The tobacco industry has been fighting plain packaging around the world using the same tactics.
This link outlines how why and what the industry does in every country that tries to bring in plain packaging.
Australia will be the first in the world to introduce it, but they are not the first ones to try.

http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_726.pdf

Thanks for that. Will make interesting reading, see what else the government can expect. It certainly rings true just glancing over it; set up fake retailer lobby groups, try to couch the argument in terms of individual rights, legal challenges. It's all there.

ash.org.uk   have heaps on their site taken straight from big tobacco internal documents.
Abbott should have known better than to just repeat what he knows is lies and well worn propaganda trotted out time and time again by big tobacco.
It all shows why big tobacco is so afraid of plain packaging and why they are so afraid of the first country with the courage to introduce it.

I think the government should take it one more step and show dead fish, trees, cattle and sick children on drums of pesticides and other strong chemicals used in industry.  Oh, and on cans of fly spray in the supermarket also.  I'm all for making the user of dangerous chemicals aware of the use/misuse of such items - Maybe even the adorable pleading eyes of calves on meat trays in the supermarket also.

It's time we came from behind our self-imposed ignorance and take responsibility for our choices in life.  We don't necessarily need governments telling us what we can and can't do, to an extent, but making us aware of the consequences of our choices is probably all that is needed.

cactus wrote on Jun 25^th, 2011 at 8:20pm:

I think the government should take it one more step and show dead fish, trees, cattle and sick children on drums of pesticides and other strong chemicals used in industry.  Oh, and on cans of fly spray in the supermarket also.  I'm all for making the user of dangerous chemicals aware of the use/misuse of such items - Maybe even the adorable pleading eyes of calves on meat trays in the supermarket also. It's time we came from behind our self-imposed ignorance and take responsibility for our choices in life.  We don't necessarily need governments telling us what we can and can't do, to an extent, but making us aware of the consequences of our choices is probably all that is needed.

...so, black market tobacco?

This line won't get you far...................  ;D

Of course the difference is none of the above is sold purely for its chroniclly addictive qualities and if used as intended will prematurely kill 50% of its users.
How many responsible adults take up smoking for the first time? Almost none, getting children addicted to nicotine to replace their constantly dying market is the aim of the tobacco companies and packaging is one of the main tools for this.
Big tobacco has admitted this in internal communications..the proof is there for all to read.

"Tobacco giant to take legal actionAAP
June 27, 2011, 5:41 am tweet0EmailPrint
International tobacco giant Philip Morris will take legal action to try and force the Gillard government to back down on its plain-packaging legislation.

"We don't take legal action lightly, but we have no other option. We believe we have a very strong legal case," spokeswoman for the company, Anne Edwards, told the Australian newspaper on Monday.

The legal action by the company, which manufactures brands such as Marlboro and Peter Jackson, will occur under a bilateral investment treaty between Australia and Hong Kong.

The company will argue that because it's Australian operation is owned by Philip Morris Asia (PMA), which is based in Hong Kong, the plain-packaging legislation will adversely impact upon an investment protected by the treaty.

The notice of claim to be served on Monday will start a three-month period of negotiation and if there is no resolution the matter will proceed to arbitration.

"PMA will be seeking the loss in value of its investments in Australia that will result from plain packaging," Ms Edwards said.

"The damages may amount to billions of dollars."

Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon has pledged to introduce and pass the legislation this year and have it operational by January.

The legislation will ban all commercial branding from cigarettes, mandating olive-green packaging with prominent health warnings."

adelcrow wrote on Jun 25^th, 2011 at 6:40pm:

The tobacco industry has been fighting plain packaging around the world using the same tactics. This link outlines how why and what the industry does in every country that tries to bring in plain packaging. Australia will be the first in the world to introduce it, but they are not the first ones to try. http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_726.pdf

Tobacco would win such a legal issue I'm afraid.

Govt can't ban baccy as it would just create a larger black market than there already is. That homegron baccy though is healthier than what is sold over the counter as it is baccy, no chemicals. So that would be a ste forward but more criminals would be created for nothing really.

You could jump the tax so much people couldn't afford them so they would go black market anyway. But that would drive the companies out at least.

Best is a long term strategy. Allow those who need to smoke now to continue but only on presciption by a doc. That way no new smokers will appear and people will get sick of going to a doc then the shop for smokes.

