Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Plain Packaging Of Tobacco  
User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2083 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2900 times:

In a world first, from today all tobacco products sold in Australia must now come in plain packaging. The packs have graphic pictures, with warnings covering 75% of the a cigarette pack, the rest is a dark green with a uniform font saying the brand and variation and on the side showing the manufacturer and their address. There is no branding on individual cigarettes at all, only a number.

This was rather controversial, with a failed High Court challenge on the argument that Commonwealth is essentially acquiring intellectual property on unjust terms, one of our few constitutional rights.

Personally I do not like them at all, I think it is unreasonable to do it however I can see it being pretty effective, possibly more so than raising the tax on them but this is one of the first things I've ever seen that has made smokers rather angry. I'm presently shopping around for a cigarette case though that I can keep any of my smokes in to avoid having to carry the garish pack. I never consume more than a handful a day anyway so can just refill at home.

My opinion appears to largely echo that of most of the people I know who smoke.



Seems that other countries are looking into it too, wouldn't surprise me if parts of Europe along with Canada and New Zealand implement it.

What say you, smokers and non-smokers.

43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRobertNL070 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2003, 4534 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2877 times:

It will probably not help to stop many smokers from smoking - all the smokers I know are pretty thick-skinned with their heads firmly planted in the sand. Furthermore many Dutch smokers are convinced of their God-given right to smoke if they damn well want to.

However, hopefully it will help prevent teenagers from picking up the habit.



Youth is a gift of nature. Age is a work of art.
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2877 times:

Some of the news reports that I have read suggest that smokers claim that cigarettes sold in plain packs "taste different".

Quote:
Cancer Council Victoria chief executive, Todd Harper, says studies also show smokers appear to perceive the taste of plain-packaged cigarettes to be worse than branded cigarettes.

"I think this gives some clues as to why the tobacco industry has been so desperate and so committed to spending money, doing whatever it takes, to block plain packaging," he said.

"They know the impact it will have on people's perception of smoking and also the taste of smoking."

Some retailers also say they are getting similar complaints about the taste.

Quote:
Smokers are complaining cigarettes taste different in plain packets, tobacconists say.

An employee at Free Choice Beechboro, AK Aldhalimi, said 40 per cent of customers believed the flavour had changed for the worse.

The tobacco companies have responded by saying that they haven't changed the product in any way. What has been your experience? Is this autosuggestion on the part of those smokers? If so, is it likely to lead any of them to quit or will they just grumble about something that may not be true.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2864 times:

Easy solution buy a cigarette case. Pretty sure these will become vary popular in Australia.



User currently offlinemelpax From Australia, joined Apr 2005, 1648 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2864 times:

Think there's going to be a lot more people using cigarette cases...

Interesting editorial from The Age, no more posh packaging for upmarket brands like Dunhill, Benson & Hedges, etc.... There are already moves to ban smoking entirely from pubs, bars & resturants, at the moment smoking is still permitted in outdoor areas.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/edi...ckaging-begins-20121129-2aio5.html



Essendon - Whatever it takes......
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13197 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2864 times:

Working as a paralegal and involved in trademark, 'trade dress' and tobacco litigation matters for a number of years, this policy of Australia may not last the most likley massive money of the tobacco co's with legal challenges and presents unintended affects. One argument can be made that banning the use of trademarks, logos, packaging colors and graphics ('trade dress') may violate a number of international trademark and trade agreements. It also means the governments who make significant tax revenues are still addicted to that even worse than nicotine will do anything to try to keep product moving but try to gradually withdraw and not put in prohibition which can lead to it's own problems. There is also a limit how much you can tax such products and if push too much, then you get bootleg and untaxed cigarettes brought in illegally.

Some company in China can and most likely can make some bootleg or even tobacco company authorized cover sleeves to put over cigarette packs with the logos like regular packs. The use of graphic images dulls out after awhile, so what do you do next ? Unintended, the graphic images could become a badge of defiance for especially young tobacco users. Do you put in such a policy for alcoholic beverages to curb the terrible medical costs, injuries and deaths from it's abuse that exceeds tobacco short and long term ?

Better would be to keep up social pressures to discourage and educate especially children about the use of tobacco, make cigarettes not available at every convenience store with limited numbers of licenses, maintain high, but not too high taxes, ban product websites, no more marketing or eliminating business deductions for cigarette marketing and distribution costs.


