David Leyonhjelm on plain packaging failure

Amanda is in a rush and running low on fuel. She pulls into a servo showing a good price on its billboard, and stops at a pump offering the fuel she wants. None of that ethanol crap for her.

After filling up she dashes into the store, grabs her favourite drink from the fridge and a two for one Cherry Ripe deal advertised on the counter.

She’s making good time. After getting a pack of low tar Winnie Blues she’ll be on her way in no time.

She asks for her ciggies, so the attendant opens a draw full of cigarettes and pulls out one pack, then another. “No that’s a Horizon… Nup, that’s a Long Beach.” He rummages through some more: “Ok, Winfield.”

Amanda grimaces at the clock on the wall as the attendant flicks through the packs, squints his eyes, and mumbles under his breath: “Winfield Menthol, Winfield Optimal Sky, Winfield Gold, Winfield Silver, Winfield Red, Winfield White, here were are, Winfield Blue!” He hands over the Winnie Blues, in the same olive green pack and with the same small font as all the other packs.

Amanda forces a smile for the attendant, pays with a quick tap of her card and turns in a rage. She’s late.

As she gets in her car and slams the car door, Amanda thinks that it’s the little things in life that make a day crap.

Once again, the rule requiring olive green cigarette packs and a uniform font has saved no one, but has added a little angst to the world.

Meanwhile, Wendy has a worried look on her face as she sits in Richard’s office in the Department of Health in Canberra. She’s preparing a presentation for her next junket to an international tobacco control conference. Normally she’d just dust off last year’s presentation asserting that plain packaging cuts smoking. But there’s the pesky issue of evidence, and her conscience is uncharacteristically getting the better of her.

“I don’t think plain packaging works,” she admits to Richard with a grimace. Such direct and contrary speaking is out of place anywhere in the public service, but particularly here. Taken aback, Richard stores this outburst in his memory, for recall during the next promotion round. Wendy continues in a stutter: “Plain packaging started in December 2012, but in the three years since smoking rates only fell from 13 per cent to 12 per cent.”

“A fall!” exclaims Richard with delight.

“Yes, technically, but smoking was actually falling faster before plain packaging, and has fallen more in other developed countries without plain packaging. Except for France, where it rose after they introduced plain packaging” Wendy says, as she sees her career drift away with every word. Richard’s eyebrows are getting higher and higher.

Wendy doubles down and says “We spent $3 million on a study that showed smoking rates didn’t even change in the first year of plain packaging, and that a small reduction in smoking only occurred later, after we started ramping up tobacco taxes by 12.5 per cent each September.”

Richard winces, not at the spending of $3 million of taxpayer’s money, but at his failure to ensure the study did nothing but confirm nobody likes the olive green-coloured packs. He’ll have to have a word to the academics he hand-selected for that study.

Later that week Amanda is buying cigarettes again, this time at a place recommended to her by a friend. Instead of swiping her card for a $30 purchase, she hands over a $10 bill. The cigarette pack she gets back looks like packs used to look, except the contents are smuggled and there’s no $17 of tax. Amanda, like 15 per cent of all smokers in Australia, has now joined the black market. She is getting her supply from the same criminal network that supplies teenagers with ice and terrorists with guns.

Richard doesn’t mind. He doesn’t mind that plain packaging makes it a hassle for the servo attendant to serve customers. He doesn’t mind that the ban on e-cigarettes means Amanda continues to fill her lungs with tar from cigarettes. He doesn’t mind that the world’s highest rate of tax on tobacco means the smuggling business is booming and government is missing out on billions of dollars of revenue.

What matters to Richard is that the tobacco companies are getting screwed too. For him, this makes it all worth it.

David Leyonhjelm is a Senator for the Liberal Democrats

This entry was posted in Guest Post, Plain Packaging. Bookmark the permalink.

106 Responses to David Leyonhjelm on plain packaging failure

  1. Warty

    Crystal clear.
    I don’t smoke, but I detest bureaucratised bullshit. I have no time for computer modelling and I distrust statistics, both in their gathering and in their collation. But what the heck, that’s life in 21st Century Australian, Britain and all the other Western world elsewheres. There are only two classes: producers (of BS) and consumers. Come to think of it, there just might be a third class: those who just don’t buy it, though they may be a minority.

  2. RobK

    Whilst I no longer smoke, I do think it is very important that the policy assessment is honest and unbiased. We should learn from poor policy decisions since it’s the only residual value that might improve future endeavors. Thank you David.

