Government to demand no frills cigarette packets

[Meirionnydd]

Australia is set to become the first country in the world to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes.
Tobacco companies will only be allowed to print their brand name in a specific style and will have to remove all coloured logos and imagery from 2012, in a Federal Government bid to reduce smoking rates.

Health warnings and graphic pictures depicting the dangers of smoking will remain.

Curtin University Professor Mike Daube, who was part of a preventative health task force that recommended plain packaging, says the decision is a huge breakthrough.

"We can be absolutely sure that this will accelerate the decline in smoking," he said.

The task force also recommended that cigarette taxes be increased, but the Government is yet to reveal its final decision on that measure.

The Government believes the packaging move, expected to be confirmed by Health Minister Nicola Roxon today, will reduce the attractiveness of tobacco products and their potential to mislead people.

Free market think-tank The Institute of Public Affairs recently warned that the move to force tobacco companies to sell their products in plain packages could lead to multibillion-dollar compensation claims.

Forcing tobacco companies to strip products of trademarks was akin to compulsory acquisition of physical property and could require compensation under the Constitution, it warned.

This year's federal election is set to be dominated by health issues after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd struck a deal with state leaders earlier this month to take funding control of health and state-run hospitals.

The Australian tobacco market generated total revenues of $8.3 billion in 2008, recording a growth rate of 2.9 per cent between that year and 2004.


Smoking-related illnesses kill more than 15,000 Australians each year and smoking has been identified by health authorities as the largest preventable cause of disease and death in the country.
Research has shown that industry branding and packaging design reduced the effectiveness of graphic health warnings about smoking.

The World Health Organisation (WHO), in its Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, advises authorities to "consider adopting measures to restrict or prohibit the use of logos, colours, brand images or promotional information".

Tough government regulations on tobacco advertising have reduced smoking in Australia from 30.5 per cent of the population aged 14 and over in 1988 to 16.6 per cent in 2007.
The Government is aiming to cut smoking rates below 10 per cent by 2018.


- ABC/Reuters


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/28/2885166.htm

 

[Accountable]

Oh good lord! Australian gov't really has so little trust in their own constituents?

 

[Peter Parka]

I'm just waiting for them to make it law than anyone who smokes a cigarette should be dragged through the streets while being pelted with rotting vegatables for their dispicable crime. They sure like to pick on people whose recreation brings in so much revenue to the government.

 

[edgray]

I'm mixed on this one. I smoke, but fully realise just how utterly stupid it really is. Every time the govt introduce smoking bans and so forth I actually support them. If they didn't, I would be smoking everywhere.

This seems a little silly though, aside from the legendary and super cool Gitanes packets from France, cigarette packets have always been appallingly designed and I doubt have ever increased sales due to branding and design. A good case in point were those "death" cigarettes that came out in Blighty during the 90s: cool black packets with a skull and crossbones on them. They soon died out, in spite of being pretty cool to look at... or are they still going? I don't know, but I certainly haven't seen them in a long time...

 

[Meirionnydd]

Oh good lord! Australian gov't really has so little trust in their own constituents?

I don't see this as an issue of 'trust', this is a public health issue. As much as I sometimes enjoy a cigarette, I do think that smoking has a very detrimental effect on society, it's nice to see the government properly addressing an issue that kills thousands of people a year, and costs the public health system billions of dollars.

Smokers are a demographic that are picked on by both sides of the political spectrum, so I don't see any significant opposition to these measures. It should be noted that this measure is aimed at younger people, and to prevent them from beginning smoking in the first place. Smoking (for young people anyway) has a sort of 'cool' status attached to it, taking away cigarette branding somewhat diminishes that.

 

[kelvin070]

Thats nothing much really. We went to great lengths long ago.
This article was written by an australian.

Singapore was one of the first countries to implement a comprehensive tobacco control programme. Its first legislation on smoke-free public places was implemented in 1970 and it was the first country to ban tobacco advertisements in 1971.6,7 Descriptors such as “draconian” and “hostile” are repeatedly used by the industry to describe Singapore’s tobacco control laws. The industry was concerned that “Singapore has become the world’s most hostile environment for our industry”,8 having “…one of the world’s most restricted markets

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/13/suppl_2/ii51.full

 

[Dana]

If they introduce plain cigerette cartons here maybve it won't cost you nicotine heads 50 dollars for a carton?

 

[Meirionnydd]

If they introduce plain cigerette cartons here maybve it won't cost you nicotine heads 50 dollars for a carton?

Actually. Speaking of which, the Government has also announced that they're increasing the cigarette tax by about 25%. That comes into force at midnight tonight.

Quickest implementation of a policy that I've ever seen.

Also, I don't think we sell cigarette cartons here. We normally sell them in packets of 20/25/30/40/50. Depending on the brand you buy. And then we have the 30/50 gram tobacco pouches, which you roll yourself. But they're only for people who are pretty addicted anyway.

Just curious, is that how cigarettes are packaged in other countries too? I know it's somewhat off-topic, but I just wondering...

 

[Peter Parka]

and costs the public health system billions of dollars.

The tax on tobacco pays the entire cost of the public health service 5 times over. This really isn't a valid argument.

 

[porterjack]

do Australian aboriginals enjoy tax free priviledges?