User currently offlinemelpax From Australia, joined Apr 2005, 1648 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2851 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 5):

The tobacco companies tried to use that defence when they tried to challenge the law in the High Court. Which was unsucessful.

Also, there is no more branding allowed any more - the brand & type of the cigarette must be the font set down by law, the packs on sale now are excacly in the same style & font as what's in the photo of the original post.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYbRumBfMpU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNnyLi5qLBs



Essendon - Whatever it takes......
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6930 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2844 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 5):
Do you put in such a policy for alcoholic beverages to curb the terrible medical costs, injuries and deaths from it's abuse that exceeds tobacco short and long term ?

You can consume alcohol without it having any significant consequences.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2823 times:

I don't smoke.

My parents don't smoke.

My wife doesn't smoke.

One of my grandfathers died from lung cancer - however, the doctors say that was from him working at ICI and not his smoking habit.

I think the defacto-criminalisation of a segment of society is disgusting - the government won't make smoking actually illegal, but they will take every effort to ostracise smokers, and that's wrong.

Why won't the government ban smoking outright? Because it still brings in Billions of GBP in revenue, above and beyond costs to the NHS.

Cost to NHS in 2011 - £6Billion.

Revenues from tax receipts in 2011 - £9.5Billion.

Over the past decade, costs to the NHS has never exceeded tax receipts, and there has never been a year-on-year drop of any significance of those tax receipts either...


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6930 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2816 times:

Well cost to the health care system is one thing, cost to society is another. How many productive lives lost, how many families in distress, kids with no father/mother, etc.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2812 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 9):

And that's something for the individual to consider - not something for the government to impose.


User currently offlineGrahamHill From France, joined Mar 2007, 2869 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2806 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Thread starter):
What say you, smokers and non-smokers.

I don't really care, as long as I can still buy my usual brand. I don't care about the packaging. If this comes to Euroope or Canada, it won't change my life.



"A learned fool is more foolish than an ignorant one" - Moliere
User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2083 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2794 times:

Quoting melpax (Reply 4):
There are already moves to ban smoking entirely from pubs, bars & resturants, at the moment smoking is still permitted in outdoor areas.

This would be incredible. Most pubs force you go to out on the street anyway, its only really large RSLs and the like that have designated smoking areas anyway, tiny little balconies packed with people.

Quoting moo (Reply 8):
I think the defacto-criminalisation of a segment of society is disgusting - the government won't make smoking actually illegal, but they will take every effort to ostracise smokers, and that's wrong.

I agree wholeheartedly, its a shame no one dares speak up, this legislation and most other anti-smokers legislation have passed unanimously.

Quoting GrahamHill (Reply 11):
I don't really care, as long as I can still buy my usual brand. I don't care about the packaging.

Depends I guess how you view smoking, personally it is a pleasurable experience beyond the taste of the tobacco and the nicotine and the branding is part of that otherwise everyone would only use e-cigarettes. Same reason why I'm sure driving a Ferrari shaped like a Fiat, in white with no badges probably wouldn't be the same, sure it goes just as fast and handles just as well but the overall package is not the same.
Life's no fun is you devolve everything to its most basic and existential parts.


User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 3013 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2775 times:

Interesting how most nations at least have a warning--"Smoking Kills"--and now some have the plain packaging. In the US, there is nothing of the sort... However, I fail to see what it actually does. I don't smoke, and I don't intend to. Packaging won't change that. Smokers know the effects, but they choose to do it anyway.


The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26795 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2683 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Thread starter):
I'm presently shopping around for a cigarette case though that I can keep any of my smokes in to avoid having to carry the garish pack

Apparently, a lot of people are. That business is currently booming.

Quoting QFA380 (Thread starter):
I never consume more than a handful a day anyway so can just refill at home.

You shouldn't smoke in the first place.

Quoting RobertNL070 (Reply 1):
However, hopefully it will help prevent teenagers from picking up the habit.

That is the main point.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 5):
this policy of Australia may not last the most likley massive money of the tobacco co's with legal challenges and presents unintended affects.

The only challenge left are the transparent WTO charges filed by actually uninterested countries.

Quoting moo (Reply 10):
And that's something for the individual to consider - not something for the government to impose.

1) Smoking doesn't just affect the smoker.

2) The government isn't imposing an outright ban on cigarettes. People can smoke all they want. As long as they aren't in places where they can harm others, and as long as they can stomach looking at what smoking does to them and others.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2838 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2680 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
That is the main point.

It may be the main point but as someone who swore when they were little they wouldn't use tobacco it isn't going to work.

