[The_Mighty_Bush]

(Original post by RyanT)
Smokers...lol.

This will result in brands being harder to distinguish so they are forced to accept lower prices. This is a good thing for smokers. If only more branded commodities had to go the same way we would be looking at a significant knife in the chest to a) advertising industry and b) supernormal profits.

It is a very good measure and I hope it spreads into other industries.

I don't see the problem with the government mandating this change, they are there to represent society after all and yes, societies can decide on what their environments are like.

If the Tobacco brands are forced to accept lower prices, they will just protect their profits by making cheaper, lower-quality products.

This policy will do nothing to stop new smokers at all, it is simply another draconian nanny state policy that'll ruin the cigarette industry.

[TitchTheAntiHero]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
I hardly ever drink at all but I do know people who have a glass of wine with dinner every night.

I dont like much wine or beer, so thats probably why I couldn't imagine drinking everyday haha, plus it mustn't be cheap

[RyanT]

(Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
If the Tobacco brands are forced to accept lower prices, they will just protect their profits by making cheaper, lower-quality products.

I disagree here, advertising inflates the perceived value of the tobacco product. By developing a dissonance between the real and perceived value, the tobacco companies are able to produce lower-quality products then their prices suggest. The removal of this dissonance will lower the ability of these firms to overcharge for their products as brand loyalty is lowered. Firms that try to introduce a discrepancy between quality and price under the proposed regime will in fact be punished to a much greater degree then they will at present.

(Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
This policy will do nothing to stop new smokers at all, it is simply another draconian nanny state policy that'll ruin the cigarette industry.

You can't have your cake and eat it. Either it reduces smoking and that damages the industry or it doesn't reduce smoking, in which case you can't claim it will damage the industry.

Whilst I am sympathetic to your position on the nanny state, we must also keep in mind that the advertising agencies and marketing men are taking advantage of the human psyche in order to increase the prices of their goods. Thought manipulation for increased profits should be detested regardless of whether a state or a corporation is doing it. Speak of the nanny state, but never forget that nanny corporations are out there too.

[Ray Bradbury]

I suppose its a win win situation for the Government and the rest of society (non smokers )
They pay loads more tax and then die 10 yrs early, saving us loads on pensions and nursing home fees.
Light em up boys.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Ray Bradbury)
I suppose its a win win situation for the Government and the rest of society (non smokers )
They pay loads more tax and then die 10 yrs early, saving us loads on pensions and nursing home fees.
Light em up boys.

Yeah, but the tax they pay on it will probably be mainly used to cover the NHS costs for smoking related illnesses. Cancer treatment et al is very expensive!

[Alexander94]

(Original post by RyanT)
Smokers...lol.

This will result in brands being harder to distinguish so they are forced to accept lower prices. This is a good thing for smokers. If only more branded commodities had to go the same way we would be looking at a significant knife in the chest to a) advertising industry and b) supernormal profits.

Yet the covering of cigarettes in shops is letting them slowly raise the prices without consumers being able to have proper choice. I for one won't stand there and ask them to list the different brands and their prices...

[RyanT]

(Original post by Alexander94)
Yet the covering of cigarettes in shops is letting them slowly raise the prices without consumers being able to have proper choice. I for one won't stand there and ask them to list the different brands and their prices...

This is related to plain packaging, how?

[Maker]

The tobacco industry is the stupidest industry in the world. They all know their market and income in the developed countries are strinking and they are going after the developing countries but obviously, profits will be lower.

What they should do is to have a strategy to use their market share, profits and expertise to get out of tobacco and into growth areas like food and clothing.

[Alexander94]

(Original post by RyanT)
This is related to plain packaging, how?

More related to the point I quoted, the two will probably even out, plain packaging is unlikely to lower the price enough to counter lack of information, it wouldnt be good for consumers at all...

[The_Mighty_Bush]

(Original post by RyanT)
I disagree here, advertising inflates the perceived value of the tobacco product. By developing a dissonance between the real and perceived value, the tobacco companies are able to produce lower-quality products then their prices suggest. The removal of this dissonance will lower the ability of these firms to overcharge for their products as brand loyalty is lowered. Firms that try to introduce a discrepancy between quality and price under the proposed regime will in fact be punished to a much greater degree then they will at present.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that packaging isn't the only difference between Marlboro and Pall Mall. There is a quality difference between the two cigarettes and this policy will make it harder for the better class of cigarettes to stand out from the dreck. Soon there wouldn't even be higher quality cigarettes available in supermarkets and newsagents as there would be no profit in it at thanks to this stupid policy.

(Original post by RyanT)
You can't have your cake and eat it. Either it reduces smoking and that damages the industry or it doesn't reduce smoking, in which case you can't claim it will damage the industry.

There is difference between saying that smoking will be reduced overall and saying that certain tobacco brands will be disproportionately affected by this policy.

