Won’t someone please think of those poor tobacco companies?!?!

Totally Agree – how much easier can you get than to counterfeit a blank box !!

Box shouldn’t be blank. It should have photos of cancerous lungs, dead bodies, coffins etc all over the packet.

@charles . Should we also put those pictures on alcohol , doughnuts , sweets , chocolate , and anything else that a grown adult should know should only be used in moderation . I smoke , I’m not stupid and I know it’s harmful . I don’t drink but don’t insist that a bottle of bud carries a picture of a busted liver or a person in a domestic attack even though drinking causes more deaths directly and indirectly every day in comparison to cigarettes .

I’m aware what I do is wrong before you give me stats on lung cancer . While we are talking stats . The stats tell us that last year 85% of those who died of lung cancer were smokers . Maybe they should mention that 55% also drove a car , 40% drank soft drinks , 70% frequented fast food joints , 80% went on regular sun holidays . The point being statistics can be used to back up all arguments. Once again I am not for one minute suggesting smoking is not dangerous to your health but let’s put everything in perspective .

So no to a ridiculous idea of putting coffins on boxes . Plain box may be a good idea but the point has been made about contraband sales which makes it a non runner .

Education from parents is the key when it comes to all vices .

I strongly object to parents pissed in pubs on Sundays with their kids but I can’t legislate for it ,

Because the current packaging is really hard to counterfeit? Get real.

In Canada a health warning with a graphic picture of what smoking does to you currently covers half the package. By summer of this year, they plan on making the graphic cover 75% of the packaging. The proposed pictures show some very disturbing images. Have a look. You’ll need to scroll to the bottom of the article:http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2011/09/27/more-shocking-cigarette-pack-warnings-on-the-way-in-canada

Counterfeiters need something to actually counterfeit, no branding = nothing to copy. If there was no prada handbags there would be no prada handbag knock offs, just poor quality tatty bags. Same would apply to cigarettes.

Niall, the difference is people have to eat and venture out into the sun. People dont actually need cigs and booze.
Theres nothing positive about either of them.

Best of both worlds: put some watermark-style symbol on packets, as on currency, that is difficult to counterfeit.

@ Teo, I’ve no idea why your getting down thumbs. I thought that link was actually interesting although shocking.

If this was brought out here I reason more people would kick the habit.

The less people smoking the better.

Try hypnosis

Try the 4 D’s method it worked for me I wanted to quit though http://www.committoquitsmoking.com/quit-smoking-side-effects-the-4-ds/ hope it works for you.

Does it really work though?

Cold turkey and will power, ensure that you take an increased dose of Vitamin C, Take a B Complex, Vitamin D3 and a shot of a 1/4 teaspoon of cayenne pepper dissolved in water four times a day. Drink at least 2.5 litres of water, take up some form of regular exercise and avoid caffeine and alcohol for the first two weeks. Smoking aids don’t work, you need to clear your body of nicotine. Remember why you’re quitting which should be for yourself. Where does it get you to give in?

Try that Allen Carr book worked for me n didn’t cost much

Cayenne pepper?

I didn’t use the aids – think about it, they are companies trying to make money out of people’s desperation to quit by peddling them nicotine in a different guise! I acknowledge they may work for some people but I know somebody who was years on those plastic things you suck to get nicotine that are supposed to wean you off cigarettes! When it comes to it, like dieting, there is no ‘easy’ way as such. I went cold turkey, with the help of the Alan Carr book and I also did the things in the 4 D’s, though this wasn’t around at the time as an actual plan! I think if you understand that you are simply breaking a habit of your body and mind but simply have to get through that stage – there’s no horrible suffering involved – you just have to not pick up a cigarette when you get the urge, and the craving passes in a few minutes – and then keep doing this! I did find doing something (in my case getting a drink of water) when your body gives you the signal to smoke helped. Good luck – it is so so worth it not to be enslaved to those things.

Put up an A3 poster of a guy who’s had his voicebox removed…

Have a heart attack, Jonny. That’s what I did. It’s just like in the films. You can hear your heart beating really loud in your ears. You get all sweaty and shaky. You feel really rather ill. After a few minutes, you really have no trouble determining the cause of your distress. Feels a bit like a length of steel cable is wrapped around your chest and the life is being squeezed out of you. Amazing stuff. It works. It really focuses your attention on the problem. And if it doesn’t work, remember–you can always have a second or a third. And you might find yourself on a ventilator or lying in bed as a vegetable for 20 years–you won’t be able to smoke after that. Cheers. I quit 4 years ago.

