Ireland to introduce plain cigarette packets

Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Ireland will force tobacco manufacturers to use plain boxes emblazoned with graphic images under tough new laws first enforced in Australia.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/28/ireland-plain-cigarette-packets

A good thing I say and something we should introduce here.
«134

Comments

  • HypnodiscHypnodisc Posts: 22,728
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jol44 wrote: »
    Ireland will force tobacco manufacturers to use plain boxes emblazoned with graphic images under tough new laws first enforced in Australia.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/28/ireland-plain-cigarette-packets

    A good thing I say and something we should introduce here.

    I also agree with this. I even sell tobacco, and that first hand gives me a chance to see what the tobacco companies do with the packaging to help sell the product - it's literally all they have left.

    From B&H Silver Slide packets, to B&H Gold's 'squaring' of the edges of the pack, it's all designed to encourage smoking - particularly by easily impressionable individuals (which often can include those under 18).

    The Golden Virginia tobacco pack also tries to increase the ethical credentials of the product by printing something like 'we work with all of our tobacco farmers to ensure ethical conditions' on the back.
  • WhiteFangWhiteFang Posts: 3,970
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think the measures have gone too far. Branding is okay and people need to see what they are buying so the cigarettes behind shutters idea is ludicrous.People know the dangers of smoking so let people have the choice.
  • HypnodiscHypnodisc Posts: 22,728
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    WhiteFang wrote: »
    I think the measures have gone too far. Branding is okay and people need to see what they are buying so the cigarettes behind shutters idea is ludicrous.People know the dangers of smoking so let people have the choice.

    Tobacco should be available but it really shouldn't be able to be marketed in any way, at all.

    I feel the same way about medicines/tablets and if/when Cannabis/other drugs are legalised I would think they should be plain packaged too.

    I think the verdict is still open on whether alcohol should be subject to much greater restrictions such as plain packaging...

    It's not a question of people knowing/not knowing about the health issues - impressionable people can still be more attracted to smoking because of the packaging.
  • Reiver97Reiver97 Posts: 2,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    WhiteFang wrote: »
    I think the measures have gone too far. Branding is okay and people need to see what they are buying so the cigarettes behind shutters idea is ludicrous.People know the dangers of smoking so let people have the choice.

    Nobody is removing choice. Branding doesnt equal democracy. Product availabilty is what garauntees choice and the products will still be available.

    What this does is increase informed choice buy replacing branding with images that demonstrate the health implications of choosing to smoke.

    (Graphic images: Malaysian cigarette packaging)

    Incidentally, Im an ex-smoker. I stopped nearly 20 years ago, but I still crave tobacco now and again. Seeing a lovely, Green and Yellow pack of Golden Virginia, or the Blue and Orange of Old Holburn, that sight right off just hits that spot in my brain that remembers not how awful smoking made me feel overall, but how great the anticipation of that ritual of rolling that moist, aromatic tobacco and lighting it up feels, taking that first deep inhalation and that kick of satisfaction it gives me.

    Even writing about it makes me want to go to the newsagent and pick some up. 20 years on. Thats how branding addictive substances works.

    As opposed to seeing images such as those above that quickly and effectively remind me why I stopped and why I need to stay stopped. An informed choice. If I choose to smoke again, I know the risks.
  • UlsterguyUlsterguy Posts: 3,306
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If the various governments were really interested in our health it would be banned, but as it's a major cash cow, they'll do anything but that. I'm a smoker BTW.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 55
    Forum Member
    Can see there being a rise in branded 'packet holders' being manufactured.
    Buy the plain packet (from the hidden cupboard in the supermarket!), slip it into the branded sleeve of your choice, and it just looks almost the same.
  • Duncan JDuncan J Posts: 2,775
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If the government can take up space on the packet with health warnings (and I'm even dubious about that) then the manufacturers should have space for their brands. This is beyond ridiculous. Non-smoker.
  • bornfreebornfree Posts: 16,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Why have plain packet, do away with all packets and sell no cigs.
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,650
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm a non-smoker but I really don't see what difference this will make.

    If anything it could encourage more people to buy cigarettes from overseas to get a "proper pack" and avoid local taxes. I do notice that my friends who do smoke often use cigarettes from Poland, Spain and elsewhere.
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,650
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ulsterguy wrote: »
    If the various governments were really interested in our health it would be banned, but as it's a major cash cow, they'll do anything but that. I'm a smoker BTW.
    bornfree wrote: »
    Why have plain packet, do away with all packets and sell no cigs.

    Not only is it a massive source of tax income buty smokers tend to die earlier so the government saves money by not paying out their pension for as long and blocking social care homes. Yes, they use NHS resources in their final years but overall smokers are a massive net contributor to the economy.
  • paralaxparalax Posts: 12,127
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    These rabid anti smokers are clueless. The packaging does not encourage or deter smokers who want to continue. Also the fact that they are behind closed doors in supermarkets does nothing either.

    As there is far more evidence that we are more likely to be killed or affected by someone else's drinking, maybe they should turn their petty minds to banning alcohol labels, or having it on show. The smell of it might not upset people as much but it is a far bigger problem.
  • David TeeDavid Tee Posts: 22,833
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Although I gave up a decade or more ago, I smoked for 25 years, from the times when packs just carried logos to the times when big bold messages were stamped all over them. In all that time I can't recall reading anything on the pack other than the manufacturers name.

    I must be honest, I don't get this. If it's that bad (and enjoyable as I found it, I think it is) - ban it and have doctors prescribe it to patients who are having a problem giving it up.

