Government to legislate for plain cigarette packaging this year

[MKR&*42]

I would have thought the current images of diseases that can supposedly be caused by smoking too much, on cigarette packets would have had a much worse effect than plain packaging?

Either way, I personally wouldn't expect a massive difference.

[Chippiewill]

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.

In a free society yes. But in a free society I also have the right to give highly dangerous drugs to small children presented as sweets. Someone has to take responsibility and I suggest that it should be the government.

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

You don't have a correlation to prove it. Let alone a slope.

[-:Undertaker:-]

In a free society yes. But in a free society I also have the right to give highly dangerous drugs to small children presented as sweets. Someone has to take responsibility and I suggest that it should be the government.

Then you totally misunderstand what a free society would operate like.

1) Children are not adults and therefore don't have the same consumer rights or choice as adults, and nor should they.
2) Selling a drug disguised as a sweet to a child or even an adult in a free society would be taken up legit in the courts, as you are falsely advertising/committing fraud against the consumer as to what you are selling - and in a free society the role of the government is to administer those courts where disputes such as that are settled.

I suggest a night of watching Friedman videos and you'll get the grasp of it.

You don't have a correlation to prove it. Let alone a slope.

The same occured with gay marriage when civil partnerships were brought in and the same has occured in New York where Mayor Bloomberg has steadily gone on a rampage regarding public health and fatty foods/sugary drinks. The same has happened here with cigarettes where it's gone from a ban on advertisements, to a smoking ban in private places, to a silly health warning forcibly printed on the front and now it's being extended to this.

I'm not desperate to prove it to you anyway, as the evidence is there (as I provided earlier) if you want to open your eyes and actually look at what is happening. Either way, as government grows and state meddling grows, you personally will end up losing some of your rights and the right to enjoy certain vices and thats maybe the day you'll realise just how wrong you were to have the state act as God on your behalf.

Heavier internet regulation will probably do the trick with certain people on here, and i'll be laughing from the sidelines.

[Chippiewill]

1) Children are not adults and therefore don't have the same consumer rights or choice as adults, and nor should they.

Amazingly arbitrary, I turn 18 and I magically gain consumer rights? Why?

2) Selling a drug disguised as a sweet to a child or even an adult in a free society would be taken up legit in the courts, as you are falsely advertising/committing fraud against the consumer as to what you are selling - and in a free society the role of the government is to administer those courts where disputes such as that are settled.

This is exactly what's happening, a detachment from reality is occurring due to branding and as a status symbol (Again coming from branding) which doesn't present cigarettes to young, easily influenced people as the dangerous drug it really is. It may not be a literal sweet but the short-term effects of smoking are certainly similar.

The same occured with gay marriage when civil partnerships were brought in and the same has occured in New York where Mayor Bloomberg has steadily gone on a rampage regarding public health and fatty foods/sugary drinks. The same has happened here with cigarettes where it's gone from a ban on advertisements, to a smoking ban in private places, to a silly health warning forcibly printed on the front and now it's being extended to this.

I'm not desperate to prove it to you anyway, as the evidence is there (as I provided earlier) if you want to open your eyes and actually look at what is happening. Either way, as government grows and state meddling grows, you personally will end up losing some of your rights and the right to enjoy certain vices and thats maybe the day you'll realise just how wrong you were to have the state act as God on your behalf.

Heavier internet regulation will probably do the trick with certain people on here, and i'll be laughing from the sidelines.

At the same time in a lot of cases following legislation I'm NOT losing additional rights, and in some cases I'm gaining rights. It's not a matter of opening my eyes it's a matter of determining where I want to draw my line.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Amazingly arbitrary, I turn 18 and I magically gain consumer rights? Why?

Because there needs to be a definition between adults and children just as there exist definitions between the sane and the insane - for the reasons that we understand that children and the insane are unable to take rational decisions for themselves and thus that is an area where the state can and ought to step in. Now you can argue about the age limit of course, but thats another debate.

You seem to have the misunderstanding (as shown in your previous post) the libertarianism and the notion of a free society is the ideology of anarchy. It is not. Again, I suggest more research before making the crossover in what are two very different ideologies.

This is exactly what's happening, a detachment from reality is occurring due to branding and as a status symbol (Again coming from branding) which doesn't present cigarettes to young, easily influenced people as the dangerous drug it really is. It may not be a literal sweet but the short-term effects of smoking are certainly similar.

No it isn't, completely different and you know it. Whats happening here is that a product that is illegal to children anyway (and rightly, see above) is now being meddled with by the state when it can only be legally sold to adults. If the issue was children smoking, then the state would act in enforcing its rules concerning that law rather than restricting the freedoms of adults who do have the legal right to buy this product.

At the same time in a lot of cases following legislation I'm NOT losing additional rights, and in some cases I'm gaining rights. It's not a matter of opening my eyes it's a matter of determining where I want to draw my line.

What about my line and the lines of others? with more legislation you are always less free as you are free to do less even if you didn't want to do it in the first place. I don't smoke, yet i'm having my freedom de facto restricted by anti-smoking legislation.

The more laws a country has, the less free it is. Period.

[Chippiewill]

rather than restricting the freedoms of adults who do have the legal right to buy this product.

What freedom has been restricted here. Ask any smoker.. they don't care because the packaging does nothing for them. It merely influences non-smokers who might potentially become smokers into avoiding making a bad decision, it doesn't stop them it advises them.

What about my line and the lines of others? with more legislation you are always less free as you are free to do less even if you didn't want to do it in the first place. I don't smoke, yet i'm having my freedom de facto restricted by anti-smoking legislation.

Not everyone's line can be respected, to respect everyone's line would be to have a country without laws.

The more laws a country has, the less free it is. Period.

This is dumb and you know it. A lawless country isn't free, a lawless country means you're fearing for your life because clans and fighting are going on outside over the sudden loss of infrastructure.

[GommeInc]

I don't understand how the Bensons and Hedsons(?) packaging can be considered cool, it's just gold or silver with a red ribbon, the same goes for Marlboro. Infact, cigarette packing is pretty bland as it is, and children, teenagers, adults and the elderly have very few opportunities to see cigarette boxes these days, seeing as they are a couple of inches behind a shutter. It seems a bit pointless. Popularity in smoking is going down and down.

[Chippiewill]

I don't understand how the Bensons and Hedsons(?) packaging can be considered cool, it's just gold or silver with a red ribbon, the same goes for Marlboro. Infact, cigarette packing is pretty bland as it is, and children, teenagers, adults and the elderly have very few opportunities to see cigarette boxes these days, seeing as they are a couple of inches behind a shutter. It seems a bit pointless.

Apparently it's been incredibly effective in Australia.

[GommeInc]

Apparently it's been incredibly effective in Australia.

Didn't Australia jump straight into plain packaging? We made them more expensive, then made them state diseases and illnesses, then had pictures of rotten teeth, tar filled lungs and so forth, then we hid them from view. It seems like plain packaging is late to the party and a bit unnecessary Might make a difference, but smoking has been going down hill for a while so it will have to make a huge difference to prove it's done something.