Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 11 Feb '13 15:47 / 2 edits
    What do you make of the new tobacco laws that are coming in, specifically

    > No branding on packs , just a big gory picture and warning

    > Being Kept out of site, behind a screen etc



    For me (a smoker) this is the step to far, frankly i don't think the people doing this care a damn about smokers they are just bureaucrats testing the power of there pen and swivel chair. In Dundee they are trialing a new blood test to detect lung cancer early, when its treatable. This is the sort of thing smokers want. not yet another insult. But i'm sure all the anti smoking lobbying gets far more money then this trial.

    I think the ban on branding will be counter productive, it will push people including me to buy duty free, I pay my taxes on cigarettes in the UK, but i'm not so keen if all they want to do is insult me... News agents will have to sell pouches to put the offending packet in, there will be a new market for this. I think it will also increase sale of the 'mini pouches' you get now.

    Your thoughts??
  2. 11 Feb '13 15:59
    Originally posted by e4chris
    What do you make of the new tobacco laws that are coming in, specifically

    > No branding on packs , just a big gory picture and warning

    > Being Kept out of site, behind a screen etc



    For me (a smoker) this is the step to far, frankly i don't think the people doing this care a damn about smokers they are just bureaucrats testing the power of there ...[text shortened]... s. I think it will also increase sale of the 'mini pouches' you get now.

    Your thoughts??
    Although it may not be effective, the hope is that gory warnings and decreased access cause people to smoke less. Anti-smoking laws simply aren't designed to make smokers happy or make smoking more enjoyable. The focus is to discourage people from smoking so others do not have to pay the inevitable increased medical costs (both direct and second hand smoke) of smoking.
  3. 11 Feb '13 16:18
    In the UK smokers more then cover there medical costs, and the costs of other peoples treatment too, a pack is around 80% tax
  4. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    11 Feb '13 16:24
    For me (I am a smoker) this issue is smoking uptake. I really don't think that gory warnings will prevent a teenage male from smoking - it may even act as an incentive. So not having the big tobacco displays in supermarkets is fine, and makes sense in helping to keep the idea of tobacco out of teenagers minds. One option for this is to ban pre-made cigarettes and only allow roll ups. This puts a barrier against smoking uptake. I smoke roll ups out of habit so it's easy for me, but a current smoker who can't adapt (with a few GP controllable exceptions) doesn't really want to smoke.
  5. 11 Feb '13 17:03
    Originally posted by e4chris
    What do you make of the new tobacco laws that are coming in, specifically

    > No branding on packs , just a big gory picture and warning

    > Being Kept out of site, behind a screen etc



    For me (a smoker) this is the step to far, frankly i don't think the people doing this care a damn about smokers they are just bureaucrats testing the power of there ...[text shortened]... s. I think it will also increase sale of the 'mini pouches' you get now.

    Your thoughts??
    There is great conflict on the part of do gooder government on this, probably as much in the UK as in the US. Cigarettes and tobacco in general are highly taxed, both State and Federal here. So while the government deplores tobacco, it depends on sales, and even subsidizes growers.

    The most obvious problem with both high taxation, and possible ban on tobacco use is the promotion of black markets. Someone who lives in the southern counties of Michigan, can make a drive across Ohio into Kentucky and buy cigarettes at prices low enough to make a handsome profit on a van load. It is dangerous from hijackings and/or being caught by the revenuers.

    It is in essence the same type of activity generated by Prohibition.
  6. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    11 Feb '13 17:04
    Originally posted by e4chris
    What do you make of the new tobacco laws that are coming in, specifically

    > No branding on packs , just a big gory picture and warning

    > Being Kept out of site, behind a screen etc



    For me (a smoker) this is the step to far, frankly i don't think the people doing this care a damn about smokers they are just bureaucrats testing the power of there ...[text shortened]... s. I think it will also increase sale of the 'mini pouches' you get now.