It's tough I know as when I was smoking, every time someon e told me to stop  I just hardened my resolve and said I'll do what I want. Dumb but you can't tell people what to do if they don't want to do it.

Just some thoughts.

Interesting that I note the more reasonable sounding comments on this board against plain packaging are all in that document and have been disseminated by tobacco companies.

adelcrow wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 9:03am:

Of course the difference is none of the above is sold purely for its chroniclly addictive qualities and if used as intended will prematurely kill 50% of its users. How many responsible adults take up smoking for the first time? Almost none, getting children addicted to nicotine to replace their constantly dying market is the aim of the tobacco companies and packaging is one of the main tools for this. Big tobacco has admitted this in internal communications..the proof is there for all to read.

;) ;)

An irrefutable argument.... that's why the silver spooners don't waste their breathe trying to combat big tobaccos problems! NO ONE CRIES FOR BIG TOBACCO AS MANY A SILVER SPOONER KNOWS WHAT IT'S LIKE TO LOSE A DAD TO CANCER....

....LET ALONE A MUM....!!

UNIVERSAL LAST WISH OF A SMOKING CANCER VICTIM: "YOU CAN'T TELL ANYONE, SON! I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW!!"
YEH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHEN WILL PEOPLE REALISE THIS IS THE UGLY REALITY....?!!?

(THIS AINT NEWS TO QUITE A FEW OUT THERE UNFORTUNATELY........)

Put the crack pipe down..back slowly away...do NOT make eye contact, do NOT run

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2011 at 10:23pm:

Put the crack pipe down..back slowly away...do NOT make eye contact, do NOT run

....many a liberal voting son/daughter have heard exactly that as a last request!

TELL ME I'M LYING I DARE YOU!!!!  :'( :'( :'( :-[ :-[

Alcohol companies also sell a highly addictive product which kills people (& destroys families ) , usually quicker though !! Where are all the bleeding heart nazis on this seemingly sacred cow ? We ought ALL not forget the Eureka Stockade , When injustice becomes law , resistance becomes duty . Wake up Australia , before we lose all our freedom , Protest , or DON’T vote & encourage the mongrels . WE are politicians employers , NOT the other way ’round .
Tolerance folks , leave the drinkers enjoy their choice , smokers  theirs & politicians do what they do best , ie. feather their own nest & purvey half truths . This is the freedom our forbears fought & died for .

Hmnnn....what are these legislative 'amendments' of which Tony Abbott speaks!?


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/07/11/3266243.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201104/r747467_6168216.jpg


Quote:

Big tobacco accused of sneak plain pack campaign West Australian Federal MP Tony Crook has accused tobacco companies of recruiting people to call MPs anonymously and criticise proposed plain packaging laws. The tobacco industry has vowed to fight proposed laws which would force them to sell cigarettes in plain packs with a large, graphic health warning, while a second bill will remove company trademarks from the packs. Tony Crook says his office has received regular phone calls from people expressing anger over the plan. The Nationals Member for O'Connor says he suspects the callers have been coached, because they always raise the same issues. He says tobacco companies are intentionally trying to mislead people. "Quite often when we've been speaking to people and talking to them about the issues they've actually agreed with us on many of the occasions, which is really quite interesting," he said. Last week Health Minister Nicola Roxon introduced the plain packaging legislation for cigarettes into Parliament and said the Government would defend it from any legal threats. The tobacco industry is warning of several legal challenges to the legislation in a move it says could cost the Government billions of dollars. Tobacco giant Philip Morris is among the companies taking legal action over the laws. It is accusing the Government of breaching a bilateral investment treaty with Hong Kong, where the company is based. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has said the Coalition will not oppose the legislation but may attempt to make amendments to ensure smoking rates really do drop.

Is Tony Abbott really prepared to take on Big Tobacco - or is this just more of the 'pollie-speak' to which he referred yesterday in relation to the Gillard Govt's Carbon Price plans!?

I doubt it, since he has to date declined to take the responsible pro-active step of prohibiting donations to his own Party by Big Tobacco!

Dunno who else has seen the cards being distributed far and wide, by Philip Morris, for distribution in newsagents, corner stores, bottleshops, etc....

