Australia screws with cigarette makers

This is how cigarettes will be sold Down Under. No logos or brands, just these pictures.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now if you want to make something illegal, make it illegal, but screwing this much with branding and advertising is just painful. And I hate smokers...

And if you ask what my problem is, then it is the lack of equal treatment of other addicting but legal products. As someone else put it: "I would love to see McDonald's Big Mac photos replaced by a man collapsing clutching his chest, or a Jack Daniels bottle have a picture of a family crying."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You assume a principle like the First Amendment of the US Constitution should usurp the Australian Goverment's right to inform the smoking population's of factual consequences of their choices.
Even in the US, however, the First Amendment does not interfere with the Federal/State/Local government's right to educate on a factual basis.
Indeed, under the Welfare clause, the US Government has the duty to interfere with harmful practices.

(Not repealed by any amendment)

cf. Preamble of the Constitution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I do not feel sorry for cigarette makers, who spent most of their existence lying to consumers about the health risks despite knowing full well what they were. (The old excuse your grandparents had of "Nobody knew better" only applied to them, not the tobacco companies) But I can't say I like this measure, because all it really does is shock and disturb the smoker. As a smoker, you shouldn't be forced to look at that. This isn't a nanny state.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If a simple warning label isn't enough, then caveat emptor. As if it's not common knowledge at this point what smoking can do to you and those around you. I realize it's an addiction, worse than some other illegal drugs, but there's also a lot of methods out there to combat it. (My dad actually had enough willpower to do it cold turkey. Just made a logical decision, and is better for it)

Who is profiting from the relabeling? Someone always benefits from stuff, and I wonder where the rabbit hole goes here?

 

I quit cold-turkey as well. And with all the television ads and common knowledge out there, everybody at least has some idea that what they're doing can result in a horrible death. It's not about knowledge, it's about addiction.

 

I assume nothing...

Nobody talked about the US, so don't bring it up...

There is a HUGE difference between inform (a nice note on the box does that) and over regulate...

Name just one smoker who doesn't know it...

Again, why bring up the US? What if I am Canadian, where there are similar laws already in place? So what was your point again, because I didn't get it...

 

That was back in the 70s. Since then everyone knows everything, so bringing up 40 years old shit is well, old. Now if you bitch about addictives in cigarettes that is a different issue, but government could outlaw that...

I see nobody had an argument against my point of where does it stop? In the fattest country, the US, more people die of burgers, than cigarettes, so are we going to see dead cows at Burger King???

 

Don't confuse plain packaging with graphic images. The graphic images have been on cigarette packs in Australia for a long time. At least ten years. What is new is the plain packaging: the lack of trademarks, distinguishing colors, fonts, etc.

I suspect that plain packing will eventually be applied to other products as well. Now that the legal precedent for plain packaging laws has been set by the Australian High Court, alcohol, gambling, and high-fat/high sugar foods are fair game.

Is that a bad thing?

The food industry is probably very concerned. They're already fighting hard to avoid traffic light labeling.

 

That was more than just the 70s. That was for decades.

The only point I was making was that I don't weep for the tobacco companies, because they spent a great deal of their time deceiving consumers for their own gain, and only come clean about what their products really do because the law requires them to. Try to pay attention, please.

Do you mean additives? Okay...I mean, yeah it's a different issue, so why are you bringing it up now?

Because it's a ridiculous point that didn't merit a response. But if you insist...no one is pushing for images of dead cows on fast food packaging. For one, what would that even do? Wouldn't the more effective labeling be images of how weight-related maladies like diabetes affect the body? You'll notice in Pete's response that Australia is looking to add "Traffic Light" labeling. Those are the kinds of things people are pushing for as it relates to food, not images of fat old people injecting themselves with insulin. No doubt this kind of labeling opens the door for other products, but it certainly doesn't mean that we're in for obscene images on fast food wrappers. That's a typical fallacious "slippery-slope" argument.

 

Hard to believe, but if so, they should have reliable statistics about it working or not...

 

As of five years ago or so, they had them in Canada as well.

 

Well. from the 40s to the 70s is decades.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Because of effectiveness. Outlawing adding ammonia to cigarettes is very easy and makes them way less addictive....

Calling something ridiculous is not really an argument, and not necessary true.

That's the whole point, why not? In the US the leading cause of death is heart disease, so anything that contributes to it could be treated like cigarettes. Hamburgers, sugary foods, etc....

Make you want to eat LESS burgers??? And more veggies?

See? Now you finally getting it...

 

That's what I said.

Ammonia isn't the only ingredient that increases the effectiveness of nicotine in a cigarette. Sugar does it as well, and I'm sure there are about a hundred other chemicals that could take its place. It's about lowering the pH of the vapor, I think. It's also debatable as to where or not it would be easy to "outlaw" ammonia. Despite mandates to lower tar, no one has mandated lower ammonia, despite the fact that ammonia's effect on cigarette vapor has been known since the 60s.

I never said it was. You wondered why no one (read: me) had an answer to your point. I was just telling you why.

Probably because dead cows don't have anything to do with a human being's health.

Pictures of dead cows? I don't see why. And anyway, this isn't analogous to what's being put on cigarette packaging. Dead cows do not equate to cancer-riddled lungs.

