Finally, 20 years after Cancer Council Australia first recommended plain packaging on the basis of evidence that branded packaging influences smoking take-up, its time has come. From tomorrow, all tobacco retailers in Australia will be required by law to sell only tobacco products in plain packaging.

What a great day for public health.

The government's next step should be for ciggies to come in hideous brown monsters

Some readers will disagree. Not the majority – surveys show most Australians support plain packaging. But having written on this topic before, I expect criticism from sceptics, anti-“nanny state” crusaders and tobacco industry trolls masquerading as both. So let’s pre-empt the arguments against plain packaging with some facts.

1) Plain packaging won’t work.

Why then have tobacco companies thrown tens of millions of dollars at stopping plain packaging, in the small Australian market alone?

Industry marketing reports show that glossy packaging glamorises smoking for young people. The tobacco companies know branded packaging works, and that without addicting younger smokers they are out of business. Simple.

Even more compelling are early reports of smokers saying that the tobacco in plain packs has been changed and tastes worse. It hasn’t. Same old poison. More likely, it’s the pack stripped of its clever branding and finery that is allowing smokers to finally taste what tobacco is really like.

2) Smokers will buy their tobacco no matter how it’s presented.

Perhaps established smokers will – we never claimed otherwise. The aim of plain packaging is to protect young people from seductive packaging. This is where the major health gains are expected. However, from what we’re seeing, plain packaging may exceed our expectations as a trigger for discouraging smoking even among established smokers.

3) Sales of fancy cigarette cases will skyrocket.

This theory got a run when graphic pack warnings were introduced in Australia more than six years ago. There was a small spike in the sales of cigarette cases, but it didn’t last. Research showed the cases were an aid to quitting – users who were affected enough by the graphic warnings to hide them ultimately quit in significant numbers.

4) Smoking is a free choice.

This line has been trotted out ever since governments began looking at ways to reduce smoking prevalence in the 1970s. People can still choose to smoke, but more than half of Australia’s smokers wish they could quit; nine in 10 wish they’d never started. In the days when most of Australia’s 2.8 million smokers became addicted, information warning them of the dangers was drowned out by the big-budget marketing machine telling them that smoking was a glamorous activity. A choice is only good if it’s an informed choice.

5) Governments would ban smoking if tobacco tax wasn’t such a good revenue source.

We need much lower smoking rates before we can feasibly talk about bans. Can you imagine trying to enforce a law that would instantly turn Australia’s 2.8 million regular smokers into illegal drug users?

Tobacco excise is often unfairly characterised as a tax grab. The fact is it has been the single most effective government measure for driving down smoking rates in Australia. If a government’s job is introducing policies that improve the population’s life expectancy and quality of life – and those of us in public health think it is – then tobacco excise has been an outstanding public policy success.

We also know that advertising restrictions have worked in concert with price control to discourage smoking in young people. And that’s what plain packaging is – an advertising restriction.

With around one in six Australians smoking, we still have a lot to do in public policy to reduce the death and disease of the nation’s number one preventable cancer risk factor.

When smoking eventually becomes so marginalised that it is no longer a population health problem, the era of mass-marketed tobacco use that began early in the 20th century will probably be looked upon as a brief, cultural aberration.

I imagine people will look with curiosity at a time when millions of consumers became addicted to a product that for most did nothing to enhance their lives, drained their wallets, damaged their health and then killed them prematurely.

Those who look for reasons to oppose anti-smoking measures will be on the wrong side of history. We’re writing a new chapter of that history tomorrow, with plain packaging.

Comments on this post close at 8pm AEST.

Most commented

77 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • James D says:

      05:12am | 30/11/12

      Such smug superiority from this op. How about this. Why not ban any activity that could be in any way related to a danger for human beings? Driving kills thousands every year. Ban it. Airplanes - they crash all time time, Boats sink also. Ban both. Smoking kills, ban it. Heart disease kills so ban sugary soft drinks and juices and all fatty and hi carbohydrate food, sporting injuries cause long term damage to joints and organs and cause premature death in many many sports people. Ban all sports… And i could go on with your hypocrisy. How about this. Leave people alone. Let them do what makes them happy. You have NO RIGHT AT ALL to dictate behavior. It takes some amazing level of narcissism to believe you do have a right to tell people how to act. So leave people alone. Not hard. If peoples happiness invades your personal space then do something about it. But if it doesn’t and 99% of the time it doesn’t then don’t tell them what to do. You have no right even though your smug superiority tells you otherwise.

    • Hobart hero says:

      06:14am | 30/11/12

      Haven’t you met that curious bunch of people with voices in their heads who think the voices will stop if they run around telling people what they should not put in their mouths? What happens is when they try to cook their meals the voices just get louder…..

    • KH says:

      06:17am | 30/11/12

      Stop kidding yourself - it isn’t happiness, its addiction, and you are the loser in the deal.  Stop trying to justify it as anything other than what it is.