I think the whole thing is silly. I see where the government is coming from but I really don't see it making a huge difference. This day in age everybody knows tobacco is bad for them. Posting these pictures on the box doesn't change it. It wouldn't stop me from buying my dipping tobacco. Some teens are still going to be rebellious and use tobacco no matter what. If anything I can see this making it worse. Kids are going to be running around saying, "Yeah I see the effect on the box, but I'm not afraid." It sounds unlikely but as someone who is surrounded by kids who are free from their folks for the first time, it is how it works. Though I do find it funny when I see some of these students "smoking." They never seem to inhale the smoke, some even just light the cigarette and walk down the street with it between their fingers! What a waste of money!
Blue



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26795 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2659 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 15):
It may be the main point but as someone who swore when they were little they wouldn't use tobacco it isn't going to work.

Actually, there is some decent evidence that the disturbing images on tobacco packages have deterred young people from smoking. There is clear evidence that people almost universally won't smoke if they don't pick it up before 26.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40066 posts, RR: 74
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2628 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
1) Smoking doesn't just affect the smoker.

  
It also affects the resale value of a car if a smoker owned it.

Quoting RobertNL070 (Reply 1):
all the smokers I know are pretty thick-skinned with their heads firmly planted in the sand.

Very true. It's the same thing with smokers I know. This is a habit I simply do not understand.
Mainly because it stinks so bad!   

Quoting melpax (Reply 4):
Think there's going to be a lot more people using cigarette cases...

I wonder if the cigarette brands will start selling cases with their brand names on them.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12879 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2590 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 17):
I wonder if the cigarette brands will start selling cases with their brand names on them.

I imagine that would be covered by the ban on advertising.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3845 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2584 times:

I'm guessing the tobacco companies are pretty much willing to let these governments do whatever they want (raises taxes, modify packaging, ...) without much of a fight.

Developed countries are almost all taking a tougher and tougher stance on tobacco products, but that's not where the future market lies for these companies. The market growth is already pretty poor.

They're more than happy to concentrate their marketing and investment efforts in developing countries instead, especially China and the Asian region as well as Russia and South America, where governments are also much less likely to impose such restrictive measures to tobacco products.

I still think it's a good thing to try and dissuade the young from picking up the habit. Many who do regret it afterwards, at some point. Either when they try to quit or when the diseases strike.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2516 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
1) Smoking doesn't just affect the smoker.

And those others can leave the vicinity of the smoker.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
2) The government isn't imposing an outright ban on cigarettes.

Thats convenient - by doing everything but, it allows people to claim it isn't being banned, just made incredibly difficult to do freely...

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
People can smoke all they want. As long as they aren't in places where they can harm others, and as long as they can stomach looking at what smoking does to them and others.

And this is what free society boils down to these days, it would seem. "You can do what you want. So long as ... ".


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40066 posts, RR: 74
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2509 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 18):
I imagine that would be covered by the ban on advertising.

If they're clever, they'd indicate that they're advertising 'covers' that can be used for multiple things other than cigarettes.

Quoting moo (Reply 20):
And those others can leave the vicinity of the smoker.

Or maybe the smoker should leave the vicinity so the rest of us don't smell your dirty habit.

Quoting moo (Reply 20):
just made incredibly difficult to do freely...

...and it shouldn't be able to do freely. Keep that dirty habit inside your house.

I understand that cigarettes are more addictive than crack and is a hard habit to break. If I were a smoker, I'd be ashamed because it really does stink. I could careless about what people do to their lungs, it's the smell that bothers me.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26795 posts, RR: 75
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2481 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 17):
It also affects the resale value of a car if a smoker owned it.

Very true.

Quoting moo (Reply 20):
And those others can leave the vicinity of the smoker.

One can leave the vicinity of a man brandishing a gun. Assuming you don't get shot, you have still been assaulted. Smoking around someone would be considered legal battery if smoking itself wasn't legal.

Quoting moo (Reply 20):
And this is what free society boils down to these days, it would seem. "You can do what you want. So long as ... ".

Actually, that has always been free society. Do what you want, so long as you aren't hurting others.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 21):
I could careless about what people do to their lungs, it's the smell that bothers me.

I care what those people do with my lungs and the lungs of others.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12879 posts, RR: 46
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2476 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 21):
If they're clever, they'd indicate that they're advertising 'covers' that can be used for multiple things other than cigarettes.

