Article: SA to ban brands on tobacco packets: report

[ponder]

I thought that you were all anti-tax/government etc. ... and here you want them to take more freedoms away? ...does not compute....

I am. I'm playing devils advocate here. Introducing all these laws, enforcing them etc is gonna cost a schite load of money and that excludes the losses from industry employing people, paying taxes etc. If the state was so against it then they should ban it but on the other hand they know they are gonna loose out on truck loads of money.

Like we don't have more important issues to attend to than people having a smoke.

And then there are all the legal issues involved wrt WTO treaties signed respecting brands etc. Oz might have banned it for now but the legal stuff is not over yet when it comes to WTO obligations.

In all honesty I believe this is all a load of BS, you ban one thing then next it's prohibition, followed by what you may and may not eat followed by what religion you may support etc. The state has FSCKALL right in dictating to the people what they believe to acceptable. It boils down to tyranny!

Any government that passes laws under the guise of protecting it's citizens should be treated with the utmost of suspicion. Two US presidents come to mind James Madison & one other who's name I can't remember right now.

[OzzieCapie]

This will only increase the amount of smokers, basically companies will no longer be forced to print those retarded "WARNING SMOKING CAN KILL YOU" crappy logos on their packets and they will save money so the price of smoking will go down, meaning more people can no afford it.

Well done government,

Luckily I don't smoke.

NO, you are incorrect. The plain packaging in Oz will all be the same beige with not only the warning on it but also the very graphic pictures of the consequence of smoking. That is all that will be on it.
This is what it will look like...appealing hey? No wonder the tobacco companies are running scared and spent millions on a campaign and challenge against it.

The fact is that packaging works, it is one of the most important part of merchandising. Packaging design is my wife's business and products (equal to others) live or die by it.
And if it wouldn't work then the companies would not have fought tooth an nail up to the High Court in Oz. Now they are taking it to the WTO via countries like Ukraine and Dominican Rep complaining about 'free trade'. The tobacco companies are going to hurt, and it will be good for society. The positive impact to GDP will be enormous, because people will be healthier.

Other western countries were watching for the Oz legislation to withstand the challenge though SA is still a fair way back in educating its people and taking earlier steps. Remember that Oz have been leading this since the 70's and others have always followed. See the timeline in the article below.

Here in Oz the first step against smoking has been won, next step to ban it outright.

have a read here if you want

I dont believe it will ever be banned even in Oz. Remember it is a carrot and stick plus education approach and it has and will become less and less appealing to the youth and therefore less addicts (like many pro guys are here-- I am sorry that you are already addicted and can't get off it). But realise the consequences of your actions in smoking. It is the bigest single contribution to health outcomes and cost.
I have two kids in early 20's and none of their friends, even the wider circle at parties, smoke...it is working, you guys have to be patient and it will be good for you.

This is another good article...the picture on video shows the packaging

[noxibox]

it is working, you guys have to be patient and it will be good for you

I'm sure it will comrade Stalin, I'm sure it will. What shall we go after next?

[noxibox]

If the government was serious about tackling harm from smoking tobacco they'd be promoting electronic cigarettes instead of banning them. But then this isn't even really about protecting people's health. The real motivation is the need to control the populace.

[2012]

Like we don't have more important issues to attend to than people having a smoke.

Like getting some decent schools and basic infrastructure for sure.

In all honesty I believe this is all a load of BS, you ban one thing then next it's prohibition, followed by what you may and may not eat followed by what religion you may support etc. The state has FSCKALL right in dictating to the people what they believe to acceptable. It boils down to tyranny!

Stop using this as a reason not to ban something. Using future tense of uncertainties don't make a good argument for the current issue.

For example:
Banning underaged porn can lead to the banning of porn, then followed by banning of strip clubs. Followed by illegal to have sex outside of marriage and telling adults what sex isn't acceptable then virginity tests..

Any government that passes laws under the guise of protecting it's citizens should be treated with the utmost of suspicion. Two US presidents come to mind James Madison & one other who's name I can't remember right now.

That would apply to our constitution and the constitution of every country out there? I mean, the law that you are innocent till proven guilty should be treated with the utmost of suspicions?

[OzzieCapie]

Like we don't have more important issues to attend to than people having a smoke.

It's a bloody big issue on its own health wise isn't it, and the cost and impact on GDP due to that. But surely a government can implement limitations on advertising and having plain packaging that does not require any police supervison, whilst going on with their normal government stuff...or how do you think this prevents them from doing other stuff. It doesn't cost the government anything, it's not like you require a "Dept of Plain Cigarette Packaging"

I'm sure it will comrade Stalin, I'm sure it will. What shall we go after next?

Doesn't a government have a right to enforce laws against a product that cause the most health issues and costs, if those costs are borne by the same government.
It is ok to say "I am free to smoke out of my own will"...no one disputes that, but then don't expect the government to pay any of your costs.

So perhaps your alternative view is that if a smoker gets sick, he does not get treated at all...how would that go down?

