We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
THE SMOKERS’ GROUP Forest Eireann has criticised the picture health warnings that will be mandatory on all tobacco products sold in Ireland from the start of February.
Spokesman John Mallon said today that the group supported measures that educate people about the health risks related to smoking but these images are “designed not to educate but to shock and coerce consumers to give up a legal product”.
“Smokers know the risks,” he said. “The pictures are unnecessarily intrusive, gratuitously offensive, and yet another example of smokers being singled out for special attention.”
“Picture warnings may have some initial impact but consumers quickly become immune to them. Far from giving up, most smokers will ignore them and reach for their fags in defiance.”
“What next, graphic health warnings on alcohol, fatty foods and cars?” he added.
Research in other countries has shown that health warnings, combined with coloured photographs, may discourage people from smoking and make them aware of the health risks involved.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
He has a point.
No, he doesn’t
He doesn’t have a point! Smokers are addicts….simple stuff. They will do/say anything to protect their habit.
If the new packaging stops 1 kid from ever starting, its worth 1 idiot being uncomfortable while they poison themselves with another poison stick.
I smoked for over 1/2 of my life and its my only regret. If there was a picture on my first packet, it might just have stopped me from buying a 2nd.
This “smokers” group is just like the NRA in jamerica….looking after their own personal interest at the cost of everyone else. Let them smoke, let them die a horrible death and let their last words be…..if only I never smoked!
Should similar images be placed on Big Mac, Jamison or Coca Cola packaging?
jamerica , I want to go there. sounds awesome.
Diarmuid…..
Yes! And while your at it, every car should come with pictures of mangled bodies and every roast chicken dinner have pictures of a dead person from choking on a bone!
Where do you want to draw the line? On the one legal product guaranteed to be addictive and cause health issues, or the ones the have health risks?
If you want to be a smoker fine…..but don’t pretend its an intelligent well informed decision. I smoked for 17 years so I’ve had the brain washing and am lucky to have broken free (I used champix).
Oh, btw Diarmmuid,
I don’t eat McDonalds…prefer real food.
I don’t drink cola’s as it tastes like chemical waste.
I don’t drink Jameson as I prefer bushmills.
Oh and I smoked Carroll’s because I was told “and wanted to believe” that stronger cigarettes caused less damage to the lungs!
Ruairi O’ Sullivan – it’s a well know fact that ex smokers are always the most vitriolic when it comes to being anti smoking. It’s probably because they know what they are missing out on by not smoking and remember how much they enjoyed it. Now that they don’t smoke they don’t want others to have any joy from it either. Sour grapes springs to mind. There are of course exceptions to this, such as the Michelle Pfeiffer quote
”I used to smoke two packs a day and I just hate being a nonsmoker…but I will never consider myself a nonsmoker because I always find smokers the most interesting people at the table.”
Ian maybe they are Tue most outspoken because they have first hand experience of the damage smoking can do and just how addictive it is. Seems like a more logical reason than a whole group of people feeling jealous and acting like children?
The simple fact of the matter is, 1 in every 2 smokers will die of a smoking related illness. The same cannot be said about people who drive cars, people who eat a Big Mac or people who drink coke. Smoking is an incredibly selfish habit, even if you don’t smoke in front of your kids or partner, your still shortening your life considerably
Okay Ian…..good luck with that.
“….reach for their fags in defiance..”.. In defiance of whom or what? Their lungs, their children, passive smokers in the car? Die early if you choose to….and on the tombstone….”she was a defiant smoker…”! Fair play.
Ruairi
What a seriously aggressive attitude towards any user of a legally available product. I also smoked for many years and finally gave up on health grounds but I still respect the right of any adult to indulge to their hearts content without insulting them with photographs that would normally be banned under the Obscene Publications Act.
Smokers are substantial nett contributors to the Health spend of this country and if the Department had any integrity they would ban their consumption rather than playing sill games that haven’t worked in the past ten years.
Alcohol and fast food can be consumed as part of a health diet and is not addictive in the same way, everything in moderation
you don’t get it richard, do you. Obscene Publications act? FFS
Ruairi, cola tastes like chemical waste? Jeez! How often do you put chemical waste on your mouth?
No he doesn’t. 1 in 2 alcohol drinkers won’t die from it! The smokers will.
Nivag
Are you able to express yourself without the swearing. I presume you had a wonderful free education so English should ot be a difficulty for you ……..?
as a smoker i dont say things against anti-smoking legislation as an addict, trying to protect my right to smoke, i say things against the anti-smoking lobby as a FREE man, protecting that freedom. a freedom to choose which those who have no care for freedom would take away from me and others, simply because they do not like what we choose to do. You will argue that my habit harms others. I might agree. But then those ‘others’ do not have to sit there by me while i indulge in what i enjoy. They can have their own ‘clean air’ (if there is such a thing) areas, both inside and out. They can sit in smoke free establishments on a night out, or a walk in the park, or (for heavens sake) on the beach.. making certain that they dont have contact with the deadly smoke being emitted by a tiny cigarette that has been lit outside in the big wide world. But we smokers also deserve and insist on areas and establishments where, with the consent of all within, we too, as we used to, can sit and enjoy socialising with each other. It will eventually be so (take heart smokers).. and do you know WHY? – because WE WILL NOT OBEY! EVER!! AS SIMPLE AS THAT! – To give in to those who would take from you even the smallest of freedoms is to give up your right to be a free man, and to do so without a fight betrays those men (braver than you by the way) who died in the war fighting the same mentality that you display. You SHOULD be ashamed of yourselves, but i doubt you are. I doubt you ever feel shame. In the same way those men who had a similiar ideology about life to yours, that my grandfather gave his LIFE fighting, never felt shame. The lies you tell, the half truths, the one-sided truths, the ceaseless contrived progaganda, the use of young children as weapons, not caring that you filled many of them with fear by those adverts that were aimed at them telling them that if their parents smoked they were going to die. YOU are the danger in all of this. not smokers. you would disgust the generation i mentioned above. You disgust most of us today, Smokers and non-smokers alike. and THAT is why I, and many others) argue against you.. Not because we are addicts, but because we are free men, defending our right to make free choices, in what was, until your arrival, a free country. .
@Rob Fielder, Zzzzzzzzz…. can you point out anywhere in the article or in the commens where anyone states that smokers shouldn’t be allowed to smoke? No. Didn’t think so. Smoke away, Jose. Just don’t get your knickers in a twist when you’re shown exactly what smoking does to in the hope that those want to quit may gain impetus and those who may think about starting get second thoughts.
Knock yourself out, trooper.
