Opposition Leader Tony Abbott may not support plain-packaged cigarettes as the tobacco industry threatens to slash the cost of cigarettes if the Gillard government pushes ahead with the anti-smoking legislation.

Mr Abbott, who is yet to back the government's proposal, says he is happy to support any policy that has been proven to curb smoking rates.



"But my anxiety with this [plain packaging proposal] is that it may end up being counterproductive in practice," he told reporters today.

The Liberal Party of Australia is the ONLY major Australian political party reliant on the tobacco industry for funding



Health campaigners and Health Minister Nicola Roxon have branded the tobacco industry's threat to cut the cost of cigarettes if plain packaging is introduced as a stunt.

Ms Roxon said she expected the fight from the tobacco industry, but not from Mr Abbott.

"We thought he would side with protecting Australian lives, not with big tobacco," Ms Roxon told the DMG Radio Australia network in Adelaide.

Quit Victoria executive director Fiona Sharkie said the tobacco industry was terrified about losing its branding and could not be believed.

"This is clearly an industry in crisis and they're running scared abut the impact of plain packaging on their profits," she said.


http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbott-cold-on-plain-cigarette-packs-20110517-1eqtb.html#ixzz1Meq9enbC

So he may not support a proposal which has been demonstrated to have zero effect on lowering smoking rates, and this is 'bowing to the tobacco industry'?

Pffft.

... wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:14am:

So he may not support a proposal which has been demonstrated to have zero effect on lowering smoking rates, and this is 'bowing to the tobacco industry'? Pffft.

Where was it demonstrated, wesley?

Both parties when in Government are addicted to tobacco.

You take away the tobacco tax and there is a hole in the budget the size of the Grand Canyon.

Please delete wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:35am:

... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:14am: So he may not support a proposal which has been demonstrated to have zero effect on lowering smoking rates, and this is 'bowing to the tobacco industry'? Pffft. Where was it demonstrated, wesley?

I'm glad you asked Earnest.


Quote:

Plain packaging will not reduce smoking rates Studies have failed to show that having all legitimate cigarettes sold in plain packs will reduce overall tobacco consumption. This point has been acknowledged in various official documents in Australia, Canada and the UK. For instance, the UK Department of Health’s 2008 document describes the impact of plain packaging on total tobacco consumption as "speculative". In 1994, the Standing Committee on Health of the Canadian Parliament heard presentations on four studies cited in support of and against plain packaging, and found that these studies did not show evidence that plain packaging will reduce tobacco consumption http://www.plain-packaging.com/Templates/Blank_NoEvidence.aspx

You'd have to follow the link to get a more in-depth analaysis of it.

I loved their spiel on Lateline last night.
"black market tobacco has increased 150%"
Sounds great until you realise 150% could be going from 1 to 2.5.
Also love the threat that they'll drop the price, well if that happens increase the tax to keep the selling price at $17 a packet, another win for the government.
Abbott's just stalling because he WILL NOT AGREE with anything, he seems to think it will weaken his position & he seems to be too thick to realise that's exactly what his doing.
This maybe the 1 thing this government actually sticks to without watering down, a step in the right direction.
P.S I smoke although trying to quit.

... wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:39am:

Please delete wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:35am: ... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:14am: So he may not support a proposal which has been demonstrated to have zero effect on lowering smoking rates, and this is 'bowing to the tobacco industry'? Pffft. Where was it demonstrated, wesley? I'm glad you asked Earnest. Quote: Plain packaging will not reduce smoking rates Studies have failed to show that having all legitimate cigarettes sold in plain packs will reduce overall tobacco consumption. This point has been acknowledged in various official documents in Australia, Canada and the UK. For instance, the UK Department of Health’s 2008 document describes the impact of plain packaging on total tobacco consumption as "speculative". In 1994, the Standing Committee on Health of the Canadian Parliament heard presentations on four studies cited in support of and against plain packaging, and found that these studies did not show evidence that plain packaging will reduce tobacco consumption http://www.plain-packaging.com/Templates/Blank_NoEvidence.aspx You'd have to follow the link to get a more in-depth analaysis of it.

The quote on this study from Lateline
"Proudly commissioned by British American Tobacco"

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:44am:

I loved their spiel on Lateline last night. "black market tobacco has increased 150%" Sounds great until you realise 150% could be going from 1 to 2.5. Also love the threat that they'll drop the price, well if that happens increase the tax to keep the selling price at $17 a packet, another win for the government. Abbott's just stalling because he WILL NOT AGREE with anything, he seems to think it will weaken his position & he seems to be too thick to realise that's exactly what his doing. This maybe the 1 thing this government actually sticks to without watering down, a step in the right direction. P.S I smoke although trying to quit.

As a non-smoker, the price itself doesn't affect me.

I just hate big Government and I hate a nanny state.

The Government spends too much time telling us what we can and can't do.
People are grown ups, stop interfering in people's lives.

... wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:14am:

So he may not support a proposal which has been demonstrated to have zero effect on lowering smoking rates

"demonstrated to have zero effect on lowering smoking rates" ?

It's a WORLD FIRST

Why do you think the tobacco industry have gone into PANIC MODE ?

INCREASED SALES ?





Quote:

Smoking is the single greatest cause of death and disease in Australia. According to the 2001 National Drug Strategy Household Survey  tobacco use caused 19,000 deaths and 142,500 hospital episodes were attributed to tobacco smoking. Australian Electoral Commission data shows that between 1998 & 2006 the Liberal Party has received $697,065.00 from British American Tobacco and $337,340.00 from Philip Morris.

Quote:

Mr Abbott, who is yet to back the government's proposal, says he is happy to support any policy that has been proven to curb smoking rates.

How dare he not immediately rush to support the governmenets hare brained schemes, regardless of whether they will work or not?