    • James D says:

      06:49am | 30/11/12

      KH - good job of ignoring my entire point. Incredible. If smoking is an addiction why doesn’t every single person who has ever smoked do it forever and ever? Because they have the CHOICE to stop. Some choices are very difficult to make. BUT A tough choice is still a choice. Your high horse is tired. Time to get off it. Stop telling people what to do. You have no right.

    • Mahhrat says:

      06:51am | 30/11/12

      You have NO RIGHT AT ALL to dictate behavior.

      Neither do you, James D…neither do you.

    • dave says:

      07:23am | 30/11/12

      I’m happy for people to make their own decisions, but as a non-smoking moderately drinking taxpayer, I don’t want to have to pay for their lifestyle choices. If they choose to ‘opt out’ they should have to foot the bill for their own treatment for gangrene, lung cancer, ephysema, etc

    • fml says:

      07:30am | 30/11/12

      Sorry Mahrat,

      James D isn’t dictating behavior, he is asking for people to allowed to make their own choices.

      Asking someone not to remove their life choices is not in the same category as telling others what to do. It removes it self from that category once your personal freedoms are being impinged.

    • James D says:

      07:35am | 30/11/12

      Ahhhh Mahrat i was waiting for the first ‘genius’ to say “you know telling people not to do something is still telling them what to do” - the difference here is it is self defense on my part and offense on theirs. using self defense is not the same as using offense. People who want to dictate my life choices and use the law to alter what i can and cannot do are violating my personal liberty to make good and bad choices, i am simply defending myself against that. I am not using the law to alter peoples behavior. I am simply telling them that doing so is violent and immoral - and it is something they have no right to do.

    • Mahhrat says:

      08:01am | 30/11/12

      @FML:  Which is dictating behaviour.  The decision not to choose is also a choice.

      From personal experience, most smokers start in their early to mid teens - certainly before they can legally procure cigarettes for themselves.

      Our best minds have said that smokes can’t be bought for yourself until you’re 18 (or 16?  I forget).  Nobody wants to see 5 year olds smoking, I’m sure.

      We’ve decided that until you’re an adult, you can’t make that decision for yourself, because you can’t know all you need to in order to make that decision.

      The unfortunate truth of it is that many people NEVER develop that level of responsibility.  That’s a failure of education, not a failure on behalf of those people.  You don’t just magically develop responsibility; it’s a taught behaviour.

      As for “freedom”, what freedom is impinged by the colour of the packet you get your cigarettes in?  Nobody stops you taking them out of said pack and putting them in…well, pretty much any container you like.

      Plain packaging works because it stops uptake.  Or are we going to deny this science, like we deny global warming science?

      Aside from this, my counter to James D’s argument is simple:  What an amazing level of narcissism you have, to assume that you’ve got the sufficient answer to life’s quandaries, that since you’re doing okay, everyone who isn’t is somehow at fault?

      None of us live in a vacuum.

    • fml says:

      08:24am | 30/11/12

      Mahrat,

      “Plain packaging works because it stops uptake.  Or are we going to deny this science, like we deny global warming science? “

      It’s not science, its at best a tenuous correlation.

      What freedom? none yet, but the insinuation is that the governments next step is to make smoking so prohibitive that it will essentially be illegal. Smoking is a choice and Adults should be made that choice. Smokers have adhered to the rules of non-smokers, but non smokers will not be happy till smoking doesn’t exist. I abhor using the “what next” argument, and I won’t even though in this situation it will be quite apt.

      “The government’s next step should be for ciggies to come in hideous brown monsters ” A little tongue in cheek yes, but if taken metaphorically the connection is easy to see.


      “The unfortunate truth of it is that many people NEVER develop that level of responsibility.  That’s a failure of education, not a failure on behalf of those people.  You don’t just magically develop responsibility; it’s a taught behaviour.”

      This is what worries me most, an acquiesce to government intervention. The government and wowsers like Grogan making laws for our own good..

    • patsy says:

      09:23am | 30/11/12

      I"ve done all the dumb things but, smoking was the dumbest. I’d like to think the new packets would stop young people becoming addicted.

      I’m giving up four days after xmas on my birthday. I’ve had a few failed attempts to quit before so this is it. It’s not because of the new packets, it"s because I really want to and that is the thing. You have to want to.

      In the meantime, I’ll have fun changeing the warnings with my black marker and liquid paper. I have “Smoking makes you horny”, “Quitting will give you the shits” , “Smoking causes pleasure” ..................

    • Bruce says:

      09:39am | 30/11/12

      I am anti smoking. However, one of the real problems out in kiddy land is that secretive brown packaging may become very cool !!

    • Mahhrat says:

      09:46am | 30/11/12

      @FML:  So we ARE going to deny it.  This argument’s pretty moot then, because the science is there, the studies are there, the effects have been monitored - if that’s not enough for you, I’m not going to convince you here.