But that's the point - they're not allowed to advertise. Cigarettes or not, no advertising is allowed (in Europe at least).



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2407 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 20):
And those others can leave the vicinity of the smoker.

That would work out well in an office, every time someone wants to light up more than half the office walks out. It is also a tad difficult to leave a commercial passenger aircraft at 39,000 ft.

Quoting moo (Reply 20):
"You can do what you want. So long as ... ".

You can have sex as often as you like, so long as you don't rape someone or fiddle with children. You can write whatever you like as long as you don't forge a cheque.

All societies have laws that restrict actions that harm others. I don't see why you would have a problem with that.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40066 posts, RR: 74
Reply 25, posted (2 years 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2422 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 22):
Smoking around someone would be considered legal battery if smoking itself wasn't legal.

If someone is smoking a joint around me and they don't share then they're being stingy.  



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1353 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (2 years 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2401 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Thread starter):
What say you, smokers and non-smokers.

Non-smoker here and I'm fully supportive of it. Anything that helps to detract from the dirty habit is good in my view. Congratulations to the Australian Government for having the balls to take on big tobacco.

Quoting QFA380 (Thread starter):
Seems that other countries are looking into it too, wouldn't surprise me if parts of Europe along with Canada and New Zealand implement it.

My understanding is that New Zealand has gone half-way; the disgusting images and health warnings are displayed on the packet but the branding is also. To be honest, I hardly ever see cigarette packets any more since government legislation prohibits retailers from having cigarettes/other tobacco products on display. Supermarkets keep cigarettes in a cabinet up the front and if one wants to buy one, they have to ask the checkout operator who will ask their supervisor, who will then get someone to deliver the packet to the checkout after ~2 minutes.

Currently the government is thinking of following Australia in having all tobacco company branding removed. It is being heavily fought by the tobacco companies.

New Zealand has very, very progressive anti-tobacco laws and has a steadily declining smoking rate which reflects this. Cigarette consumption here is the third lowest in the Western World (after Singapore and Norway). Teen smoking rates are very low, except amongst those in lowest socio-economic groups. From my point of view; I don't smoke, none of my friends smoke and I only know three people my age who do actually smoke. The government must be doing something right.  

Because of such past success, I will support nearly any such attempt by the government to regulate, stigmatise and bring the problem under control. IMO the next move should be forcing tobacco companies to clean up all the used cigarettes that smokers drop anywhere.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 19):
I'm guessing the tobacco companies are pretty much willing to let these governments do whatever they want (raises taxes, modify packaging, ...) without much of a fight.

Here in New Zealand, British American Tobacco is spending plenty on an advertising campaign (TV ads, billboards, full-page newspaper ads) which opposes the New Zealand government doing what Australia did.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 19):
They're more than happy to concentrate their marketing and investment efforts in developing countries instead, especially China and the Asian region as well as Russia and South America, where governments are also much less likely to impose such restrictive measures to tobacco products.

A very good point, but they are still doing what they can to stop Western Governments doing what they can to reduce smoking rates. A cigarette in a developed country doesn't just cost more than one in a developing country because of all the tax.

Quoting moo (Reply 20):
And those others can leave the vicinity of the smoker.

Hell no! It is the smoker inflicting the negative externality on the non-smoker, so it is only fair if the smoker is the one who leaves. Unfortunately this isn't always the case.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 21):
Or maybe the smoker should leave the vicinity so the rest of us don't smell your dirty habit.

  



First to fly on the Boeing 787-9 with Air New Zealand and ZK-NZE; NZ103, AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6930 posts, RR: 12
Reply 27, posted (2 years 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2303 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 10):
And that's something for the individual to consider - not something for the government to impose.

Well I was also considering indirect dollar costs, not just human. There is more to it than just medical bills. The society at large is negatively impacted by smoking, with no redeeming quality (unlike say, pollution from cars).

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 13):
Interesting how most nations at least have a warning--"Smoking Kills"--and now some have the plain packaging. In the US, there is nothing of the sort... However, I fail to see what it actually does. I don't smoke, and I don't intend to. Packaging won't change that. Smokers know the effects, but they choose to do it anyway.

That's what lobbies can do in the US.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 16):
Actually, there is some decent evidence that the disturbing images on tobacco packages have deterred young people from smoking.

I can say such images have worked on me. Not on packages but at a school day trip when I was 13. It was about tobacco/drugs and sex. Big glossy images of various people with throat or mouth or lung cancer, very graphic but I swore to myself that I would never smoke anything and it has worked so far.