I know you're big on related parties disclosure smithy so for the record I will admit I have reasonably sized investment in shares in British American Tobacco PLC on the London Stock Exchange.

:)

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:46am:

... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:39am: Please delete wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:35am: ... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:14am: So he may not support a proposal which has been demonstrated to have zero effect on lowering smoking rates, and this is 'bowing to the tobacco industry'? Pffft. Where was it demonstrated, wesley? I'm glad you asked Earnest. Quote: Plain packaging will not reduce smoking rates Studies have failed to show that having all legitimate cigarettes sold in plain packs will reduce overall tobacco consumption. This point has been acknowledged in various official documents in Australia, Canada and the UK. For instance, the UK Department of Health’s 2008 document describes the impact of plain packaging on total tobacco consumption as "speculative". In 1994, the Standing Committee on Health of the Canadian Parliament heard presentations on four studies cited in support of and against plain packaging, and found that these studies did not show evidence that plain packaging will reduce tobacco consumption http://www.plain-packaging.com/Templates/Blank_NoEvidence.aspx You'd have to follow the link to get a more in-depth analaysis of it. The quote on this study from Lateline "Proudly commissioned by British American Tobacco"

aaaactually, it says 'philip morris' on the website.  But still, I don't think it will work.  People don't get addicted to the packaging.

... wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:53am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:46am: ... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:39am: Please delete wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:35am: ... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:14am: So he may not support a proposal which has been demonstrated to have zero effect on lowering smoking rates, and this is 'bowing to the tobacco industry'? Pffft. Where was it demonstrated, wesley? I'm glad you asked Earnest. Quote: Plain packaging will not reduce smoking rates Studies have failed to show that having all legitimate cigarettes sold in plain packs will reduce overall tobacco consumption. This point has been acknowledged in various official documents in Australia, Canada and the UK. For instance, the UK Department of Health’s 2008 document describes the impact of plain packaging on total tobacco consumption as "speculative". In 1994, the Standing Committee on Health of the Canadian Parliament heard presentations on four studies cited in support of and against plain packaging, and found that these studies did not show evidence that plain packaging will reduce tobacco consumption http://www.plain-packaging.com/Templates/Blank_NoEvidence.aspx You'd have to follow the link to get a more in-depth analaysis of it. The quote on this study from Lateline "Proudly commissioned by British American Tobacco" aaaactually, it says 'philip morris' on the website.  But still, I don't think it will work.  People don't get addicted to the packaging.

I am yet to ever hear somebody say they started up smoking because they were impressed by the shiny colouring of the packet.

Peer pressure, stress, depression, nerves, teenage rebellion.

Shiny packaging?!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:46am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:44am: I loved their spiel on Lateline last night. "black market tobacco has increased 150%" Sounds great until you realise 150% could be going from 1 to 2.5. Also love the threat that they'll drop the price, well if that happens increase the tax to keep the selling price at $17 a packet, another win for the government. Abbott's just stalling because he WILL NOT AGREE with anything, he seems to think it will weaken his position & he seems to be too thick to realise that's exactly what his doing. This maybe the 1 thing this government actually sticks to without watering down, a step in the right direction. P.S I smoke although trying to quit. As a non-smoker, the price itself doesn't affect me. I just hate big Government and I hate a nanny state. The Government spends too much time telling us what we can and can't do. People are grown ups, stop interfering in people's lives.

I guess you'd see ALL drugs legalised, on that basis ?

Poll added

buzzanddidj wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 12:02pm:

Poll added

bit of a loaded question isn't it?

buzzanddidj wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 12:02pm:

Poll added

Happily answered it.
There is no difference between tobacco companies, oil companies, Monsanto (which I have admitted to being a shareowner), alcohol companies, etc etc

All big bad, "nasty" companies....

... wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 12:04pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 12:02pm: Poll added bit of a loaded question isn't it?

Buzz doesn't do neutrality and impartiality.

Everything from Labor is good.
Everything from Liberals are bad.

Hence why he defends John Brumby corruption, then in the same sentence will criticise Baillieu for a nothing issue.

Be nice to live in such a black and white world.

... wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 12:04pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 12:02pm: Poll added bit of a loaded question isn't it?

LOADED ?


It's perfectly clear - and straightforward

buzzanddidj wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 12:08pm:

... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 12:04pm: buzzanddidj wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 12:02pm: Poll added bit of a loaded question isn't it? LOADED ? It's perfectly clear - and straightforward

and biased.

Which is your calling card.

... wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:53am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:46am: ... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:39am: Please delete wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:35am: ... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:14am: So he may not support a proposal which has been demonstrated to have zero effect on lowering smoking rates, and this is 'bowing to the tobacco industry'? Pffft. Where was it demonstrated, wesley? I'm glad you asked Earnest. Quote: Plain packaging will not reduce smoking rates Studies have failed to show that having all legitimate cigarettes sold in plain packs will reduce overall tobacco consumption. This point has been acknowledged in various official documents in Australia, Canada and the UK. For instance, the UK Department of Health’s 2008 document describes the impact of plain packaging on total tobacco consumption as "speculative". In 1994, the Standing Committee on Health of the Canadian Parliament heard presentations on four studies cited in support of and against plain packaging, and found that these studies did not show evidence that plain packaging will reduce tobacco consumption http://www.plain-packaging.com/Templates/Blank_NoEvidence.aspx You'd have to follow the link to get a more in-depth analaysis of it. The quote on this study from Lateline "Proudly commissioned by British American Tobacco" aaaactually, it says 'philip morris' on the website.  But still, I don't think it will work.  People don't get addicted to the packaging.

That's not demonstration, it's argument.

To demonstrate, you would have to legislate in some jurisdiction.

As an  ex-smoker, I can tell you I did not start smoking because I liked the packaging, advertising, now graphic images of lungs and eyes ect, colours, cost.

I dont think I am alone on that.

