The Forum > Article Comments > Plain packaging does more harm than good > Comments
Plain packaging does more harm than good : Comments
By David Leyonhjelm, published 5/5/2014But while it failed to reduce smoking rates, plain packaging has led Australia into a legal minefield.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- ...
- 9
- 10
- 11
-
- All
Posted by Foyle, Monday, 5 May 2014 9:11:05 AM
| |
This is a strange article containing ignorant arguments.
The whole point of plain packaging was not to reduce sales of cigarettes immediately and certainly not to attempt to deal with the illegal trade in cigarettes. The point was to make cigarettes less attractive to those who might take up smoking. The effects of cigarette sales won’t be seen for some years until enough of the current smokers give up or die to make a dent in sales. Plain packaging will have no impact on those who are already addicted to cigarettes. There is indeed evidence that plain packaging reduces the positive image of cigarettes http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X09003413 As for the illegal trade, that is a consequence of increased taxes, not of plain packaging Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 5 May 2014 9:27:59 AM
| |
The reduction of the value of the brand name is the target here to move from "I smoke Winnies" to "I smoke mouth cancer".
Posted by Cobber the hound, Monday, 5 May 2014 9:28:39 AM
| |
It's a "no bet" David's a smoker.
Agronomist: The point was to make cigarettes less attractive to those who might take up smoking. Exactly. Posted by Jayb, Monday, 5 May 2014 9:47:20 AM
| |
Agronomist,
The point of plain paper packaging was to make smoking less attractive. However, the country is littered with labor policy failures that were initiated with good intentions. This policy like many Labor policies was a thought bubble that was implemented with no research. Policies should be developed: Concept --> research and costing --> policy Labor's policies Thought bubble --> voter focus group --> policy The test of a good policy is whether the desired objectives are worth any negative consequences generated, and whether these objectives are actually achieved. The test of this policy is whether the fall in smoking rates exceeds those projected under previous measures (put in place by the coalition). So far there is no real indication that there is any difference. As I abhor smoking I support any reasonable measure to stop all smoking. These packaging laws have yet to show that they anything more than yet another Labor gesture policy. Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 5 May 2014 10:33:14 AM
| |
I am chuckling at Shadow Minister's suggestion that the current federal government's polices are anything but 100% thought bubbles.
I accept that while in government Labor had its share, but the cigarette policy was not one of them. IT was foreshadowed, based on sound advice and is working. If this were not so, then the ciggy industry would not give a toss, instead they fight tooth and claw, including by proxy countries, Indonesia, Costa Rica et al. Thanks for the humour break, Shadow Minister. You have made my day. Posted by JohnBennetts, Monday, 5 May 2014 10:56:46 AM
|
The agreement under which Australia is being sued in Hong Kong shows the danger involved in entering into agreements which reduce our government's ability to govern in the interests of our citizens.
Smoking is a proven health hazard. Citizens would be better off if the government legislated to ban any product which contains addictive ingredients. For those already addicted a methadone type supply system could be established.
If anyone thinks that is "nanny state" they need to consider how much the effects of smoking adds to our health budget. Why should non-smokers be paying for the health costs created by companies that are marketing, for profit, a dangerous product?