@ Seamus: Congratulations on quitting. Sadly, it took my father having a heart attack to quit also. We’re lucky he’s still alive. And smoke- free:)

Smoking costs way more than any of those anti smoking aids.

Ah but I wonder how much they cost? Like with their medical bills and second hand smoke inhalation (although that’s not much of a problem now with the smoking ban).

Im open to be corrected on this, but I’m almost sure a study a few years back showed that smoking contributes more than the cost in terms of healthcare, regulation, customs and waste/litter.. So it’s unlikely to be banned in austere times like these, despite this being obviously the most responsible route for the govt to take..

i reckon reducing smokes to say 7.50 per pack would have a very positive effect on revenues for the state. i can say this first hand from working in grocery shops, the numbers buying smokes dropped hugely when the price broke 8 euro znd again at 9 euro. i think dropping the price could be a stimulus. and it could go some of the way to getting the huge numbers of smokers back out of the black market, where id estimate 30% of smokers are at the min. so better to have this money for the state rather than in criminals pockets, even if it would be supporting smoking on the face of it.

@Bob
I don’t think its the government’s job to dictate what people do with their bodies. Its job should be to stop acts of violence against third parties. Also I’m pretty sure you’re right about them providing a profit to the state in expenses.

Why would we want to discourage smoking?
* Smokers contribute so much to the economy
* they often die fairly quickly (you have to die of something at some age) as opposed to non smokers who may live into their 90s with all the additional cost of geriatric care
* typically die in their 60s; just the right age when it’s pension time
* can stop at any time
I say applaud them, congratulate them, but most of all cherish these patriots!

@Robert – I think you’ll find it is their job to guide us on how to treat our bodies! Why ban cocaine, heroin, hash, ecstasy from sale or use? the term ‘illegal substances’ may provide a supporting clue..
Why regulate (some) health/beauty practices and industries? Why is alchohol and tobacco already so heavily regulated/restricted?
If the Govt wants to do best by its citizens, they would ban tobacco, and lower the permissible alcohol content of beer/spirits, to ensure we are a healthier bunch – but there’d be no craic in that, sure….

@Bob
In my opinion the role of government does not include banning substances which when taken harm only myself. It’s my body, my risk. For you to come along and say otherwise is morally wrong, if I decided you couldn’t drink alcohol would you be happy? (assuming you drink) I personally find the drug laws in this country outrageous, it’s none of anyone’s business if I want to take heroin or any other drug. Whenever I hear the argument of “when government does something (like banning drugs), there must be a reason” I think of the experiment involving monkeys http://i.snag.gy/kdu77.jpg If the government really wanted to keep it citizens safe (like you said) in everyone’s home it could install a camera as to stop household violence. It could keep me in a bubble my entire life if it was really concerned for my safety. Now I’ve no qualms with the government telling me the effects of smoking or alcohol or heroin, but to ban it is wrong. It assumes they have a higher say over our bodies than us which is never the case. If you think some people are too stupid to make those choices than why let them vote?
Sorry for the length!

@Bob: Did you just say they’re banned because they’re illegal? That’s incredible.

More to the point, of course the government should advise us, because they have the resources to do so. Nobody should chain smoke; we could certainly do with a better attitude towards alcohol, and well, the less said about heroin the better. But here’s why prohibition doesn’t work: people enjoy using drugs, and always will. If you make them illegal, that just encourages illegal production, which is less safe and healthy, and may support purchase of weaponry. Are you familiar with moonshine? That’s what you get if you lower permissible alcohol levels. That shit can make you blind.

Like it or not, a lot of people use drugs responsibly (and alcohol, tobacco and caffeine ARE drugs) and gain a lot of personal benefit from them. The problem is not with the occasional drinker, but the wino lying in the gutter; not the social smoker, but the one that falls asleep with a cigarette in hand; not someone who’ll take the odd toke, but the pathetic pothead.

@ Robert
I would totally agree with you if you were genuinely the only person to be affected by your habits, but I think you’ll find that the smoking ban in pubs, workplaces and other public spaces (and the proposed ban on smoking in a car containing children) was not put in place to protect smokers from harming themselves, but to protect those unfortunate people around them who did not choose to inhale your second-hand toxins and carcinogens.
Likewise, hard drug abuse does not just harm the user but can have a devastating affect on society as a whole, as we have seen over the last 20 years.
You may have a point about soft drug use though – Cannabis was only banned in the US after extensive lobbying by tobacco giants, whose sales were being hit as cannabis grew in popularity.