@Richard Rodgers I’m normally cool-blooded but sometimes my heckles get raised and I lapse into the vernacular, particularly when I get read utterly vapid guff such as “Smokers are substantial nett contributors to the Health spend of this country”, as if we should be thankful just to have smokers around. But to compound that with the notion that images of diseased lungs should be subject to the rigours of the Obscene Publications act? Well, that just tipped me over the f**king edge. An dtuigeann tú?
I think the idea is to discourage people from starting to smoke and give ppl reminders as to why the should give up. Is this group funded by big tobacco??
The group is funded by Forest UK which itself receives donations from the Tobacco industry.
Their website claims “We do NOT represent the tobacco industry. We have a completely independent set of goals that are centred around the right to smoke a legal product without undue harrassment or discrimination. ”
However the fact they receive money from the industry means they are hardly unbiased.
If you received money from the oil industry would you think you’d be unbiased?, I don’;t think most people would be.
Tobacco companies are required to donate funds to such organisations under EU regulations
Required to fund pro-smoking groups under EU law? You might want to rethink that.
The comparison between cigarettes and cars, alcohol and food doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. All of those other products are beneficial to society when used correctly and in moderation.
Cigarettes on the other hand are designed to addict and poison your system with toxins and carcinogens , and indirectly harm those around the smoker through passive smoking when used as intended. They also run a tasty multimillion euro bill for the HSE for treating smoking related illnesses.
Smokers know the risks indeed, but because they smoke to satisfy an addiction, there is no element of choice involved whatsoever. These warnings will hopefully help smokers in their quest to quit.
Well to be fair, the comparison with fatty foods is a fair one considering the endemic problem of obesity in this country, Over 60% of Irish adults are obese or overweight. Of that 60%, most will develop health related problems as a result. Diabetes is about to become a major major issue for our health services, with projections that within the next 15 years the number of people affected with the disease is going to triple.
Would including graphic images on processed / fatty foods make people think twice about regularly eating the stuff? If so, how can anyone say that smokers are not being singled out?
I wasn’t trying to trivialise the problems of obesity and diabetes, but both of those problems , in general, are caused by poor diet and excessive consumption of certain food types.
Moderate consumption of these foods are part of a balanced diet has beneficial or at least neutral effects on health in the long term.
There is no equivalent “safe” or “moderate” dose for cigarettes. They begin damaging your system the minute you start smoking.
The lack of respect for consenting adults here is shocking. You should be free to do whatever you want once it doesn’t infringe on someonelses rights. I’m not pro-cocaine, meth and heroin btw, but if someone wants to mess themselves up then by all means…
Why do you assume smokers are on a quest to quit? Surely some (me included) are quite happy as smokers, feel confident if we actually wanted to we would quit but are not inclined to do so.
He’s right in that smokers are singled out. The product is legal, the risks of consumption are public knowledge, and smokers have made a choice to smoke. It really is no one else’s business so why the barrage of TV ads & now graphic pictures on packs?
Regarding the “tasty multimillion euro bill for the HSE for treating smoking related illnesses” – this is a fallacy. Smokers will, on average, die younger than non-smokers. Yes their smoking related illness must be treated, but we’re all going to die of something, and in many cases whatever it is that gets us will have to be treated. Difference with smokers is they’re more likely to check out before having to receive treatment for a plethora of other conditions associated with old age as well as the “multimillion euro bill” endured on behalf of anyone who falls to a terminal illness. Furthermore, at nearly EUR 10 a pack, it’s a fair assessment to say that smokers will have more than paid their own way in terms of contributing towards the health service through customs and excise.
In summary, if you don’t like cigarettes don’t smoke – leave the rest of us to decide for ourselves.
@John
The problem is that many lifelong smokers were not consenting adults at the time their addiction took hold. The tobacco industry have consistently targeted teenagers in their efforts to ensnare a new cohort of addicts.
@Paul Roche “if you don’t like cigarettes don’t smoke – leave the rest of us to decide for ourselves.”
That’s the status quo. So stop whining.
@john duggan, sorry, where’s the lack of respect? Smokers are still allowed to buy and smoke cigarettes. What are you bleating on about?
@Paul 80% of smokers surveyed by the HSE in 2012 expressed their desire to quit and 40% said they tried quitting in the past year.
Smokers do indeed often die younger, but the state still forks out billions every year and annually to treat tobacco related illnesses which is completely avoidable expenditure and use of resources. The cost of treating tobacco related disease exceeds the income from excise taxation on tobacco as well so smokers do cost the state.
We always hear about how anti tobacco campaigns are intrusive and an infringement of smokers’ private lives by the pro tobacco lobbyists, as smoking was a consequence-free activity that didn’t hurt anyone. The fact is that it harms the smoker , everyone around them, and the only people who benefit are faceless conglomerates that don’t even bother paying tax or employing manufacturing staff in Ireland for their trouble. Indefensible, to be honest.
John Duggan, there is no lack of reespect….but you have to remember we are dealing with addicts here.
Look at the numbers,
- smoking kills 1 in 2 users
- smoking related issues cost the HSE approx 2billion a year
- smokers are off sick from work more then non-smokers
The government would be negligent if it did nothing to cut down on the amount of smokers in this country, its a proven fact that the tobacco industry knew the affects of smoking and that they wanted people smoking from a young age,
When you factor in the huge cost of smoking both in lost productivity to both large and small companys, costs to the HSE, health insurance companys, life insurance company’s etc. this issue cannot be ignored.
Personally i think smoking should be banned outright, but in this case I’ll settle for any changes that put off people from starting to smoke to begin with.
As you said, if somebody wants to “mess themselves up”…fine but why should it cost their employer or other tax payers for something that could be so easily avoided?
What about adults or more importantly children who have to inhale the second hand smoke of someone who “Knows the risks of smoking” but doesn’t give a sod about the damage it can cause others around them. I personal have small headaches when I’m around second hand smoke (don’t know why just do) and never has the smoker had the decency to out their cigarette.
Matt get over yourself. A cigarette is a nicotine delivery device, illness is a well known byproduct of tobacco. According to what you have said they are designed to harm the user and people around them. Two problems with your quack theory; you described cigarette as a weapon? As they are designed to hurt the user and others around them. Secondly why would a multibillion euro/dollar industry design their products to kill their customers?
Sorry I meant eric
@Andrew, I don’t think that’s what Eric meant, just a poor constructed sentence “Cigarettes are designed to addict”, (which they are) “and THEN go on to poison your system …etc.”.
@ nivag. That makes more sence but the point i’m trying to make is that people have concieved the theory that tobacco are intentionally trying to kill their own customers which from many points of view is retarded on so many levels. Alcohol tears families apart, gambling makes people homeless. Never in my life have ever heard of someone smoking a pack of fags then beating their wife and kids : alchohol. Or have I heard of someone putting their home up as collateral for a box of marley reds : gambling. They all cause damage but smoking doesnt contribute to social problems in ways the other do.