  3. wal1957

    I was having a chat with a bloke a couple of weeks ago.
    He’s on a low income.
    He always makes sure he has his smokes and that means he is buying less in the way of food, and what food he does buy is not good for him.
    Why don’t the people who make these decisions to slug a ‘legal’ product with this extravagant tax realise that smokers are addicted. Meaning, they will go without other things to satisfy their addiction.
    Either make the bloody things illegal, or remove the tax you bastards!

  4. Some History

    Top 10 Unintended Consequences Of Prohibition

    http://listverse.com/2016/07/07/top-10-unintended-consequences-of-prohibition/

    We, now, having the advantage of hindsight haven’t learned even one useful lesson from Prohibition nearly 100 years ago. It’s a thing of great shame. Prohibitionists are not bright people. They have a very limited repertoire. Let them loose on society with State support as has been done concerning tobacco over the last 4 decades and the prohibitionists will go down the same contorted paths as their predecessors. They will make, at least, the same mistakes as their predecessors. They will create the same havoc as their predecessors. And in so doing they see no error whatsoever in their ways, just like their predecessors.

    Prohibitionism is extremism. Concerning tobacco/alcohol, it is the intent to eradicate use. As seen a century ago, Prohibitionists produce destructive consequences in their quest for eradication. Much of the time they deny that there are any detrimental consequences to their conduct. When the destruction is undeniable, they act as though it’s all acceptable “collateral damage” to the only “important” quest of eradication. That’s what makes prohibitionists dangerous. They have no stopping point short of eradication. They will accept whatever damage occurs to a society for the eradication goal: The end justifies the means. Prohibition was not ended by prohibitionists who were quite happy for the detrimental consequences of their conduct to continue unto eradication, even if complete eradication would never occur. Prohibition was ended by outsiders who concluded that the damage that was being done in the quest for eradication was too much. Enough was enough.

    A question for the prohibitionists. Does the tobacco prohibition quest reach a point where it becomes a serious menace to society? In the current anti-tobacco crusade, we’ve had more than 3 decades of incessant inflammatory propaganda. Crusaders have conjured secondhand smoke “danger”, now even “thirdhand smoke danger”. With the implementation of indoor smoking bans, the prohibitionists screeched, “What’s the problem? Just step outside for a smoke”. We now know that indoor smoking bans were only a transition to outdoor bans. We now have smoking bans for large outdoor areas, e.g., parks beaches, entire university campuses. We now have gullible nonsmokers that, having lapped up the propaganda, approach anyone smoking – even outdoors – with hands flailing wildly or hand cupped over their noses/mouth lest they catch a whiff of smoke and “drop dead”. Laguna Beach, California, has recently enacted a far-reaching smoking ban, including streets and alleys. The only places one can smoke in Laguna Beach is in their home/car.

    Those who smoke have been de-normalized, humiliated, shamed, ostracized, and robbed through ever-increasing, baseless, extortionate taxes. They have been slandered to high heaven. The State-pushed message is conform, quit smoking, or you will continue to be punished in a variety of ways. And the punishment is depicted by the perpetrators as “help”. With the implementing of smoking bans for entire hospital grounds – indoor and out, we have the vision of patients having to walk considerable distances in their night attire and in whatever weather to side streets if they want a smoke. In many instances it places them in poorly lit areas that makes them vulnerable to assault. It’s not tobacco use that has put them in this position but antismoking fanaticism. We have smoking bans for entire apartment complexes in subsidized housing. If someone wants a smoke, including the elderly and disabled, they must leave their apartment and the apartment complex and onto a side street, even in places where winters are lethally cold. If people choose to smoke in their apartment, they risk eviction and almost certain homelessness. Again, it’s not tobacco use that’s put them in this circumstance but antismoking fanaticism.

    Duterte of the Philippines, who likens himself to H#tler, has recently imposed indoor/outdoor smoking bans. Violation of the bans can result in months of imprisonment.

    So, where is too far? Is there a point where Public Health in its ideological quests becomes essentially spiteful and malicious to “non-conformers” masqueraded as “help”?

    The history of prohibitionism is that the longer it goes unchecked, the more hysterical and absurd become its claims, and the more draconian and inhumane become its demands.

  5. .

    Prohibitionism is extremism.

    Great point.

