tough topics that need to be discussed and taken care.

 

[Haruspex]

It should say on cigarette packaging 'This ****'s gonna **** you, rip your dad's wiener off, bone your mother, implode grandpa's prostate, rape grandma to transcendence, blow your dog and your child will be all deformed just like you so **** off and go buy some lettuce instead!'

It would be completely ineffectual, but hey, at least it'd be entertaining to read before you buy your fags.

 

[Pachipro]

@Derfel: Still LMAO at your post.

Just more government waste of good taxpayers money just because some PhD wants to prove his worth and makes some outrageous claim which others will agree with just to prove their own worth and so on.

I have been a smoker for nearly 40 years now and I have never been deterred by warnings or pictures of cancerous lungs or warnings on the packs; nor have I been enticed to smoke a certain brand because of the packaging. I smoke a particular brand because I like it and I always choose one with the lowest tar rating. I know it doesn't make them any "safer". It's just a preference.

IMO it's all a ruse for an excuse to further raise the taxes on the people who smoke the most and that is mostly the lower income people on the economic scale.

I don't smoke a lot, maybe 10 - 15/day and I believe that my body can handle the toxins as long as I don't overwhelm my immune system with more than that. I believe that is when disease sets in. If I want to smoke and it is legal it should be my right to do so and I care not what packaging they are in as long as they suit my taste.

 

[Nuala]

@Derfel: Still LMAO at your post.

Just more government waste of good taxpayers money just because some PhD wants to prove his worth and makes some outrageous claim which others will agree with just to prove their own worth and so on.

I have been a smoker for nearly 40 years now and I have never been deterred by warnings or pictures of cancerous lungs or warnings on the packs; nor have I been enticed to smoke a certain brand because of the packaging. I smoke a particular brand because I like it and I always choose one with the lowest tar rating. I know it doesn't make them any "safer". It's just a preference.

IMO it's all a ruse for an excuse to further raise the taxes on the people who smoke the most and that is mostly the lower income people on the economic scale.

I don't smoke a lot, maybe 10 - 15/day and I believe that my body can handle the toxins as long as I don't overwhelm my immune system with more than that. I believe that is when disease sets in. If I want to smoke and it is legal it should be my right to do so and I care not what packaging they are in as long as they suit my taste.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I have the desire to quit, but I obviously lack the will to do so at this point in time. The latter part of the last sentence brings to question the idea that it would be easier to quit smoking later. It very well could be easier, but what do I know? Smoking gives me something to do with my hands. It doesn't interfere with my current lifestyle either. What does affect me is the ridiculous pricing on cigarettes. All it does is allow the government to make more money off what we enjoy. I suppose it also gives people who have a deep hatred for smokers a demented sense of satisfaction too, but in that case it would be necessary to ask what is more harmful, the smoking or the irrational rage some have towards smokers. Ahh, I guess it doesn't really matter! I'll probably be a smoker until the day I die, and could that be construed as being ironic?