(Original post by RyanT)
Whilst I am sympathetic to your position on the nanny state, we must also keep in mind that the advertising agencies and marketing men are taking advantage of the human psyche in order to increase the prices of their goods. Thought manipulation for increased profits should be detested regardless of whether a state or a corporation is doing it. Speak of the nanny state, but never forget that nanny corporations are out there too.

Some level of advertising is needed simply for the purpose of brand differentiation. If this policy was enacted it would be a bitter blow for consumers without stopping children smoking.

We already have some of the most anti-tobacco legislation in Europe, when is enough enough?

[green.tea]

"buy our brand and get free fag case, it looks better than packs and doesnt have health warnings"

People are stupid.

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
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.



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.

Regardless of whether the forced work experience was bad or good for society, it wasn't done with bad intentions and that's the key point to consider/ They aren't implementing policies in the hope of causing problems but rather trying to eradicate them, however poorly they do so isn't the point here/

The managing director knows profits and he knows that reduced profits will have an impact on his bank balance, simple as. You seem to be under the misguided impression that plain packaging would be conducive to easy copying by counterfeit cigarette organisations but it wont. It'd be easy to come up with ways to alert retailers and customers alike to which plain packaged cigarettes are fake and aren't. I'm not going to elaborate on possible ways but you can be assured that it wont be too difficult to counter the counterfeiters' planned assault on the cigarette smoking population.

[Top Banana]

(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 am pretty positive that the flashy packaging is partly used to lure in people, especially seeing as how nice the boxes look stacked on the shelf...

[DeeWave]

To me, the war on smoking seems disproportionate. I'm pleased that smoking in indoor public places is now prohibited as it makes pubs much more pleasant for me. I support the ban on advertising - which would glamorise smoking - and I support duty on cigarettes.

But in today's world, everyone knows that smoking is associated with a range of serious health problems. There is a large cost to the NHS, but the duty on cigarettes more than covers that. If people then want to take the risk of smoking for whatever reason, I don't see why that's the state's concern beyond the measures currently in place. If people value the experience of smoking above the risk to health, then it should be their right to choose that option. I, for instance, enjoy climbing. I know there's a risk of injury if I fall, but I accept that. I feel the enjoyment I gain offsets the risk of a (potentially serious) injury. Why is smoking not treated in a similar, balanced way?

[Nick100]

Plain packaging? Will the government employ people to wipe our arses for us? This is pathetic.

[That Bearded Man]

I met a girl in Belfast looking for signatures AGAINST the introduction of plain packaging.

Her argument was that it was a waste of tax payers money which could have gone towards hospitals and education, when the smokers will still smoke.

I'm glad to say I didn't - I think this will work slightly, none of that two million will go to the NHS/Education anyway, and her tactic was clearly playing to the gallery.

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by theonefrombrum)
Regardless of whether the forced work experience was bad or good for society, it wasn't done with bad intentions and that's the key point to consider/ They aren't implementing policies in the hope of causing problems but rather trying to eradicate them, however poorly they do so isn't the point here/

The managing director knows profits and he knows that reduced profits will have an impact on his bank balance, simple as. You seem to be under the misguided impression that plain packaging would be conducive to easy copying by counterfeit cigarette organisations but it wont. It'd be easy to come up with ways to alert retailers and customers alike to which plain packaged cigarettes are fake and aren't. I'm not going to elaborate on possible ways but you can be assured that it wont be too difficult to counter the counterfeiters' planned assault on the cigarette smoking population.

You don't think the thought of free labour for big businesses cropped into politicians minds at all?

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
You don't think the thought of free labour for big businesses cropped into politicians minds at all?

What do you mean?

I don't see what the Government stands to gain from giving bug businesses free labour fora short amount of time.

[Tahooper]

Plain packaging will make it much easier to counterfeit, pretty common sense surely?

I don't see how this will reduce child smoking rates either (which is supposedly the whole point of this measure), I mean, kids don't smoke cigarettes because they think the pack it comes in is cool, they smoke because they think smoking cigarettes is cool. Making smoking look like an even more undesirable trait, this will only increase the number of children smoking.

[NewFolder]

I really don't see why they do stuff like this. Smokers will not stop smoking simply because cigarette packets are hidden behind screens in a store. Similarly, they will not stop smoking simply because their cigarettes are not in an attractive box.

All this does is makes it really difficult for the people who work in the shops. Before, they could find the cigarettes instantly because all they had to do is look behind them and recognise the packaging. Currently, they have to try and remember which of the screens the cigarettes are behind, or open them one by one (it's illegal for them to open more than one at a time) and search for them that way. If the plain packaging rule goes ahead, they will have to do this, while looking at every identical-looking packet to try and find the ones the customer requested.

This could take a while, meaning that other customers, even those who don't smoke, could be waiting for a very long time to get served, which is not good for anyone.