Australian Court Upholds Ban on Cigarette Pack Logos. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2012, 11:34:13 am
content: http://healthland.time.com/2012/08/15/australian-court-upholds-ban-on-company-logos-on-cigarette-packs/A win against the tobacco industry.Alexander.

author: PeterG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2012, 11:57:28 am
content: If i attempted to sell a similar product to tobacco that also caused cancer and other health issues, there isn't a government on earth that would allow me to sell it. Yet tobacco is allowed........... makes no sense to me other than a nice tax cash cow.Yes i am one of those cranky ex-smokers.....Just my 2 centsRegards

author: AntiProtonBoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2012, 03:33:38 pm
content: I think the decision is a bit shitty. I mean, it's quite conceivable that your favourite brew, or drop of wine, could get the same plain packaging treatment, because you know... "alcohol is bad, mkay?"Changing the label is the wrong way of attacking the problem. Smokers don't really give a toss about the packaging, they will buy smokes anyway. I mean, some people I know started to use cigarette cases and throw the original packages away. Banning won't work either and should not be implemented. Banning never worked for weed for starters and I'm sure as shit it won't work for cigies. It's all about changing culture and people's attitudes with regards to smoking.I heard arguments, such as "if plain packaging won't work, then why do cigarette companies go through such lengths to fight it?" My speculation is that cigarette companies are probably more worried about losing brand identity and the potential increase of competition amongst each other (and against black market stock). Smokers will be more inclined to switch brands when the generic packaging are in place.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2012, 04:19:17 pm
content: More important things than smoking. Increase the tax on it, and chase and wipe out the smugglers, and the problem will be self limiting.I would prefer a ban on flavoured alcohol drinks, as these are deliberately aimed at children. There should be no sugar or artificial or natural sweeteners allowed to be added after fermentation, and no artificial sweeteners allowed at all, along with no advertising allowed that might appeal to people under 30.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2012, 04:54:58 pm
content: Quote from: firewalker on August 16, 2012, 11:34:13 amIt is a win for the state and politicians running it who constantly try to assume the responsibilities of their citizens because it makes them feel important and useful.Quote from: Groucho MarxRest herehttp://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/12374/

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2012, 06:26:30 pm
content: Politics is the are of stealing and promising not to do it again but still stealing. You only see them once every 5 years, and they are gone again but nothing changes for the better.

author: asbokid
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2012, 06:32:46 pm
content: What if smoking tobacco is harmless - or at least it's not a carcinogen? What if moderate tobacco smoking is actually beneficial to health, just like mild doses of radiation every so often? What if sucking on the end of a fag lines the lungs with a protective layer of phlegm, insulating them from the truly dangerous air-borne particulates? What if Gummint has created a phony ciggie health scare for its own evil ends? What if the ciggie cancer scare is simply there as a pretext? A phony justification for imposing heavy taxes on Walter's Wonderful Weed? And all "for our own good"?

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2012, 07:13:10 pm
content: Quote from: asbokid on August 16, 2012, 06:32:46 pmI'd have no objections to smoking whatsoever if smokers didn't exhale, but since they do, they affect me. Before smoking in restaurants was banned here fifteen years ago, a popular bumper sticker read "A no-smoking section in a restaurant is like a no-peeing section in a swimming pool"

author: ChrisW
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2012, 12:07:57 am
content: I wonder which industry Nicola Roxon will target next, fatty food perhaps?

author: amvakar
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2012, 02:18:32 am
content: I don't really see who this would benefit. I can't fathom the possibility that someone out there is ignorant of the global tobacco industry's efforts to market a product that slowly sickens its user base. Then again, among my circle of friends, most of whom smoke, 'cancer' is recognized first as a synonym for cigarettes so I don't know if I see an accurate representation of things.

author: CampKohler
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2012, 02:27:16 am
content: Quote from: PeterG on August 16, 2012, 11:57:28 amNot quite true. The NAFTA treaty (USA/Mex/Can) forbids the stopping of mfg/sale of anything within the treaty area by another govt. without compensation (decided by a 3-man board), regardless of how dangerous it is. Govts. have wanted to kill several dangerous products from the other countries and had to back off, because it would have cost them a fortune. The woman who wrote that language into the treaty now runs a successful consulting business to show mfrs how to take advantage of it. Nifty NAFTA!

author: CampKohler
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2012, 02:49:09 am
content: What would happen if all the tobacco people just stopped selling to Australia until they repealed the law? There would be some phone calls.... There would be some letter writing.... There would be some E-mails sent.... And in response, all the lawmakers who smoke would use those to justify repealing the law. How long do you think it would take?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 17, 2012, 03:09:46 am
content: Quote from: AcHmed99 on August 16, 2012, 07:55:00 pmUniversal health is great, and no one should go without. But what financial incentive is there to lead a healthy long-term lifestyle?I get a discount on my car insurance for safe driving and making no claims, so why not on health care and health insurance?.I pay the same Medicare levy and private health insurance as the chronically sick people who got that way through their destructive life choices. Why don't I get a discount for eating healthy and exercising, and never making a claim? The amount of time I've been to the doctor and used the medicare system in my entire life I could count on one hand.Dave.

author: PeterG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2012, 03:35:58 am
content: Can someone explain to me how this thread relates to electronic engineering(the topic of this forum)?Just asking.Regards

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 17, 2012, 03:44:21 am
content: Quote from: PeterG on August 17, 2012, 03:35:58 amSureGeneral ChatThis is where everyone hangs out and rants and chats about whatever electronics topics that don't fit into the other more specific categories on this forum. Occasionaloff-topic stuff is ok, but generally we like to keep it electronics related.

author: PeterG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2012, 03:53:05 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on August 17, 2012, 03:44:21 amWell said.....Regards

author: AntiProtonBoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2012, 04:19:26 am
content: Chain smoking is some engineers' coping mechanism before a deadline.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2012, 04:27:05 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 17, 2012, 03:09:46 amYou don't think you are ever going to get sick and die?Nowadays everyone is kept alive as long as possible. Their bodies get old, knackered, require expensive medical treatment/care for years then die anyway. I read somewhere that on average 90% of lifetime medical care costs occur in the last three years of life - I don't find that surprising.People with 'destructive life choices' don't generally cost more, they cost sooner and as long as they make it though most of the productive years of their life the sooner they die the more productive they have been.Then consider the substantial additional taxation raised from some 'destructive life choices'.If Australia banned smoking completely overall medical care costs would likely rise not fall, taxation would rise and all the ex-smokers will get the chance of a few more years of senile dementia in nursing homes.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2012, 04:42:28 am
content: It does not, but at least 22% of the members smoke.