    Your thoughts??
    It's your choice of course, but those nicotine sticks will only shorten your life. As far as the gory photos go, you could always tape a post it note over them.
  7. 11 Feb '13 17:16
    The government may be wrong but I am sure the goverment believes the following:
    (1) It is still bearing economic costs of smoking from both direct and second hand smoke as well as decreased production from citizens who are ill and could be productive.
    (2) Graphic pictures convey certain information that text labels do not and that people will have more information when they chose whether or not to smoke.
  8. 11 Feb '13 17:16
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    For me (I am a smoker) this issue is smoking uptake. I really don't think that gory warnings will prevent a teenage male from smoking - it may even act as an incentive. So not having the big tobacco displays in supermarkets is fine, and makes sense in helping to keep the idea of tobacco out of teenagers minds. One option for this is to ban pre-made ci ...[text shortened]... smoker who can't adapt (with a few GP controllable exceptions) doesn't really want to smoke.
    My sister is a cigarette smoker, roll ups due to financial concerns. Just short of four years ago, a massive increase in taxes on cigars, rolling and pipe tobacco was imposed, and I quit cigars. My sister an obsessive addict continues to roll her own. State and federal taxes on most products amount to over 80% of the purchase price, or looked at from a more conventional aspect a tax rate of 400%.

    The big problem with tobacco addiction, is the addiction of the government to the revenue generated.
  9. 11 Feb '13 17:19
    Originally posted by quackquack
    The government may be wrong but I am sure the goverment believes the following:
    (1) It is still bearing economic costs of smoking from both direct and second hand smoke as well as decreased production from citizens who are ill and could be productive.
    (2) Graphic pictures convey certain information that text labels do not and that people will have more information when they chose whether or not to smoke.
    There are some economic positive externalities from smoking. Smokers, first and second hand, die sooner, relieving bankrupt social security systems, and underfunded pension plans.
  10. 11 Feb '13 17:20
    The big problem with tobacco addiction, is the addiction of the government to the revenue generated.[/b]
    very true! why i find this policy a bit hypocritical
  11. 11 Feb '13 17:43
    Originally posted by normbenign
    There are some economic positive externalities from smoking. Smokers, first and second hand, die sooner, relieving bankrupt social security systems, and underfunded pension plans.
    Before dying of smoking related illness people normally have long and expensive hospital stays. If smokers were willing to waive their rights to treatment perhaps we could get rid of labels that decreased the enjoyment of smokers.
  12. 11 Feb '13 17:44
    Originally posted by e4chris
    What do you make of the new tobacco laws that are coming in, specifically

    > No branding on packs , just a big gory picture and warning

    > Being Kept out of site, behind a screen etc



    For me (a smoker) this is the step to far, frankly i don't think the people doing this care a damn about smokers they are just bureaucrats testing the power of there ...[text shortened]... s. I think it will also increase sale of the 'mini pouches' you get now.

    Your thoughts??
    You are evil for smoking. You are costing the rest of us too much money. Quit doing it.

    That's how leftists see it.

    I say go ahead and smoke and pay for the consequences yourself. It's your life.
  13. 11 Feb '13 17:46
    Originally posted by e4chris
    very true! why i find this policy a bit hypocritical
    If the government's only interest in smoking was about revenues, why would the goverment require warnings?
  14. 11 Feb '13 18:02
    Originally posted by quackquack
    If the government's only interest in smoking was about revenues, why would the goverment require warnings?
    The government wants to regulate it's plantation.
  15. 11 Feb '13 18:04 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Before dying of smoking related illness people normally have long and expensive hospital stays. If smokers were willing to waive their rights to treatment perhaps we could get rid of labels that decreased the enjoyment of smokers.
    dying of old age is by far the most expensive and drawn out process, care homes, nurses, i think its a myth that smokers cost the govt more money in healthcare. the truth is they subsidise over and above what they get, remember a smoker is paying in £3-6 every day in tax. i read that the average cost to the govt is £2.50 per pack, most are paying 2-3 times what they cost. They should role out the early lung cancer testing asap then they will cost even less to treat