Please delete wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 12:22pm:

... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:53am: Dsmithy70 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:46am: ... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:39am: Please delete wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:35am: ... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:14am: So he may not support a proposal which has been demonstrated to have zero effect on lowering smoking rates, and this is 'bowing to the tobacco industry'? Pffft. Where was it demonstrated, wesley? I'm glad you asked Earnest. Quote: Plain packaging will not reduce smoking rates Studies have failed to show that having all legitimate cigarettes sold in plain packs will reduce overall tobacco consumption. This point has been acknowledged in various official documents in Australia, Canada and the UK. For instance, the UK Department of Health’s 2008 document describes the impact of plain packaging on total tobacco consumption as "speculative". In 1994, the Standing Committee on Health of the Canadian Parliament heard presentations on four studies cited in support of and against plain packaging, and found that these studies did not show evidence that plain packaging will reduce tobacco consumption http://www.plain-packaging.com/Templates/Blank_NoEvidence.aspx You'd have to follow the link to get a more in-depth analaysis of it. The quote on this study from Lateline "Proudly commissioned by British American Tobacco" aaaactually, it says 'philip morris' on the website.  But still, I don't think it will work.  People don't get addicted to the packaging. That's not demonstration, it's argument. To demonstrate, you would have to legislate in some jurisdiction.

The study DEMONSTRATES, My personal opinion is ARGUMENT.

... wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:14am:

So he may not support a proposal which has been demonstrated to have zero effect on lowering smoking rates, and this is 'bowing to the tobacco industry'? Pffft.

Well damn - time to close down all the advertising companies.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3219608.htm


Quote:

British American Tobacco has warned plain packaging could lead to a price war and a rise in illegal imports and smoking. Transcript ALI MOORE, PRESENTER: The CEO of Australia's largest tobacco company said the Government's proposal of plain packaging for cigarettes will increase smoking rates. David Crow from British American Tobacco Australia launched the industry's anti-plain packaging campaign today, warning the proposal could lead to a price war and a rise in illegal tobacco use. The Government and public health advocates have dismissed the claims. Steve Cannane reports. STEVE CANNANE, REPORTER: Big tobacco is back into advertising. STEVE CROW, BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO: They're going to go up on big billboards, so you can't miss them. STEVE CANNANE: Today the tobacco industry launched a multi-million-dollar campaign to derail the Government's plain packaging laws, with predictions of more smoking, not less. STEVE CROW: And so what you'll end up is with us fighting on price, smugglers flooding the market with cheap product, which brings pricing down. Remember these sell for five bucks a pack, not 16 bucks a pack. Cheaper pricing means more smoking, means more kids smoking. STEVE CANNANE: But the Health Minister disagrees. NICOLA ROXON: They've told us firstly that it wouldn't be effective. Now it's so effective that it will damage their profits so much that they're going to slash their own profits themselves to prove this point. It really just doesn't make sense. The tobacco companies are trying to protect their profits, that's their business. We're trying to protect people's lives. STEVE CANNANE: And the tobacco industry may not be alone in fighting the legislation. TONY ABBOTT, OPPOSITION LEADER: The Coalition in principle supports all reasonable measures to get smoking rates down. My anxiety with this is that it might end up being counterproductive in practice. STEVE CANNANE: The tobacco industry says that plain packaging will encourage more illegal tobacco, a market they say already accounts for 16 per cent of all tobacco sales. STEVE CROW: Sixteen per cent comes from a report that's in your media pack. It's been built by Deloittes, a piece of independent research. Let me just point out that... REPORTER: Was that funded by the tobacco industry? STEVE CROW: Absolutely, and proudly funded, by the way. PROFESSOR SIMON CHAPMAN, UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY: BAT is exaggerating extremely on this. Independent household survey, an Australian Government one, found that 0.2 per cent of Australian adults - not just smokers - used illegal product more than half the time. That's only about 33,000 people. STEVE CANNANE: But the tobacco industry says illegal tobacco sales have increased by 150 per cent in the last three years. STEVE CROW: It's driven by crime syndicates, it's driven by the Triads, it's driven by the underbelly of the smuggling world. These are the guys we know, Interpol knows them, Customs and Excise, the federal agencies in Australia know them, and they fight this war continually. STEVE CANNANE: But customs authorities have released figures to Lateline that show illegal tobacco seizures have actually decreased in the last three years, from 284 tonnes in 2007 to 279 tonnes in 2010. And from 94 million sticks in 2007 to 66 million in 2010. If the tobacco industry's advertising campaign doesn't work, the next step is almost certain to be a legal challenge. STEVE CROW: I think the issue of legal process is down to the Government removing brands and intellectual property from the packs. And obviously, if you remove something from the packs... REPORTER: So a constitutional challenge? STEVE CROW: I think it would be, at the end. The issue is we don't have a bill at the moment so I can't actually answer that question. What we have is a view from the Government. As it forms into legislation we'll make those judgments, and at the end of the day that will be something that happens right at the very end. STEVE CANNANE: The Government is due to introduce the bill into Parliament in the winter session. Steve Cannane, Lateline.

... wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 12:24pm:

Please delete wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 12:22pm: ... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:53am: Dsmithy70 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:46am: ... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:39am: Please delete wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:35am: ... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:14am: So he may not support a proposal which has been demonstrated to have zero effect on lowering smoking rates, and this is 'bowing to the tobacco industry'? Pffft. Where was it demonstrated, wesley? I'm glad you asked Earnest. Quote: Plain packaging will not reduce smoking rates Studies have failed to show that having all legitimate cigarettes sold in plain packs will reduce overall tobacco consumption. This point has been acknowledged in various official documents in Australia, Canada and the UK. For instance, the UK Department of Health’s 2008 document describes the impact of plain packaging on total tobacco consumption as "speculative". In 1994, the Standing Committee on Health of the Canadian Parliament heard presentations on four studies cited in support of and against plain packaging, and found that these studies did not show evidence that plain packaging will reduce tobacco consumption http://www.plain-packaging.com/Templates/Blank_NoEvidence.aspx You'd have to follow the link to get a more in-depth analaysis of it. The quote on this study from Lateline "Proudly commissioned by British American Tobacco" aaaactually, it says 'philip morris' on the website.  But still, I don't think it will work.  People don't get addicted to the packaging. That's not demonstration, it's argument. To demonstrate, you would have to legislate in some jurisdiction. The study DEMONSTRATES, My personal opinion is ARGUMENT.