Don't pull that shit, Fox News. Don't cut the sentence in half so you can take my words out of context and pretend I agreed with you. What an intellectually dishonest thing to do.

Here's what I said in context:

Now, if you'd like to address that quote, feel free. Otherwise, don't waste my time with BS games.

 

Never said anything to the contrary. I see you like to debate never stated things.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The point was about effectiveness of regulating...

I knew it well why. Because there was no good argument against it.

Burgers are made of dead cows. Eating too many burgers equals health risk. Do I have to spell it out???

You remind me an old poster. What was your previous name?

 

So was mine. That's why I said ammonia wasn't the only chemical that actively lowered the pH. Since you apparently missed the point, I'll try to make it more plain: I don't think regulating the industry (which they already do) will be as effective as you think in lowering the rate of smokers. And I think governments are aware of this fact, which is why they've resorted to these tactics.

Quite the contrary, as I demonstrated above.

No, I think you just need to think it through. The labeling on tobacco products shows images of smoking-related maladies to smokers. You're saying there's a threat of the government putting images of dead cows on fast food packaging. Do you not see the disconnect here? Or do I have to spell it out? (forgive me for omitting the extra question marks)

I noticed you avoided this:

Am I to take this to mean your argument really is too weak to avoid using a slippery slope fallacy?

Oh, and I used to post under the name JDawg.

 

I didn't miss anything, so here is the summary: It is more effective to regulate additives, than posting ugly pictures on the boxes.... But if it has been going on for 10 years, you should have some hard data...

I could quote mice studies, or you just have to take my word for it...

I know that, but I thought you might be Baron Max. You remind me of him. Sorry if I didn't deal with the rest, but I don't see the point of it...

 

Wait, why am I obligated to provide the statistics? I didn't make any claims to the effectiveness of gross labeling. In fact, you're the one who makes the claim that it is more effective to regulate ingredients. It's upon you to support that claim.

But since you're apparently devoid of integrity, I'll save you having to ignore or dance around your responsibility and just get right to giving you the evidence that shows graphic labeling is actually effective:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_...effective-at-delivering-anti-smoking-message/
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0325.pdf

You probably won't bother to read either, since that would require educating yourself to a subject when you seem perfectly at home blathering about confidently despite having no idea whether you're actually right. Feel free to pleasantly surprise me, though.

Mice studies that proved regulating ingredients is more effective than the current labeling efforts?

I'm really going to have to see that. No, really: I'm gonna have to see that.

But seriously, you're confusing "regulating additives would make cigarettes less addictive" with "regulation is more effective than labeling."

I actually was thinking the same thing about you. Though he had less trouble understanding basic concepts.

Yeah, what a shock. Called out on dishonest tactics, you'll just pretend it didn't happen now. Typical.

 

If it is not effective, than why do it??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But don't worry, I looked it up. Smoking is down slightly in the last 10 years, but so was in the previous 10 years before that. So one could say there was already a downtrend...Also, in the US, the biggest deterrent is price, that's why there is a state minimum price for tobacco products. So it could be the Australian government also raised the taxes on tobacco, and that was the real reason of the decreasing number of smokers, not the picture campaign...

So in plain English: Can you prove that the decrease in smokers is the result of the picture campaign only and not higher prices or a general downtrend or general education?

OK, so why aren't there a sad, beaten woman's picture on bottle of spirits??? Or a crashed car's picture?

By the way the ammonia thingy is a sideissue, I don't care for it that much, just an interesting note that tobacco treated with ammonia was more additive for mice than normal tobacco...

 

Way to go Oz! I wish we would do the same thing here including something like a 300% tax.

~String

 

Again, I wasn't arguing its effectiveness. I simply said that I didn't weep for the tobacco companies, since they spent most of their existence lying to consumers. Understand?

I knew you weren't going to read the studies. What the hell is the point of asking for them if you're not going to read them?

The second study I linked to suggested that people are being dissuaded from smoking by the images independently of tax raises or other factors, both because of the visceral reaction to the grossness, and because it's essentially mainlining the truth. Education is the only thing that could possibly decrease the amount of smokers.

But while we're on it, where are your studies proving that removing additives decreases the rate of smoking? Where are those studies?

Because nobody's pushing for it? Like I said, this campaign is aimed at tobacco companies, and largely because they lied for so long about what their product actually does. It's sort of like comeuppance for their deceit. I mean, the same country is attempting to label food, and what are they pushing for? Pictures of diabetics? No. They're pushing for "traffic light labeling," which is just a pie chart of the fat, salt, etc. content. That's what your argument is a slippery slope.

And while drinking can also cause health problems, and driving under its influence can be deadly, there are ways to drink moderately and responsibly without really living under those threats. It's okay to drink a Budweiser every now and then. Plenty of people do. The same can't be said of cigarettes, which are hugely addictive as well as insanely dangerous. In other words, there's a difference between smokes and beers, or smokes and cheeseburgers.

We've known that ammonia makes tobacco more addictive for half a century. But how is this a side-issue? It's the crux of your argument. If regulating nicotine enhancers isn't what you're talking about, then what are you talking about?