Last week I picked up one of their over-sized 'business card' style cards at a local newsagent - it is black, yellow and white in colour and features the black on yellow caption "IT MAKES NO SENSE" on one side and a similar banner across the other, which reads:  -

Have your say at
www.ideservetoobeheard.com.au


The card also states as follows: -


Quote:

Every state in Australia is making it illegal to have cigarettes on display. So how will putting them in plain packaging make any difference? Cigarettes not on display, bans on outdoor smoking, increased taxes and now plain packaging for cigarettes - what's next? It's time to tell the government that you have had enough.

Following is a snapshot from the actual site...

---

OK, I just attempted to use the site to send an email to my local MP - intending to tell her that I support he proposed plain packaging laws...

Alas! Such was not possible - there was no scope whatsoever to alter either of the 2 versions of the email available on the site!

Moreover, apparently the site automatically used my IP address to pick up on my locality - narrowed down to several surrounding suburbs!

Anyways, here's the 2 different versions of the email that I declined to send: -


Quote:

TP [MP] FROM [Moi] Dear Ms [MP] I am writing to you as my elected Member of Parliament to voice my opposition to the proposed plain packaging legislation. Over the last several years, the Government has been unfairly targeting adult smokers like me with laws and regulations that have gone too far. The latest in this series-plain packaging so that all cigarettes look the same-doesn't even make sense particularly given that cigarettes are hidden away in most shops across the country. I simply do not believe that plain packaging will stop or prevent people from taking up smoking. All it's going to do is make it more difficult and time consuming for me, and the shopkeepers serving me. This is all for a policy that doesn't make sense and in my view will not work. I've had enough of the Government interfering in my life and trying to control what I do! Everybody agrees that tobacco should be reasonably regulated, but these laws and regulations are just going too far. The bottom line is: I'm an adult and I should have the right to make a choice to smoke without being punished. It's time to stop picking on adult smokers and telling us how to lead our lives. I am writing to let you know I oppose plain packaging legislation and I urge you to do the same. Regards ...

Quote:

TP [MP] FROM [Moi] Dear Ms [MP] I write to express my disappointment at the introduction of the proposed legislation for plain packaging of cigarettes into the Parliament. This is just another example of the Government ignoring my concerns and unfairly targeting me with laws and regulations that have gone too far. Plain packaging doesn't even make sense, particularly given that cigarettes are hidden away in most shops across the country. I simply do not believe that plain packaging will stop or prevent people from taking up smoking particularly given that the government itself has failed to provide any credible evidence to back up its claims. All it's going to do is make it more difficult and time consuming for me, and the shopkeepers serving me. The Health Minister Nicola Roxon herself even admits that 'there is some level of experiment' with the plain packaging proposal. Enough is enough! I urge you to vote against the proposed plain packaging legislation. Regards ...

I would simply give the tobacco industry 2 choices..plain packaging or a total ban on their product.
See which one they pick  ;D

adelcrow wrote on Jul 11^th, 2011 at 5:24pm:

I would simply give the tobacco industry 2 choices..plain packaging or a total ban on their product. See which one they pick  ;D

Agreed!  Meantime, I note that they are still running with the propaganda that the Oz Govt has been unable to provide any proof that the plain packaging proposal would work...

Notwithstanding the irony, that Big Tobacco's response to the policy is highly suggestive that they fear it would work, as I have previously suggested: -

Australia is a relatively small and isolated market of just over 20 million people (amongst millions if not billions who smoke around the world), which would provide the ideal real-world empirical test of the plain packaging hypothesis!  

Therefore, Big Tobacco would have very little to worry about, should this 'experiment' in plain packaging go ahead!!!

Anything that will slow the rate of children becoming addicted to tobacco is a good idea.
Lets face facts, people dont first take up smoking as adults, they do it as kids to impress their mates and packaging is a big part of marketing to those kids before they become addicted.
Big tobacco knows that once plain packaging is introduced anywhere in the world the flood gates will open and most if not all countries will adopt the idea.