Their opinion (the study) is argument.

Abbott hasnt bowed to anything, and once again Buzz lies by deception.

Abbott said he would support any move that is proven to address the problem.

I dont have a problem if he doesnt support moves that wont.

Nice work to decieve once again Buzz.

... wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:53am:

aaaactually, it says 'philip morris' on the website.  But still, I don't think it will work.  People don't get addicted to the packaging.

Isn't it more aimed at reducing the take up rate of young people, at this level nothing can be done for the adict but it may to some degree diminish temptation for those trying to quit.

Maybe ask the question if it will have no impact why would the tobaco suppliers be so upset when they will get to reduce their costs with  they claim no negative impact?

It is fairly obvious that the tobacco industry do not believe their own spin.

Dnarever wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 12:53pm:

... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:53am: aaaactually, it says 'philip morris' on the website.  But still, I don't think it will work.  People don't get addicted to the packaging. Isn't it more aimed at reducing the take up rate of young people, at this level nothing can be done for the adict but it may to some degree diminish temptation for those trying to quit. Maybe ask the question if it will have no impact why would the tobaco suppliers be so upset when they will get to reduce their costs with  they claim no negative impact? It is fairly obvious that the tobacco industry do not believe their own spin.

Its about maintaining their market share and presence.

Cat paint their loaders yellow so anyone that sees one knows its a Cat.

Cadbury trademarked their purple for the same reason.

Its about presence within the market place.

It increases your own sales within that market, it doesnt increase the sales of front end loaders overall.

Verge wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 12:52pm:

Abbott hasnt bowed to anything, and once again Buzz lies by deception. Abbott said he would support any move that is proven to address the problem. I dont have a problem if he doesnt support moves that wont. Nice work to decieve once again Buzz.

How can it be "proven" unless it is tried?

Weazel words from Abbott.

Verge wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 12:52pm:

Abbott hasnt bowed to anything, and once again Buzz lies by deception. Abbott said he would support any move that is proven to address the problem. I dont have a problem if he doesnt support moves that wont. Nice work to decieve once again Buzz.

In practice Abbott is not too strong at getting it right, he seems to regularly not believe the proof.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 12:20pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 12:08pm: ... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 12:04pm: buzzanddidj wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 12:02pm: Poll added bit of a loaded question isn't it? LOADED ? It's perfectly clear - and straightforward and biased. Which is your calling card.

HOW is it "biased" ?

It's a SIMPLE "yes" or "no" question

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:48am:

I know you're big on related parties disclosure smithy so for the record I will admit I have reasonably sized investment in shares in British American Tobacco PLC on the London Stock Exchange. :)

Ahh the sin investments
Have a few of them myself, they seem to pay quite well ;)

Seeing as how retailers are only allowed to have 1 square meter of cigarettes visible, how is plain packaging going to help, when you can't even see the packaging anyway?

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:44am:

I loved their spiel on Lateline last night. "black market tobacco has increased 150%" Sounds great until you realise 150% could be going from 1 to 2.5. Also love the threat that they'll drop the price, well if that happens increase the tax to keep the selling price at $17 a packet, another win for the government. Abbott's just stalling because he WILL NOT AGREE with anything, he seems to think it will weaken his position & he seems to be too thick to realise that's exactly what his doing. This maybe the 1 thing this government actually sticks to without watering down, a step in the right direction. P.S I smoke although trying to quit.

I AM A SOCIAL SMOKER...

I DON'T SEE HOW TONYS IMAGE CAN IMPROVE FROM NOT PUTTING HIS FOOT DOWN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON THIS!!!

HE IS DEFINATELY NOT HANGING AROUND FOR THE ELECTION AS LEADER!!!!!  ;)

... wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:53am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:46am: ... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:39am: Please delete wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:35am: ... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:14am: So he may not support a proposal which has been demonstrated to have zero effect on lowering smoking rates, and this is 'bowing to the tobacco industry'? Pffft. Where was it demonstrated, wesley? I'm glad you asked Earnest. Quote: Plain packaging will not reduce smoking rates Studies have failed to show that having all legitimate cigarettes sold in plain packs will reduce overall tobacco consumption. This point has been acknowledged in various official documents in Australia, Canada and the UK. For instance, the UK Department of Health’s 2008 document describes the impact of plain packaging on total tobacco consumption as "speculative". In 1994, the Standing Committee on Health of the Canadian Parliament heard presentations on four studies cited in support of and against plain packaging, and found that these studies did not show evidence that plain packaging will reduce tobacco consumption http://www.plain-packaging.com/Templates/Blank_NoEvidence.aspx You'd have to follow the link to get a more in-depth analaysis of it. The quote on this study from Lateline "Proudly commissioned by British American Tobacco" aaaactually, it says 'philip morris' on the website.  But still, I don't think it will work.  People don't get addicted to the packaging.

THE PACKAGING DEFINATELY TURNS PEOPLE OFF... THIS WILL FURTHER DESTROY TOBACCOS GRIP ON PEOPLES LIVES UNQUESTIONABLY!!!

... wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 1:17pm:

Seeing as how retailers are only allowed to have 1 square meter of cigarettes visible, how is plain packaging going to help, when you can't even see the packaging anyway?