    ...and while we're on the subject, if the issue is letting the public know the truth about what lies inside, why aren't we laying into Coca-Cola et al (surely responsible for more dental bills than anything else) or Fast Food (obesity, heart disease etc.). Could it possibly be because the tobacco industry is a far easier target?
  • bornfreebornfree Posts: 16,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    LostFool wrote: »
    Not only is it a massive source of tax income buty smokers tend to die earlier so the government saves money by not paying out their pension for as long and blocking social care homes. Yes, they use NHS resources in their final years but overall smokers are a massive net contributor to the economy.

    Sad but true. My mother in law was a heavy smoker and she did not live long enough to claim her pension but the last two years of her life were horrendous. She suffered from emphysema and had to have an oxygen tank. Over the two years she was in and out of hospital.
  • wazzyboywazzyboy Posts: 13,346
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    bornfree wrote: »
    Sad but true. My mother in law was a heavy smoker and she did not live long enough to claim her pension but the last two years of her life were horrendous. She suffered from emphysema and had to have an oxygen tank. Over the two years she was in and out of hospital.

    Perhaps this is a greater argument for abstention, since you as an individual might never get back in terms of tax what you put in.
  • trevgotrevgo Posts: 28,241
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hypnodisc wrote: »
    I also agree with this. I even sell tobacco, and that first hand gives me a chance to see what the tobacco companies do with the packaging to help sell the product - it's literally all they have left.

    At Latitude festival, one manufacturer has a monopoly (think it was B&H the last time I went in 2011, which threw me, being a Marlborough Man). They had vending places staffed by beautiful young things (male and female), the price was less than retail shop, the cigs came in an elegant hinged tin, and they gave away a high quality metal "Zippo" type lighter on request.

    8 weeks without now, still craving and half a stone heavier (which I can't afford). :(
  • jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,997
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    LOL. I can picture it now, customer goes into shop and asks for 20 whatever. Shop assistant opens locked cupboard and goes dip dip dip my blue ship.
  • BrokenArrowBrokenArrow Posts: 21,665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm with the Muslims, they should ban Alcohol altogether and then get all the McDonalds shut down.
  • WhiteFangWhiteFang Posts: 3,970
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    David Tee wrote: »
    Although I gave up a decade or more ago, I smoked for 25 years, from the times when packs just carried logos to the times when big bold messages were stamped all over them. In all that time I can't recall reading anything on the pack other than the manufacturers name.

    I must be honest, I don't get this. If it's that bad (and enjoyable as I found it, I think it is) - ban it and have doctors prescribe it to patients who are having a problem giving it up.

    ...and while we're on the subject, if the issue is letting the public know the truth about what lies inside, why aren't we laying into Coca-Cola et al (surely responsible for more dental bills than anything else) or Fast Food (obesity, heart disease etc.). Could it possibly be because the tobacco industry is a far easier target?

    Good points.Why is smoking bad but eating crisps and drinking cola not.Why is Coca Cola not behind closed shutters and the crisps in plain packets. The distinct branding of each cigarette shouldnt be erased.They are stylish and are part of the product history , so let smokers enjoy their habit and the health controllers need to stop nagging people.
  • wazzyboywazzyboy Posts: 13,346
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jmclaugh wrote: »
    LOL. I can picture it now, customer goes into shop and asks for 20 whatever. Shop assistant opens locked cupboard and goes dip dip dip my blue ship.

    Doesn't the written brand name still appear just not the colours and patterns?
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,650
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm with the Muslims, they should ban Alcohol altogether and then get all the McDonalds shut down.

    It doesn't sound much fun in your world. ;)

    Besides, many Muslim countries don't ban alcohol. They make a lot of money from selling it at inflated prices to non-Muslims.

    As far as I am aware no country has an outright ban on smoking.
  • trevgotrevgo Posts: 28,241
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    WhiteFang wrote: »
    Good points.Why is smoking bad but eating crisps and drinking cola not.Why is Coca Cola not behind closed shutters and the crisps in plain packets. The distinct branding of each cigarette shouldnt be erased.They are stylish and are part of the product history , so let smokers enjoy their habit and the health controllers need to stop nagging people.

    Because Coca Cola in moderation doesn't harm. Cigarettes in any quantity do. The caffeine in Coca Cola is slightly addictive, but nothing like nicotine.

    I speak as a smoker who enjoyed it for many, many years but started to feel the toll on my health bigtime of late. I witnessed all sorts of folk having strokes and realised I had to quit - which is very, very difficult. We should do all possible to dissuade people from starting, and that prick Farage waltzing around with a **** on every time a camera is pointed at him (no doubt in the hope it makes him look "down with the people" - the vast majority of whom do not smoke) is doing a great deal of harm.
  • CryolemonCryolemon Posts: 8,670
    Forum Member
    Plain packaging is a ridiculous idea. Non-smoker.
  • LiamforkingLiamforking Posts: 1,641
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    When did we become a prying society of bored busy-bodies?

    Should you be eating that?
    Do you drink too much?
    Are you getting enough sleep?

    Who the f&ck asked you!!!
  • wazzyboywazzyboy Posts: 13,346
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    When did we become a prying society of bored busy-bodies?

    Should you be eating that?
    Do you drink too much?
    Are you getting enough sleep?

    Who the f&ck asked you!!!


    By all means ruin your own health so long as you can guarantee it won't affect others.....
  • bornfreebornfree Posts: 16,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Cigarettes are so expensive. How can people afford to smoke? The other day I was looking at the cigarette prices in the corner shop and was shocked to see some cost as much a £7.50. 20 a day habit costs £52.50 a week, £2520 a year and more if one smokes 40 day.
Sign In or Register to comment.