The personal views expressed here will clearly continue .....regarding smoking , plain packaging of the product , etc. blah blah..  But folks ,the underlying premise still prevails in this country (I hope) that this is a society of free choice , within the bounds of the law. If any politicians have the courage ,  let them try to make this product illegal instead of the current  high moral ground breast beating they are assaulting us with.  That should go well !!  Remember the prohibition fiasco ??    Gotta live in the real world people .At risk of being slightly off topic , I invite comment on similar treatment of another product , which , if abused demonstrably causes untold financial & social destruction . The product is alcohol by mouth. The comparison is an obvious one , because of harm caused , intentional hooking of young clients (check out the catchy fun TV ads still occurring ) etc.           Just for the record I have no bone to pick in any of these areas .     You pay your taxes & you take your chances .    I don't think ecstasy or heroin comes in flashy packets but is still sought out due to the best advertising of all ,  Word of mouth & peer pressure !

revheadross wrote on Jul 11^th, 2011 at 9:00pm:

I invite comment on similar treatment of another product , which , if abused demonstrably causes untold financial & social destruction . The product is alcohol by mouth.

The big difference between them is that alcohol in moderation is harmless.
There is no safe level of cigarette smoking however. Even passive smoking has dangerous health effects.

The fact is that adults can still smoke if they wish to, the only difference will be that it will be from a generic package. What has big tobacco up in arms is that they will no longer be able to promote their brand using the packaging.

Well there may be no "safe " level of smoking .  But using common sense there is no "safe " level of alcohol consumption either . This is not merely an expressed personal opinion but an undeniable fact. Think about it  , it involves introducing a flammable , toxic substance to delicate tissue (the liver etc. ) , & of course the expected damage results .  The results in hospitals & care facilities bear this out .  so , by deduction from zero consumption thru "moderate " & beyond , damage will be & is being done . Ask Derrin Hinch  . Also "moderation " is a subjective term & viewed differently from person to person . My issue is why one legal product is being targeted in this way & others are not . Childrens junk food marketing is an obvious comparison . Very visual multi media marketing is causing the national disgrace of obese ankle biters we see today . No moderation there !  the kid makes a choice based on packages & we see the resulting health issues . What is done? .....NOTHING .  the further we look the more disparity we find .    Politicians on their perceived high moral ground rant will ignore the resolve & voting power of smokers (& any other target groups ) at their peril .           Long live free choice . that's what my country used to be about !!

revheadross wrote on Jul 24^th, 2011 at 6:51pm:

Well there may be no "safe " level of smoking .  But using common sense there is no "safe " level of alcohol consumption either .

The recommended safe level of alcohol intake for men is a maximum of 4 standard drinks per day. For women it is 2 standard drinks per day.  
http://www.gastro.net.au/diets/alcohol.html

The recommended safe level of smoking is ZERO.

Children's junk food is another case of a product being harmless in moderation.

     
Quote:

Long live free choice . that's what my country used to be about !!

You still have the free choice to smoke cigarettes and of any brand you desire. The product will be the same. The only difference will be that the cigarette will be in a generic package.

Why are you concerned about the packaging? the product inside will still be the same.

To recommend a "safe " level of consumption of any product should tell you that it does do harm !! All we're talking about therefore is the degree of harm , comensurate with level of consumption .               Childrens junk food (the name says it all ) is a glaring example of targeted packaging hooking the prey en masse and producing the nation of obese , sickness prone kids we see today .  Of course these things in "moderation " will cause less harm , but in a lot of real world situations there is clearly no "moderation "   Pie in the sky theories and wish lists clearly do not change irrefutable facts and observations .I am not concerned about the packaging of tobacco products , but authors of pro change sentiment certainly seem to be building up a head of steam about it , which is futile as it won't change a thing  except to give one or two devious , self serving politicians a nice warm feeling .      You should be more concerned with instilling parental values & advice into kids to encourage them to ignore most ,if not all , advertising and peer pressure to experiment with REALLY dangerous stuff out there .

revheadross wrote on Jul 25^th, 2011 at 8:05pm:

To recommend a "safe " level of consumption of any product should tell you that it does do harm !!

Well actually no it doesn't. You are just playing with semantics.

The fact remains that alcohol and junk food can be consumed at safe levels. On the other hand there is NO safe level of cigarette smoking.

You haven't answered my question about why the packaging should concern you so much when the cigarettes inside them will remain the same.