EXTREME LANGUAGE MUCH!??!

FACE IT: YOU KNOW THIS WILL FURTHER DESTROYS TOBACCOS GRIP ON PEOPLES LIVES UNQUESTIONABLY!!!!

Dnarever wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 1:03pm:

Verge wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 12:52pm: Abbott hasnt bowed to anything, and once again Buzz lies by deception. Abbott said he would support any move that is proven to address the problem. I dont have a problem if he doesnt support moves that wont. Nice work to decieve once again Buzz. In practice Abbott is not too strong at getting it right, he seems to regularly not believe the proof.

ABBOTT CAN'T BOX: HE'S NO MIKE TYSON! TOO UNSURE OF HIMSELF AND THE DIRECTION HIS PARTY SHOULD PIN THEIR DIRECTION IN!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 2:08pm:

I AM A SOCIAL SMOKER... ;)

Not sure it applies to pot.

Please delete wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 12:56pm:

Verge wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 12:52pm: Abbott hasnt bowed to anything, and once again Buzz lies by deception. Abbott said he would support any move that is proven to address the problem. I dont have a problem if he doesnt support moves that wont. Nice work to decieve once again Buzz. How can it be "proven" unless it is tried? Weazel words from Abbott.

ABBOTT IS INCAPABLE OF LEADERSHIP: SIMPLE!!  8-)

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 1:13pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:48am: I know you're big on related parties disclosure smithy so for the record I will admit I have reasonably sized investment in shares in British American Tobacco PLC on the London Stock Exchange. :) Ahh the sin investments Have a few of them myself, they seem to pay quite well ;)

My portfolio includes -

BAT
Monsanto
Fosters Group
BP
ExxonMobil


If there is money to be made, get on board.....

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 2:12pm:

... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 1:17pm: Seeing as how retailers are only allowed to have 1 square meter of cigarettes visible, how is plain packaging going to help, when you can't even see the packaging anyway? EXTREME LANGUAGE MUCH!??! FACE IT: YOU KNOW THIS WILL FURTHER DESTROYS TOBACCOS GRIP ON PEOPLES LIVES UNQUESTIONABLY!!!!

Insane ramblings aside - what difference will the packaging make, when the packaging can not be seen from behind the shutters retailers are required by existing law to hide the cigarettes behind?

... wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 2:19pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 2:12pm: ... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 1:17pm: Seeing as how retailers are only allowed to have 1 square meter of cigarettes visible, how is plain packaging going to help, when you can't even see the packaging anyway? EXTREME LANGUAGE MUCH!??! FACE IT: YOU KNOW THIS WILL FURTHER DESTROYS TOBACCOS GRIP ON PEOPLES LIVES UNQUESTIONABLY!!!! Insane ramblings aside - what difference will the packaging make, when the packaging can not be seen from behind the shutters retailers are required by existing law to hide the cigarettes behind?

WHENEVER PEOPLE BUY THE BLOOMING THINGS OTHERS LOOK IN HORROR AND THE SOCIAL STIGMA GETS THE JOB DONE.

FACE IT: PEOPLE ARE SMOKING LESS BECAUSE OF THE YUCKY PACKAGING AND THESE NEW ONES MAKE THEM LESS ATTRACTIVE  STILL!

SOCIAL STIGMA IS MARKEDLY UP!!!! MARKEDLY I TELLS YA!!!!!!!!!  ;D

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 2:16pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 1:13pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:48am: I know you're big on related parties disclosure smithy so for the record I will admit I have reasonably sized investment in shares in British American Tobacco PLC on the London Stock Exchange. :) Ahh the sin investments Have a few of them myself, they seem to pay quite well ;) My portfolio includes - BAT Monsanto Fosters Group BP ExxonMobil If there is money to be made, get on board.....

One of my best was about 7 or 8 years ago Aristocrat was sitting at about $2.30ish & I wondered how a company with so many pokies could be so cheap.
So I had a little wager for a few grand & sold in 07 for about $15
They are back at around $2.40 now I might just have another flutter although the pokie issue might be a downer :D

... wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 2:19pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 2:12pm: ... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 1:17pm: Seeing as how retailers are only allowed to have 1 square meter of cigarettes visible, how is plain packaging going to help, when you can't even see the packaging anyway? EXTREME LANGUAGE MUCH!??! FACE IT: YOU KNOW THIS WILL FURTHER DESTROYS TOBACCOS GRIP ON PEOPLES LIVES UNQUESTIONABLY!!!! Insane ramblings aside - what difference will the packaging make, when the packaging can not be seen from behind the shutters retailers are required by existing law to hide the cigarettes behind?

Never argue with an idiot, as onlookers may be unable to tell the difference.

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 2:31pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 2:16pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 1:13pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:48am: I know you're big on related parties disclosure smithy so for the record I will admit I have reasonably sized investment in shares in British American Tobacco PLC on the London Stock Exchange. :) Ahh the sin investments Have a few of them myself, they seem to pay quite well ;) My portfolio includes - BAT Monsanto Fosters Group BP ExxonMobil If there is money to be made, get on board..... One of my best was about 7 or 8 years ago Aristocrat was sitting at about $2.30ish & I wondered how a company with so many pokies could be so cheap. So I had a little wager for a few grand & sold in 07 for about $15 They are back at around $2.40 now I might just have another flutter although the pokie issue might be a downer :D

The "pokie issue" is a boom for poker machine manufacturers.