I doubt the tobacco industry are trying to kill their customers. Indeed that would be foolhardy. However, illness and death are unavoidable outcomes of using their product. Only a dullard would think otherwise. They know this so would like to keep them addicted as early and as long as possible. I don’t think an implication that they’re trying to kill people exists. They just don’t care that smoking kills. As long as there’s a next generation willing to pile in and get hooked.
Lets just agree to disagree. Imperial tobacco probably how many lifes they but neither does jameson, guinness, ladbrookes or paddy power. Oh and by no means was I standing up for tobacco companies its just with the smoking, gambling and alcohol industries people are very selective on what they bring up.
Seeing as the article was about smoking I thought we’d discuss that subject.
And we did. I totally understand the dangers of smoking but I still advocate peoples right to decide. Non smokers and ex smoker will disagree and as a smoker myself I am obliged to stop slandering tobacco companies because i’m not going to be a hypocite( and theyll find me lol) but yeah down with sort of thing
I’m an ex-smoker and I advocate peoples right to decide.
You’re standpoint re: obligation not to slander fag companies cos you’re a smoke doesn’t add up — lying to yourself doesn’t make you any less of a hypocrite. You can be a smoker and acknowledge the fag companies constant and nefarious targeting and hooking of the next generation of smokers, the two conditions aren’t incompatible.
It was intended as a joke, which obviously failed. Jesus man you’d have to live under a rock to not know what their like and capable of. The companies are in one of the few industries that can “openly” get people addicted to their product through lies and dubious scientific research. In the end they provide a product that at the moment I very much enjoy. So funnily enough knowing the hazards of smoking and the actions of the companies infact it makes me a hypocrite to smoke but you know what they say “the worst type of smoker is an ex smoker”
Tell that to a never smoking relative who is currently dying in agony from lung disease after years and years of working on the roads. Those selfish car drivers didn’t care, and still don’t care, who they poison with their fumes. Vile, awful bigots. We don’t need cars, actually, if we invested more in decent public transport. That would reduce the risk of passive suicide forced on innocent ppl who don’t drive or have to suffer cars due to their working conditions. Cars are also another product that when used as directed can kill – the families of those slaughtered on the roads each year will tell you that. When did Ireland become such a fascist intolerant and hateful country?
Cars are another product that when uses as directed can kill? misuse of cars kill… next thing you you know people are going to say tea and coffee can be used to kill!!!!!!
In 2008 the Dutch government looked into the cost of treating people from the age of 20 to death. They had three categories, the healthy, obese and smokers. The results were not what the health gurus were looking for.
The lifetime costs were in Euros:
Healthy: 281,000
Obese: 250,000
Smokers: 220,000
It really is quite dishonest of the anti smokers to say that smoking is a burden on society.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029
Smoking-related deaths!…that age old soundbite constantly churned out by those in the anti-smoking industry. But what, exactly, is a smoking -related death?
The truth is, that smoking-related deaths are associated with old age. Nearly 60 percent of the deaths occur at age 70 or above; nearly 45 percent at age 75 or above; and almost 17 percent at the grand old age of 85 or above! Nevertheless, without the slightest embarrassment, the public health community persists in characterizing those deaths as “premature.” Regrettable, yes; premature, no.
Actually, tobacco-related deaths occur at an average age of roughly 72, an age at which mortality is not unusual among smokers and non-smokers alike.
The unvarnished fact is that children do not die of tobacco-related diseases. If they smoke heavily during their teens, they may, or may not die of lung cancer, fifty or sixty years from now, assuming lung cancer is still a threat by then. No matter how you slice it, a high-intensity government campaign against tobacco — in the guise of “protecting children” — is disingenuous at best.
None of this is to suggest that the attack against cigarettes is entirely dishonest. Without question, the evidence is that cigarettes increase the risk of lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema. But most deaths from those diseases occur at an advanced age. The relationship between smoking and other diseases is not nearly so clear; and the scare mongering that has passed for science is quite simply appalling. The unifying bond of all science is that truth is its aim. That goal must not yield to politics, and science must not be corrupted to advance predetermined political ends. Sadly, that is exactly what has transpired as our ‘health’ officials fabricate evidence to promote their crusade against ‘big’ tobacco.
So Dave, can you give us a breakdown of at what age the other 40+% of smoking-related deaths take, just in the interests of fairness and balance. And seeing as though you’re generously feeding us stats, you might think about giving us references?
Hmmmm…
I smell a rat…
Several UK-based commenters on here (never before seen on the Journal) coming up with patent nonense (eg. trying to make out that smoking doesn’t cause cancer), all trying to discredit genuine science, all with ardent pro-smoking facebook profiles, all using the identical phrase “the anti-smoking industry”, unusual thumbing patterns on this thread.
How many of them are members of the tobacco-industry funded Forest UK?
This is the dirty little secret that the smoking corporates don’t want the rest of us to know:
http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-96862000000700007&script=sci_arttext
@Dave Copeland Did you actually read the report accompanying those graphs? Smokers cost less because they died younger i.e. weren’t around long enough to run up similar costs. Kind of flies in the face of you laboured point re: smoking-related deaths.
Put an obese man on every packet of crisps sold , and McDonalds an all unhealthy food !! Show pictures of diabetics losing toes on takeaways .., pictures of failed livers on beer. I wouldn’t mind but this is a nice taxable drug and I’m sure they make quite a nice profit off smokers !
You Are wrong. Smoking costs us more than it brings in.
I think this is a child like argument, the Facts are simple, 1 in 2 smokers will die of a smoking related illness. None of the products can syou have named can be directly responsible to so many deaths. Of course obesity kills but not a result of a single product. It’s the result of poor choices, unhealthy lifestyles, etc..
So choosing to kill yourself with food is okay , but not okay to smoke your self to death .. Shouldn’t think so .. Everyone and there son thinks they have the right to inform a smoker of what it’s doing to there body .. Call a fat person out , and your a mean rude person .
According to today’s Independent, smoking costs health service 1.5bn, whereas it generates revenue of 5.5bn.
A pack of cigs without tax would cost about €2. So €7.30 in tax on 1 pack. Not bad.
I hope no anti smokers get their hands on our excess 4 bn.
Think of the moral dilemma that their poor tortured self righteous souls would go through.
@aoife, your body is your own responsibility and I’m not here to chastise you on smoking, you have free will and choose to Continue to smoke and do what you want to yourself but just because you smoke doesn’t stop the fact that if these new boxes stop young impressionable people from starting a highly addictive, archaic and unhealthy habit then you should acknowledge that a first time smoker has the right to be fully informed right up to the very moment they put the first cigarette in their mouth of the ill effects of cigarettes
I don’t smoke , I’m just stating the fact that Fat people and drunks cause just as much problems as smokers but don’t suffer the same wrath . Tell McDonald’s to stop painting cartoons on the wall , advertising by sponsoring hospitals , to get young people to eat there fat , heart stopping food …make it even .
