[theonefrombrum]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...packaging.html

Does anyone else think the JTI managing director isn't at all worried about 'commercial vandalism' but is instead concerned that plain packaging could actually harm his industry? He says that the introduction of plain packaging wont affect sales at all..... why spend £2 million pounds campaigning against it then? All in all i think that he's worried that sales will fall and is trying to play the 'state has too much power, will set bad precedent card', which is complete BS. There's few other industries in which decisions like this would need to be made and his hyperbole just doesn't cut it with me.

[Top Banana]

Of course thats the reason. The fancy packaging is just a marketing ploy used by the tobacco companies...

[Darth Stewie]

They are worried that the government are attacking their product unfairly despite a lack of evidence supporting the idea which will effect their sales and market. All companies are worried that their sales will fall and no one in that article made any kind of claim that their objections were not based of financial concerns, the commercial vandalism they are referring is an effort to make their product ugly which will directly effect their sales and i agree with them. The anti-smoking lobby is heavily funded by the producers of stop smoking medication and they clearly have presented their views and were heavily involved in the development of this idea. Mr Southgate has raised concerns that the government have already made up their mind without any real evidence and are taking a hugely bias stance against the entire tobacco industry.

The principle of this plan is to prevent cigarettes looking "attractive" to kids, there is not a shred of actual evidence changing the packaging will do this and will instead just make the packages ugly and hard to distinguish.

[Joinedup]

Had a friend over from germany a few weeks ago... He was astonished that supermarkets are required to screen tobacco off so the customers can't see it. This nanny state meddling has gone far enough imo, we're becoming an international laughing stock with these silly laws. Right now Parliament should stftu and fix the economy.

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
They are worried that the government are attacking their product unfairly despite a lack of evidence supporting the idea which will effect their sales and market. All companies are worried that their sales will fall and no one in that article made any kind of claim that their objections were not based of financial concerns, the commercial vandalism they are referring is an effort to make their product ugly which will directly effect their sales and i agree with them. The anti-smoking lobby is heavily funded by the producers of stop smoking medication and they clearly have presented their views and were heavily involved in the development of this idea. Mr Southgate has raised concerns that the government have already made up their mind without any real evidence and are taking a hugely bias stance against the entire tobacco industry.

The principle of this plan is to prevent cigarettes looking "attractive" to kids, there is not a shred of actual evidence changing the packaging will do this and will instead just make the packages ugly and hard to distinguish.

If you read the article then you would have seen that he clearly states that he believes that the plain packaging will not reduce overall smoking levels and so from that you can infer that he's implicitly claiming that sales won't fall, therefore their finances will remain largely the same.

Like I said, if he truly believed that his company's profits won't fall then he wouldn't have spent £2 million pounds campaigning against it, no managing director has time to do that just because they care about company rights or are worried about counterfeit sales of cigarettes increasing (one of the most ridiculously nonsensical things I've ever read).

[Unknown?]

Are they going to do the same thing to alcohol any time?

[rich2606]

The point is that OVERALL tobacco sales are unlikely to fall, but the market share of individual firms within the industry may fall if they can't distinguish their product from that of their competitors.

Take Malboro for instance. They are one of, if not the largest cigarette companies and they have a very distinctive packaging. If you are just starting out smoking for the first time, or if your preferred brand is out of stock or something, then you are more likely to choose that particular brand as their name/logo and packaging are most recognisable to you and you have few other factors to go on when making your choice (other than maybe price). Therefore they have everything to lose if they can no longer use brand recognition to maximise the likelihood that when people choose to smoke, they choose their brand of cigarettes.

[Darth Stewie]

(Original post by theonefrombrum)
If you read the article then you would have seen that he clearly states that he believes that the plain packaging will not reduce overall smoking levels and so from that you can infer that he's implicitly claiming that sales won't fall, therefore their finances will remain largely the same.

Like I said, if he truly believed that his company's profits won't fall then he wouldn't have spent £2 million pounds campaigning against it, no managing director has time to do that just because they care about company rights or are worried about counterfeit sales of cigarettes increasing (one of the most ridiculously nonsensical things I've ever read).

No, he said it wont reduce overall smoking levels because the illegal distribution of tobacco may increase which would in turn negatively effect not only their sales but also the massive amount of tax which we gain from the legal sale of tobacco. He is concerned his sales will fall, hence why JTI have spent 2 million on their campaign against the changes.