The costs of changing to the precommitment scheme is going to make them billions!  Someone has to supply not only the software but the hardware as well, on top of all the machines that will need upgrading because their software is to old to handle any changes to them

Verge wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 4:20pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 2:31pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 2:16pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 1:13pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:48am: I know you're big on related parties disclosure smithy so for the record I will admit I have reasonably sized investment in shares in British American Tobacco PLC on the London Stock Exchange. :) Ahh the sin investments Have a few of them myself, they seem to pay quite well ;) My portfolio includes - BAT Monsanto Fosters Group BP ExxonMobil If there is money to be made, get on board..... One of my best was about 7 or 8 years ago Aristocrat was sitting at about $2.30ish & I wondered how a company with so many pokies could be so cheap. So I had a little wager for a few grand & sold in 07 for about $15 They are back at around $2.40 now I might just have another flutter although the pokie issue might be a downer :D The "pokie issue" is a boom for poker machine manufacturers. The costs of changing to the precommitment scheme is going to make them billions!  Someone has to supply not only the software but the hardware as well, on top of all the machines that will need upgrading because their software is to old to handle any changes to them

Thank you verge, I'm back in ;)

Caving in to big tobacco..the biggest corporate killers of Australians and people all around the globe is as unforgivable as Abbotts cave in to the Asbestos industry.
He pretends to care about ordinary Australians when all he really cares about is his own career and he doesnt care what he says or does to protect it.
Abbott is scum of the earth for supporting corporations that have killed and maimed many millions more people than all the worlds terrorists throughout history.
Abbott..corporate suckhole and weak kneed coward  >:(

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 2:16pm:

My portfolio includes - BAT Monsanto Fosters Group BP ExxonMobil

Andrei is one of the (fortunately) few, who can take pride in - and gloat about - his placing of financial return above any sense  of conscience or morality

Point 1
Have we got any conclusive study anywhere showing plain packaging works?


Point 2
Does plain packaging then open the market up for cheap imports. Cheap smokes means more smoking which defeats the purpose.

... wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:39am:

Please delete wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:35am: ... wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:14am: So he may not support a proposal which has been demonstrated to have zero effect on lowering smoking rates, and this is 'bowing to the tobacco industry'? Pffft. Where was it demonstrated, wesley? I'm glad you asked Earnest. Quote: Plain packaging will not reduce smoking rates Studies have failed to show that having all legitimate cigarettes sold in plain packs will reduce overall tobacco consumption. This point has been acknowledged in various official documents in Australia, Canada and the UK. For instance, the UK Department of Health’s 2008 document describes the impact of plain packaging on total tobacco consumption as "speculative". In 1994, the Standing Committee on Health of the Canadian Parliament heard presentations on four studies cited in support of and against plain packaging, and found that these studies did not show evidence that plain packaging will reduce tobacco consumption http://www.plain-packaging.com/Templates/Blank_NoEvidence.aspx You'd have to follow the link to get a more in-depth analaysis of it.

Cool source, bro! ::)


Quote:

Philip Morris International Management S.A. (PMIMSA) is opposed to legislation mandating plain packaging of tobacco products. We support effective regulation of tobacco based on the principle of harm reduction but plain packaging is an extreme measure unproven to have any effect in reducing smoking. We believe that adult smokers should be able to see, identify and select the brands they prefer. We have developed this website in order to provide information on the issues surrounding plain packaging and to describe its likely effects on retailers, manufacturers, governments and consumers.

Too bad it's a complete lie:

http://dtoba.urbits.com/sites/dtoba.urbits.com/files/incoming/Plain%20packaging%20and%20adolescents.pdf

Maqqa wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 7:59pm:

Point 1 Have we got any conclusive study anywhere showing plain packaging works?

Yes.


Quote:

Point 2 Does plain packaging then open the market up for cheap imports. Cheap smokes means more smoking which defeats the purpose.

No. This one most definitely does NOT have any  evidence to support it. Do you REALLY think counterfeiters aren't capable of reproducing any branding currently on cigarette packets? We're not talking of currency here, people, they're bloody cigarettes.

astro_surf wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 8:57pm:

Yes.

Where?

remember_when64 wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 9:31pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:57pm: Yes. Where?

In the post above the one you quoted.

Have you actually red it and understood the study as well as its methodology?

I ask because I can shut your answers down fairly quickly

For example page 1

The aim of the cigarette pack has been to ‘‘create a desire to purchase and try’’ and to ‘‘look new and different enough to attract the attention of the consumer.’’

This statement came from a book dated October 19 1963 - that's really updated research isn't it?

And we are implementing a plain packaging policy based on research in 1963???!!

Maqqa wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 9:44pm:

Have you actually red it and understood the study as well as its methodology? I ask because I can shut your answers down fairly quickly For example page 1 The aim of the cigarette pack has been to ‘‘create a desire to purchase and try’’ and to ‘‘look new and different enough to attract the attention of the consumer.’’ This statement came from a book dated October 19 1963 - that's really updated research isn't it? And we are implementing a plain packaging policy based on research in 1963???!!

SO WHAT IS THE AIM OF THE CIGARETTE PACK IN THE 21ST CENTURY THEN, MAQQA, IF NOT TO CREATE A DESIRE TO PURCHASE AND TRY OR TO LOOK NEW AND DIFFERENT ENOUGH TO ATTRACT THE ATTENTION OF THE CONSUMER? YOU MASSIVE DOUCHEBAG.

astro_surf wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 9:39pm:

In the post above the one you quoted.

Ta, missed that link.

astro_surf wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 9:56pm:

SO WHAT IS THE AIM OF THE CIGARETTE PACK IN THE 21ST CENTURY THEN, MAQQA, IF NOT TO CREATE A DESIRE TO PURCHASE AND TRY OR TO LOOK NEW AND DIFFERENT ENOUGH TO ATTRACT THE ATTENTION OF THE CONSUMER? YOU MASSIVE DOUCHEBAG.