“Fat people and drunks cause just as much problems as smokers”. Can you expand on this, just for pigiron, like…
Why are you so staunchly against it then, nobody can change the world over night. It’s a small step in the right direction. It’s infallible that you are so against it unless your just arguing for the sake of it
How much does type 2 diabetes cost the state , people having heart attacks die to bad diet and lack of exercise , how much does it cost to send out an ambulance to each one of these people ?People who choose to eat them selves into an unhealthy state , because they prefare sitting on the couch to going for a walk … Drunks , and liver failure , filling up A&E at weekends , crashing cars , taking up police time with fighting in the street . I’m sure drinking has broken up more homes than smoking . I’m not fully against it , all that I’m trying to say is that all criticism goes on the smokers … Sort out the rest , even out the score sheet … Make it fair !
It’s not a feckin competition, Aoife.
Madser, your figure of 5.5bn is out by a cool 3.5-4bn, could you please state your source, as both revenue and HSE give a matching figure which is nowhere near that figure of 5.5bn.
Aoife, the HSE spends 1-2bn on smoking related diseases. Why the figure varies so widely is because the true extent of how smoking related a disease is – is unknown, as this varies from patient to patient.
What does that mean? Well, smokers are far more likely to present with renal, gastric, reproductive, respiratory problems. Does that mean every smoker who presents with a kidney infection has a smoking related disease? We don’t know, it’s doubtful, but it is a factor in the presentation, so we have to presume that X% of the cost in fixing the renal problem is attributable to the fact that the patient smokes, where X is the % of smokers who present with the renal problem. (It’s an average).
The reason there are no calls for graphic pictures on McDonald’s packets or bottles of coke is because there is no other disease that costs the state as much as smoking related diseases.
Patients with smoking related diseases take up more resources, more staff, longer bed occupancy in hospital, longer suffering than any other condition, bar very very few.
I think it would be more honest for tobacco companies to include all ingredients that make up a cigarette. I’ve seen them in the past and believe me it’s scary what the average smoker is ingesting into their body
Over 4,000 chemicals (yes, you read that right) of which over 50 are known to be carcinogenic…
http://healthliteracy.worlded.org/docs/tobacco/Unit4/1whats_in.html
It would be more honest but we can’t expect honesty from tobacco companies….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUNk5meJHs
I’m a smoker and I’d agree that it’s unlikely that there will be a lot of impact from this but I don’t understand why a smokers’ group is using such strong language around it. It’s like saying “I don’t want to see what could happen to me” – complete denial.
Hopefully I’ll manage to give them up soon….
I had a lecture in carcinogenesis once titled “The question in science isn’t why do cigarettes cause cancer but why, sometimes, do they not cause cancer?”.
Also, I think this guy Mallon is on to something. ““What next, graphic health warnings on alcohol, fatty foods and cars?”. Seems like a solid idea to me. Driver’s Ed in the US features some graphic representations of what can go wrong in a car.
On a bit of a tangent, I think people also have a rather sterilized view of war. They could probably do with some exposure to those horrors when calling for intervention everywhere, although that seems more of a problem in the US than here.
Would this be the same Smoking Group that receives funding from the Tobacco industry? (there own website even confirms this if you need to check)
Its effectively an industry lobby group, its not in anyway independent since its funded by the industry that kills 1 in 2 of its users.
”it’s funded by the industry that kills 1 in 2 of its users”
Umm I think you’ll find that 2 in 2 non smokers will die.
On average 2 in 2 non smokers will die after living to full life expectancy.
On average 1 in 2 smokers will die early and often after suffering through a horrible disease.
”On average 1 in 2 smokers will die early and often after suffering through a horrible disease.”
Proof – where is your proof? I could just as easily say with full conviction that the moon is made of cheese.
Ian, the facts are available
You can try come out with smart comments but the facts and figures are well known, its also a known fact that the tobacco industry knew the product was addictive but yet claimed it wasn’t for decades.
You’re like some sort of a child, ignorance and claiming this that and the other thing….keep those fingers in your ears and that cigarette in your mouth and you;ll be just fine.
Oh for god sake. Fine ill bite. After about 30 seconds googling I was on the Centre for Disease Control site in the US. Below is a link to one of the many many studies on the site that shows the contribution of smoking to premature death. I am not about to go and find you exactly where the 1 in 2 number came from because honestly I can’t be bothered putting that much effort in. These studies show that a huge number of people die every year from smoking. That’s enough for most rational people.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/mmwrs/byyear/2008/mm5745a3/highlights.htm
FFS Ian. By all means enjoy a smoke but at this stage of the game anyone who says that it isn’t likely to shorten their lifespan is a wanton buffoon.
cooperguy, how dare you throw facts at Ian :)
Its all a waste of time anyway,. he’ll just continue to ignore proven research
Ian I’ve read a few paragraphs of that AMAZING website by Lauren A. Colby and I have one question for you: are you having a f**king giraffe, mate?
It’s actually quite funny, people. give it a read.
Stuff like this:
“What particularly galls me is the prejudice against cigar and pipe smokers! The original Surgeon General’s Report, released in 1964, showed no ill effects from pipe smoking, or moderate cigar smoking. Indeed, studies relied upon by the SG actually showed that pipe smokers lived longer than non-smokers. The only exception was pipe smokers who quit smoking. They died somewhat sooner than the non-smokers or the active pipe smokers. The SG speculated that the pipe smokers who quit might have done so because they were ill.”
Ian, Just curious, are you a member of Forest UK or anyway involved with them?
Nivag Yeoh, thats hilarious
I didn’t even waste my time reading the website once I saw how it was put together.
Depending on 1960′s research is just hilarious, you only have to look at the late 40′s and 50′s for a time when doctors were actually USED to advertise smoking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI
Well, it did say see how smoking was so good for your throat..so must be ok
The tobacco control industry depends on funds far more than its direct competitors in the tobacco industry. Anti-smokerism is about bigotry, wealth, salaries, jobs, and funding. Only an infantile moron would spout the same old same old line “it’s about the money” That line was a good one even 10 years ago but ppl are now seeing through it given the vast wealth and power of the anti-smoker industry. Meanwhile smokers continue to pay 83% tax on the product. Who gets that do you think? Much of it goes to anti-tobacco so they have more to gain than tobacco companies, third world farmers, distributors, retailers etc who share that remaining paltry 17%. Strange isn’t it that the only time smoking is advertised these days is by the anti-tobacco industry. Hypocrites and liars and you’re simply stupid if you swallow what they say without challenging it or questioning it.