My parents also had a role I guess, but not that prominent since my little sister does smoke. And they both smoked before having kids (and after for my father, a pipe smoking beret wearing breton), proving it was possible to stop, which in a way is a bad message.

Quoting moo (Reply 20):
And those others can leave the vicinity of the smoker.

Not kids. Not weak minded partners. Not workers.

Quoting moo (Reply 20):
And this is what free society boils down to these days, it would seem. "You can do what you want. So long as ... ".

The very definition of freedom is that yours stops where mine starts.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25692 posts, RR: 85
Reply 28, posted (2 years 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2264 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 24):
You can have sex as often as you like, so long as you don't rape someone or fiddle with children. You can write whatever you like as long as you don't forge a cheque.

Nowadays. When I was twenty several doctors refused to treat me (for anything) because I am homosexual.

None of those same doctors gave a stuff if I smoked, which I still do in my own home (and in my car) and never in public places where others might be.

And I am bored to the crapper with other people - and members of the medical profession - telling me how I should live my life. I'm already past my biblical span.

Butt out? Sure - of my life, please.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinemdsh00 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4130 posts, RR: 8
Reply 29, posted (2 years 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2167 times:

I say it's a good start, anything that can be done to get rid of those damn cancer sticks.

Quoting moo (Reply 20):
And those others can leave the vicinity of the smoker.

Right because smokers are so cognizant and respectful of their surroundings. I've lost count of how many times I've been walking down the street in New York having cigarette smoke blown in my face, or walking back home down wind from a smoker, constantly seeing used cigarette butts flicked around and thrown all over the streets like the world is their disgusting ashtray.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 21):
Or maybe the smoker should leave the vicinity so the rest of us don't smell your dirty habit.

YES!

Quoting mariner (Reply 28):
And I am bored to the crapper with other people - and members of the medical profession - telling me how I should live my life. I'm already past my biblical span.

We don't live in the 1950s anymore. It's well known what smoking does to people and it's not BS science. I see it ALL THE TIME in my practice. People coughing and hacking their lungs out while on oxygen, and angry at being labeled with COPD still refusing to stop smoking. All of the heart disease, cancers, skin problems, etc etc, have been known for at least a generation. Anybody that pretends otherwise is in denial. And it IS a public problem because smokers and their disgusting habit make up such a huge percent of health care costs which everybody pays for in the end.


As you all can guess, I feel very strongly about this and I make it a point to try and harp smoking cessation to all my smoking patients.



"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 30, posted (2 years 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2163 times:

Quoting mdsh00 (Reply 29):
I say it's a good start, anything that can be done to get rid of those damn cancer sticks.

Me Too !

Anything, that in any way, makes it difficult for cigarette companies and their customers, should be undertaken. Its a ridiculous habit, to inhale toxins into your lungs, and , on top of that pay your hard earned money to the Government in Taxes, is beyond comprehension.

End of story .   



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25692 posts, RR: 85
Reply 31, posted (2 years 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2145 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mdsh00 (Reply 29):
As you all can guess, I feel very strongly about this and I make it a point to try and harp smoking cessation to all my smoking patients.

Then I would look for another doctor.

Happily, I've found most doctors more reasonable about this than you appear to be.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineozglobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Reply 32, posted (2 years 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2116 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 20):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
1) Smoking doesn't just affect the smoker.

And those others can leave the vicinity of the smoker.

I as a non-smoker very much enjoy to be on the outside terrace of cafes, bars and restaurants. I find that my enjoyment of the summer weather is usually put to an end by massive inhalation of smokers' smoke. This is an aggression, smoke in my lungs, the irritation and impact on my health, the smell in my clothes, I can only avoid by sacrificing the pleasure of the terrace.

Mental experiment for smokers: I will now indulge my natural need to urinate but take this to the terrace: I cannot or will not control the direction of my urine and some will rest on your clothes, you will be subjected to the smell and any other sanitary effects you may dislike. You don't need to have an opinion about this choice of mine; it is simply my right. Again, if you want to avoid this aggression, you have only to leave the terrace. Please stop being so judgemental and unreasonable  .



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9544 posts, RR: 42
Reply 33, posted (2 years 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2083 times:

Won't somebody please think of the birds (the avian variety)...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-20607413


User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3678 posts, RR: 5
Reply 34, posted (2 years 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2078 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 33):

Which birds are those? Can we replace the disgusting pigeons we have in the cities with those birds? Sounds like a win-win situation to me!