HANG ON YOU LEFTIES ARE COMING UP WITH THE POLICIES SO IT'S UP TO YOU TO JUSTIFY YOUR POLICY

I FORGOT JUST LIKE THE CLIMATE CHANGE THING YOU'LL NOW CALL ANYONE WHO QUESTION ABOUT CIGARETTE POLICY A "CIGARETTE DENIER"

remember_when64 wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 10:41pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:39pm: In the post above the one you quoted. Ta, missed that link.

you didn't miss much because I have already shown they are using references from a 1963 study

THE ONLY REASON THAT USING RESEARCH FROM 1963 COULD POSSIBLY BE BAD IS IF THE AIM OF CIGARETTE PACKAGING HAS CHANGED? WHAT RADICAL SHIFT IN THE AIM OF CIGARETTE PACKAGING MEANS THAT THE 1963 RESEARCH IS NOT VALID? THE FACT THAT IT IS FROM 1963 IS NOT AN ARGUMENT IN ITSELF, YOU RETARD.

Clearly, the toxic Tobacco industry is afraid that these sensible measures will work!

They say that there's no proof - they said that about the link betwixt smoking and cancer and other health risks.

They were wrong - as they knew all along!

I challenge the Libs to either exercise total bipartisanship or approve a 2-5 year trial of this deterrent mechanism - and to propose the increasing of customs funding to prevent illegal importation of cigarettes...

Maqqa wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 10:56pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:56pm: SO WHAT IS THE AIM OF THE CIGARETTE PACK IN THE 21ST CENTURY THEN, MAQQA, IF NOT TO CREATE A DESIRE TO PURCHASE AND TRY OR TO LOOK NEW AND DIFFERENT ENOUGH TO ATTRACT THE ATTENTION OF THE CONSUMER? YOU MASSIVE DOUCHEBAG. HANG ON YOU LEFTIES ARE COMING UP WITH THE POLICIES SO IT'S UP TO YOU TO JUSTIFY YOUR POLICY I FORGOT JUST LIKE THE CLIMATE CHANGE THING YOU'LL NOW CALL ANYONE WHO QUESTION ABOUT CIGARETTE POLICY A "CIGARETTE DENIER"

LIKE YOUR MATE, NICK MINCHIN?  ::)

WE "LEFTIES" HAVE ALREADY JUSTIFIED THE POLICY, TO REDUCE INSTANCES OF SMOKING AMONGST YOUNG PEOPLE, AND WE HAVE THE RESEARCH TO BACK IT UP. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE RESEARCH THEN IT'S UP TO YOU TO MAKE YOUR CASE.

Equitist wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:02pm:

Clearly, the toxic Tobacco industry is afraid that these sensible measures will work! They say that there's no proof - they said that about the link betwixt smoking and cancer and other health risks. They were wrong - as they knew all along! I challenge the Libs to either exercise total bipartisanship or approve a 2-5 year trial of this deterrent mechanism - and to propose the increasing of customs funding to prevent illegal importation of cigarettes...

The fact that advertising is a trillion dollar industry is proof enough! ;D

Dnarever wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 1:03pm:

Verge wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 12:52pm: Abbott hasnt bowed to anything, and once again Buzz lies by deception. Abbott said he would support any move that is proven to address the problem. I dont have a problem if he doesnt support moves that wont. Nice work to decieve once again Buzz. In practice Abbott is not too strong at getting it right, he seems to regularly not believe the proof.

Despite all reliable evidence to the contrary, Abbott continues to claim that th 30% Private Health Insurance Rebate is worthwhile and cost-effective - because it saves money and reduces pressure off the public hospital system...

He was the Health Minister for a while - and yet he is not big on putting the public health and other interests first...

Maqqa wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 7:59pm:

Point 1 Have we got any conclusive study anywhere showing plain packaging works? Point 2 Does plain packaging then open the market up for cheap imports. Cheap smokes means more smoking which defeats the purpose.

Point 1 and 2 wouldn't hold ground at the average office water cooler!  :D

Cheaper smokes should be here now............... you dork!   8-) 8-) 8-)

I am a social smoker and my mates would kill to be able to provide me with more smokes for less money.... ay dogggggggggggggggggg!  ;) ;)

 :D

astro_surf wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:06pm:

Equitist wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:02pm: Clearly, the toxic Tobacco industry is afraid that these sensible measures will work! They say that there's no proof - they said that about the link betwixt smoking and cancer and other health risks. They were wrong - as they knew all along! I challenge the Libs to either exercise total bipartisanship or approve a 2-5 year trial of this deterrent mechanism - and to propose the increasing of customs funding to prevent illegal importation of cigarettes... The fact that advertising is a trillion dollar industry is proof enough! ;D

....macsquat thinks the great unwashed are blind!

yeh, imagine being that smart!!!!! I wish i was in that upper echelon of where all the happening social gatherings are!

 ;D

...i hope he's getting paid or something cos if he aint he is seriously messed up !!!! (.. not that i'm not but he certainly is!!!!  :D :D )

astro_surf wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:04pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 10:56pm: astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:56pm: SO WHAT IS THE AIM OF THE CIGARETTE PACK IN THE 21ST CENTURY THEN, MAQQA, IF NOT TO CREATE A DESIRE TO PURCHASE AND TRY OR TO LOOK NEW AND DIFFERENT ENOUGH TO ATTRACT THE ATTENTION OF THE CONSUMER? YOU MASSIVE DOUCHEBAG. HANG ON YOU LEFTIES ARE COMING UP WITH THE POLICIES SO IT'S UP TO YOU TO JUSTIFY YOUR POLICY I FORGOT JUST LIKE THE CLIMATE CHANGE THING YOU'LL NOW CALL ANYONE WHO QUESTION ABOUT CIGARETTE POLICY A "CIGARETTE DENIER" LIKE YOUR MATE, NICK MINCHIN?  ::) WE "LEFTIES" HAVE ALREADY JUSTIFIED THE POLICY, TO REDUCE INSTANCES OF SMOKING AMONGST YOUNG PEOPLE, AND WE HAVE THE RESEARCH TO BACK IT UP. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE RESEARCH THEN IT'S UP TO YOU TO MAKE YOUR CASE.