According to the NHS counterfeit cigarettes already cost us £2.9 billion a year in lost revenue and it is a crime that is rapidly increasing in size. It may well not increase the number of counterfeits and it might decrease the appeal of cigarettes to children however currently there is no where near enough evidence to support this change which could have very negative effects not just on the tobacco industry but on the entire UK.

[idontthinkso]

The government should stop meddling in people's lives.

[Guy Secretan]

Definate nanny state alert, they have warnings on the packet they are screened off etc if you still choose to smoke then that is your choice in a supposedly free country.

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
No, he said it wont reduce overall smoking levels because the illegal distribution of tobacco may increase which would in turn negatively effect not only their sales but also the massive amount of tax which we gain from the legal sale of tobacco. He is concerned his sales will fall, hence why JTI have spent 2 million on their campaign against the changes.

According to the NHS conterfiet cigretts already cost us £2.9 billion a year in lost revenue and it is a crime that is rapidly increasing in size . It may well not increase the number of counterfeits and it might decrease the appeal of cigarettes to children however currently there is no where near enough evidence to support this change which could have very negative effects not just on the tobacco industry but on the entire UK.

Why on EARTH would plain packaging drive people to counterfeit cigarettes? It's such an illogical thing to even think, yet alone claim in a syndicated publication. It's absurd **** like this and people like you who accept that anything written in a paper, or said by an authority figureis true that really irritates me. He's banging on about evidence and how much of a ore requisite it is before making a definite conclusion, well..... where's the evidence that suggests that people will turn to counterfeit cigarettes?

Please do me a favour and learn not to accept bby default everything that you read, it can lead to false and inaccurate claims and in your case has, in the form of your two posts.

[rich2606]

(Original post by theonefrombrum)
Why on EARTH would plain packaging drive people to counterfeit cigarettes?

They will be substantially easier to fake well and pass off as the real thing?

[Martyn*]

Ken Clark must be infuriated by this.

[Darth Stewie]

(Original post by theonefrombrum)
Why on EARTH would plain packaging drive people to counterfeit cigarettes? It's such an illogical thing to even think, yet alone claim in a syndicated publication. It's absurd **** like this and people like you who accept that anything written in a paper, or said by an authority figureis true that really irritates me. He's banging on about evidence and how much of a ore requisite it is before making a definite conclusion, well..... where's the evidence that suggests that people will turn to counterfeit cigarettes?

Please do me a favour and learn not to accept bby default everything that you read, it can lead to false and inaccurate claims and in your case has, in the form of your two posts.

If someone suggests a change it is up to them to provide evidence that the change will be for the better, introducing a plan to reduce the appeal of cigarettes to children without any evidence whatsoever that this change will actually reduce the appeal of cigarettes to children. I'm sure they will provide evidence of their claims, the concerns he has voiced are to do with the government apparently taking extreme bias towards one side without even listening to their side of the argument.

What exactly is inaccurate? Please provide sources and evidence and i will happily make changes to anything i have incorrectly stated.

[Algorithm69]

The article specifically states that JTI is worried about the precedent this will set. They are forward-thinking, they know they have to spend the resources to defeat this proposal or the government will simply not stop, and will apply more and more regulations that will cost the industry more and more revenue as government initiatives fail and fail to achieve their goals.

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by rich2606)
They will be substantially easier to fake well and pass off as the real thing?

Not really, they'll still have to be sold through ways which aren't retail and so it won't be pretty hard to figure out that the greasy haired guy selling you the plain packaged fags out of his car and looking around for police is peddling counterfeit cigarettes.

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
If someone suggests a change it is up to them to provide evidence that the change will be for the better, introducing a plan to reduce the appeal of cigarettes to children without any evidence whatsoever that this change will actually reduce the appeal of cigarettes to children. I'm sure they will provide evidence of their claims, the concerns he has voiced are to do with the government apparently taking extreme bias towards one side without even listening to their side of the argument.

What exactly is inaccurate? Please provide sources and evidence and i will happily make changes to anything i have incorrectly stated.

They have no legitimate argument and so there's nothing to listen to. I know, why don't we appeal to the general public's current state of resentment and ill feeling towards the Government by using words like 'commercial vandalism' and paint them out to be an entity which freely takes away liberties. It's complete BS and I'm genuinely sad that you can't see that. When has the Government ever intervened before in an industry and negatively impacted its sale without enacting some form of positive change in society?

Your inaccuracy centres around you regurgitating the absurd claim that plain packaging will increase sales of counterfeit cigarettes. I now want you to tell me why they will, if you could?

If you can answer both of those questions then I will admit that I'm wrong but you won't because you can't.

