Australia introduces tough new tobacco ad bill

As a non-smoking Aussie, I think this is going overboard. No more freedom of speech? I personally hate cigarettes and the smell etc, but the laws are tough enough already back home. Hasn't the government realised that they wont deter any more people from smoking? the prices are already ridiculous...

Australians like gold medals and this certainly takes the gold for stupidity.... if they really want to put people off smoking, they should classify tobacco as a drug and insist people get a prescription from their doctor before they can buy it (and not allow it to be covered by medicare)

Good on Australia. Only a decade or so until cigarettes are made illegal, which will be another step in the right direction.

@smithinjapan Ridiculous argument. Do you realize that banning cigarettes would only create business opportunities for Yakuza to make money ?

As I said on a similar topic a few weeks ago, if Australia doesn't want people smoking, just make it illegal.

Either that, or take ALL the tax off it. They say they don't want people smoking, but are happy to use the tax money it gives them.

Do you realize that banning cigarettes would only create business opportunities for Yakuza to make money ?

Well then they should impose harsh penalties. Importing tobacco, or having more than 2 packs on you in automatic life in prison. Since they say smoking is a killer, they should impose murder sentencing, shouldn't they?

Make it illegal, or shut up.

MrDog,

I think you will find that the taxes from smoking goes towards funding for Medicare (public heath system) and Quit campaigns etc to do with the affects of smoking. So to remove the taxes would mean a shortfall in that funding, as an Australian taxpayer and a non smoker why should l have to pay for someone elses habits. User pays simple

I think you will find that the taxes from smoking goes towards funding for Medicare (public heath system) and Quit campaigns etc to do with the affects of smoking. So to remove the taxes would mean a shortfall in that funding, as an Australian taxpayer and a non smoker why should l have to pay for someone elses habits. User pays simple

If they banned it, the people who are getting treated for smoking related illness' would drop, and so it wouldn't affect Medicare. So, you wouldn't be paying for someone else's habits.

The Nanny Nation going for gold in nanniness yet again. They won't ban it outright because the revenue is too delicious for them to give up!

"only a decade or so until cigarettes are made illegal, which will be another step in the right direction."

What a tremendous idea, it's worked so well with weed, E's and coke afterall.....

it's worked so well with weed, E's and coke afterall

Come and get me the next time you see someone snorting coke in an airport smoking lounge.

" you see someone snorting coke in an airport smoking lounge."

That's nearly as dumb as smithinjapan's comments, unless of course you happen to be a crazy person wanting to get arrested.....

Making things illegal gives more people, especially young people, the desire to do it simply cause it's banned.

And then there's the black-market angle.

Rather than making cigarettes illegal, here's another alternative: A combination of radically elevated nicotine levels in cigarettes, zero healthcare support for smokers, and extremely strict regulations stating that smoking may only be carried out in specially designated places (smoking outside of these places would result in simply ridiculous fines).

You would achieve three things: A healthy contribution to population control since smokers would die off faster, very little in the way of passive smoking for the rest of us, and (probably) a healthy short-term contribution to GDP growth since smokers at first would try and smoke outside of the designated zones.

" zero healthcare support for smokers"

A great idea in principle, but who will police this?

And what about ex-smokers?

Australia sure seems to have an authoritarian bent on some things. Too bad they don't concentrate that bent on the additives these companies put IN the packs rather than what is on the OUTSIDE of the packs. Its what they put IN that's doing all the damage, and no, I am not talking about the nicotene that occurs naturally, I am talking about the additives.

Come and get me the next time you see someone snorting coke in an airport smoking lounge.

To make this analogy work, would't it have to be a coke-snorting lounge?

I hate smoking, but I think this move by the gov't is rubbish.

Back on topic please.

That's nearly as dumb as smithinjapan's comments, unless of course you happen to be a crazy person wanting to get arrested.....

I think it's dumber to compare smoking to "weed, E's and coke".

Or am I unaware of the millions of passive-coke addicts, passive-extacy-users? Or passive-weed-smokers, inhaling marijuana while sitting in a restaurant?

If smoking went underground, like "weed, E's and coke", the only people being harmed are smokers and other smokers.

And, also tell me how many time you have had to sit or stand next to someone on public transport who reeks of "weed, E's (or) coke"?

All readers stay on topic please.

the day is soon coming when countries will ban smoking, 100 years from now people will wonder why to took so long.

the day is soon coming when countries will ban smoking, 100 years from now people will wonder why to took so long

Plenty will also wonder why personal freedoms are so easily destroyed, probably my progeny will be among them. I don't smoke or a do a whole bunch of other things that are already illegal. But the casualness with which some people seek to oppress others is truly alarming. Sure, stop cigarette companies from putting needless crap in their products. Stop them from pandering to young people. Separate smokers from non-smokers with walls and air purifyers. But ban smoking? What a simplistic and selfish thing to advocate!