      @James D:  Yes, it is.  You’re asserting your “right to freedom” based on nothing more than the assertion that since you can do it, others should be able to as well.

      Guess what?  They can’t.  You would throw them to the wolves, deny them any opportunity to improve their lives, because of a bad decision they made when 15?

      That’s a hell of a yardstick to measure people against mate, and I daresay that nobody here is “perfect” enough to measure up against it on all measurable aspects.  We all have our faults.

    • subotic G. Orwell says:

      09:49am | 30/11/12

      James D isn’t dictating behavior, he is asking for people to allowed to make their own choices.

      And how dare he!

      How dare anyone ever even slightly think that people should be free to choose how to live their own lives.

      The bloody nerve of some people out there.

      I can’t wait til they remove words from the English language that even convey the ability to have an “own life” vanishes for aye….

    • fml says:

      10:27am | 30/11/12

      Mahrat,

      There is NO scientific evidence, You are going to have to show me the studies as It is impossible for me to show that there are no studies.

      Even the results I get from a search are all news articles, with no links to studies trying to claim a correlation. There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence to prove that plain pack packaging reduces smoking. If anything it is the increase in cost in combination with increased awareness that is reducing the smoking rates, to say that plain packaging is reducing the effects with out statistically proving it is not due to price rises and awareness is just not cricket. well it may be french cricket.

    • Kate says:

      10:29am | 30/11/12

      The thing is James, is that all the other activities you mention MAY cause you harm, however they also may not. A small amount of fast food most likely won’t damage you long term, same goes for a drive in the car or going for a jog.

      Cigarettes on the other hand - EVERY SINGLE ONE is causing you harm. Hence why we can introduce such measures against tobacco, yet will struggle against a ‘fat’ tax.

    • michael says:

      10:35am | 30/11/12

      James D, do you mind telling me exactly what choice has been constrained here?

      I’m a smoker. I’m not being forced to stop smoking. The article didn’t argue that I should be forced to stop smoking. Yes, a ban on tobacco would be a bad idea. In general, banning vices that are not harmful to others is a bad idea. (Taxing and regulating them, now that is an awesome idea).

      In short, I agree that we shouldn’t ban smoking. I’m also in favor of treating drug addiction as a medical issue, not a legal one. But most of all, I think that posting comments that so comprehensively misinterpret the point of the article they’re responding to is;
      a) A strong indication that the commenter is an idiot
      b) something that should be banned

    • subotic says:

      11:06am | 30/11/12

      Cigarettes on the other hand - EVERY SINGLE ONE is causing you harm. Hence why we can introduce such measures against tobacco

      Same argument against stupidity, right? Every single stupid person does me a hell of a lot more harm than good, lemme tell ya….

    • Paul Grogan says:

      11:18am | 30/11/12

      I’ve never heard of any of the hundreds of thousands of Australians who quit smoking and added a decade or more of healthy life to their existence complain about being told what to do. If people don’t like the health messages, they can ignore them. Why begrudge initiatives that save the lives of thousands of others?

    • Kate says:

      11:21am | 30/11/12

      @subiotic - if only, if only smile

    • egg says:

      11:27am | 30/11/12

      @Mahhrat, you reckon “Plain packaging works because it stops uptake.  Or are we going to deny this science, like we deny global warming science?”

      I reckon we’re the first country to introduce plain packaging. So you base this “science” on what?

      You know what I remember from when I was a kid? Sitting in the back of my dad’s van, all the windows rolled up, happily breathing his smoke for hour-long trips to granny’s house. I’m a smoker now. I associate smoking with security, happiness and fun because of my childhood. That has much more to do with my smoking status than the pretty colours on the cardboard.

      You want people to stop smoking? I want people to bugger off and mind their own shit. We all want something - the key is to leave people alone and let them decide.

    • Mahhrat says:

      12:13pm | 30/11/12

      Now, I’m not an expert researcher so I may be wrong, but I’d suggest the US National Library of Medicine to be a good resource:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2590906/

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21752795

      Most of this research is pretty new, I agree.  It seems to back onto wider research into the importance of branding and brand recognition on all products.

      To be perfectly honest with you though, I’m pretty proud to be part of a progressive country that looks at ways of protecting its youth.

    • Philosopher says:

      12:26pm | 30/11/12

      egg: has it never occurred to you that what your dad did is now considered illegal? No disrespect to your old man smile but it’s a fact. You have hardly advanced the case for the right of individuals to smoke, as your experiences as a child suggest you had no choice in being exposed to your dad’s smoke. So why not just state you enjoy smoking and resent the efforts of the western world to gradually phase it out?

    • fml says:

      12:50pm | 30/11/12

      Mahrat,

      “For example, cardboard brown packs with the number of enclosed cigarettes displayed on the front of the pack and featuring only the brand name in small standard font at the bottom of the pack face were rated as significantly less attractive and popular than original branded packs.”