(Original post by Algorithm69)
The article specifically states that JTI is worried about the precedent this will set. They are forward-thinking, they know they have to spend the resources to defeat this proposal or the government will simply not stop, and will apply more and more regulations that will cost the industry more and more revenue as government initiatives fail and fail to achieve their goals.

oh yeahhhhhhh, because intervening and setting out regulations which could be positive is such a bad precedent to set. FFS, the Government isn't a malelovent tyrant intent on ruining industries and inteferring, when will people stop with their ridiculous, media fed anti Government ****. They aren't nearly as bad as you or a lot of other people make out; stop looking for something to blame for society's or your own problems.

[Darth Stewie]

(Original post by theonefrombrum)
They have no legitimate argument and so there's nothing to listen to. I know, why don't we appeal to the general public's current state of resentment and ill feeling towards the Government by using words like 'commercial vandalism' and paint them out to be an entity which freely takes away liberties. It's complete BS and I'm genuinely sad that you can't see that. When has the Government ever intervened before in an industry and negatively impacted its sale without enacting some form of positive change in society?

The strength of their argument isn't in question as they have not had a chance to officially make it, using phrases that are likely to touch base with some people is a smart move in getting their concerns addressed. The big one that comes to mind is the whole forced work experience thing which basically turned people on unemployment benefits into slaves for private companies. People were forced to work over 16 hours a week in private companies without getting paid, doing this meant that large private companies didn't have to hire anyone for the work the unpaid people were doing and as a result saved money and basically spat in the face of minimum wage laws and smaller companies who were not "in" on the scheme. All of this was fully endorsed and paid for by our government until what was happening came to light and the companies abandoned ship. Was this in the best interest of society? The small businesses who had to hire people at minimum wage compared to the big ones who got free workers would certainly not think so.

I'm sure the government have the best intentions but unfortunately the people big businesses hire to convince politicians to do certain things are smarter, better paid, more cunning and have a considerable amount of funding at their disposal which is all the more reason why plans like this need to be questioned and evidence needs to be given for how exactly they will benefit society rather than some pharmaceutical companies bank balance.

Your inaccuracy centres around you regurgitating the absurd claim that plain packaging will increase sales of counterfeit cigarettes. I now want you to tell me why they will, if you could?

I'm not claiming anything, i don't know about the tobacco market and i make no claims that i do however the managing director of a leading tobacco company probably does and for the government to refuse to even listen to what they have to say on the matter is nothing short of moronic. This plan is to reduce the appeal of cigarettes to underage children, if the plan wont work there is no point in implementing it.

if i had to state the most obvious one however, making all packages such an easy to copy design will only encourage businesses who think they can get away with it, the link i posted above is from an independent watchdog who assert that a large amount of counterfeits are sold to people who don't know they are counterfeits, that could be at a corner shop, vending machine, news stand ect and if it is harder to tell the difference then it only encourages businesses to risk selling fakes for more money especially now as constant increases on tobacco tax have made the products very expensive.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Top Banana)
Of course thats the reason. The fancy packaging is just a marketing ploy used by the tobacco companies...

Really? i have yet to meet a smoker who started smoking because the packaging was pretty... They smoke the cigarettes they do for the flavour/nicotine not because they can flash a box at someone..

[Ray Bradbury]

(Original post by cl_steele)
Really? i have yet to meet a smoker who started smoking because the packaging was pretty... They smoke the cigarettes they do for the flavour/nicotine not because they can flash a box at someone..

I find the whole Tobacco industry arguments just bizarre.
Imagine if there was another product on the market, lets say a washing machine, that killed one in three of the people that bought it and left hundreds of thousands of other consumers in poor health. Do you think that it would be allowed to operate freely?
Then we come to the real reason they get away with it, tax.
The government a such hypocrites banging on , quite rightly , that smoking kills and blights lives throughout the land. Yet if they weren't getting a whopping cut of the profits from all this misery they would have banned the whole industry years ago.
The pool of customers should be running out as they lose 250,000 every year due to their product killing them off, but numbers are settling out. The real disgrace is that very few people start smoking aged 18. Most smokers start smoking in their early teens (ie children) and if the Government were determined to stop these kids starting smoking, as they could, the industry would be dead on its feet within a generation.
Instead they let each year a new crop of children become hooked to replace the 250,000 that have had a horrible early death.
You couldn't make it up.

[TitchTheAntiHero]

(Original post by Unknown?)
Are they going to do the same thing to alcohol any time?

this,
I'm sorry but why can you advertise alcohol on TV but not show tobacco products in the shop?
also, as a smoker I can say plain packaging will make no difference what so ever