Phillip Morris employee

Really ?  ....To say that "Well actually no it doesn't " indicates no grasp of facts or language ,sadly .  If it is indicated that there is a "safe" level , clearly by extension , there is an unsafe level . No question about that , or semantics involved  Smoking , drinking alcohol, eating unhealthy food , breathing low quality air and a myriad of other things we do in life DO produce harmful effects to varying degrees . it's our choice .   It's also accepted & legal practice for a business to promote it's equally legal product .  What I find wrong here is the targetting of one legal product in this discriminatory way and ignoring other sacred cows .  I'm happy with the current situation re packaging , not seeking to force change , you seem to be upset .Retailers have had to cover tobacco displays , so no one will be cajoled by packaging .     Just a quick question to dsmithy 70 .   What did you mean by your post " Phillip Morris employee ?"

I a bit perplexed, whats your issue, if you are a smoker you will still be able to buy the smokes you like just not in the pretty packet.
You'll still be able to puff away on two packs a day if you want, or roll your own if thats your thing, as I said nothing changes to you personally.
So what's the issue?

You certainly are a bit perplexed . I don't have an issue . I just don't get the push to change packaging on a legal recreational product and not others which similarly can cause detrimental effects on health & lifestyle etc . To reiterate , I don't have an issue , just responding to a movement which does  . I'm the one who's happy remember .  If you're a drinker , and all booze was in a brown bottle , you can still enjoy a slab or two a day or a bottle of nice bourbon, same thing .   Trouble is though , if you drink at that level you'll do yourself some harm .   Your choice though .

revheadross wrote on Jul 25^th, 2011 at 9:02pm:

If it is indicated that there is a "safe" level , clearly by extension , there is an unsafe level .

Absolutely right, and the same goes for most things in life, whether it is alcohol, junk food, water, exercise etc. There are safe and unsafe levels.
The difference with smoking is that there is NO SAFE LEVEL !

That is the reason that it is being targeted. There is no safe level of smoking. As an adult smoker you will still be able to smoke as much as you like of whatever brand you like. The ONLY difference will be that Big Tobacco will not be able to promote it's deadly product by using the packet you carry around.

Despite your intolerance of other peoples choices in life , they will continue to do what they want .   Explain to me (in your opinion ) how exactly you think a packet displaying an horific health warning pic. , & which has to be requested from behind a closed door , will promote an impulsive sale .   A person seeing an olive green FPV Ford will still think (if so inclined ) 'I like the sound of that" , and buy one . it can also kill him if abused .This packaging change push is a furphy , and will eventually come to its predictable demise .  it would have as much effect as the proposed , equally flawed carbon tax push .  ie.   Cost an astronomical amount & achieve NOTHING .  If big brother was serious &/or had the guts , they would ban the product .     THEY WON'T.      The tobacco product will be promoted no more or less  if a packet carried around in a pocket is marked or unmarked , clearly evidenced by the failure of the current pictures etc. to effect this .     I'm glad however that grudging concession has been made that there are many other things out there which ARE doing harm at varying levels .The curiosity is why are these issues being denied / glossed over/ ignored here ? The saviours of the world need to address ALL issues .   It's a big job speaking for everyone .

revheadross wrote on Jul 26^th, 2011 at 8:40am:

Explain to me (in your opinion ) how exactly you think a packet displaying an horific health warning pic. , & which has to be requested from behind a closed door , will promote an impulsive sale .

Ask yourself this revhead. If plain packaging will have no effect then why is Big Tobacco spending millions of dollars opposing it?

Logo's and branding are very powerful marketing tools. The act of people carrying around a cigarette packet and displaying the logos and branding is a form of marketing.

Those who wish to smoke can still do so. The product remains the same only the packaging will change.

An olive green FPV Ford can kill if abused, no doubt about that. (that is why we have lots of restrictions on the use of cars - drivers licences, speed limits etc). The difference is that cigarettes can kill even if not abused. There is no safe level of smoking.

Ask yourself this O Yeah.....If I put a quote up , why don't I respond to it in my post ? Have another look at it , reflect for a moment , let it sink in , then respond meaningfully , instead of a cut & paste type response ! I look forward to a SPECIFIC response . OF COURSE logos are marketing tools , after market SHARE . The market is established and to date has complied with draconian packaging changes asked of it . If people wish to smoke , THEY WILL. if not , they won't . Tobacco marketing is no different to any other , shooting for the max.  % of an established market niche .That is what makes this fanatical push for label change so stupid . IT WILL CHANGE NOTHING !! Also to talk about restrictions on use of products is irrelevant , you must realise . We are surely talking here about purchase FOR use of the product .    I hope I ,at least ,have shed some light on what you did not understand .