      Yes, but that is still only an implied correlation. Just because the packaging is less attractive it doesn’t correlate to people stopping smoking. I mean it’s as silly a proposition as refusing to wear shirts if the government forced the colors of all shirts to be olive green.

      Even looking through at their method, all they did was ask respondants to a survey, out of these four packaged cigarettes which is the most desirable. They were not even given the option not choosing to smoke at all!!

      What is going to happen when the kids growing up now are used to the green packs? whats going to stop them from buying fancy cigarette cases? Yes the packaging is less desirable but there is no correlation that its going to decrease the uptake of smoking. And who really cares? Everybody knows the product inside is still exactly the same.

    • PsychoHyena says:

      03:30pm | 30/11/12

      @Mahhrat, but what happens when you present all the brands, strengths, etc to a customer with the exact same packaging? Research comparing unbranded packaging to branded packaging is based on there being a combination rather than just the unbranded.

      I mean would removing the branding, etc from beer stop people drinking beer?

    • ma_kelvin says:

      05:28am | 30/11/12

      Plain packaging is a joke. Cigarettes contain carsnogentics known to cause cancer. There is no dispute about this fact.
      Two days ago pa_kelvin asked me to get some tablets to help him stop smoking.  Pa_Kelvin has been smoking since he was 13 years old. When he said this too me I want to stop smoking I couldn’t believe my ears.  I went to the chemist and said to him to also try the Quit Line too.
      Yesterday I went out to empty the rubbish and I found a cigarette packet.  On the package was a picture of a 34 year old skinny man who was hours away from dying of cancer caused by cigarettes. On the other side of the package was a healthy looking same man two weeks before he died.
      I honestly believe the reason pa_kelvin asked me to get some Nicorette was because of the graffic photo.  The picture of the 34 year old man looked like pa_kelvins brother who also died of cancer.
      The previous pictures on the cigarettes were gross and would make you sick looking at them.  Finally they have put a picture on the package that really affected pa_kelvin to try and stop.
        I personally believe that we should be banning cigarettes as they ban certain drugs that come into this country. The toxins in the cigarettes are addictive similar to narcotics should be banned because of this.  Also the government should be suing the cigarette companies instead of the brown packaging them.  The current tax that is on the cigarettes is a joke. Also the government putting tax on the cigarettes is leaving themselves open to people suing them too. The government is profiting from the drug and they know that cigarettes cause cancer.  Also smoking might be linked to all other cancers due to the effect on the human body.

    • Jock says:

      06:11am | 30/11/12

      I’m a smoker, and this article is not only smug but basically rubbish.

      Every smoker I know has agreed with me on this: plain packaging has made zero impact on us, and was a gigantic waste of money spent to make the government look better and for holier-than-thou types like Paul Grogan to broaden their smirks.

      “Seductive packaging” - are you for real?! I actually thought you were being satirical until I read the rest of your post. I assure you nobody on this planet has ever looked at a pack of smokes and though “wow, that packaging is damn well fantastic, I’m gonna take up smoking!”

      You would have to be a raving lunatic to think the packaging, rather than the product itself, is what prompts smokers to light up.

    • Mahhrat says:

      06:53am | 30/11/12

      Jock, it won’t impact you.  It isn’t designed to.  It’s designed to stop uptake of new smokers.  It will, has and shall do that.

    • craig2 says:

      06:57am | 30/11/12

      As a medical rep who promotes respiratory medicine, I look forward to the day you increase my market share when you need help to breathe due to a lung disease. Not being rude Jock, just giving you a reality check of where that habit will lead to.

    • fml says:

      07:32am | 30/11/12

      Mahrat,

      “It isn’t designed to.  It’s designed to stop uptake of new smokers. “

      So what happens when all the kids who are growing up now only know the green packages? they are just going to acclimatise and then the government are going to have to change the colour again.

      It is absolutely diabolical that the government can legally marginalise an entire group of people, they have essentially banned smoking with out actually banning it. They should just grow some balls and ban the substance, or let everyone be.

    • fml says:

      07:35am | 30/11/12

      Craig2,

      Enjoying making a profit over the misery of others? You are a catch! If only cancer scientists did their research for the money!

      You obviously value the profit of selling your product over the help it gives people, ah well most reps are that cynical, I do not know why I am shocked.

    • craig2 says:

      08:45am | 30/11/12

      fml: cancer cure? Will never happen because medicine does not have the technology to differentiate good and bad cells.  Your statement drips of ignorance and if you want to be “owned” today fml,  keep replying because you’re now playing on my patch. Over to you….

    • fml says:

      09:30am | 30/11/12

      Craig2,

      Ummm…. I work in cancer research.

      “not have the technology to differentiate good and bad cells.”