Robert heres a link to stats about alcohol and the cost to the state of alcohol related issues. I

http://alcoholireland.ie/alcohol-facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

Its enlightening.

@Bob
You said you were open to correction so here goes….
From 2001 to 2009 tobacco revenues generated by the state averaged between 1billion and 1.2billion per annum (ref. http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/tobacco-market.pdf).
At current smoking levels, costs to the healthcare system alone in terms of smoking related illness run at 2.3billion per annum, not to mention over 1million per day in lost productivity (ref. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0716/1224300821905.html).
Smoking is therefore a net drain on the exchequer to the tune of over 1billion per annum, something smokers might like to consider when they claim that their chosen habit doesn’t affect anyone else but themselves..

hear hear

It’s not to stop you smoking its to stop kids doing it.

People often start smoking just because it’s cool. The idea is that if the box is blank, then people won’t be thinking about the Lucky Strike logo or whatever (I think that’s the coolest one, anyway).

But personally, if I could get a plain black box of cigarettes, I probably would.

Cigarettes are one product where brand preference is important above all else. I suspect the thinking is that by preventing manufacturers from establishing a strong brand, over time it may lead to a reduction in smoking.

Agreed, we know prohibition doesn’t work as we’ve seen it with other drugs like weed, heroin etc.

That addiction HAS been analyzed, and price and packaging really DO make a difference. There is abundant evidence that increasing the price really curbs the addiction. It just hasn’t worked for YOU. Yet.

I think the idea is to use box space to educate smokers as to the harm they’re inflicting on their bodies

Too late at that stage, they’ve already bought the box..ya want to get them so they never want to buy the box.

Are you suggesting that they’re NOT educating people? This isn’t an either-or decision. It’s whether this particular move would be helpful or not.

Best of luck with your health…

I’m no financial adviser but I’m guessing it would be cheaper again to not smoke at all.

Of course they want you to give them up, it’s costing them more to pay for all the health problems smoking causes.

What’s with the all red thumbs on this comment? It’s a perfectly sensible, non divisive comment. Debranding fag packets is unlikely to affect current smokers but leave one less reason to start. Do people here want kids smoking?!

Speaking as a former smoker (5 years since my last cigarette) I can say that the packet had a lot to do with me starting smoking – let’s face it, the Camel packet is incredibly cool to a teenager.

Putting pictures of diseased lungs on a packet instead, would definitely help. They do the same in Canada and none of my Canadian friends smoke, so it must be doing something!

When you get emphysema, you won’t ask the Nanny State for any assistance, will you, because you can cure yourself by breathing conservative bullshite.

LOL

@Seamus Not every libertarian is a conservative. Anyone who isn’t a knee-jerk reactionary would know that the origins of libertarianism are on the left, not the right. If you are unable to think for yourself and take responsibility for your own actions, that really is not my problem. Don’t make it my problem by suffocating me with ever more intrusive government just because you are unable to or incapable of taking charge of your own life.

@Seamus Those who do smoke and get emphysema have paid many times over for their “assistance” from the ever-benevolent nanny state, so how about you breathe some of your own bullshite? Oh, and for what it is worth, I don’t smoke.

Shiny packs don’t lure kids lol that’s ridiculous, they’re just imitating what they see adult doing

Who mentioned anything about shiny packs?

Very sensible suggestion.

Yes, of course they should. That’s what the state is there for, isn’t it? To make decisions that we are too lazy/stupid/selfish to make for ourselves? No thanks, I’d rather not have the state make decisions for me. I’m sure I’m not alone in that.

Yes that is what the state is for actually. To make decisions that stop people being cleverly manipulated by drawing them to tobacco products and making sure they remain there. Smoking has a profound negative effect on the rest of society – especially medical care when the vast numbers who eventually become seriously ill need treatment which is funded from tax payers money. So yes the government have a duty of care.

@Damien

the tax and excise on cigarettes brings 1.5 BILLION to the exchequer, which is a lot more than is spent on the medical costs of smokers to the state. If the government was that concerned about the health of smokers they would make them cigarettes illegal.

yeah. cause who actually smokes in a car with kids and shut windows!”

You’d be surprised Sean.

I’ll be honest, Sam, it wasn’t really a good enough comment to make it twice. Even with the apostrophe fixed.

While we are at it, why not ban alcohol, anything high in sugar or fat content, anything containing known toxins (which in this country would include mains water)? How about we just ban living and get it over and done with?