User currently offlineJAGflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3582 posts, RR: 4
Reply 35, posted (2 years 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2047 times:

Does Australia still sell packs of 40 cigarettes? I remember seeing a photo of a 40 pack and thinking "wow, that looks like something you'd see on a hardcore smoker's kitchen table".


Support the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
User currently offlinemelpax From Australia, joined Apr 2005, 1648 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (2 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2020 times:

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 35):

Yep, they still sell packs of 40, but it's usually the 'budget' brands though, you can't buy a 40 pack of Marlboro or Dunhill....



Essendon - Whatever it takes......
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 37, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1994 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 21):
Or maybe the smoker should leave the vicinity so the rest of us don't smell your dirty habit.

I have never smoked, so its not my "dirty" habit.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 21):
...and it shouldn't be able to do freely. Keep that dirty habit inside your house.

I could say that for a hell of a lot of things as well, for example cycling on paths or driving in general.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 22):
One can leave the vicinity of a man brandishing a gun.

Wow, what an argument - yup, the smoker is definitely holding you against your will...

Quoting N1120A (Reply 22):
Actually, that has always been free society. Do what you want, so long as you aren't hurting others

The problem with anti-smoking law is that the vast majority of them don't have "harming others" as a driving force, and more "we don't like what you are doing, regardless of how you do it".

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 24):
That would work out well in an office, every time someone wants to light up more than half the office walks out. It is also a tad difficult to leave a commercial passenger aircraft at 39,000 ft.

Offices and aircraft are private properties - their owners should be able to say whether or not smoking is allowed within them and you should be able to make the choice as to whether you want to be there or not.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 24):
You can have sex as often as you like, so long as you don't rape someone or fiddle with children. You can write whatever you like as long as you don't forge a cheque.

The fantastic arguments just keep on coming...

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 24):
All societies have laws that restrict actions that harm others. I don't see why you would have a problem with that.

Again, most of the arguments against smoking have little to do with harm and a lot to do with dislike of.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 27):
The society at large is negatively impacted by smoking, with no redeeming quality (unlike say, pollution from cars).

So you wouldn't mind banning personal transport then? Privately owned cars? Restrictions on usage of private vehicles?

Quoting Aesma (Reply 27):
Not kids. Not weak minded partners. Not workers.

These laws don't change the situation of either of the first two of those examples.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 27):
The very definition of freedom is that yours stops where mine starts.

That doesn't stop you polluting every day in many more ways than smokers ever do.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 32):
I as a non-smoker very much enjoy to be on the outside terrace of cafes, bars and restaurants. I find that my enjoyment of the summer weather is usually put to an end by massive inhalation of smokers' smoke. This is an aggression, smoke in my lungs, the irritation and impact on my health, the smell in my clothes, I can only avoid by sacrificing the pleasure of the terrace.

So why are you patronising establishments which do not cater for you?

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 32):
Mental experiment for smokers: I will now indulge my natural need to urinate but take this to the terrace: I cannot or will not control the direction of my urine and some will rest on your clothes, you will be subjected to the smell and any other sanitary effects you may dislike. You don't need to have an opinion about this choice of mine; it is simply my right. Again, if you want to avoid this aggression, you have only to leave the terrace

Wow, fantastic argument there - is that your best? "You can smoke so I can pee"?


User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Reply 38, posted (2 years 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1972 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 37):
Quoting ozglobal (Reply 32):
I as a non-smoker very much enjoy to be on the outside terrace of cafes, bars and restaurants. I find that my enjoyment of the summer weather is usually put to an end by massive inhalation of smokers' smoke. This is an aggression, smoke in my lungs, the irritation and impact on my health, the smell in my clothes, I can only avoid by sacrificing the pleasure of the terrace.

So why are you patronising establishments which do not cater for you?

Perhaps you would have asked blacks in the South of US in the 50's the same should they have tried to enter a cafe or bar? I live in France and ALL cafe and restaurant terraces and semi-out door areas allow smoking. This means that there is no option to enjoy a meal on a terrace or out doors without suffering from smoke. It is objectively unjust that smokers limit the freedom entirely of others to enjoy public places that all should enjoy. Your question is specious and deliberately avoids the issue of smokers effective exclusion of others.