Uhoh, we’ve got a live one here. Forgive my rank stupidity, Patsy, but I didn’t realise it was the ANTI-smoking dudes who were the evil ones. I always thought it was the companies who tattempt to turn your kids into addicts.
Patsy Nurse,
Look at how much tax that tobacco brings in in Ireland, now look at how much the HSE has to pay towards smoking related issues in our hospitals.
The HSE spends more each year then tobacco brings in tax, so smoking is costing the non-smokers.
If we lower the tax on these products it’ll cost us non-smokers even more in other taxes as the shortfall would have to be made up elsewhere.
If anything the tax should go higher so it covers 100% of the health issues it actually causes each year.
When smoking stops costing me and other non-smokers money then you can smoke until you die…..although many of you are already doing that though.
Now, get under that tinfoil hat of yours again before they start sending you more signals.
I see little decent debate in response to my post but rather yet more abusive and patronising insults. healthcare V tobacco consumer tax? You know of course that tax far outweighs the paltry sum spent in comparison in healthcare. Certainly lifelong smokers I know haven’t had any of the 20. 30, 40 or 50 years tax back yet and frankly why should they be denied what they have paid into the system at the end of their lives. If you’re mean and petty enough to deny them that right to care afforded to those who pay far less into the system in a lifetime, then just refund decades of tax they have paid on their product so far and let them sort out their own healthcare needs, plus have enough left over to retire on comfortably. Til then thank smokers who have paid for your healthcare for decades when you have not put anything near as much in. Do you, I wonder, call someone “a live one” in a derogatory manner simply because they refuse to buy your hateful bullshit? I wonder. Frankly, I’m still not convinced that there are any more than paid for astroturf antis ordered to comment on this thread. i can’t believe the general public is so discriminatory, foul or intolerant and neither have I experienced such bigotry in normal everyday life outside of these types of forums.
Stick your charge of bigotry elsewhere, Patsy. From what I can make out your rambling, incoherent and sarcastic point appears to be that smokers should get the tax that they paid on fags back? Ludicrous. Are you for real? Or are you saying that they don’t get hospital care when they inevitably succumb t one of the myriad diseases their smoking has caused them. Cos, guess what – that’s not true! It’s just another straw man piece of nonsense like the fag-ash warrior above who gave us a mission statement about fighting for his smoking rights. Smokers aregiving health care just like everyone else in the land. Can you outline your plans for reimbursement of the fag tax? Have you thought this through.
I have absolutely no problem with smokers. What I do have a problem with is smokers whining about their rights. It’s a toxic habit which scientific concensus agrees harms others in enclosed spaces. Exercise your rights to smoke in private or in the open air. Because you can, Rob Fielding, that’s the status quo. But shut up whining when the govt puts visible deterrents on the packs to try and save a few lives.
Welcome back Patsy – haven’t seen you on the Journal sinc the last smoking related article. Can you tell us if you’re a member of Forest UK?
Nivag yeoh…”It’s a toxic habit which scientific concensus agrees harms others in enclosed spaces.”
You mean anti-smoking scientific consensus agrees.
Scientists who aren’t working towards a political agenda or ideology are far from in agreement. Infact, those scientists who’ve either retired, or aren’t afraid of being blacklisted and vilified by the tobacco control industry, are in total disagreement!
Robert Nilsson,
Professor of Molecular Toxicology, Stockholm University, Department of Genetics, Microbiology and Toxicology. Senior Toxicologist, Swedish National Chemicals Inspectorate. Professor Robert Nilsson has written several highly critical articles about the anti-smoking industry claims that passive smoking (ETS) causes heart disease and lung cancer. He calls the risk of heart disease unsupported and highly hypothetical – and the risk of lung cancer negligible.
“The one-sided preoccupation with ETS as a causative factor of lung cancer in nonsmokers may seriously hinder the elucidation of the multifactorial etiology of these tumors.”
In the book What Risk? Professor Nilsson puts children’s risk of passive smoking in this perspective:
“Looked at another way, a child’s intake of benzo[a]pyrene during 10 hours from ETS is estimated to be about 250 times less than the amount ingested from eating one grilled sausage.”
Yes, the sheeple may have been brainwashed into believing the lies about second hand smoke, but the evidence is out there for all to see.
Packing won’t make a difference I smoke Benson and hedges but hate the gold box
Just take them off the market, I smoke, since 12/13 years old they are targeted are kids I don’t know anyone who started to smoke for the first time in their 30s. The government will save money by all the life’s that would be saved. hospitals numbers would fall
That wouldn’t work either,the only thing that would happen there is the black market would boom
I smoked between 60 and 80 a day and havn’t smoked for over ten years.
I remember starting when cigarettes were handed out outside the school when I was in primary.
A friend of mine used to get packets of 3 cigarettes off a bloke that worked for one of the companies.
They were a bastard to give up and to this day I often get a yern for one.
I have no objection yo someone smoking but not in my car/house or workshop.
If an adult wants to smoke then work away but keep kids away from cigarettes.
Otherwise it’s your own business,when I smoked I would say or do anything to justify my habit.
@mike,I agree.I don’t smoke in my house and would not let anyone else, I do smoke in the car and workshop but not if a non smoker is preset I stop car on long trip of if in workshop by the door.basic manners.
I would also avoid smoking around kids
Ian your in cloud cuckoo land, I bet your the type who thinks smoking fags actually helps with stress?? Illusion as it’s a stimulant and does the exact opposite.
If he doesn’t like it then he shouldn’t buy them. :) On another note, I can’t believe somebody actually funds a group for smokers !
You can buy a fag box cover or a fag box for next to nothing on ebay or amazon. Just saying.
If your habit makes you buy something to mask the reality of what your smoking then if that’s not addiction what is?
Everyone knows that smoking makes you look cool. Changing the packaging won’t change this fact.
It is petty clear that smoking is an idiotic thing to do that not only affects your own health but of those around you. The state is left with the health bill as smokers die of horrendous, avoidable disease.
The more is done to stamp out this idiotic practice the better. If pictures on the boxes do that then I am all for it.
We’ll hopefully look back a century from now and wonder what we were thinking allowing this stupidity to be legal.
Lets just ban everything and then sit around a camp fire holding hands singing Kumbaya.
Smokers gonna smoke
Mattoid, Yes, theres 4000 chemicals in cigarettes, and yes, some of them are toxic. That said, there’s over 3000 chemicals in ‘normal’ human breath, and 40,000 in your average meal, and yes, a lot of these are toxic as well.
The fact is though, that these toxins are in infintessemally small doses!
Paracelsus, the father of toxicology wrote “All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.”
Or, more commonly
“The dose makes the poison.”
That is to say, substances considered toxic are harmless in small doses, and conversely an ordinarily harmless substance can be deadly if over-consumed.
