I suppose this could be considered a political decision. This is the best place I could find to post such an article anyways. Here is the article: CANBERRA, Australia - Australia's highest court upheld the world's toughest law on cigarette promotion on Wednesday despite protests from tobacco companies that argued the value of their trademarks will be destroyed under new rules that will strip all logos from cigarette packs. The decision by the High Court means that, starting in December, tobacco companies will no longer be able to display their distinctive colors, brand designs and logos on cigarette packs. The packs will instead come in a uniformly drab shade of olive and feature graphic health warnings and images of cancer-riddled mouths, blinded eyeballs and sickly children. The government hopes the new packs will make smoking as unglamorous as possible. "This is a victory for all those families who have lost someone to a tobacco-related illness. For anyone who has ever lost someone, this is for you," Attorney General Nicola Roxon and Health Minister Tanya Plibersek said in a joint statement. "No longer when a smoker pulls out a packet of cigarettes will that packet be a mobile billboard." You can read the full article here V Source: Australian court OKs logo ban on cigarette packs - World news - Asia-Pacific - NBCNews.com ======================= So guys, what do you think about this decision? I live in the U.S. so it doesn't really affect me but the same thing could happen here in the future. We all know cigarettes are unhealthy, but is it really fair to ruin the business of these tobacco companies by plastering their cancer stick packs with warnings? You decide. Let the debate begin.
So fucking dumb. Warnings are absolutely fine. But honestly, who the fuck now days doesn't know smoking will kill you? I feel bad for the shop keepers who are going to be scanning shelves all day to distinguish between 50 different packs of smokes that all look the fucking same.
They've had mandatory warnings on cigarette packaging in Canada for years. I see nothing wrong with it. But then again, I don't smoke tobacco.
Keep in mind they have images as well (you can see some sample images on the link). When they start adding images of damaged teeth and such I think they've gone too far. The warnings are enough.
Exactly, they dont put pictures of diseased livers on alcohol bottles because not everyone is going to binge until liver failure. Just like not everyone is going to chain smoke until their teeth rot and fall out.
This. It reminds me of the description of the official big brother issued cigarettes in 1984. Except for the graphic images of course. But this is a start down the road that leads to it, first it's the uniform cigarette packs, they all have to look the same, then it's your beer, then it's your soda, your water, then other foods, then it's your clothes. (oh wait, kids already wear uniforms to some public schools, don't they?) Next thing you know, there is no more individuality, just slaves to big brother, and he's always watching....
Yeah who cares take them off, the less people smoking the better. If you smoke you know what you want. Smoking is nasty habit, lets not spread it.
You don't "spread" smoking, people choose to smoke. Maybe you should mind your own business a little bit more.
[quote name='"ZarTheDragon"']Yeah who cares take them off, the less people smoking the better. If you smoke you know what you want. Smoking is nasty habit, lets not spread it.[/quote] Doesn't mean the government should prohibit companies from putting their logo on their own products. That's fucked up.
Politicians simply use the non-issue of smoking to gain popularity, they know that nowadays smokers are a minority and that tobacco is becoming increasingly unpopular, so they legislate against and ride the wave of support. It's obviously ridiculous, but then you have people like ZarTheDragon (a surprisingly large number of people), who thinks that since smoking is a 'nasty habit', the government should be able to restrict businesses from marketing their product in whatever way they choose. As has been said, next it will be alcohol, when the public suddenly deems drinking a 'nasty habit' and politicians will do the "public's" will by legislating further..
off topic but the smoking age should be 21 and not 18 in the states (don't know age for other countries). But a lot of people start smoking cause it's the first rec drug they can legally buy
I seen many many kids start smoking when they were 13, 14, 15, etc...never once knew a single person who started when they were 18.
that's true, but I see a lot of people who get into it and start becoming a chronic smoker because they can legally buy it
Meh...they know it's bad for them. It's beat into every child's brain in public school health class every year from 3rd to 10th grade. This is a matter of personal responsibly and liberty for the consumers as well as the companies.
I'm telling you there is no stopping the government on what they try to decide for us.... Fuck them ...... Honestly the whole world will be a police state cause they will never stop making more n more laws ..... Never mind our rights cause those have been taken already
I don't know a single person who started smoking after they turned 18... Everyone I know started by sneaking them from their parents, which should be the parent's fault, not tobacco.
[quote name='"Olesmoky"']I don't know a single person who started smoking after they turned 18... Everyone I know started by sneaking them from their parents, which should be the parent's fault, not tobacco.[/quote] I used to just get my own packs since my dad smokes menthol. I don't really smoke anymore except maybe one when I'm pissed the fuck off. I used to smoke a carton a week when I was a freshman all the way up to my junior year. Good thing I'm not in Sydney because the cigarettes are expensive I heard.