Smoking Packet Pictures

Firstly can I just apologise, as I have sort of shot myself in the foot by not properly explaining my debate parameters, while I do not agree with the pictures on the back of cigarette packets I would as my opponent pointed out not want them removed, unless they were were counter productive, which in all likely hood they will not be. But what I would also like included in this debate is the soon to be enforced under the counter law which, I'm not sure is enforced in Australia or not. Let me as my opponent did, give you three reasons why the under the counter law and the Picture law are useless and in the case of the picture law, should never have been implemented, and in the case of the under the counter law should not be implemented. 1. In the case of pictures, they provide us useful images, to show us what will happen to us when we smoke, or smoke for too long, and numbers too call to stop us smoking. Now for one, English cigarette packets already health warnings in big bold font all over them already, now though I cant quote any statistics here, surely if they had to print more health warning onto of other health warnings, that means those original health warnings were not working as well as they hoped they would do, so what's the point of putting pictures on the boxes, when we already know from the ORIGINAL warnings exactly what's going to happen to us, we really don't need a graphical demonstration, especially since they are on the tv all the time anyway. And besides so far as I can see these useless pictures have only provided merriment and joy to my fellow smokers as we compare our packs gleefully outside the local, arguing which one of us had the most brutal picture, meanwhile puffing away! and tragically my opponent our pictures are printed onto our packs rather than stuck. So our bongs over here remain upsettingly unadorned with smiley faces. 2. The under the counter law, I feel is most confusing to me. Simply because I have no idea, how it will stop smoking. The strange thing is, is that really it has no effect on me at all, and it shouldn't, buts its just the principle that irks me. Let me outline why it will probably have no effect on smokers at all, the health secretary Alan Johnson said the ban Intended to "reduce impulsive buying, particularly by teenagers" Now two things here appear wrong to me, for one if he is referring to underage smokers, then surely the methods to stop them buying should be stricter controls on ID. Harsher punishments for those caught selling. If the law is intended for teenagers over age, like me for example, then why the hell do they think it will cause a difference? The only time I've ever impulsively bought a pack, is in a pub, from a vending machine. At least by removing those they have stopped me at least, from impulsively buying cigarettes. Oh wait, vending machines are not going to be affected by the new law. 3. These laws will cause very small tedious, and insignificant changes to my life. So why am I making such a fuss over them? Its just the principle the government feels it can constantly meddle in my personal life style that gets to me. Once again I apologise to my opponent for being a terrible debater, and fingers crossed he doesn't slate me to badly in the next round!