According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke……..
They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA’S) minimum Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL’S) on shs/ets…….Did it ever set the debate on fire.
They concluded that:
All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.
For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes
“For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes
“Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.
Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.
“For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes
For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time
The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.
So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :
Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA
my god. youre all so scared of dying. man up for heavens sake. youre gonna go sometime whether you jog all day after doing 50 push-up and sit-ups in a smoke/car exhaust fumes free bubble… some of you as oldies, some of you tomorrow, or the day after.. possibly while travelling in a smoke free car or on a smoke free aeroplane… and all this “oh .. that persons smoking.. theyre going to die… if they do it near me then i’m going to die” rubbish… stupid people. do what past generations did, who very often lived to a ripe old age. grow a pair and stop worrying about extending your minutes… your an embarrassment to the rest of us who have the cajohnas to live! pfft!
smoking = living
no. smoking equals choice.. choice = living.
John Mallon seems to have forgotten that no one cares at all what we smokers have to say about our own addiction.
diddums
Just an observation.
It’s a pity most smokers can’t see that these proposals are aimed at children. Nobody is going to stop you smoking if you are an adult.
SMOKING GIVES YOU CANCER. you don’t really need to say anymore than that.
This simply isn’t true. There is no evidence for this. Hunt the internet looking for evidence, you will find none. If you’re told something often enough you begin to believe it and it becomes an accepted truth.
Pretty obtuse comment, Ian.
I disagree. If I say blac’k is white for years and years on tv and in newspapers then eventually people will begin to think that black is white. There is NO evidence that smoking causes cancer – NONE. Smoking may be a ‘contributory factor’ to an increased cancer risk. For example, if you smoke 60 fags a day, eat at McDonalds every day and wash it all down with a bottle of whisky then quite obviously it’s not going to be much good for your body. Maybe you could do some actual research instead of just accepting what you’re told. This site is a good place to start http://www.lcolby.com/
The chemical structures found in cigarets can lead to genetic mutation of cells that can cause T-cells in the body to become unresponsive leading to the growth of cancer cells. There is allot of backing information regarding this claim you just need to look past a google search to find it..
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080513130635.htm
Some excellent non-biased material, there Ian.
Now toddle off, there are grown-ups talking.
Sound like Ian is one of those smokers who terrified of life without them.
Next he’ll say there not actually addictive.
Ian, if there not so bad, would you give a packet to a child? Yours or maybe nephew or niece!
Would you smoke in the same room as a newborn baby?
Oh dear Ian….
”The chemical structures found in cigarets CAN lead to genetic mutation of cells that CAN cause T-cells in the body to become unresponsive leading to the growth of cancer cells.”
As usual the anti smoking brigade and their overuse of ‘can’, other often found examples are ‘could’ ‘might’ ‘possible link’ etc… Lots of things CAN happen. I MIGHT win the lottery but I probably won’t.
Give it a rest, Ian. Are you not embarrassed enough by that archaic baloney you linked to earlier?
Taken from the Organovo and OHSU Knight Cancer Institute website (the institute which published the report Kevin Hosford links to concerning a link between cancer and smoking.)
”The company is collaborating with pharmaceutical and academic partners to develop human biological disease models in three dimensions.”
This translates as ‘we are funded by Big Pharma’ – and Big Pharma are interested in just one thing – money. Making money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Pharma
I see you’ve bought into the tobacco industry preudo-scientific claptrap in a big way Ian. Can’t blame you I suppose as its been a deliberate strategy of theirs to undermine genuine science for years, precisely with the intention of misleading people like you:
http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-96862000000700007&script=sci_arttext
Me, I’ll stick to peer-reviewed science published in bona-fide scientific journals. A quick google search brought up this page which links to 94 such studies proving that cigarettes cause cancer:
Its hilarious seeing people buying cancer sticks in Oz (literally everyone smokes its like the 80′s) the packages all have very graphic images so they try make the cashier get the least graphic box lol.
Smokers have been marginalised enough and stigmatised in public places so the passive smoking argument doesn’t hold any water anymore. Yeah yeah what about in front of their kids etc. well, there’ll always be a few idiots. Smokers should be allowed to smoke. If they want to do it then let them.
However, they should also be aware of the myriad poisons, carcinogens and toxins they’re taking into their body regularly, the and the damage they are doing to themselves. So to sum up “Shut the f**k up about graphic images on the packets”. When I gave up, the image of that yellow ooze being squeezed from the artery or bronchus or whatever it was, that image helped me whenever I got the goo on to have a cheeky fag. THE IMAGES WORK.
@Nivag , yes, over 5ooo identified poisons in burning tobacco.
Richard Fallon…”yes, over 5ooo identified poisons in burning tobacco.”
No Richard, theres 4000 CHEMICALS in tobacco, and yes, some of them are toxic. That said, there’s over 3000 chemicals in ‘normal’ human breath, and 40000 in your average meal, and yes, a lot of these are toxic as well.
The fact is though, that these toxins are in infintessemally small doses!
Paracelsus, the father of toxicology wrote “All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.”
Or, more commonly
“The dose makes the poison.”
That is to say, substances considered toxic are harmless in small doses, and conversely an ordinarily harmless substance can be deadly if over-consumed.
According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke……..
They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA’S) minimum Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL’S) on shs/ets…….Did it ever set the debate on fire.
They concluded that:
All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.
For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes
“For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes
“Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.
Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.
“For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes
For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time
The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.
So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :
Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA
…and Richard…God forbid that you ever attend a barbeque (because that would make you a hypocrite).
A 2 hour BBQ releases toxins equivalent to 220,000 cigarettes!
After reading this article I only have one thing on my mind. Where can I get a pack of Hetfields? They look delicious!
Here’s a good marketing idea for anyone that’s interested. Packs of decorated stickers that fit over a box of fags – a pack of 50 for €1. Buy your ciggies and slap a sticker on either side of the box.
I myself will continue to enjoy my ciggie no matter what the pack looks like.
How about this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Aluminum-Cigarette-Cigar-Tobacco-Holder/dp/B009HMTXOG/ref=pd_sim_sbs_kh_32
Check out Thank you for Smoking. This guy is Irelands Aaron Eckhart
Mark Twain on Nicotine Nannies
The Moral Statistician
Originally published in Sketches, Old and New, 1893
I don’t want any of your statistics; I took your whole batch and lit my pipe with it.
I hate your kind of people. You are always ciphering out how much a man’s health is injured, and how much his intellect is impaired, and how many pitiful dollars and cents he wastes in the course of ninety-two years’ indulgence in the fatal practice of smoking; and in the equally fatal practice of drinking coffee; and in playing billiards occasionally; and in taking a glass of wine at dinner, etc. etc. And you are always figuring out how many women have been burned to death because of the dangerous fashion of wearing expansive hoops, etc. etc. You never see more than one side of the question.
