Where the words "Brand Variant" appear will be the makers identifier.
The gross Duck shit green will be the same on every packet. There will be no brand colours such as light mint green or alpine white for menthol ciggies, or mid blue for medium tarred cigs.
I expect a large lawsuit by tobacco companies develop in Australia.
First they came for the cigarettes, and i remained silent because I was not a smoker...
To tell the truth, it's crap like this that makes me want to take up smoking; it must be something damn good if "they" go to these lengths to discourage it.
Big RR wrote:it must be something damn good if "they" go to these lengths to discourage it.
Yeah, it's damn good, in roughly the same way that heroin or meth is damn good. Except the emphysema/heart disease/vascular disease/lung cancer kills you a lot slower than the overdose/aneurysm and costs Medicare/Medicaid a whole lot more.
"Blindness? No I wanted 20 erectile dysfunction. King size"
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Sue--OK, but if it's so clear, why focus on emotionally charged scare tactics? I guess they see people as sheep who will respond with the desired behavior to the correct stimulus. After all, they should make the decision out of fear, not of reason, right?
Big RR wrote:Sue--OK, but if it's so clear, why focus on emotionally charged scare tactics? I guess they see people as sheep who will respond with the desired behavior to the correct stimulus. After all, they should make the decision out of fear, not of reason, right?
Well if the only way the decision can be made is out of fear and emotion after blatant manipulation, perhaps it's not the right decision to make. In another thread people have been criticizing (and rightly so) over-aggressive religious indoctrination, is this crap any different?
Why is a blunt presentation of the actual consequences of smoking any more a "manipulation" than a blunt presentation of the actual consequences of drunk driving, or carelessness with fire, or any other demonstrably hazardous activity?
MajGenl.Meade wrote:"Blindness? No I wanted 20 erectile dysfunction. King size"
ROTFLMCO!!
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Big RR cigarette companies have been using blatant manipulation of consumers for years. This new packaging removes any glamour associated with the product and puts the consequences of a smokers decision right upfront.
From the Federal Health Minister:
Health Minister Nicola Roxon will today release the draft legislation for the plan which, if successful, will be phased in from January next year.
She will also unveil a mock-up of the proposed packaging.
Ms Roxon told ABC TV's Lateline if the legislation is passed, health warnings and graphic pictures depicting the dangers of smoking will make up the majority of the "olive green" packaging.
"We've done a lot of research to ensure that we make the cigarette packs as unattractive as possible," she said.
"Apparently dark olive is the least attractive colour - olive green - for any smokers and particularly for young people.
"That'll form the base. There'll be graphic warnings on the front and back - 90 per cent of the back of the pack and about 75 per cent of the front of the pack and we're updating the graphic warnings as well."
Ms Roxon says brand names will have to be in a standard font and size.
"We know that tobacco companies spend millions and millions of dollars researching what their logos should look like, what colours they should use, if they emboss the packets or not," she said.
"We're taking all of that away because we want to make sure that every last bit of glamour that there might be in smoking is removed.
"We've drafted the legislation to make it clear that every tobacco product will be covered by this. We've [also] taken very clear steps to restrict that they can't put the logo on the cigarette itself."
Hen and Sue,you can defend it, but I still think it's wrong. After all, one doesn't see a drunk driving accident photo on a bottle of scotch or a diabetic having his leg amputated on a candy bar. Is the answer to the manipulation of the cigarette companies to replace it with government sanctioned manipulation? I don't think so, nor do I think the government should have the right to reqire cigarette companies to make their packaging as unattractive as possible. I also question the effectiveness, and wonder how many people will be pushed toward smoking by this blatant government sanctioned manipulation/propaganda; I think a lot may say "They can't tell me what to do with that childish fear campaign."
Again, I believe an appeal to reason is far better manipulation, and I would oppose such legislation here.
How about any legal or perceived "right" to brand one's legal product differently to another similar product to differentiate in a competitive market place? The small space (and location) of the Brand Variant box seems to indicate an unwarranted intrusion into a free market (ha ha). Or is that taken care of on the other side of the pack? What's on the back - the normal branding colours/images?
As a smoker who has not smoked since Dec 11 2001, I think I'd prefer a total ban on tobacco products. They are evil and have no excuse whatsoever to exist. Perhaps a prescription?
Meade
PS and I did NOT give permission for that middle image to be used! Who'd I sue?
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Well Meade, we know how well bans on street drugs work, and how theban on the sale of alcohol worked in the early 20th century; do you really think a ban on tobacco products would produce different results?
I prefer to educate people and let them make their own decisions, right or wrong, but I think some would characterize it as too much freedom.
A ban would accomplish nothing except to line the pockets of organized criminals, but it needs to be said that tobacco would never get approved for human consumption today.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
Big RR wrote:it must be something damn good if "they" go to these lengths to discourage it.
Yeah, it's damn good, in roughly the same way that heroin or meth is damn good. Except the emphysema/heart disease/vascular disease/lung cancer kills you a lot slower than the overdose/aneurysm and costs Medicare/Medicaid a whole lot more.
Tobacco is more addictive than any of the above. The percentage of users who become addicted to tobacco is higher than that of heroin.
Scooter wrote:A ban would accomplish nothing except to line the pockets of organized criminals, but it needs to be said that tobacco would never get approved for human consumption today.
You're probably right, but who needs government approval, they would smoke/use it anyway. Pot is not approved for human consumption, nor is heroin, and we see how effective that condemnation, and the laws prohibiting distribution, are. People will do what they want to do and will not seek government approval before they start. And if they want to be stupid, wel IMHO it's one of their inalienable rights.
When I was a kid, I'd have bought packs of cigarettes like that just for the box. Then again, I might not have been typical.
However, if I were Gob & Hen, I'd be getting into marketing cigarette boxes and/or "cigarette box skins". If they sell anything like iPod & iPhone skins, you'll be rich!!