In Canada this is the case with our native population, so everyone I know who smokes buys them (illegally, but openly) from the reserves for a fraction of the sales price


no amount of goverment sponsored dissuasion seems to stop this

 

[AnitaBeer]

It might stop people from starting because the packages don't look so cool?! LOL who am I kidding? People are still going to smoke if they remove the colorful decorative designs from the boxes haha. I think it's silly to think it will stop some because once they find they like the taste of a cig they could careless what the packaging looks like.

But yea about the only thing i see it stopping is new smokers from starting. Even then I don't know about that.

 

[Meirionnydd]

The tax on tobacco pays the entire cost of the public health service 5 times over. This really isn't a valid argument.

Tobacco-related illnesses costs the tax payer around 31.5 billion dollars a year. I was reading somewhere that the existing tax only reels in about 1.5 billion. There is huge gap there.

 

[Peter Parka]

Sorry, I got my figures a bit muddled up. However tax on tobacco more than pays for the cost of treating tobacco related health problems. In the UK, smoking costs the NHS £5 billion a year. Tax on tobacco brings in £7.6 billion a year.

 

[Guyzerr]

Tobacco-related illnesses costs the tax payer around 31.5 billion dollars a year. I was reading somewhere that the existing tax only reels in about 1.5 billion. There is huge gap there.

I read somewhere that people that believe those numbers are fools.

The only reason tobacco, a legal product, is still available is because of the tax dollars generated. Imagine the tax increases that would take place in other areas if it were outlawed. If every smoker quit the non-smokers would be yelling for cigs to be legal again. :24:


I'm a smoker and have been for many years unfortunately. I've always asked myself if the government was so opposed to smoking why wouldn't they fund a public program to truly help those that want to quit. Free quit smoking aids would be a good start. The cost of those products is outrageous. They do it for drugs and alcohol so what's their excuse?
They fund anti-smoking campaigns and claim that's supposed to do some good but in reality it's isn't worth the advertising $$ spent.

 

[Guyzerr]

Meirionnydd these are some of the pics displayed on Canadian cigs and it doesn't stop people from buying them.

 

[Dana]

Actually. Speaking of which, the Government has also announced that they're increasing the cigarette tax by about 25%. That comes into force at midnight tonight.

Quickest implementation of a policy that I've ever seen.

Also, I don't think we sell cigarette cartons here. We normally sell them in packets of 20/25/30/40/50. Depending on the brand you buy. And then we have the 30/50 gram tobacco pouches, which you roll yourself. But they're only for people who are pretty addicted anyway.

Just curious, is that how cigarettes are packaged in other countries too? I know it's somewhat off-topic, but I just wondering...

I believe we only sell them by the pack and by the carton unless you're buying a buy one get 2 free deal. I haven't bought a pack of cigs in years.

 

[HottyToddyChick]

"We can be absolutely sure that this will accelerate the decline in smoking," he said.

Um... I don't much care what the package looks like... I don't buy the damn thing for decoration. What I wish they would do is get rid of those little inserts that alternate offering you solutions for quitting or trying to sell you on buying brand merchandise.

 

[Francis]

I'm just waiting for them to make it law than anyone who smokes a cigarette should be dragged through the streets while being pelted with rotting vegatables for their dispicable crime. They sure like to pick on people whose recreation brings in so much revenue to the government.

Actually its close Peter..

If trend continue we will soon see this in place everywhere..

Vancouver, BC, Canada now has a smoking ban in all parks.. Is it for health reasons you ask ? I guess you can put it that way, but the biggest reason I would tend to believe is because most smokers are lazy pricks..

See both links for full article..

Smoking has long been banned in pubs and restaurants, in airplanes and workplaces.

But Vancouver is taking its campaign to convince smokers to butt out into new territory with a municipal ban on smoking... outdoors.

The Vancouver Park Board has voted unanimously to ban smoking in more than 200 city parks and on all city beaches.

The prohibition is to take effect Sept. 1.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100420/vancouver_smoking_100420/20100420/

As well this article might interest you guys.. It's about how the smoking ban has lowered the hospitalization rate..

A new study suggests a ban on smoking in public spaces in Toronto, including in bars and restaurants, is leading to a lot fewer hospitalizations.

The study, published by the Canadian Medical Association Journal, finds that since citywide anti-smoking laws were introduced, hospitalizations for cardiovascular conditions and respiratory conditions dropped significantly.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100412/smoking_ban_100412/20100412/

 

[Peter Parka]

I really dont see any evidence that most smokers are lazy pricks or have you got any actual evidence to prove how many smokers drop their butts everywhere? I'm guessing it's probably no different to the amount of non smokers who litter.

 

[Abcinthia]

I really dont see any evidence that most smokers are lazy pricks or have you got any actual evidence to prove how many smokers drop their butts everywhere? I'm guessing it's probably no different to the amount of non smokers who litter.

:homo: I always use the bins for cigerette butts if a place has them. I don't put them in a normal bin becuase I worry about them just not being out.

And cigerette butts on the floor will never be as annoying as chewing gum or dog shit on the floor. It's disgusting to walk along and the floor is covered in chewed gum and piles of dog shit. People could easily put that in a bin.