spindoc
LOL, good one.

Well it is very clear isn't it?
Some cannot wake up.
Some will not.
Peter Hume excuse me, got it wrong.
Long ago thought you to be while different than myself a very bright person.
Personal efforts to stop climate change, surely you do know, are not going to EVER IMPACT much at all.
See the lost comment inferring Blanchets solar panels are subsidized.
I have solar, bought/paid for/installed by me.
I grow trees in my yard, grow some of my food and fruit,give more away than I eat.
But every car running on petrol or its like puts more in the air than I save.
So tax filthy fuels, make searching for cleaner ones worth while, that is fighting carbon.
Bazz your mate Abbott says, but he lies he lies he believes in man made climate change.
Give you an in side tip.
Just as Tony Abbott is about to step in front of a TV crew watch his body language,as soon as his lips move, the very instant, you know he is lying.

It seems not all Liberals are with Abbott on plain packaging.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/24/3225372.htm?section=justin

Abbott is not answering the questions directly because his party receives huge donations from US-British tobacco.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/abbott-defends-antismoking-credentials-20110527-1f6zn.html

I am not sure plain packaging will work to reduce smoking but given the fuss from tobacco groups maybe I am wrong. Older smokers won't be deterred from buying cigarettes, addiction is greater than a pretty package and I imagine most addicted smokers wouldn't give a toss and if they did there are always rollies or cigarett cases.

One of the major arguments is plain packaging will deter the young from taking up smoking. That is what tobacco companies fear most, a drop in take-up and new customers.

Most kids take up smoking to be cool, peer group pressure or to be seen as anti-authority. Will plain packaging influence these motivations in the long term?

However, the Liberal party is losing or credibility on this and many issues, opposing for it's own sake is not a worthy strategy nor does it support the democratic process. The choice for voters in Australia is woeful, a dog's dinner would be preferable to the status quo.

pelican..im a smoker
and couldnt care less about what brand
having competition would be great...

so i agree get rid of brands

but wait/...lets dis-cuss

what the implications..of it will be
see we signed..*every freetrade usa...put before us

and they are all about
branding/patent rights free trading etc

we cant watch some patent/right stuff..here on the web
because of the collective insanity..loyal to branding/patent etc
and fretrade agrements...binding govt from governing..by whim..or lobby

see how ciggies..branding..are the thin edge of the wedge
next we get only plain lable booze..[boy that hurts you dont it]

i dont drink..and like i said
couldnt care less if your wearing niki or levie..mal-bro

but the money men do..!

see after we get plain lable drinks..[as the nannies rekon]
we will go for plain lable lollies..
[diabetus/fatties will ensure this]

well who knows
how far the greenies nanny state
wishes to take it..it worked..*with smokes..why not booze?

so anyhow im fine..

but the thing is
i only got my overnight tax..
as a destraction for the news cycle

just as now
to get their 'other' carbon tax through..
they are now saying look plain lable..[you dont need legislation detail..or numbers]

but the coursts wont uphold it
but note..how EVERYONE gets consulted
except us...not bid business..who got our tax..by lies overnight

its all about..more taxes
[how else..does govt get out of
a yet ever growing deficite..by 2013]
except by collecting..*more tax..from you lot

chuckle
chuckle
go plain lable

how about
pay a tax..on using too much/power
the more you ab/use..the more you pay

and you who got free solar..must re-pay...*double..!

mainly because of the clever scam..
that sees you get double tarrif with fre solar cells

[free solar..then extra price
way abouve true day tarrif rates]

the key is..must be..

HAVE YOU actually...*REDUCED
*your consumption

or only by clever accounting..
payed less cash?
for more..!

When I consider the amount of industrial and commercial waste being dumped into the environment every year, I think I should be entitled to litter without fear of prosecution.

The amount I would drop personally over the years is miniscule compared to the rest and stopping my own activity would make negligible overall difference to the environment.

Likewise, I should be allowed to smoke freely in public places because there are far more carcinogens in the environment to be concerned about and my contribution to endangering public health would also be comparatively very small.

It would seem that the planet has enough non-renewable primary resources to last any size population forever so why not put our own interests first and let's party!

Why don't they just ban tobacco and be done with it ?
Any other product that causes death, they rush around the shops and
take it off the shelves.
I know the arguments about loss of tax and the rights to go to hell as you please.
They are a nonsense, some die a horrible death and some years of illness.
Other things that are banned are much more benighn.
Even the smuggling of tobacco is very difficult as it is so bulky.
I went to H O Wills to repair a computer on one occasion and saw the
arrival of a shipment of tobacco. It was in a number of 40 ft containers
and it could be smelt from many yards away.

Belly, Re Tony Abbot, you are running the risk of sounding paranoid.
You sound like a tabloid news sheet or a radio shock jock.