Government to legislate for plain cigarette packaging this year

[Chippiewill]

Ministers are to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes along the Australian model with legislation this year, after becoming convinced that the branding is a key factor in why young people start to smoke.

The legislation, to be announced in the Queen's speech in May, is also expected to ban smoking in cars carrying anyone aged under 16 years. Ministers acknowledge that the ban is likely to be difficult for the police to enforce, but they believe peer group pressure will have an impact similar to the ban on drivers using mobile phones.

David Cameron referred to the possibility of introducing plain packaging last week, without putting a timetable on it. Ministers are convinced that the ban is necessary to take the next step to reduce smoking in the UK.

"We are going to follow what they have done in Australia. The evidence suggests it is going to deter young smokers. There is going to be legislation," said a senior Whitehall source said.

The move comes after a Lancet study of 19 countries found the UK falling down the health wellbeing league table. It found Britain's pace of decline in premature mortality has fallen well behind the average of 14 other original members of the European Union as well as Australia, Canada, Norway, and the United States over the past 20 years. A key reason was the durability of a range of public health issues, including diet, drink and drugs.

Smoking causes over 100,000 deaths every year in the UK and the Policy Exchange thinktank has estimated it costs society £14bn. Despite a massive reduction in the numbers smoking since the 1950s, it is still estimated that one in five British people smokes. There is already a complete ban on cigarette advertising, and in one of the Labour government's most controversial moves, smoking in public places was also banned. The 2009 Health Act ended open display of tobacco products, mainly in supermarkets, from April last year and will come into force for all other shops from April 2015.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...ette-packaging

A damn sensible change, I think, reducing opportunities for cigarette companies to brand their products should help lower rates of children beginning to smoke. Research has shown that plain packaging both reduces appeal of smoking and prevents smokers from believing that some brands are less harmful than others.

[dbgtz]

It will stop nothing. Infact all it will really do is save the tobacco companies some pennies as I assume it would cost them less to produce packaging & they wouldn't even need to pay someone to design it. An unneccesary intervention by the government.

[-:Undertaker:-]

More meddling, more patronising nannying. You would think the government would have more important things to concern itself with.

But you know, at least they're starting to be consistent - I mean, the Government is considering a 45p minimum tax on alcoholic units (which means the beginning of the end for cheap beers with the lads) and Iceland has become the first European country to start regulating or even banning internet pornography (yep, doubt that will be popular with younger lads). In New York, large soda bottles with pizza orders have been banned and salt has already been banned (no more cheap takeaway deals with friends or family with a cheap coke to wash it down with).

So cheer all you want, soon it'll be your freedoms they're coming for as I point out above. And for that, i'm laughing.

[Chippiewill]

More meddling, more patronising nannying. You would think the government would have more important things to concern itself with.

This is doesn't make sense. It'd be like saying we're not allowed any new legislation or parliament time spent on anything other than improving the economy. It's about prioritisation but just because some things are in a bad state doesn't mean everything else should be ignored.

So cheer all you want, soon it'll be your freedoms they're coming for as I point out above. And for that, i'm laughing.

This is the worst slippery slope argument I've ever seen.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This is doesn't make sense. It'd be like saying we're not allowed any new legislation or parliament time spent on anything other than improving the economy. It's about prioritisation but just because some things are in a bad state doesn't mean everything else should be ignored.

Your right, because actually even if parliament didn't have anything to do it's still none of their business.

To borrow the libertarian catchphrase, I wish we libertarians could take over the world and ... leave everyone alone.

This is the worst slippery slope argument I've ever seen.

But thats what will happen, as it as happened in New York. It started with the anti-smoking rules under the guise of health concerns, and now it's moving onto other areas such as foods (New York), pornography (Iceland) and alcohol over here.

Well done, but again it's funny - because people like you who support the anti-smoking moves start to have things you favour in your personal life (not making presumptions, but cheap booze and pornography?) and next you'll feel the wrath of the self righteous anti-booze and Christian/social conservative lobbies just as you had smokers feel your self righteous wrath regarding their little vice.

[Chippiewill]

Your right, because actually even if parliament didn't have anything to do it's still none of their business.

It's not their responsibility to improve the lifestyle of people who reside in their country by improving health, education, transportation etc?

But thats what will happen, as it as happened in New York. It started with the anti-smoking rules under the guise of health concerns, and now it's moving onto other areas such as foods (New York), pornography (Iceland) and alcohol over here.