Quoting moo (Reply 37):
Quoting ozglobal (Reply 32):
Mental experiment for smokers: I will now indulge my natural need to urinate but take this to the terrace: I cannot or will not control the direction of my urine and some will rest on your clothes, you will be subjected to the smell and any other sanitary effects you may dislike. You don't need to have an opinion about this choice of mine; it is simply my right. Again, if you want to avoid this aggression, you have only to leave the terrace

Wow, fantastic argument there - is that your best? "You can smoke so I can pee"?

Is that your best? I've provided an analogy. Provide a point by point rebuttal or admit the analogy fits.

Both are narcissistic behaviours to the detriment of others in the confines of a shared public place. I'm not asking smokers to quit or to stop smoking in the street, just where doing so limits the freedom of others.



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3678 posts, RR: 5
Reply 39, posted (2 years 2 weeks ago) and read 1954 times:

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 38):

Perhaps you would have asked blacks in the South of US in the 50's the same should they have tried to enter a cafe or bar? I live in France and ALL cafe and restaurant terraces and semi-out door areas allow smoking. This means that there is no option to enjoy a meal on a terrace or out doors without suffering from smoke. It is objectively unjust that smokers limit the freedom entirely of others to enjoy public places that all should enjoy. Your question is specious and deliberately avoids the issue of smokers effective exclusion of others.

Nobody is stopping you from going there, there is no connection to the segregation in the south. If the cafe owner feels like his business is hurting because non-smokers avoid the place, then he can choose to make his terrace non-smoking as well. I do not see why there has to be a law covering all private businesses and dictating what they allow their patrons to do. Smokers today are the minority anyway, why can't there be both smoking and non-smoking establishments and let the customer choose? The market will adjust itself to cover all wants and needs. I just do not like where things are heading. I do not mind not smoking at bars and restaurants but I do mind that the laws are being pushed all the time to not allow smoking in outdoor areas, even your apartment in some cases - whether it has an outdoor space or not:

Quoting moo (Reply 37):

The problem with anti-smoking law is that the vast majority of them don't have "harming others" as a driving force, and more "we don't like what you are doing, regardless of how you do it".

  


User currently offlinemdsh00 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4130 posts, RR: 8
Reply 40, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1913 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 31):
Then I would look for another doctor.

Happily, I've found most doctors more reasonable about this than you appear to be.

mariner

I don't actually demean or patronize my smoker patients, just remind them on every visit about the harm and that they should stop and show them some resources.

Quoting lewis (Reply 39):
I do not mind not smoking at bars and restaurants but I do mind that the laws are being pushed all the time to not allow smoking in outdoor areas,

From the fact that again, non-smokers are often times put into situations where they can't avoid the smoker. For example at my university there used to be a legion of smokers that would go right outside the library to light up and it became so irritating and cough inducing to have to walk past a wall of cigarette smoke just to get in and out of the library. Eventually the university banned smoking within a few feet of any public buildings (per California law).

Another thought and question to the smokers, don't you also notice the scores of cigarette butts littering public spaces? Smokers also randomly spitting onto the sidewalk while they light up and walk down the street? Can they really not wait and dispose of their used cigarettes in a proper place? I once saw this guy finish his still smoldering cigarette and just flicked it into the street and straight at a still running car. Is that really necessary? There was a trash bin with an ashtray right by him. It's this sense of carelessness and disregard that a lot of non-smokers perceive in people that do smoke.



"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
User currently offlinethegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2311 posts, RR: 4
Reply 41, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1913 times:

There is a state in Australia (Tasmania?) That will continue to raise the smoking age every year for those born after a certain year and over time rendering smoking illegal for many....

Here's my beef with this, a criminal black market will emerge especially if other states still allow smoking, also there are a number of things "bad" for you, it's a slippery slope.

Also the breakdown of the NHS revenues is a very compelling and interesting dynamic...



Our Returning Champion
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25692 posts, RR: 85
Reply 42, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1910 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mdsh00 (Reply 40):
I don't actually demean or patronize my smoker patients, just remind them on every visit about the harm and that they should stop and show them some resources.

The constant reminder is a form of patronisation.

Nothing drives me crazier - or more rebellious - when some nurse who doesn't know me snarls "You smoke! You should quit!"

I've survived cancer, a heart condition (neither smoking related), a car smash and being shot at on the Kenya/Uganda border. And - so far - smoking.

But I am fully aware that something is going to get me one day and I don't want to live to be an old unhappy man with drool dribbling down my chin and someone wiping my arse. Of course, "the law" won't even let me arrange my own end.

So when that nurse I don't know chides me for smoking I usually walk out. It has an interesting effect.