It's not a dumb idea it's a great idea..its too deter kids from taking it up.If something's prohibited they'll want it more..take away the perceived glamor and hopefully the attraction disappears too..experiment and see what happens,trying to save young lives here.The tobacco 'giants' are afraid which is a good thing.

When are they going to introduce a tough new alcohol ad bill?

@Serrano

When are they going to introduce a tough new alcohol ad bill?

All too soon, I fear, my friend. Still, there's always Fosters, which, although alcoholic, tastes so foul it can hardly claim to be a "drink". So it should be safe from any anti-drinking legislation.

"tobacco"

The nicotine must provide some kind of serious pleasure kick for people to actually inhale that seriously stinky stuff, knowing that they are damaging their health and the health of those around them.

The nicotine must provide some kind of serious pleasure kick for people to actually inhale that seriously stinky stuff, knowing that they are damaging their health and the health of those around them.

And that, my friend, is the problem. You think I do it for the good of my health?!

" You think I do it for the good of my health?!"

Nah, you give it up for that reason! 3 August 2003 and counting for me. Within three months you forget the addiction, waste less disposal income, get your smell and taste back and begin to revile other smokers.....

From a business perspective this is terrible. Not because of the loss of consumers, I doubt this will change the number of smoker, but because all tobacco companies essentially just lost one of the largest assets a company can have. Their logo. The logo, the copyright associated with it, and the goodwill assets associated with the brand, logo, and packaging can be worth millions of dollars. A clever lawyer may be able to bring a case against the Australian government for financial damages based on the impairments.

I smoke cigars and as far as I know my labels aren't covered by this but it's still annoying. It's going to open up the black market to counterfeits. Imagine if all car companies had to use the same frame, paint, and the only identifying marker was a small brand indicator on the trunk.

It's not a dumb idea it's a great idea..its too deter kids from taking it up.

I started smoking in my early teens and it wasn't because of the pretty packaging. I liked the smell and having a family that maintained a tobacco plantation may have guided my decision as well. I'll be the first to say that children aren't the smartest creatures but they aren't stupid. Most packaging isn't particularly imaginative anyway, plus, isn't it a crime to sell tobacco to minors anyway? Smoking is a choice to be made by adults, if it's gotten into the hands of children it's a failure of oversight not of packaging.

" isn't it a crime to sell tobacco to minors anyway?"

Many things are illegal, it doesn't seem to have the desried effect. Pablo Escobar's little flower export business was churning in an estimated 60 MILLION US dollars PER DAY in the 1980's. And that was a banned substance.

Now just think how much tobacco companies make every day selling poor health and later death to smokers and those around them each and every day. I really do not give a damn about their logo's or profits.

Many things are illegal, it doesn't seem to have the desried effect.

I was pointing out that if one desired to reduce the number of smoking minors they should focus on those enforcing the law such as storekeepers not after the cigarette companies for packaging. I was buying packs of cigarettes when I was 14 and liquor when I was 16, that's not a failure of the makers but rather a failure of the distributors.

Now just think how much tobacco companies make every day selling poor health and later death to smokers and those around them each and every day.

A risk that they all understand. My argument was based on the statement that this packaging would somehow protect children by making them less likely to start smoking early.

I really do not give a damn about their logo's or profits.

So? The point stands that this legislation artificially devalued a company's assets and those companies have a legitimate claim against the Australian government to recover those damages. If you don't care don't comment, I'm just bringing up the point.

"I was buying packs of cigarettes when I was 14 and liquor when I was 16, that's not a failure of the makers but rather a failure of the distributors."

No offence but that was back in the day wasn't it? ;-)

I accept your point, but how far are you going to go down the road of accountability? For how long have the tobacco companies known they were selling a nigh on un-shakable addiction followed by death?

Now just think how much tobacco companies make every day selling poor health and later death to smokers and those around them each and every day.

"A risk that they all understand. My argument was based on the statement that this packaging would somehow protect children by making them less likely to start smoking early."

Who's to say it won't dissuade children? I maybe thought I knew everything at 14 but I didn't really understand the risks I was taking. Here in France there are some particularly gruesome photo's of people suffering from all forms of cancer emblazened across 50% of the packaging. And I mean gruesome. Surely this is better than, for example, a nice golden shining packet of Benson's?

To say that younger people are not guided by the packaging of the cigarettes as a fashion statement is a pure falsehood.

"The point stands that this legislation artificially devalued a company's assets and those companies have a legitimate claim against the Australian government to recover those damages. If you don't care don't comment, I'm just bringing up the point."