It is imaginative at best to state that it is propoganda that the Aust Govt. has been "unable to prove that plain packaging will work " . By "work" I assume it is meant as not attracting new smokers to the arena .  Because with regard to current smokers , it will achieve nothing .   So to justify this claim which the author wants us to accept as truth , where is the proof . To lend this claim any veracity , there needs to be real world results , over a period where this has been done & documented , not unsubstantiated claims by some pseudo academic . I don't believe that it has ever been established that plain packaging will achieve anything positive over the current system of warnings .   Where is any REAL proof that it has ?

Its all about stopping the kids from getting addicted to nicotine, kids are the new customers of the tobacco giants when the current stock of addicts die off prematurely.
Big Tobacco has been threatening the worlds govts for years over plain packaging so we know on that basis the tobacco giants have done the research that tells them plain packaging will dramatically cut the rate of new young addicts.

Of course it's a good thing that kids don't get addicted to anything , nobody in their right mind would disagree , & NOBODY IS . Kids are the new POTENTIAL  customers of every company on earth . They will only become customers if they seek out the product .(Tobacco NOT a brand .) If advertising is a prime motivator to this end , I ask you to explain to me specifically how this will be acheived by packaging which already displays prominent , horrific health warnings & is hidden away behind closed doors in outlets . Sweeping assertions about "threats" and "research " (with no proof ) and therefore, eronous deductions don't cut it .   As with all such issues , education is the key , but alas , it is not a perfect world .   You can't legislate against stupidity .

What!? There's no proof, anywhere in the world!? Funny that, eh!?

There will never be proof unless a Govt is brave enough to prove it.

I, for one, am happy for Australia to be the guinea pig in this experiment!

Well , it certainly seems that way . ( No proof ) Don't cry foul when the veracity of a statement is questioned .  What would a govt. possibly be afraid of ? Proof of claims is the basis of adult debate !      Sounds like govt. & posters alike feel free to make misleading / incorrect statements , and when challenged have nothing .  I also DO NOT view my country as a  'Guinea pig "   They tend to not come out of exploratory experiments well .

We still all wait to see the proof & backup for the specious arguments put forward by the pro plain packaging brigade . Hard facts are the only thing which will give credence to unsupported claims . Now they're having a shot at the govt. for not being "brave ".   They (the govt. ) are the ones ostensively fronting this cavalier push . It's  unfortunately predictable behaviour to look for a scapegoat &/or  turn on allies when caught out or feeling threatened . C'mon guys , otherwise this forum will degenerate further to "My dad can piss further than your dad " type childish debate .

revheadross wrote on Jul 27^th, 2011 at 8:29am:

Tobacco marketing is no different to any other , shooting for the max.  % of an established market niche .That is what makes this fanatical push for label change so stupid . IT WILL CHANGE NOTHING !!

This claim is at best naive. Using this logic the use of full billboard advertising and TV adverts would be acceptable as it is an "established niche market".

When children see a role model smoking they associate the logo and branding on the pack with being "cool". The health warnings on the pack have made a positive effect on disassociating the logo and branding with any positive role models. Plain packaging is simply taking it one step further. This is no "pie in the sky" theory, this is how marketing works.

Revhead, judging by your previous post where you bizarrely compare it to the Carbon tax, I can only assume that your opposition to plain packaging is purely politically motivated. If so then perhaps I should remind you that Tony Abbott is also a supporter of plain packaging of cigarettes.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/health/abbott-to-back-plain-packet-cigarettes/story-fn59nokw-1226066391156    