You are blind to the fact that most old men in America smoke and drink coffee, although, according to your theory, they ought to have died young; and that hearty old Englishmen drink wine and survive it, and portly old Dutchmen both drink and smoke freely, and yet grow older and fatter all the time. And you never try to find out how much solid comfort, relaxation, and enjoyment a man derives from smoking in the course of a lifetime (which is worth ten times the money he would save by letting it alone), nor the appalling aggregate of happiness lost in a lifetime by your kind of people from not smoking. Of course you can save money by denying yourself all those little vicious enjoyments for fifty years; but then what can you do with it? What use can you put it to? Money can’t save your infinitesimal soul. All the use that money can be put to is to purchase comfort and enjoyment in this life; therefore, as you are an enemy to comfort and enjoyment where is the use of accumulating cash?
It won’t do for you to say that you can use it to better purpose in furnishing a good table, and in charities, and in supporting tract societies, because you know yourself that you people who have no petty vices are never known to give away a cent, and that you stint yourselves so in the matter of food that you are always feeble and hungry. And you never dare to laugh in the daytime for fear some poor wretch, seeing you in a good humor, will try to borrow a dollar of you; and in church you are always down on your knees, with your ears buried in the cushion, when the contribution-box comes around; and you never give the revenue officers a full statement of your income.
Now you know all these things yourself, don’t you? Very well, then, what is the use of your stringing out your miserable lives to a lean and withered old age? What is the use of your saving money that is so utterly worthless to you? In a word, why don’t you go off somewhere and die, and not be always trying to seduce people into becoming as ornery and unlovable as you are yourselves, by your villainous “moral statistics”?
Now, I don’t approve of dissipation, and I don’t indulge in it either; but I haven’t a particle of confidence in a man who has no redeeming petty vices. And so I don’t want to hear from you any more. I think you are the very same man who read me a long lecture last week about the degrading vice of smoking cigars, and then came back, in my absence, with your reprehensible fire-proof gloves on, and carried off my beautiful parlor stove.
It’s interesting that you post up a 100-year-old diatribe by Mark Twain where he starts by deriding statistics. And yet your own initial diatribe above consisted almost entirely of statistics.
Mark Twain: still puncturing balloons of BS after a century.
Well it’s not April 1 today so I take it in good faith that this ‘Forest Eireann’ group actually exists. Wow. Go on – push me over the edge someone and tell me that there is a Heroin Injectors Union of Ireland.
Wow!…I see the trolls from the anti-smoking industry are out in force! Anti-smoking is now a global industry and as such, have to come up with BS like this every so often to keep their funding alive from their Big Pharma paymasters. IT’S NOT ABOUT HEALTH!
Smoke away, you just won’t be smoking yourself healthy.
All that nicorette stuff is a waste of time anyway. Wanting to do it and going cold turkey is the only way.
I think the images will make a difference, sometimes a visual has more impact than just words.
My Dad is sadly suffering from stage four terminal lung cancer, as a direct result of his smoking. He was diagnosed last November and got a terrible fright when he was shown his lung x-rays and scans, showing his poor battered lung. He had known, of course, that smoking caused damage, but to see it with his own eyes was a different story. It was shocking for us, his family, to see it, it really broke all of our hearts.
Tobacco is a legal product and if someone wants to smoke they have a right to – but take it from someone who’s Daddy is fading a little more every day, in the end, it’s not worth it.
My Mother died from lung cancer which was directly caused by smoking she was in her early 50′s. The doctor believes she may have had cancer for 3/4 years before it killed her. It was a painful and horrific death to watch……which sadly could have been avoided. I eventually quit myself 4 years ago as i realised it was a question of WHEN NOT IF i got cancer from smoking. People will smoke if they want and that is their choice but i do think printing on packets the damage it causes with photos or just written smoking kills will eventually get the message thru. To all the smokers still smoking u are deluded if u think ur not going to be effecting your health.
The pictures were taken out of a European library and are not necessary smoking related. A solicitor for the EU admits that he cannot say if the pictures were smoking related or of smokers.
About half of all lungs for transplants belonged to smokers.
Wow!!…I see the trolls from the anti-tobacco industry are out in force! Anti-smoking is now a global industry and as such, have to come up with BS like this every so often to keep their funding alive from their Big Pharma paymasters. ITS NOT ABOUT HEALTH!
Smokers are an easy target, just have a look around the country today a country awash with drugs of all discription , so its easy to pick on the person with the packet of fags as he does not hide them down his sock or elswhere, then we have the government trying to tax them off the market while everyone knows the money involved in the drug trade is massive and the people making their fortunes from drugs getting suspended sentences in the courts on a daily basis. Smoking is not illegal and smokers should not be treated like criminals .
an easy target…for what?
Please outline how smokers are treated as criminals (yes, you said criminals).
Well I’ve seen some as already on uk packs must say very disturbing images of a young female person on morgue table and person with throat cancer person with cancer in the mouth it goes on but will it work no people eventually will ignore just like they do over cross the water as latest results over more young smoking now then ever before sadly
Why don’t they have pictures of mary harney on burgers warning you of obesity or pictures of Brian cowen on drink bottles then,why just stop at fags??
“Cigarette Health Warnings Stimulate Smoking. While it’s accepted wisdom that printing health warnings on tobacco product packages doesn’t have much of an impact on smoking behavior, the researchers found that the warnings had no effect at all on the cravings of smokers. This applied not only to the rather subtle messages on US packaging, but even packages that included bold text and gruesome disease photos. None, zero, nada. Even worse, they found that the health warnings stimulated the subjects’ nucleus accumbens, an area associated with cravings! The researchers concluded that the warnings not only didn’t help, but triggered a stronger craving. The very warnings intended to reduce smoking might well be an effective marketing tool for Big Tobacco!”
Buyology – Martin Lindstrom
When attempting to give up these warnings and images help the conscious mind to refocus on the reasons why one has chosen to take a stand against the cravings. The warnings may also deter young people who haven’t taken up smoking.
If a smoker has decided to smoke, wild horses won’t stop him/her, nver mind some abstract pictures of another person’s organs.
The government Will never ban cigarettes they Will try and tell you its so that it doesn’t turbo people to the black market, what a load of crap they’re making too much money from the tax on it.