      Many different areas are currently being research such as structural variations in cancer cells, also alot of work is being done in differential expression analysis using RNAseq of transcriptomes present in various cancers, this is done to study the transcriptional regulation of the cells. I will dumb it down for you, stop regulation stop the spread of the cells..

      Yes, a cure has not been found yet but to say it is impossible is utterly, utterly naive and ridiculous.

      Typical rep, thinks they know more than the people they are selling the product too. Go on, try to own me.

    • subotic says:

      09:52am | 30/11/12

      Every smoker I know has agreed with me on this: plain packaging has made zero impact on us

      Actually, I’m an ex-smoker, and that sexy new plain packaging makes me wanna light up a Laramie Extra-Hi-Tar right now….

    • Happier now says:

      09:52am | 30/11/12

      Hi Jock.

      I’m an ex-smoker and yes, I for one thought the packaging of my father’s and uncles’ cigarette packets was damn well fantastic and one day I’m gonna take up smoking too.

      And I did – but went for the much classier gold packs. I had arrived. “Look at my pack – much classier than yours”.

      So your assurance is wrong.

    • Michael says:

      10:25am | 30/11/12

      Jock, count me as a smoker who completely approves of the plain packaging.
      It isn’t about making me aware I should quit (if you’re a average smoker who doesn’t think quitting is a good idea, you’re a fool to yourself and a burden to others)
      But making smoking less attractive to young people, and reducing the numbers of new smokers, which is the aim of the plain packaging, is fantastic.

    • craig2 says:

      12:37pm | 30/11/12

      Oh for crying out loud, the premise of your post was to say how bad is pharma for making a profit. I invited you to back up your claims and instead you try to change the premise of your original thread by telling me about your research! Wow, DNA and genome alterations! Great to know ill be dead when you have something useful to bring out for public consumption. Youve been owned fml for failure to man up to your original post.

    • KH says:

      06:22am | 30/11/12

      I remember as a teen when many of my friends started smoking, it was about brands - only bogans smoke those giant 50 packs, the soft pack was designated as ‘cool’ as were american brands, gold ones were ‘classy’, and if you were a real wanker, you went with sobranies -those hideous russian ones.  If they saw a celebrity with a particular brand, they might change to that one. Ultimately, it didn’t matter what was in the pack - it was the packaging that made the difference.  The brand and associated advertising was important - taking that away will make this filthy habit far less attractive, especially in todays world where brands seem to be so important.

    • AFR says:

      10:27am | 30/11/12

      Agreed. People who think that branding had nothing to do with (mostly young) people taking it up are kidding themselves.

    • k starts says:

      06:27am | 30/11/12

      Yes its immoral this gov is raking in so much revenue from a social habit that causes so much termination of life. Just ban the abominable stuff. We non smokers are in the majority but do they ban smoking in outdoor cafes…? No and after writing to gov they say in 2015 it will be outlawed. Why wait. Surely this type of legislation will benefit non smokers immediately. Nsw is backward in not following Wa and qld who have this law in place. I know it boils down to greed.

    • Hobart hero says:

      06:53am | 30/11/12

      I remember when smoking was banned in the pubs and my local publican bought the adjoining property and set up a beer garden for the smokers. What happened? Everybody goes into the beer garden, there is nobody in the pub and non smokers invaded telling smokers to put their cigarettes out!!!!!!!!

    • Markus says:

      09:26am | 30/11/12

      @Hobart hero, it’s happened everywhere. Not happy with just having won the battle over the inside of pubs/clubs/restaurants, they demand the right to be able to sit in the outside area set up specifically for smokers, without having to be burdened by the smell of smoke.

      And legislation changed to pander to them. I believe the rule is you now cannot smoke within 5 metres of any area that serves food, even if said area was the designated smoker’s table area.

    • Anubis says:

      09:34am | 30/11/12

      It was the same with cafes. A majority of the outdoor eating areas (sidewalk cafes etc) came about after the banning of smoking inside. Proprietors were seeking ways to retain their clientele so set up outside areas for the smokers so the non-smokers could use the indoor facilities and not be bothered. Now the non-smokers are claiming these areas for themselves. Also consider the businesses that closed. There used to be Cigar Bars in this city. Set up specifically for people who enjoyed the cigar. Anyone entering knew exactly what they were entering so they had a choice enter and enjoy cigars/cigar smoke or don’t enter. Simple. But they had to be closed down because they were indoors.

      No point to this post, just a rant.

    • Kate says:

      10:42am | 30/11/12

      Just think though, those tax dollars will go toward funding the QUIT campain, and also the health bills of smokers with lung cancer, heart disease etc…

    • Sir Viv says:

      07:05am | 30/11/12

      “What a great day for public health.”

      When 75% of the people I see in Sydney CBD will still be obviously overweight?

      It’s weird, in my office ALL of the vocal anti-smoking lobby are morbidly obese women.