WAIT A SEC:

WAIT GUST A GODDAM SEC HERE... MACCA WAS BORN TO RULE REMEMBER!  LET'S JUST GET THINGS STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL  :-? ::)!!

Equitist wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:02pm:

Clearly, the toxic Tobacco industry is afraid that these sensible measures will work! They say that there's no proof - they said that about the link betwixt smoking and cancer and other health risks. They were wrong - as they knew all along! I challenge the Libs to either exercise total bipartisanship or approve a 2-5 year trial of this deterrent mechanism - and to propose the increasing of customs funding to prevent illegal importation of cigarettes...

THAT IS THE LINE MY FRIEND: PUSH THAT AND YOU WILL FIND THAT THERE IS VERY LITTLE BACK-PRESSURE EFFECTIVE AGAINST ITS BOUNTIFUL FORCE!  8-)

Who is sick of massive public companies trying to hold countries to ransom?

Let us demand action against those massive public companies trying to hold entire voting populations to ransom!

OI OI OI!!!

Gee, maqqa must be scratching his head trying to figure out how to answer my question!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 5:06am:

Who is sick of massive public companies trying to hold countries to ransom? Let us demand action against those massive public companies trying to hold entire voting populations to ransom! OI OI OI!!!

::) ::) ::)

astro_surf wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 7:51pm:

Gee, maqqa must be scratching his head trying to figure out how to answer my question!

Not sure why you bother, maqqa is a liberal party plant put here to bash us with the Abbott policy of relentless disagreeing with everything until people just turn off or agree.
Personally i try to avoid anything he goes near unless i just can not help myself.
So what happened to the best evidence that when they object so strongly and threaten action you know you have it right. Simply the government need to have a sliding tax that will increase if the companies decrease the price.

Tony Abbott is a dog and would say and do anything to become PM.
How much will big tobacco put into his poisonous coffers at the next election? Remember that every cent big tobacco puts into the Liberal Parties campaign came from poisoning our citizens with their addictive deadly drugs.

nairbe wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 8:12pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 7:51pm: Gee, maqqa must be scratching his head trying to figure out how to answer my question! Not sure why you bother, maqqa is a liberal party plant put here to bash us with the Abbott policy of relentless disagreeing with everything until people just turn off or agree. Personally i try to avoid anything he goes near unless i just can not help myself. So what happened to the best evidence that when they object so strongly and threaten action you know you have it right. Simply the government need to have a sliding tax that will increase if the companies decrease the price.

We bother because we are all looking for tears to literally come out of the computer screen when Abbott gets dumped!!

Seriously, that's why i bother!!!!

 :D :D I don't know why anyone else does but that's my main game....  8-)

Abbott rides through his political career on the bones of the tobacco addicted dead and on the profits of the drug pushers.

adelcrow wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 9:31pm:

Abbott rides through his political career on the bones of the tobacco addicted dead and on the profits of the drug pushers.

Not pulling any punches are ya!  8-)

That poor excuse for a man sank to his lowest low this week..I cant begin to convey the contempt and disgust I have for him after turning on the victims of big tobacco..just as he did to the victims of the asbestos industry.
Ive gone from being amused by his stupidity and the gullibility of his cheer squad to hating the selfish manipulative dog because now I know he will sink to any level and step on anyone to further his career.

Listen to you bible bashing nuff nuts. Control freaks much. Tobacco is legal. Make it illegal then cry your whiney hearts to content.

British American Tobacco Australia boss David Crow tells his children not to smoke
By Stephen Johnson
From: AAP
May 20, 2011 12:05PM


http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2011/05/20/1226059/639366-big-tobacco.jpg


*Big tobacco boss tells his kids not to smoke
*CEO fights against green cigarette packages
*"No ethical qualms" about selling cigarettes


THE Big Tobacco boss who threatened to flood Australia with cheap cigarettes if the Government doesn't drop its plans to remove branding from packets has warned his kids not to smoke

British American Tobacco Australia chief David Crow revealed this week that he told his children to stay away from cigarettes because they are unhealthy.

"I've got a 13-year-old, an 11-year-old and a seven-year-old and if they smoke I tell them absolutely, categorically, 'Do not smoke'," he said.

"It's bad for you. It says it on the pack."



Asked if he had any ethical qualms about the business he was in, Mr Crow said:

"In terms of working at a company in a legal business that's really well run?

Not at all !"




However, Mr Crow also defended its right to spruik what is still a legal product.

Mr Crow, who is an an occasional social smoker, claimed Labor's policy, aimed at discouraging smoking, would in fact lead to an increase in smoking rates, particularly amongst children, because of follow-on price cuts.

He argued it would be easier for criminal syndicates operating in China, Indonesia and the Middle East to duplicate and flood the local market, and big tobacco would respond by slashing prices to protect its share.

The argument ignores the power Health Minister Nicola Roxon has to reduce the impact of price cuts by jacking up the tobacco excise, at least on legal products.

Ms Roxon controversially exercised the same power in 2008 when she raised taxes on pre-mixed alcoholic drinks.

Quit executive director Fiona Sharkie has called on the Government to use its excise powers if big tobacco engages in a price war.


http://www.news.com.au/business/british-american-tobacco-australia-boss-david-crow-tells-his-children-not-to-smoke/story-e6frfm1i-1226059590411#ixzz1MrhIEFNQ

I wonder if Tony Abbott tells his kids not to smoke!??!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 21^st, 2011 at 4:05pm:

I wonder if Tony Abbott tells his kids not to smoke!??!

He definitely tells them to cross their legs to preserve their 'gifts' - not that I expect any of them to have listened much to his habitually hollow and parroted rants...

...that's what I meant  :D !!!!

[Where is that deviant emoticon when you need it?]