Introduce the pictures. I occasionally smoke myself, sometimes a lot, sometimes not a lot. The pictures have been on the boxes in the UK & other countries for years, where also I have purchased, long story short- pictures or no pictures, it makes no difference whatsoever!
and anyway… getting back to the point of the article. the stupidity of “plain packaging” (even the description is a lie) just astounds me. for one thing, if its meant to make people look at them and think “urgggh.. i dont want none of those”, well.. the packets are kept behind closed doors, so no-one is going to see them. As an image to ‘remind’ people of how dangerous smoking is supposed to be (and i’ve been smoking now for 50 years and dont even have a cough, and can run 3 miles quite easily.. further than most non smokers my age can manage), well, with all the publicity, advertising, and debate that has gone on over the last few years does anyone think that people dont already know and are fully aware of the dangers reportedly associated with smoking? and as for stopping people from starting, people dont suddenly think “you know what.. i think i’ll go an buy some cigarettes and give them a go”.. no, they usually start with cigarettes handed to them at a party or at school or decided to try one at work or wherever… then, if they like it they go and buy a packet. Admittedly then, at that point, buying their first ever packet the gross images may put some off going through with it… in which case, the argument about how addictive cigarettes are is obviously false, because having started smoking they will show themselves easily able to deny themselves continuing.
My own view on “plain packaging” is that it is strategy by the anti smoking lobby to put retailers off selling them.. because of the time it will take to find the brand requested due to the very small brand name, positioned strangely enough directly beneath the gross image on the packet, forcing the retailer to have to pretty much stare at this revolting images all day long as he sells them, and because of the subsequent queues that will undoubtedly build up in some places because of how much longer it will take. And finally, its stupid because most people, as i do, will simply take the product out of the offending packaging and put their tobacco into one of their own, throwing the original in the nearest bin. I personally think the aim of “plain” packaging is try and reduce the amount of retail outlets there are selling tobacco. it is the only logical reason, considering all the above..
There’s really no point in debating with someone who, despite supporting scientific consensus, believes that smoking isn’t addictive, isn’t harmful to the smoker and that there are no ill effects from passive smoking.
I am glad, however, that we agree on the main point that the graphic images used on cigarette packets may put some younger individuals off taking up the habit initially.
I started snoking when I was 8 im now 31 with a 2 year old daughter. Ive looked at pictures of this sort while smoking and hasnt stopped me in any way. However I was watching telly other night and I pictured my daughter without me and it broke my heart. Sadly this hasnt stopped nor slowed down my smoking but I hope I will soon
8!?!! Cripes
NIVAG YEOH … you obviously didnt read what i said then. mention several places where i and others are told we cannot smoke. but you were looking for stuff you could pick up on , werent you soldier? you arent interested in pro argument, you dont like smoking and you dont want anyone to do it because of that. a typical anti. and i dont wear knickers sweetie, i leave that to strange minded people such as yourself :) have a happy smoke free day, oh.. and look out for trucks.
I read it, ALL of it. It’s straw-man gobbledygook. You can smoke where you want as long as it’s not in an enclosed area where others work and would be harmed by second-hand smoke. Anything else I’ve got time for.
If on the other hand you’re arguing that passive smoking is of no danger to others, well than I’m sorry but you’re wrong. And no amount of chest-pumping Stallone-esque drivel will change that.
The pro-argument, give me a break. Smoking’s indefensible. Do it in the open air, do it in private by all means. But give me a break.
NIVAG – harmed by shs… lol. i could kidnap you, keep you prisoner in a room and smoke around you 24/7 for 20 years.. then release you. and you wouldnt even have a cough. get real!
Yes, the man does have a point BUT bottom line is smoking is extremely harmful and will contribute to an untimely and often uncomfortable death.Im a live n let live type but one does resent ones “tax euro” going to fund a health system clogged up with ill smokers.
I’m in Australia where all tobacco products are olive green and 80% images. People still regularly moan about the images and discuss them, Brian, the only person used, you mostly get the hideous gangrenous foot and moulds lungs. Sitting with my friends (all smoking)at a cafe in Melbourne I whipped out my phone and googled Brian to see if he was real, there’s a web page about him, very moving. The result, I haven’t smoked since and I have no desire to either. That QA a month ago.
It does encourage smokers to quit. I’m sure I’m not the only one.
The argument that smokers contribute so much in tax and therefore are nett contributors to the state assumes that they would simply hold on to the money if they didn’t smoke -unlikely. The tax would still be paid but maybe on less physically damaging and unhealthy products.
Or it could be spent on the black market, contributing nothing whatsoever to the state.
Cigarettes are nothing more than a vice for those with a proclivity to chase vices. Numerous studies exist which show that people with addictive personalities will find something to grow addicted to. With tobacco we can relatively easily observe and control something which would otherwise be taking place on the black market.
Instead of engaging in scare tactics relating to one single product; money should be spent on tackling the issue of addiction and dependence in general.
Kids in my school are very image conscious. Ifthese images make them think twice, then it has to be worth a go!
Would be interested to follow the money and links to Forest Eireann and the Irish Tobacco Manufacturers Advisory Group, which contracts Bill O’Herlihy’s PR and lobbying company to influence government policy. http://www.ohcpr.ie/
It would seem that Forest is/was an industry initiative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOREST
Ruair,
To answer your unfounded allegations, Forest in the UK was set up back in 1972 and here in Ireland, Forest Eireann was set up only two years ago. While Forest UK receives financial support from the tobacco industry as their aims coincide on the issue of smokers rights, I am not paid nor employed by either Forest or any Tobacco Company. Rather, I am a volunteer in my free time and have been campaigning alone since 2003 in my own name.
Contrast that with the huge amount of Public Funds given annually to an array of charities ranged against me, who constantly try to demonise me for having the cheek to defend smokers. If you are looking for a money trail or high cost professional lobbyists, you might start there instead of here. I have no idea who wrote the wikipedia piece but it is wrong and inaccurate and again simply tries to silence any genuine voice that speaks up against the “Tobacco Control Industry.”
*splutter!*
At least Forest UK wring a few quid out of big tobacco, John. If you’re going to defend the indefensible you may as well get paid for it.
Yours oesophagally,
Nivag Yeoh.
I like Eric’s comment.
“they will reach for their gas in defiance”. So they will deliberately try and die early to prove their point? Anyone that retarded should be euthanized anyway.
I used to visit Ireland every couple years and thought it was much more a country for human beings and much more reasonable about things like smoking, alcohol, etc. than the US. Then came the smoking ban and I haven’t been back since, save for two very unpleasant transfers, one at Shannon, one at Dublin, in 2010. It seems that besides the closings of 11% of the pubs, I missed the transformation of large segments of the Irish population into the sort of smug, small-minded puritans I thought my own country was most proficient at breeding. The Celtic Tiger really buggered you guys good. Sonas oraibh!
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies are set by a range of social media services that we have added to the site to enable you to share our content with your friends and networks. They are capable of tracking your browser across other sites and building up a profile of your interests. This may impact the content and messages you see on other websites you visit. If you do not allow these cookies you may not be able to use or see these sharing tools.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
Non-TCF/GVL Vendors
have your say