Well done, but again it's funny - because people like you who support the anti-smoking moves start to have things you favour in your personal life (not making presumptions, but cheap booze and pornography?) and next you'll feel the wrath of the self righteous anti-booze and Christian/social conservative lobbies just as you had smokers feel your self righteous wrath regarding their little vice.

You can't deny all regulation in a field just because some regulation is negative. Not that most of what you're describing is even negative. For some reason I don't think it's a good think that it's possible to buy alcohol in tescos cheaper than water.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's not their responsibility to improve the lifestyle of people who reside in their country by improving health, education, transportation etc?

It isn't the job of the government to forcibly improve my health by intervening in a voluntary contract between retail outlet and the individual consumer, no. I don't think it's the job of the government to provide the others you listed either as the state generally can't run anything and the things it does run it runs very badly, but thats another kettle of fish for another time and place.

You can't deny all regulation in a field just because some regulation is negative. Not that most of what you're describing is even negative. For some reason I don't think it's a good think that it's possible to buy alcohol in tescos cheaper than water.

Yes it is, for the most part. If you are prepared to ban or restrict something on the grounds of health (which I don't think is the remit of government anyway, its my choice as a contract between individual and retail outlet) then you then open yourself up to banning all sorts of things on the grounds of health/the public good. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.

You'll see as this creeps in endlessly, that soon living in a country in the west will turn from a 'what can I not do' into a 'what am I allowed to do' - and thats the opposite of a free society, when your that restricted by a powerful state with its finger in every pie. For the public good, of course.

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” - Ayn Rand

And it is force, because by these laws you are advocating that anybody who sells or produces a cigarette case with pictures/a trademark pattern on it, will be arrested and taken to a court of law and most likely sentenced to prison - despite the fact that the product in question may actually be wanted by members of the general public. No harm is being done by force yet you're wanting the state to use force.

I find that scary, I find that sinister and I think its unacceptable.

[Chippiewill]

It isn't the job of the government to forcibly improve my health by intervening in a voluntary contract between retail outlet and the individual consumer, no. I don't think it's the job of the government to provide the others you listed either, but thats another kettle of fish.

No one's stopping you from buying cigarettes, you want cigarettes it's the same process as before. This merely, again, raises awareness of the dangers of smoking as is the job of the government through VARIOUS outlets and for various dangers.

Yes it is, for the most part. If you are prepared to ban or restrict something on the grounds of health (which I don't think is the remit of government anyway, its my choice as a contract between individual and retail outlet) then you then open yourself up to banning all sorts of things on the grounds of health/the public good. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.

You'll see as this creeps in endlessly, that soon living in a country in the west will turn from a 'what can I not do' into a 'what am I allowed to do' - and thats the opposite of a free society, when your that restricted by a powerful state with its finger in every pie. For the public good, of course.

It's still just a slippery slope argument you have here, just because it's gone one way in some situations doesn't mean it will go that way, particularly when there are cases when it has not. One example against this is the ban of tobacco advertising, following the various bans are we still allowed to advertise alcoholic beverages? Yes.

[Inseriousity.]

I'm not convinced tbh and would be interested in seeing this research. Do a pack of young smokers see a packet of cigarettes and think it's cool because of its fancy colours and branding or because their friends are doing it? If the latter it wouldn't really matter and I'm fairly certain they get whatever they can get their hands on (although having never been part of this clique, can't say for certain).

[-:Undertaker:-]

No one's stopping you from buying cigarettes, you want cigarettes it's the same process as before. This merely, again, raises awareness of the dangers of smoking as is the job of the government through VARIOUS outlets and for various dangers.

No, you are stopping me from buying a packet of cigarettes with a picture/pattern/logo printed on it. That is government interference in the market. If I so desperately want to buy a packet of cigarettes that has a pattern printed on it, and a producer happens to want to supply them to me - then in a free society I should be able to do so. It's a voluntary contract between two peoples, its none of your business or that of the state.

You may find my want to buy a pretty cigarette packet strange, just as you may find smoking to be stupid (as I do) - but the fact that people want to buy cigarettes or pretty cigarette packets/people want to produce them isn't any of our business. Don't like then don't buy is exactly what I do.

It's still just a slippery slope argument you have here, just because it's gone one way in some situations doesn't mean it will go that way, particularly when there are cases when it has not. One example against this is the ban of tobacco advertising, following the various bans are we still allowed to advertise alcoholic beverages? Yes.

It's happening before our eyes as with the examples i've provided for you, wake up.