[ponder]

It is ok to say "I am free to smoke out of my own will"...no one disputes that, but then don't expect the government to pay any of your costs.

So perhaps your alternative view is that if a smoker gets sick, he does not get treated at all...how would that go down?

Erm, you can't stop a paying individual from accessing private health care. If it's state health care then fine but then those obese people, alcoholics etc should also not be able to get access to state health care.

[noxibox]

The idea that government has a valid interest in our health and thus a right to make decisions for us is a very dangerous one. It essentially says we are the government's property.

These same governments who believe they own us want to eliminate so-called lifestyle diseases. There'll perforce be no end to their interference. We're already seeing proposals for other areas of people's lives that government absolutely must control.

Everyone contributes taxes according to their means, while in addition some targeted groups, like smokers, pay more. But even if they didn't why should they not be entitled to state medical care unless we're going to apply the rule universally? That's not just limited to things like obesity or excessive alcohol consumption, but will need to cover everything that could harm your health.

But let's consider the economic argument. Those people who live longer claim state pensions for longer. In addition to that the elderly have increased health problems and are thus a greater burden on the health system.

There's also this claim that smokers sap limited health care resources. Let's assume smokers do over their lifetime use more health services. Are we to believe that exactly the same resources would remain if there were no smokers? The government is really not going to cut the funding? Anyone who thinks so must tell me what they're smoking.

[OzzieCapie]

Erm, you can't stop a paying individual from accessing private health care. If it's state health care then fine but then those obese people, alcoholics etc should also not be able to get access to state health care.

Erm...but if those paying individuals are paying the true cost comensurate with risk, then no problem. The fact is that it costs the state billions and much more in loss of GDP. They have a right to ban stuff that costs the state money.

The idea that government has a valid interest in our health and thus a right to make decisions for us is a very dangerous one. It essentially says we are the government's property.

These same governments who believe they own us want to eliminate so-called lifestyle diseases. There'll perforce be no end to their interference. We're already seeing proposals for other areas of people's lives that government absolutely must control.

Ditto. Lifestyle diseases and smoking are a burden on any country's economy. It is only smokers (and obese) people trying to justify why they should continue to do what they do.
Either that or it is evidence that smoking affects your rational thinking.

[2012]

The idea that government has a valid interest in our health and thus a right to make decisions for us is a very dangerous one. It essentially says we are the government's property.

Like every other law. Why aren't you mad about speed limits? Gov telling you how to drive YOUR car. Also, the gov (tries) to protect us by some rights, like privacy, life, dignity etc. You are saying the government should just disban all "protective laws" and let everyone fend for themselves in anarchy. This is just a silly argument.

These same governments who believe they own us want to eliminate so-called lifestyle diseases. There'll perforce be no end to their interference. We're already seeing proposals for other areas of people's lives that government absolutely must control.

Like... child porn right? Do you support peoples rights to child porn. Because you ban child porn then porn is next, followed by nudity and strip clubs. Finally sex outside marriage is banned and virginity tests will follow... so, don't ban child porn right?

But let's consider the economic argument. Those people who live longer claim state pensions for longer. In addition to that the elderly have increased health problems and are thus a greater burden on the health system.

I showed my work colleges this argument (outside of context though). It was a good laugh. You can choose to smoke or not smoke, last time I checked you couldn't choose your age.

There's also this claim that smokers sap limited health care resources. Let's assume smokers do over their lifetime use more health services. Are we to believe that exactly the same resources would remain if there were no smokers? The government is really not going to cut the funding? Anyone who thinks so must tell me what they're smoking.

Government cuts funding because it's not needed anymore, and excluding the corruption, can be sent to better causes like education and infrastructure.

[Cosmic_Nomad]

Why are the same rules not applied to the alcohol that is being sold in the country?

Excessive alcohol consumption is A OK, why no warnings on a bottle of jack?

Its socibaly expectable to get smashed of of your mind, with zero warning labels on the bottle.

[Grubscrew]

Why are the same rules not applied to the alcohol that is being sold in the country?

Excessive alcohol consumption is A OK, why no warnings on a bottle of jack?

Its socibaly expectable to get smashed of of your mind, with zero warning labels on the bottle.

When last did you have a look at a bottle-o-booze, they do have warning labels. Also moderate consumption of alcohol has no affect on one's health. Unlike smoking.

[Mr.CookieMonster]

Somebody didn't think this through.

1) It will make it easier for fake brands to creep in
2) It will have zero effect on reducing smoking.

+1.

Our Government is not good at thinking. Their talent lies in buying fancy cars, houses, planes and raping us for more money.

[Cosmic_Nomad]

When last did you have a look at a bottle-o-booze, they do have warning labels. Also moderate consumption of alcohol has no affect on one's health. Unlike smoking.

I haven't looked at a bottle of good quality whiskey or brandy with regards to the warning labels. But are they going to follow the "The plain packaging" ?

Alcohol might not affect ones health when drank in moderation....