Australia to ban cigarette logos [AJ]

[AndromedasWake]

I wonder LoR, what say you to this...?

 

[Netheralian]

Can't say I have a problem with it - it won't stop current smokers from smoking, but that's not the intention. Freedom of choice is not being infringed but it is hopefully reducing the appeal of cigarettes from the sector of the population that isn't that good at making entirely rational choices towards a fundamentally unhealthy product.

IMO the government has a duty of care towards its population to reduce the incidence of smoking without specifically restricting choice. Which is exactly what it is doing.

 

[WarK]

A very interesting idea, to disconnect the habit from a brand. Now all the smokers will basically smoke the same thing, not that they used to smoke different things, it's just they came in different looking packs Seems like advertising won't make any sense now.

I'm quite surprised how strong the reaction of tobacco companies was, usually they seem to do such things quietly, trying not to draw too much attention.

 

[Squawk]

Smoking, and the debate on the right to smoke, has always been a real issue for me. The right to personal freedom vs the health of the nation. Why do we want to prevent people from doing whatever it is to their body. Two reasons are immediately apparent, protection of the individual by the state, and protection of 3rd parties from the individual.

Protection of the individual cannot really be considered. If it was, alcohol would have to be banned, mcdonalds and fizzy drinks would have to be banned and so on and so forth. So, we're looking at protection of third parties.

To that end I advocate a ban on smoking in public places. Always have, I hate smoking. Forget health concerns for a moment, if I stand next to a smoker for 2 minutes I stink for the rest of the day, that damn stuff hangs in your clothes, your hair, everywhere.

And so, to branding. I don't think it makes a difference. I don't care about the person smoking, just the 3rd party. The people you have to aim propoganda at are those that don't already smoke, and brand recognition ain't gonna be affected for those people. Much better to put money into education IMO.

 

[kenandkids]

Smoking, and the debate on the right to smoke, has always been a real issue for me. The right to personal freedom vs the health of the nation. Why do we want to prevent people from doing whatever it is to their body. Two reasons are immediately apparent, protection of the individual by the state, and protection of 3rd parties from the individual.

Protection of the individual cannot really be considered. If it was, alcohol would have to be banned, mcdonalds and fizzy drinks would have to be banned and so on and so forth. So, we're looking at protection of third parties.

To that end I advocate a ban on smoking in public places. Always have, I hate smoking. Forget health concerns for a moment, if I stand next to a smoker for 2 minutes I stink for the rest of the day, that damn stuff hangs in your clothes, your hair, everywhere.

And so, to branding. I don't think it makes a difference. I don't care about the person smoking, just the 3rd party. The people you have to aim propoganda at are those that don't already smoke, and brand recognition ain't gonna be affected for those people. Much better to put money into education IMO.

Well said, but do the companies have a right to brand recognition? They spend the money, harvest the crops, make the product, and then no one will know who made it?

As a smoker, I'm not even sure why this product is legal. If someone invented a "sipping bleach" they would be shut down. This product tobacco, when used correctly, has only two effects: A shortened lifespan and likelyhood of disease.

 

[MRaverz]

My view on smoking and other similar harmful substances is simple. The government has a duty to protect it's citizens from their own ignorance, as such they should simply be banned from being sold.

 

[kenandkids]

My view on smoking and other similar harmful substances is simple. The government has a duty to protect it's citizens from their own ignorance, as such they should simply be banned from being sold.

But then we run into the issue of drug prohibition wherein the government just decides that it would be nice to make something illegal and declare it to have no positive effects. I'm inclined to this argument personally, but it would need to be restructured, as in my example of marketing sippable bleach would be banned. In other words, proof would have to be gathered that there is no positive side effect and previous studies WILL be thrown out by Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, and ilk on behalf of their corporate sponsors (in America at least...).

 

[Netheralian]

Protection of the individual cannot really be considered. If it was, alcohol would have to be banned, mcdonalds and fizzy drinks would have to be banned and so on and so forth. So, we're looking at protection of third parties.

To that end I advocate a ban on smoking in public places. Always have, I hate smoking. Forget health concerns for a moment, if I stand next to a smoker for 2 minutes I stink for the rest of the day, that damn stuff hangs in your clothes, your hair, everywhere.

This is only a first order protection of third parties - what about 2nd order costs, ie public healthcare etc? I've heard the taxes on smoking well and truly covers this although I have no idea of the authenticity of that statement. I assume there are other social costs as well, the least of which it the rubbish smokers leave laying around pretty much everywhere and seem to have no restriction wrt biodegradability.

However, I agree with you wrt public places (and private homes and cars with minors).

 

[Yfelsung]

One should be free to put whatever they want in their body.

On the other hand, one should also be free to not put stuff in their body.

So smoke all you want, just do it the fuck away from me.

Human ignorance is one of the only filters the genepool has left, let's not legislate that away.

 

[Lallapalalable]

Seems like advertising won't make any sense now.

"Choose our 'Lung Cancer' brand cigarettes; they boast a taste that 'Emphazeema' cant compare to!"

 

[Independent Vision]

I don't like it.

Look, people aren't going to stop smoking, all it might do is leave room open for lesser and cheaper brands to get into the market unnoticed and make smoking a cheaper habit all around.
What it WILL do is make sure some graphic designers lose out on jobs. But I suppose that is something not a lot of people think about.

So, plain packaging will, most likely, have no impact on people's smoking habits but it WILL take a portion of graphic design jobs off the market for no other reason than the government deluding themselves into thinking they're doing something good.
Who the hell thinks people smoke cigarettes to have a flashy package to show people anyway? Especially these days with the ugly-ass pictures on them.

I do see an upswing in sales for cigarette cases, though.