And I repeat, who cares about their devalued company assets? They're selling poison. Slow, painful deaths. They should be contented they're allowed to exist and be a super-sonic source of tax cash-cow for every government on the planet.

In some cases, like up until recently in Germany at least, the marketing was specifically destined to attract young smokers. This behaviour is irresponsible and downright evil IMO.

The government of Australia may be single-handedly bringing back the genteel cigarette case. Buy the smokes, transfer them to a slim, stylish case, toss the offending packet. Or better still, mail it to Health Minister Roxon.

No offence but that was back in the day wasn't it? ;-)

I'm still entitled to a little reminiscing now and again. True enough, if you said you were buying them for your parents they'd sell them to anybody.

For how long have the tobacco companies known they were selling a nigh on un-shakable addiction followed by death?

For a long time tobacco was hailed for it's supposed health benefits. My grandfather credited them for his long life. Now that it's out that tobacco is hazardous I place the responcibility squarely at the feet of the consumer. Some people handle addiction differently, I smoked a pack a day for years then I started smoking cigars, now I only smoke one or two a week. I don't intend to quit but I've never been tearing my hair out looking for a fix.

Surely this is better than, for example, a nice golden shining packet of Benson's?

The packaging may swing opinion from one brand of cigarette to another but I doubt anybody got into smoking for the pretty colors. When you open them up cigarettes are all the same with a few noteable exceptions. I bought marlboro's and that's just a red pack. I've actually seen smokers outside my work laughing and comparing packs to see who got the ugly teeth and who got the black lung.

And I repeat, who cares about their devalued company assets?

Stockholders and employees. I still own stock in some of those companies because despite the taxes and fines and negative advertising and all the education and press people still buy tobacco in such quantity that the companies turn a profit.

They should be contented they're allowed to exist and be a super-sonic source of tax cash-cow for every government on the planet.

Why? If a person want to buy it why should they be told they can't or be shouldered with a dispropotionate burden for their life choices? I like smoking, drinking, and other high risk endeavors. I've got a high deductible but that the price I pay for my lifestyle. Let people control what they consume.

No offence but that was back in the day wasn't it? ;-)

I'm still entitled to a little reminiscing now and again. True enough, if you said you were buying them for your parents they'd sell them to anybody.

For how long have the tobacco companies known they were selling a nigh on un-shakable addiction followed by death?

For a long time tobacco was hailed for it's supposed health benefits. My grandfather credited them for his long life. Now that it's out that tobacco is hazardous I place the responcibility squarely at the feet of the consumer. Some people handle addiction differently, I smoked a pack a day for years then I started smoking cigars, now I only smoke one or two a week. I don't intend to quit but I've never been tearing my hair out looking for a fix.

Surely this is better than, for example, a nice golden shining packet of Benson's?

The packaging may swing opinion from one brand of cigarette to another but I doubt anybody got into smoking for the pretty colors. When you open them up cigarettes are all the same with a few noteable exceptions. I bought marlboro's and that's just a red pack. I've actually seen smokers outside my work laughing and comparing packs to see who got the ugly teeth and who got the black lung.

The ad affects young people the most and they end up with 50 year addiction until R.I.P. The manner in which some tobacco companies advertise their cigarette brands has a major influence on young people. They give you the impression that smoking is sociable. Whatever the reason that a teenager has for starting to smoke, it is apparent that no matter how much you try to tell them that smoking is bad for you, a great number of them are going to try it anyway. Even if you don't smoke, the second hand smoke affects everybody. There is nothing good about cigarettes.

I think this is a wonderful idea. At the very least it is a great test case for other countries to consider. It may work nicely or fail dismally, but either way; other countries will be able to learn from Australia's experiences.

"Stockholders and employees. I still own stock in some of those companies because despite the taxes and fines and negative advertising and all the education and press people still buy tobacco in such quantity that the companies turn a profit."

Ahh, so we get to the nub of the matter. Other people's health be damned as long as you get a return on your investment.

"Why? If a person want to buy it why should they be told they can't or be shouldered with a dispropotionate burden for their life choices? I like smoking, drinking, and other high risk endeavors. I've got a high deductible but that the price I pay for my lifestyle. Let people control what they consume."

Then I assume if you have any consistency that you're for the legalization and taxation of other drugs that people want to do, too?

Ahh, so we get to the nub of the matter. Other people's health be damned as long as you get a return on your investment.

It's old man stock, consistent returns and it weathered the economic downturn well.

Then I assume if you have any consistency that you're for the legalization and taxation of other drugs that people want to do, too?

I always have been. The idea that a governing body has any authority to dictate what a person may or may not ingest is ridiculous. Billions have been wasted in drug wars and keeping users and dealers in prison. They've spawned a culture of crime and corruption across the world from the drug cartels in mexico to the gangs in every major city in the U.S and the poppy fields in the middle east.