I don't smoke in the presence of others and what I do in the privacy of my own home is - I believe - my business.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3678 posts, RR: 5
Reply 43, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1904 times:

Quoting mdsh00 (Reply 40):

From the fact that again, non-smokers are often times put into situations where they can't avoid the smoker. For example at my university there used to be a legion of smokers that would go right outside the library to light up and it became so irritating and cough inducing to have to walk past a wall of cigarette smoke just to get in and out of the library. Eventually the university banned smoking within a few feet of any public buildings (per California law).

I see your point and such decisions to move smokers away from entrances is correct, few will argue with that. I have no issue moving further away when I want to take a smoking break. The thing is, by trying to protect the non-smokers, people have become anti-smoking fascists. I will give you an example, when smoking was banned in private work spaces in Greece, many companies that had SMOKING ROOMS had to close them down because they were indoors. Why would a non-smoker even enter such a room, which was usually at the far end of a corridor, with double doors and separate ventilation. I see what you are trying to say, but you have to admit that non-smoking laws are becoming ridiculous.
In a suburb of San Diego I was told I could not smoke in public - period! I also know a lot of people that are not allowed to smoke in their house or even patio/balcony, not because the landlord wants a smoke-free environment but because there is a city ordinance saying so. For me, this is ridiculous.

Quoting mdsh00 (Reply 40):

Another thought and question to the smokers, don't you also notice the scores of cigarette butts littering public spaces?

I do, I also notice cans of soda, paper waste, plastic bags, chewing gum that gets stuck on my shoe soles, plastic bottles, plastic bottle caps... I could go on for days. It was funny actually when we went with my company for a beach cleanup here in LA as part of community service, where we were "warned" in the beginning that we will be amazed by how many cigarette butts we would gather throughout the day. For all teams, the cigarette butts were the smallest group of trash, most were paper and plastic waste, similar to my list above and yet you can still consume all those things on the beach for example. Try to light up a cig and you are automatically the most evil person around.

Quoting mdsh00 (Reply 40):
Smokers also randomly spitting onto the sidewalk while they light up and walk down the street?

I was never a public spitter so I wouldn't know. Most of the people I know who tend to spit around or the ones I see around LA are all non-smokers - or they are not smoking when spitting. Not a rude action exclusive to smokers really.

Quoting mdsh00 (Reply 40):
There was a trash bin with an ashtray right by him. It's this sense of carelessness and disregard that a lot of non-smokers perceive in people that do smoke.

That is unfortunately true, I despise how many smokers just throw their butts on the ground. I personally put it out with my shoe and throw it in the nearest bin. If there isn't one, I make an ashtray out of a bottle, can or plastic baggie from my cigarette pack and dispose it as soon as I find trash. It is a lame excuse though, since people throw stuff around all the time and yet nobody wants to stop them from eating or drinking in public. It is a matter of lack of respect for your environment and for the rest of the people and it is the same for smokers and non-smokers alike. Again, it is not something exclusively done by smokers!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
'Godfather' Of Cuban Tobacco Dead At 91 posted Sun Apr 18 2010 10:23:50 by photopilot
Legal Amount Of Chewing Tobacco To Bring Abroad? posted Wed Dec 9 2009 17:14:38 by Whappeh
The Danger Of Eating Chocolate posted Fri Nov 30 2012 23:26:41 by Geezer
Attn Pilots Of The Solar Federation! posted Wed Nov 28 2012 11:39:34 by varigb707
10 Worst Cars Of All Time (A Survey) posted Tue Nov 27 2012 14:51:54 by Geezer
Late Filing Of 2011 Tax Returns posted Sat Nov 17 2012 18:37:59 by Airstud
Oil Platform Explodes In Gulf Of Mexico posted Fri Nov 16 2012 10:17:08 by Ken777
What Kind Of Winter Shoes Do You Have For Your Car posted Wed Nov 14 2012 12:06:22 by swissy
The Concept Of Socialism: Opinions? posted Tue Nov 13 2012 20:55:07 by Dreadnought
The Fallout Of WSU (Cougars) Football posted Tue Nov 13 2012 14:35:26 by AirframeAS
Going To Brazil. In Need Of Assistance posted Tue Mar 4 2014 00:47:08 by AMT588248
The Worst Cities In Terms Of Traffic posted Tue Feb 25 2014 00:23:18 by United Airline
A Good Idea, Big Money Out Of Election. posted Mon Feb 24 2014 19:10:10 by WarRI1