      Have you ever been to the offices of NSW Health? They only seem to employ obese people.

      There is a health crisis in Australia and smoking is the easy whipping boy for all (largely overweight) health lobbyists.

    • Sam says:

      07:55am | 30/11/12

      Sir Viv I agree 100%

      I am a smoker , have been since I was a teen, and I can guarantee you it had nothing at all to do with what the packet looked like, none of my friends started smoking because of a packet design, this is just nonsense to think this will stop kids smoking.

      I have reached a point where I have tried a couple of times to quit over the years and this weekend I start on Champix which is medication to help people quit. Yes I want to quit, yes I hate smoking, but do I think a packet design will deter kids from smoking ? Nope !!

      And as Sir Viv said you always see morbidly obese people saying how people shouldnt smoke as its bad for you ! I always laugh at the ads on TV for life insurance, they always, and I mean always ask a persons smoking status, smoker or non-smoker, if you happened to have been a smoker you pay a lot more. I have never seen one asking if the person is overweight, Hmmmmmmm.

      How about we stop fast food from advertising on TV, how about we stop soft drink producers from advertising in magazines, how about we have take away shops having to remove signage and wrap products in plain packaging.

      What do you think the chances of that will ? Zip, Nada , Zilch !

    • Sir Viv says:

      10:30am | 30/11/12

      @Sam

      I don’t even smoke and I find the whole thing ridiculous.

      The majority of Australians are fat. Smokers are a minority, tax the f**k out of it, ensure the rules on where you can smoke are solid and move on. Deal with the big issues first.

      All this “Aren’t we awesome” backslapping is just comical.

    • Kate says:

      10:38am | 30/11/12

      Difference between smoking and fast food is that every cigarette is doing you harm. A single cheeseburger however, is not.

    • Mighty Mike says:

      03:24pm | 30/11/12

      Kate
      Difference between smoking and fast food is that every cigarette is doing you harm. A single cheeseburger however, is not.
      And where is the evidence to back this up, the ammount of sugar put into most fast food burgers are simular to what you find in a can of soft drink. The only upside is after the plain packaging the governement will now turn their eyes to drinking and fast food. Child heath workers will be hanging around the golden arches reporting parents of fat kids getting a happy meal for child abuse and so they should. We are becoming a society are turning into sheep that need to be told what is best for them by the governent. Sad day for society.

    • PsychoHyena says:

      03:59pm | 30/11/12

      @kate, that is bs. What about alcohol? Every drink increases your chance of liver and heart disease, interestingly alcohol is the only one between alcohol and tobacco which causes your body to attempt to remove the poison. Sounds to me like alcohol is worse than tobacco.

    • fml says:

      07:26am | 30/11/12

      Grogan,

      What have you actually said against smoking? what points have you raised? All you have done is list a number of points you think the smokers will come up with. These points are a imagined response to a point you did not make.

      It is a clever but insidious tactic. What are they supposed to respond to? All they have is your preempted description of their response. Are you so lacking of ideas that you have to fill the article with imagined responses?

      Why do you want to stop others smoking? Second hand smoke? There are no causative links from second hand smoke to cancer, there is just no research. The government has already banned smoking in all indoor areas and a lot of outdoor areas. It’s quite sick really, how you can justify marginalising a whole people because they smoke, but you can’t justify banning cigarettes. It’s like you are some temperance crusade, all you need is your art deco house where you can dress up in a frilly dress and oversized hat and dance the Charleston.

      “Industry marketing”

      Funded by the anti smoking lobby?

    • Steve says:

      09:01am | 30/11/12

      FML,  you should be aware that worldwide the makers of nicotine replacement patches are major sponsers of the anti-smoking lobby.

      Its is a conflict of interest that they never acknolwedge themselves.

    • James1 says:

      10:09am | 30/11/12

      In that case, surely they would want people to continue smoking Steve.  If everyone was to quit, no one would need help to quit and their business model would be undermined.  Further to that thought, why would companies who rely on people giving up nicotine want products containing nicotine banned?

    • Heather says:

      03:47pm | 30/11/12

      James,that’s why patches don’t work

    • gerry w says:

      07:27am | 30/11/12

      We have one of the worlds lowest smoking rates lets keep it that way. A CEO from PM in Australia recently went to Indonesia to get more sales there (already more than 60% smoke there) So some of you smokers out there will see many family and friends die a horrid slow death and one day see your own.
      (ex smoker 16 years ago with 30% lung capacity)

    • expat says:

      07:35am | 30/11/12

      We all know smoking is bad for us, I dont smoke, I know a few people who do.

      I do not agree that the government should be allowed to interfere with how a company packages and markets its products. This is just setting precedence for further restrictions on alcohol and then eventually certain foods.

      The big tobacco companies need to bite back, withdraw from sale all cigarettes until the government agrees to back off. 2.8 million rather edgy people will sure as hell cause the government some grief.

