Plain packaging argument

Forums › Off topic › Plain packaging argument

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#701081 14-Oct-2012 18:48

khull: There have been forum posts about banning smoking but this thread is about plain packaging. Is there any discussion to be had on people who have already made the decision to smoke?

I am sick of the agree/disagree ads being pushed in your face for something that obviously means a lot to a group of individuals but the impression I am getting is it is a one sided discussion

The agree / disagree campaign is a back door way to advertise cigarettes via related "debate" and news coverage.

Cigarettes should be banned.

You can't huff glue. You can't smoke cancer sticks.

End. of. story.

(My father is dying of smoking-related cancer).

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

gzt

16986 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#701085 14-Oct-2012 19:01

Saw the ad in the Sunday Herald today. Did not like it.

Packaging is marketing and will be visible to kids etc. It is often attractive. We know why they do it.

There is no good reason to keep it.

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek

#701119 14-Oct-2012 20:31

I think the whole thing is stupid.

You can't purchase if you are under 18 and if you are over 18, you can do whatever the hell you feel like. A company selling a product should not be forced to package their product in a certain way because adults make retarded decisions and don't educate their children on the dangers of said products.

I don't smoke either.

stevenz

2802 posts

Uber Geek

#701610 15-Oct-2012 17:01

Have we reached a stage where smoking cigarettes is starting to carry greater, or at least similar, negative connotations than smoking marijuana?

I still say, the packs are not allowed to be in plain view of the public, therefore packaging is irrelevant and changing it or not is going to have virtually no impact, which leads me to agree that the whole thing is thinly veiled advertising to remind smokers to grab another one.

At this stage most of those still smoking are the ones who are largely disinterested about the health implications, and nothing short of total removal from the market, or increasing the price by a full decimal place is going to stop them.

@KnightNZ

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#701660 15-Oct-2012 17:48

DravidDavid:

You can't purchase if you are under 18 and if you are over 18, you can do whatever the hell you feel like.

No you can't. There are plenty of things the government says you can't ingest in various ways. For example, 'magic' mushrooms are [I think] a Class A drug. These things grow wild but if you pick them you are committing a crime.

You most certainly can not do whatever you like after 18.

The fact is it is a very complex business balancing personal freedom, societal harm, health cost which are often picked up by the state, not to mention the risk of criminalising something and dealing with the problems that can result as happened with prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 30s.

Basically plain packaging, gradual tax/price rises, banning smoking in bars and such are probably the best option. They discourage smoking and marginalise those who smoke without making it illegal and therefore an act of rebellion or handing it over to criminals who don't have to follow any rules.

Smoking rates are declining and that is about as good as you are going to get.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#701725 15-Oct-2012 19:30

You most certainly can not do whatever you like after 18.

The fact is it is a very complex business balancing personal freedom, societal harm, health cost which are often picked up by the state, not to mention the risk of criminalising something and dealing with the problems that can result as happened with prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 30s.

Kind of agree with this, to an extent. That's why I strongly support crackdowns on P and drunk driving - it's not that an adult is at risk of harming themselves if they do these things, it's that they could harm me and those around me. Not sure, now that smoking in offices and bars is banned, if the same can be said about smoking. The main victim of smokers is themselves. At the end of the day, I have no interest in interfering with whether an adult chooses to engage in activities with inherent personal risks - smoking, mountain climbing, eating at McDonalds, skydiving, boxing, military service, deep sea diving or whatever.

Health costs are easily dealt with. Get the Treasury to commission a study of the actual *net* costs to the state - health care for smoking related diseases etc, offset by any pension savings from dying earlier etc. Then, set the tax per pack to recover those.

Elpie

1304 posts

Uber Geek

#702784 18-Oct-2012 10:09

stevenz: At this stage most of those still smoking are the ones who are largely disinterested about the health implications, and nothing short of total removal from the market, or increasing the price by a full decimal place is going to stop them.

The problem with that argument is that there are smokers around that are fully aware of the health issues and what their addiction is doing to them and who still cannot stop.

The government is happy to legislate and tax smoking to kingdom-come but does not properly fund smoking cessation programs. If one was cynical it would be easy to believe the government doesn't want to eliminate smoking. The taxes it gets in from it more than cover the health costs and removal of these removes a significant income from the tax take.

Total removal from the market won't happen - there will always be the blackmarket. Increasing the price by hundreds of dollars won't stop addicts either. It may increase crime.

Marginalising those who can't or won't quit is turning NZ into a nasty place to live. I'm kinda surprised nobody has yet suggested rounding the smokers up and putting them into camps.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#702786 18-Oct-2012 10:15

Elpie:

Marginalising those who can't or won't quit is turning NZ into a nasty place to live. I'm kinda surprised nobody has yet suggested rounding the smokers up and putting them into camps.

They already round themselves up all you need to do is put a fence around those smoking areas outside most office buildings where they congregate.

We marginalise people who do things we don't like; always have, always will.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

Elpie

1304 posts

Uber Geek

#702955 18-Oct-2012 14:05

crackrdbycracku: We marginalise people who do things we don't like; always have, always will.

Agree - individuals have always exercised their rights to express bigotry, racism, ageism, or any other discriminatory attitudes they like. Bullying is also rife. However, these have been somewhat muted by Human Rights law, if not by common courtesy.
With the anti-smoking rhetoric being encouraged by government what we are seeing is state-sanctioned discrimination and bullying.

This has now been going on for a few years and the vitriol seems to only be increasing. As I said, its making NZ a very nasty place to live, whether you agree with permitting smoking or not.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#702995 18-Oct-2012 14:48

Elpie:
crackrdbycracku: We marginalise people who do things we don't like; always have, always will.

Agree - individuals have always exercised their rights to express bigotry, racism, ageism, or any other discriminatory attitudes they like. Bullying is also rife. However, these have been somewhat muted by Human Rights law, if not by common courtesy.
With the anti-smoking rhetoric being encouraged by government what we are seeing is state-sanctioned discrimination and bullying.

This has now been going on for a few years and the vitriol seems to only be increasing. As I said, its making NZ a very nasty place to live, whether you agree with permitting smoking or not.

I'm asking for the sake of interest but is this kind of thing ever justified?

Once upon a time drink driving was technically illegal but very much socially accepted. The change to a very negative social attitude to this helped change the way people behaved. Of course, the difference here is that drink driving was always illegal.

Currently we mostly think binge drinking is a bad idea but it isn't illegal. Binge drinking causes a lot of social harm. Would it be justified to 'marginalise' binge drinkers?

Is alcohol the next frontier? Will wine labels soon be 'plain packaging'? Or do too many rich and powerful people like a good chardonnay?

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#704381 21-Oct-2012 18:14

crackrdbycracku: Currently we mostly think binge drinking is a bad idea but it isn't illegal. Binge drinking causes a lot of social harm. Would it be justified to 'marginalise' binge drinkers?

Is alcohol the next frontier? Will wine labels soon be 'plain packaging'? Or do too many rich and powerful people like a good chardonnay?

Yes I think you're right, alcohol is going to be the next frontier.

I have no doubt that govt officials are watching public reaction very closely to see how people are reacting to these ads.

It makes some sense to me to capture a percentage of alcohol packaging and print pictures of graphic car crashes or stats about family break ups caused by alcohol.

Given the road toll for this weekend is already at 8, I can see the idea getting good political traction.

I would also agree with any suggestion that the alcohol industry is not going to be very pleased with the smoking lobby planting the seeds with its current marketing. They're currently doing a top job of softening public reaction to a public move on alcohol packaging.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

1 | 2 | 3 | 4