 

[Squawk]

It would certainly be interesting to see what reasons they have for doing this. Presumably someone somewhere has conducted research into brand recognition and it's impact on cigarette sales. It would be interesting to read any studies on the matter, and to note if any government has actually read and acted upon a study rather than relying upon "common sense", which I have put in quote marks for a reason.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

I don't know what impact it will have or if any study has been done. There was a documentary on tv here about this a while ago but I was only half watching. It was supposed to discourage first usage of cigarettes and light smokers who only smoke 2 or 3 times in a week. I personally don't like it. What is the next step? Put clogged up arteries and overly obese people on junk food packages. This is just another example of the government trying to control peoples lives too much. If people want to smoke they should be allowed to. I know people who smoke and they say they want to do it whatever the risks might be.

 

[WarK]

Poor graphic designers :roll:

I thought the point of tobacco companies was that they've already spent loads of money on their graphic design, or do they have to redesign the design weekly?

You think this won't make any impact? Then why tobacco companies spend so much money on brand promotion?

 

[Netheralian]

If people want to smoke they should be allowed to. I know people who smoke and they say they want to do it whatever the risks might be.

Clearly I missed the bit where they said that people aren't allowed to smoke...

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

If people want to smoke they should be allowed to. I know people who smoke and they say they want to do it whatever the risks might be.

Clearly I missed the bit where they said that people aren't allowed to smoke...

This is more a generalized statement. And I think the next step to this is that the government will try and ban smoking.

 

[Netheralian]

This is more a generalized statement. And I think the next step to this is that the government will try and ban smoking.

Slippery slope now? I'm sure we can discuss it in detail when it happens (and I'll be with you in opposing it), but for the time being the only change is the packaging.

 

[Independent Vision]

Poor graphic designers :roll:

I thought the point of tobacco companies was that they've already spent loads of money on their graphic design, or do they have to redesign the design weekly?

You think this won't make any impact? Then why tobacco companies spend so much money on brand promotion?

No, but they run limited edition packs and make "new and improved" packaging quite often, at least here.

Tobacco companies spend so much money on brand promotion to keep the smokers smoking their brand, not to keep smokers smoking in general. With plain packaging what it will do is remove the one venue cigarette brands have for promoting their brand and make cheaper brands more prevalent.

Now, I'm all for getting people to stop smoking, although I would like to see that being done via e-cigarettes and other incentives than moves like these. It's not going to make people smoke less. It might discourage new smokers, which it probably won't in the long run either. Kids will be kids. What it does is even the playing field for the smaller brands, I suppose. Which I don't see how it will help getting people to quit smoking. It will open the market for smaller companies who sell their tobacco cheaper though, because self promotion and package design is pricey, and now they can forgo all that and just waltz right in.

Yes, poor graphic designers. Making moves to cut down job positions in an economy where you're trying to force more people out into work is never a smart move.

*shrugs* I don't care either way, personally. I just think it's a stupid ass move.

 

[Lallapalalable]

[Replying to Wark about graphic designers and brand promotion]

Will they be using stock medical photos? Otherwise I see a small ledge of designers still clinging to a job in picking and editing the right photos so they meet legal requirements yet somehow make brand A more appealing than brand B. I do agree that its stupid, and a decent number of people will lose their jobs for something that may not have a large enough impact to justify it, but frankly Im too curious to see what happens now to want it to be overturned.

Also, if the cheaper brands do become prevailent, the market may fall and the habbit will become cheaper overall, so... yay? (I smoke btw, so thats my perspective)

 

[Nemesiah]

Poor graphic designers :roll:

I thought the point of tobacco companies was that they've already spent loads of money on their graphic design, or do they have to redesign the design weekly?

You think this won't make any impact? Then why tobacco companies spend so much money on brand promotion?

No, but they run limited edition packs and make "new and improved" packaging quite often, at least here.

Tobacco companies spend so much money on brand promotion to keep the smokers smoking their brand, not to keep smokers smoking in general. With plain packaging what it will do is remove the one venue cigarette brands have for promoting their brand and make cheaper brands more prevalent.

Now, I'm all for getting people to stop smoking, although I would like to see that being done via e-cigarettes and other incentives than moves like these. It's not going to make people smoke less. It might discourage new smokers, which it probably won't in the long run either. Kids will be kids. What it does is even the playing field for the smaller brands, I suppose. Which I don't see how it will help getting people to quit smoking. It will open the market for smaller companies who sell their tobacco cheaper though, because self promotion and package design is pricey, and now they can forgo all that and just waltz right in.

Yes, poor graphic designers. Making moves to cut down job positions in an economy where you're trying to force more people out into work is never a smart move.

*shrugs* I don't care either way, personally. I just think it's a stupid ass move.

I'm a licensed graphic designer, I stoped designing on acount of not being very good at it and also for having HUGE moral issues with advertising (a very big part of Graphic designer's clients).

In the end I believe that if, a graphic designer is whoring him /herself in the tobaco industry and looses his job so less people die horrible deaths then though! I feel zero pitty for them, lets hope they find a less harmfull way of making a living.

I believe in resposability and the graphic designer putting the cigarret in the lips of the sexy chick on the add so some idiot 16 yearold starts smoking is as Bill Hicks said it "satan's little helper"

I have as of now been tobacco free for 11 years, Thankyou Chesus! and I can tell you that those that influenced me to start smoking (including a cousin and my own mother) are in some amout acounltable for some of my health problems.

Now, Those fuckers putting the cigarrette in the adds (specially the son of a whore that came up with "chocolate cigarrettes for kids") that actually make money from selling an adictive poisonous drug deserve going out of business.

Smoking should disapear from the face of this planet, and if this is the way to do it then I'm okay with it.