Oh Yeah ,  Talk about naivete , where have you been ? You should know about the industry accepted multi media advertising ban on these products .Happened years ago , but the market & product is still there . I will respond to your curious mention of political motivation , merely to say that the stance of Tony Abbott on anything is of monumental insignificance to me .  Speaking of monumental insignificance , so was the logo on the pack when I experimented with durries as a schoolboy . They were Garrick . Nothing "cool" there . No positive role model either , just good ol' peer pressure .     Here are the FACTUAL results thus far ...........Horrific health warnings did not work .......Non display @ outlets did not work .........Bans in public places (even outside at some ) did not work ........Multi media advertising bans did not work ............Bans on in car smoking with children ineffectual ....etc.  etc.   No "pie in the sky "theory here .This is real life , like it or not .    And still , this ill fated , fanatical push for plain packaging is touted as the magic fix .??          To do the same thing time after time & expect a different outcome is a notable definition of insanity .   Or is it the "give 'em an inch , they'll take a mile " scenario ?    also , when pushing for change , like politicians , we all have to be seen to be relying on factual (proven ) argument , no matter how noble a saviours cause may seem .

revheadross wrote on Jul 30^th, 2011 at 9:20am:

Here are the FACTUAL results thus far ...........Horrific health warnings did not work .......Non display @ outlets did not work .........Bans in public places (even outside at some ) did not work ........Multi media advertising bans did not work ............Bans on in car smoking with children ineffectual ....etc.  etc.

Absolutely wrong I am afraid.
In the 1960's over 50% of men smoked. Since the 1970's, when many of the campaigns you mentioned were introduced, smoking has dropped to a current level of less than 20%. If plain packaging can help reduce that level further then it will have succeeded.

To add a little context to your absurd claims that the anti smoking campaign hasn't worked you only need to look at the smoking rates in countries which don't have our stringent regulations on cigarette marketing. Cambodia 80% of men smoke, In China 67% of men smoke. in Japan 51% of men smoke.

http://www.wpro.who.int/media_centre/fact_sheets/fs_20020528.htm

I note your unsubstantiated statement regarding % of smoking . Am I to assume you mean in Oz?  Where are these figures plucked from? It is "IF "this insanely expensive & unproven proposed plan will acheive anything  , that is the issue . IT WON'T.   Also to compare apples with apples on this matter , you obviously have to input factors such as socio/economic modifiers , cultural differences  and a myriad of factors . Let's stick to something which is relevant & we know .  It is totally out of context to draw comparison with a totally different situation .   If the real intent is to not attract kids to smoking this plain packaging furphy is a total non event . As i've said before the only REAL thing which I believe will acheive this is EDUCATION on the matter . This , in the main should be parental , but alas , most parents are too busy in the quest for the almighty dollar to bother with these basic issues for which they signed up when they fertillised the seed .

revheadross wrote on Jul 30^th, 2011 at 10:26am:

I note your unsubstantiated statement regarding % of smoking . Am I to assume you mean in Oz?

Yes I mean Australia. I got the figures from here

http://www.quit.org.au/article.asp?ContentID=7240

But this is an issue which doesn't need statistics. Anyone over 40 years old knows that the number of smokers has dropped vastly since the 1970s.


Quote:

Australian adult smoking rates are at an all-time low of around 17 per cent, down from 34 per cent in 1980, making our success in tobacco reform the envy of the world.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/australian-smoking-rates-are-down-to-an-all-time-low-so-who-is-still-lighting-up-20110130-1a96j.html#ixzz1TXpxxdYG

Clearly the campaign against smoking has been a spectacular success in Australia and the new plan packaging laws will build on that success

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 30^th, 2011 at 10:44am:

revheadross wrote on Jul 30th, 2011 at 10:26am: I note your unsubstantiated statement regarding % of smoking . Am I to assume you mean in Oz?   Yes I mean Australia. I got the figures from here http://www.quit.org.au/article.asp?ContentID=7240 But this is an issue which doesn't need statistics. Anyone over 40 years old knows that the number of smokers has dropped vastly since the 1970s. Quote: Australian adult smoking rates are at an all-time low of around 17 per cent, down from 34 per cent in 1980, making our success in tobacco reform the envy of the world. Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/australian-smoking-rates-are-down-to-an-all-time-low-so-who-is-still-lighting-up-20110130-1a96j.html#ixzz1TXpxxdYG Clearly the campaign against smoking has been a spectacular success in Australia and the new plan packaging laws will build on that success

The figures are right enough, and I agree that the number of smokers has dropped enormously. I think one major factor has been the banning of smoking in pubs and clubs.