    • HC says:

      08:41am | 30/11/12

      Tobacco companies would never withdraw their cigarettes from sale, it’d playing right in to the governments hands.  2.8 million people (myself included) would probably just quit right then and there (after curling up in to a ball and sobbing quietly for a few days).  Governments ignore voters anyway unless it’s election season and smokers are 2nd class citizens already so we’re especially ignored.

    • Richard the Lionheart says:

      08:47am | 30/11/12

      I like this, and am also worried about puritan, mainly women dressed in black, using their fat desk jobs to hound society about what is right for us. It will not end with banning smoking. We already see moves on alcohol, coal, uranium,coffee, fizzy drinks, takeaway food, fattening foods, gambling, fuel guzzling cars, lollies, labled bread, certain clothes items, religion, sexual norms plus cameras on every street. To enjoy some sin we are stuck in our own homes no longer able to socialize at a bingo hall or workers club. Smoking is banned on verandah cabins thousands of miles out to sea as funnels churn out spent fuel and waste. Our lives must be as boring as theirs as we munch vegies and join the fairies at the bottom of the garden. Sports injuries cost society far more in hospitals. It has been tried before. A sigh of relief when ‘The Lord Protectors’ Oliver and Richard were replaced by fun loving King Charles.

    • Markus says:

      09:34am | 30/11/12

      @HC, withdrawing completely would cause a $6billion tax revenue shortfall each year.
      Not only would the government be held to blame by 2.8 million smokers, the government will piss off whoever they decide to target to make up that $6billion in lost revenue. They would crumble within weeks.

      No government will ever ban tobacco in this country. The government and non-smokers alike are addicted to the taxes.

    • expat says:

      09:57am | 30/11/12

      The revenue thing did not even cross my mind, but I must say the ripple effect from such an event would be far and wide.

      I would really like to see this happen, nothing like a bit of an “up yours” to regulation and the government.

    • James1 says:

      10:54am | 30/11/12

      Further to the revenue thoughts, given that a very large proportion of smokers are low income earners, it is often one of the few forms of tax they pay.  We should not rob these low income earners of their opportunity to contribute something to the society that sustains them.

    • cityboy says:

      07:59am | 30/11/12

      acritol is strangely silent, in fact MIA on this issue….....

    • Shaun says:

      08:16am | 30/11/12

      Good point about all the dosh the industry have spent resisting plain packaging, and their reasons for opposing it.

      They claim that it will result in increased consumption, and are opposed to it on these grounds.  Bizarre.  The reality is that it will prevent youth from taking up smoking, and this is why they’re so opposed, because their market will decrease as a result.

    • expat says:

      10:10am | 30/11/12

      “The reality is that it will prevent youth from taking up smoking”

      No it won’t, think about that statement for a minute and think about why people young or old start smoking these days?

      Is it because they could not resist those incredible winnie blue designs that they have seen in the shop cupboard? I sincerely doubt it.

      Is it because they were peer pressured by other youth who were no doubt peer pressured by the youth before them? Most likely.

      Is it because the older members of the family already smoke and it simply becomes a habit handed down from one generation to the next? Most likely.

      All the packaging does is differentiate commercial brands. When you walk into a shop to buy cereal, you were already going to buy it in the first place… All the packing does is allow you to differentiate between the different brands.
      Have you ever had the urge to buy something that you wouldn’t eat normally or don’t like, simply because of the packing?

    • Shaun says:

      05:12pm | 30/11/12

      So, following your logic, the only reason the tobacco companies are expressing so much opposition is because the packaging aids brand differentiation.  Nothing about the ability of the existing packaging (one day remaining) having an influence on uptake, and therefore recruiting new amokers so necessary to keep a parasitic industry alive.

      If the packaging were so neutral, they would not be expressing the opposition they do.

      I agree with part of your earlier comment that: “The big tobacco companies need to withdraw from sale all cigarettes”.  This would achieve what the government are seeking:  a reduction in prevalence. 

      But the industry are unlikely to do that, because they’re addicted to revenues at the expense of human life, and to withdraw for any period of time would deprive them of customers.  The government should not back off, on the grounds that this is a parasitic industry with it’s own unique potential for harm.  It is not alcohol, junk food, and much less cereal!These examples do not equate.  Roxon and Plibersek addressed that concern following the Australian High Court ruling in August.

      As for the loss of revenue as a threat to maintain industry influence?  That’s a hollow argument when you consider the influence tobacco has on society.  This is no reason to allow that influence to be continued.

    • chuck says:

      09:01am | 30/11/12

      Paul are you over 21?
      Are you accountable for your own actions, are you responsible?
      It must feel good at night for the people of Australia when people like Roxon, Windsor, Plibersek so admirably do their thinking for them in the way of restrictive legislation.
      PS I don’t smoke nor gamble excl Melb Cup ($20).
      PPS Paul I believe facial hair is bad for you on account of its propensity to retain pollen, bacteria, and other adventitious and injurious fugitive emissions!

