OUG
The proof will be in the results as you say. It is difficult to predict if plain packaging will reduce take-up. My guess is it won't very much if at all.

Belly
It would be almost impossible to ban a substance once it has been legal for a long time and where there is widespread acceptance (or tolerance) as part of the culture. Part of a good argument for not legalising other drugs. The difference is smoking generally harms only the smoker unless they are smoking in the home where there are young kids or sharing smoke with others in a restaurant etc.

It is the same with other behaviours that might not be healthy such as over-eating, risk taking sports which generally only harm the individual. This is unlike some other drugs where consumption (even in moderation) may infringe on the rights of others who wish to be able to walk down the street without being bashed by someone in a psychotic state bought on by drug use.

I've taken all manner of drugs, and I have NEVER been remotely violent.

I thnk drugs just amplify the person that's already there.

The level of drug debate in Australia, and probably most of the world, is still at the primative VCR-stealing stereotype. Think of who even wants to own a VCR, and you will see who is running the debates; Old fogies. Who have never done any drugs themselves.

If alcohol was replaced even by meth tomorrow, there would be no real difference in violent crime rates. If it was replaced by coke it would even reduce a fair bit, if replaced by ecstacy or heroin it would plummet.

Still, the chardonnay sipping elite that goes through a bottle of $50 wine every night needs to look down on the kid who pops a couple of e's on a weekend, and the coke addicted Lawyer or vicodin addicted doctor is given a slap on the wrist if ever even caught and some teen who dares to have a good time or sells to his friends at a concert because he has contacts gets his life ruined.

I think it's ridiculous to make plain packaging and I don't even smoke. I think it's motivated by Wollies and Coles who'll get in with their home brand, and make it cheaper for smokers.

pelican it was Bazz who spoke about banning it, at times that was my wish but it is a dieing thing in more than one way.
Bazz,sorry bloke we go our separate ways on this one, its ok we can still share some views.
Of those who claim understanding of this issue and Australian politics,some understand.
The committee currently sitting, IS TRYING to set a price on carbon.
TRYING to compare what other country's are doing.
AND considering the total impacts on us.
Tony Windsor,one of the best on ANY SIDE a man who supported a conservative NSW government, now my team, has stated IF WE ACT ALONE he see,s no reason to do any thing.
We are about to be told who is acting.
All this is true, reckon Tony knows this?
Then did you see the silly little man, not a reference to his size,lie in top gear in the house just half an hour ago?
Tony Abbott time and again demands the government give details HE KNOWS THEY DO NOT YET HAVE.
OUG gee mate you make it hard you claim the actress's a power thief,if she is every bird every tree very blade of grass is too.
She bought paid for enough solar panels to never need our power,the Sun gave it to her.
And the plain packet of death you say you can not live without, we are better than that mate, tomorrows victims need todays help.
You find your self in the company of Abbott.

By the way Belly, who is Get-up kidding?

I assume you're in the know about who funds them?

Then again Cate knows what side her bread is buttered on too. More arts funding coming right up!

Belly
"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."

Interesting. Reminds me of a story an ex-girlfriend once told me. When she was young, a man raped her.
"Please don't rape me" she had said.
"I have to" he explained "because you won't agree".

Can you see how your moral reasoning is the same? Because you can't get what you want by the *voluntary* actions of people who *agree* with you, you reason that therefore you're justified in getting what you want from people who *disagree* with you, by using *threats or force*.

So whose moral reasoning is wrong? The rapist's? Or yours?

Also, if your moral reasoning is that flaky, what makes you think the rest of your reasoning is any better?

Dear Belly,

Don't put up with that crock from the ol' smoke and mirrors man Hume.

You have every right to make the connection between carbon pollution and smoking. Even to this present day people like Senator Minchen cast doubts on the dangers of both active and passive smoking. 

The ol' Humemiester would have the heavily taxed smoking brigade as victims of your 'rapist' plain packing supporters.

Tell him he should save the bull for the veggie patch.