I remember in Africa (Mali in particular) almost everybody smoked and it was a real nuisance trying to find a restaurant seat away from the smoke.  In France, it was pretty bad too, but last year, they also introduced legislation banning smoking in public areas. It seems inconceivable. It was so commonplace.  

Published results from any source with a vested interest must always be viewed with some scepticism.  This applies whether it's this Quit body or indeed the dreaded tobacco industry !  You must know that and acknowledge that , or do you still believe in Santa Claus as well ?
I also hope for your sake that you don't believe all media intent (such as The Age )is honourable , and also that of self serving politicians .   If we don't need statistics , why do you keep quoting them ? What you  need are facts which to date are thin on the ground . There is a vast difference .  I an 64 years of age , and yes, to deny that there has been a reduction in Oz smoking , would be demonstrably wrong .As  I do not have my head in the sand , logic indicates that a whole raft of initiatives other than packaging have probably done this .These include the plethora of horriffic taxpayer funded ads on TV we are assaulted with ad nauseum , mental bludgeoning of smokers by legal segregation & banning  everywhere .    I see Muso also agrees with this . This is designed cleverly to make them feel like second class citizens , along with many other cunning ploys .The desired end result of this is of course to rally all non smokers against their social enemy and wipe them out .Not happening . This sort of social conditioning has been used thru history by people with particular axes to grind . I 'll leave it to you to figure out .     My observation as I move around this great country is that there are still large numbers of smokers obediently going to their alloted areas to indulge and their numbers or percentage is GREATLY underplayed by those with this barrow to push . Surely not even you would purport to know what they get up to in their own homes . Oh , what the hell , make up some "statistics "  Let's not forget here the argument is NOT whether smoking is good or bad .  It should be about EFFECTIVE and efficient means of reducing it if that is your intent .  Again I cite education as , in my opinion , the most effective way of acheiving your end .   I take it that from your non response to that , but only to your current obsessive tack , you dissagree .  Surely it is the way to go instead of a humungous financial impost on ALL Australians based on nothing .Don't forget the politicians would be spending billions of your money on this hi roller gamble at the longest odds imaginable .

revheadross wrote on Jul 30^th, 2011 at 4:03pm:

Again I cite education as , in my opinion , the most effective way of acheiving your end .   I take it that from your non response to that , but only to your current obsessive tack , you dissagree .

Not at all. Education has been part of the campaign against smoking since it began and I just assumed it was a given. It doesn't have to be either/or. We can have education as well as plain packaging.

Your post was highly amusing with its "us v them" conspiracy theories. The truth is that I don't have a problem with other people smoking, just as long as their smoke doesn't interfere with non smokers. Passive smoking is accepted as just as dangerous as regular smoking (remember, there is no safe level of smoking) so it is every persons right to not be exposed to cigarette smoke if they do not wish to be.

One of the many things I've learnt in my long life is NEVER to assume anything , particularly in exchanges where there is a difference of opinion . Usually when a verbal protagonist does not prefer to include something in the mix , it means it does not fit their particular stance . That's human nature . Conversely , the human psyche allows us to rabbit on with glee on aspects which we feel will aid our cause .  Speaking of that , I think it is accepted that there is no safe level of smoking for Christ's sake !! Anyway , it's a form of education , so maybe refine your presentation , and it may work for you .Once you reach saturation point , your audience turns off & your message is lost . Do you have to include that quote in almost every post ?   It's rather sad that you found reference to divisive social conditioning techniques "amusing" . They have been used throughout history , very effectively , with results from bad to catostrophic .  That the topic here is tobacco use is inconsequential .  The laws already in place prevent smoke interfering with non smokers!   How the hell will green packs remove something that is not there ?  If you seriously wish to reduce the incidence of smoking put your effort into advocacy for BETTER & MORE EFFECTIVE EDUCATION .  Head butting always indicates strong resolve & ALWAYS produces casualties .     Let's not forget , either , (close your ears kiddies ) , it's also everyone's right to smoke , within the bounds of the law , if they choose. And those laws have become more restrictive many times .     Let's assume the leper packaging push was successful , what would the next one be for ? (and there would be a next one with the " More Might be better " mentality )  .  A black exploding paint ball (with random placebo) could be the go . you know , to mark all the sinners so all the "decent" Aussies will know who they are .   Chop chop sales should go up .