    • Walter Carroll says:

      09:01am | 30/11/12

      I’m a recovering nicotine addict after almost 30 years of smoking 40-60/day following a start while a student in Australia (and being able to continue the habit courtesy of $2-4/pack cigarettes while living in Japan).
      Like many smokers, I loved it—or the addiction was too overpowering to counter—but would have gladly given up whenever I could had I been able to do so. I finally did so earlier this year, but remain plagued almost constantly by the almost unbearable and constant craving to light up. Nicotine is a wicked, insidious, highly addictive drug….anything that will stop it and de-glamorize cigarette smoking should be welcomed with open arms….yet, I’m still dying for a smoking (just not perhaps as literally as I was when actively using nicotine).

    • Cotton Wool Australia says:

      09:21am | 30/11/12

      Spot on @Richard the Lionheart.

      This is just the thin edge of the wedge where the middle class from their lofty positions of power (including owning the media voice) pick on soft targets: -the working class.

      Why don’t they ban rip tides, out going out in the sun, or barbecues, or mountain climbing these could be as fatal as smoking

      Next it will be alcohol then fat.Why not cars and trucks?They kill a lot of people.
      The Cancer Council is just one of those conduits of bigoted middle class wholesomeness

    • Ryan says:

      09:22am | 30/11/12

      They want their own packaging for brand differentiation genius. You think juice companies wouldn’t get mad if they were forced to use plain packaging? I find it amusing that you think young people are so stupid as to be lured into smoking by the pretty package. You must think the future of this country is quite bright.

    • AFR says:

      10:25am | 30/11/12

      Juice isn’t a disgusting habit killing people. Juice companies didn’t spend decades putting ingredients in to hook people and then lie about it. I could go on…

    • fml says:

      10:54am | 30/11/12

      AFR,

      Now that we know the truth why shouldn’t it be our decision whether to smoke or not? The author is insinuating while this is a step in the right direction he would love it if the government eventually banned cigarettes.

    • chuck says:

      12:50pm | 30/11/12

      @afr you might want to have a look at the list of synthetic ingredients in juice and then the source (origin) of the contents ( for some brands) and then at the testing regime these dodgy countries use to facilitate the sale of their goods too.

    • Testfest says:

      01:58pm | 30/11/12

      @Chuck

      Are you seriously putting fruit juice in the same class as tobacco?
      Double you. Tee. Eff.

    • Double Standards says:

      09:52am | 30/11/12

      This statement uses the same myopic arguments being made here on smoking

      Lets ban Olympic sport. It is state sponsored abuse of mostly young vulnerable people who are damaged both physically and mentally; just for the entertainment of the public, and for use as fodder by the lazy media. Of-course it is useful in the self aggrandisement of politicians.

      The large government funded bodies with their ruthless power are bullies who exploit these hapless children and are just evil (Just read the latest raft of books by Australian swimmers).

    • Ted-e says:

      10:00am | 30/11/12

      Not sure what makes the most entertaining reading, the blog or the paranoid, delusional, nanny state conspiracy theories. Scouring the article, hard to see anything that supports James D’s rant about ‘dictating behaviour’. In fact, this measure doesn’t prevent anyone smoking. But it does close a loophole that allows tobacco companies to advertise on the pack. You may say: “I’m not influenced by advertising or branding.” But we all are or there wouldn’t be an advertising industry. That’s why big tobacco spends hundreds of millions a year on it. And there’s a heap of research showing plain packaging will work. Read for yourself: http://bit.ly/PnaYZh

    • Aussie Wazza says:

      12:23pm | 30/11/12

      I could write something here in favour of smoking and all the B/S that is put up in its favour.

      But I want the tobacco company cheque cleared before I start.

      Love to know what JAMES was/is paid to rant.

    • Gabby Cabbie says:

      12:30pm | 30/11/12

      From time to time a passenger will ask if they can ‘light up’.

      My response is ‘Only if I can shit on your forehead.’

      Disgusting? Yes, but not as disgusting as having to suffer the drug stink for the rest of the shift.

      Little test to try:

      With two fingers, pick up an abandoned cigarette butt for 1 second then throw it away and smell your fingers.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

@nigelmcbain I don't see the nexus between gay marriage and gay sex education in schools. ACL does. Health issues should be taught whatever

Daniel Piotrowski

@jennijenni a few companies are known to do that - ask for story ideas from job applicants so they can steal them later

Malcolm Farr

: Bruce Springsteen: "I get roughed up crowdsurfing… people try to pull chunks out of me" http://t.co/jiHqt8agt9” it was him, @patricklion

Daniel Piotrowski

Ray Hadley fires back at Carlton. Great @candacesutton1 get: http://t.co/7fQzk4Xixh

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter