Just wanted to know what some here on the Café think about the new proposed packaging for cigarette's.
Here are 9 of the proposed packages.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43478002

Iven

They are trying to get people to stop smoking because it is bad for you, YET they won't ban it. They raise the taxes and claim that money will go to help stop kids from smoking and when people quit smoking, the money for the progrqam goes down and the politicians complain that they don't have enough money.


If it's so bad--BAN IT!!!!

It's been done.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/tobac-tabac......-eng.php

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/artic......-graphic

http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/Tarbox+p......ory.html

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/consult/_20......-eng.php

I have no objection to them as I figure they cannot hurt and might help.

And I'm only commenting on the experience here in Canada, where taxpayers are the ones stuck with most of the cost of caring for lung cancer patients.

How effective are they? I don't know, but here is one summary of studies in 4 countries:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200......0625.htm

What (good) arguments are there against such ads?

They don't bother me. The only argument against that I can really think of is that it's imposed by the Gov't on the manufacturer. Not sure that's Governments place. Even if it is, it seems very arbitrary. There are other products, food/drink etc that can have very harmful effects on people and the mfg's aren't forced to place graphic ads on thier products. But all in all I don't think it makes much difference either way.

Has a ban on a popular recreational drug ever worked?

[[/quote]
Has a ban on a popular recreational drug ever worked?
[/quote]

No, but it would get most people to stop.

The govt says all this is to stop kids from smoking and get others to stop. When was the last time some kid was busted for having cigarettes? If all the cops do is take the cigs away, were is the punishment? If you REALLY want kids to not smoke, take away their drivers license or if they are under 16 don't let them get it until they are 18. That would work for alchol or any other drug to.
It will work if EVERY KID caught with cigs or alchol or drugs has their license yanked with NO EXCEPTIONS.

I agree with you. And something like that might even work and be acceptable in some places. E.g., where I live (in Canada). Or in Saudi Arabia (where losing your license might be the least of your worries). But I suspect it is completely unworkable / unacceptable where you live. I may be wrong. I welcome others opinions on the subject.

Smoking tobacco is a death wish, there are far safer things out there for a person to smoke.

What about those kids that don't have driver licenses then? They can drink and smoke with impunity. Not that it would have made any difference to me as I didn't drink nor smoke as a kid (and still don't) But if I had there would have been little threat to make me stop as I didn't get my drivers license until I was 19 or 20.

The idea of banning everything that is or might be bad for you is not a good idea, in my opinion. No more bans! What recourse do the cigarette companies have? I mean how much more of a beating do they got to take? It's kind of amazing to me that anyone still smokes anymore anyways.

Glen

Cigarette companies only have one recourse bankrupcy. They kill 400,000 Americans a year, and are in the business of peddling of death. I smoked those death sticks for 12 years, and when my kids were born I gave them up, so I hate cigarette companies a little bit extra.

Very few really learned anything from prohibition.

Hell, the taxes on cigarettes have already created a big "problem" with people turning to black market cigarettes.

The kid on that cigarette package looks perfectly healthy to me.

Remember when smoking permitted in restaurants?
In movie theatres?
On airplanes?
In hospital wards?

We've come a long way in a short time. Maybe by the time my children are my age we'll get rid of smoking altogether.

But without legislation, we'd still be fighting through carcinogenic clouds in restaurants, theatres, airplanes and hospitals.

John

John, your last statement is simply not true.

@gdw: It is speculation on my part. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Are there countries where smoking spontaneously stopped in hospitals, restaurants, theatres and airplanes?

Or are you arguing that in principle the free market wouls eventually produces smoke-free hospitals, restaurants, theatres and airplanes?

John

If they are stupid enough to smoke...let them. It will help the gene pool and thin out the stupid.

To those already addicted I feel sorry for you.


But the new smokers, I have no pity. You knew the consquences and choose to roll the dice. Snake eyes...you lose.

First the price of cigarette's was raised in order to stop people from smoking (didn't work).

Next strategy was to tell us how dangerous "second hand" smoke is to those who don't smoke (didn't work).

Next came smoking area's in resturants, followed by a total ban also including bars (didn't work).

Next was to ban smoking in the workplace and now at least one company in the Seattle area will not hire anyone who smokes.

There has been a little talk about baning smoking if you live in an apartment or duplex because of second hand smoke invading your neighbor.

People are going to smoke if they want and unless the penalty is death or imprisonment, the smokers will continue their habit.
If the Government was really serious, they would make smoking illegal. Money! is what it is all about, plain and simple.

When I was in grade school I was taught that I should not smoke because it would "stump your growth". Maybe the tobacco companies should use the tobacco that they used pre 1960,s. being short is better than cancer.

Also, there is talk about baning the electric cigarette's being used in public. Are they dangerous to the non-smoker's (second hand steam).
Iven

Irossall
Don't you mean STUNT your growth.

I hate people who correct my English because my English is so bad.

Thank you Al.
I ment Stunt not stump.
I have horrible grammer and spelling.
Iven