  6. Some History

    Nurse Ratched (also known as “Big Nurse”) is a fictional character and the main antagonist of Ken Kesey’s 1962 novel “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest”, as well as the 1975 film. A cold, heartless tyrant, Nurse Ratched has become the stereotype of the nurse as a battleaxe. She has also become a popular metaphor for the corrupting influence of power and authority in bureaucracies such as the mental institution in which the novel is set.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_Ratched

    Here’s a snippet from OFOTCN with Ratched bullying/agitating a smoking patient:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faeEnoYcT7w

    The Nurse Ratched mentality is no longer confined to isolated cases within the medical establishment. There are now complete smoking bans – indoor and out – for mental health facilities. Nurse Ratched has been institutionalized. A nasty, cruel, totalitarian streak has been allowed to flourish in the medical system. The entire administration has become cold, heartless, and tyrannical.

    The main problem is Public Health from the WHO down. Nurse Ratched, the institution, has infected the medical establishment, academia, and government at all levels. Public Health has become the domain of the neurotic, the megalomaniacal, the cranky, the sadistic.

  7. a happy little debunker

    Most (adequately run) servo’s stock of cigarettes is ‘displayed’ via distributer designed planograms that comply with state legislation over number of facings, pricing and required coverings.
    The multitude I have seen (post plain packaging) have actually been done alphabetically.
    So unless your attendant is a bit of a thickee or works in a really crap servo – selling fags is no hassle at all!

  8. Some History

    One of the areas where prohibitionism has been most despicable is indoor/outdoor smoking bans at mental health facilities. This forces involuntary patients to quit while in care. See blog post and comments here:
    http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/violence-in-psychiatric-hospitals-junk.html

  9. .

    Keep on sucking that government cock.

  10. .

    The idea that this is just one simple requirement is just evil. It is a pile up of stupid laws and obligations with outrageously harsh and excessive maximum penalties.

    https://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/822B369C0196CB1CCA257D140082A22F/$File/TPP%20General%20FAQs.pdf

    Penalties can apply to both an individual and a corporation that buys, sells, offers for sale, or otherwise supplies non-compliant tobacco product. As at August 2015, the maximum penalty for a fault-based criminal offence under the Act is 2,000 penalty units or $360,000 for an individual, and 10,000 penalty units or $1.8 million for a corporation.

    Evil. Just raw unabashed fanatical lunacy.

  11. So unless your attendant is a bit of a thickee or works in a really crap servo –
    selling fags is no hassle at all!

    Obviously written by a bureaucrat who has never worked in retail.

  12. .

    Let me dumb it down for you.

    Penalties apply to an individual that buys non-compliant tobacco product. As at August 2015, the maximum penalty for a fault-based criminal offence under the Act is 2,000 penalty units or $360,000 for an individual.

    Nothing was added. Just the cases of sale & supply and corporations were omitted. No differentiation is made between supplier acquisition or end users.

  13. Art Vandelay

    Great article, however this bit is rather naive:

    Wendy continues in a stutter: “Plain packaging started in December 2012, but in the three years since smoking rates only fell from 13 per cent to 12 per cent.”

    In my experience, the bureaucracy don’t do ex-post evaluations of their policies (or indeed for purchasing or spending decisions) to see if they actually work. Why on earth would they?

    However, if inconvenient facts about the lack of effectiveness of their policies come to light, this can be spun positively. No doubt these same Health department bureaucrats are preparing the case for even stricter regulations and higher tobacco taxes because the plain packaging regulations weren’t as effective as they’d hoped.

    The game is rigged so they always end up with more power.

  14. pbw

    Unhappy little debunker:

    ..or is new to the job, or just feels like giving this particular customer a hard time–maybe she’s in too much of a hurry for his liking. And if they happen to be out of that particular brand, type and size, there will be rummaging to determine that that is the case, because it cannot be determined at a glance.

  15. pbw

    Not to mention, Some history, the sheer self-defeating and cruel stupidity of banning smoking in prison.

  16. Shannon

    Great comment. I work in the retail sector and have watched as attendants fumble through drawers of ciggies trying to figure out which ones the customer is asking for. It’s not the attendants fault, or the retailers. No matter how “organised” the planograms are it is still a challenge if you are unfamiliar with the layouts.

    Plain packaging legislation is plain stupid, dreamt up by a psychopath health minister. Rather than force-feed her anti-tobacco dogma down our throats she should have been advised by the cabinet to attend therapy sessions to help her deal with her issues. Did you know she is the reason why you can only legally bring in 50 cigarettes from oversees now? So much for the bonus of a cheap Carton from an overseas holiday.

    But it’s all good isn’t it Nicola? You got your stupid laws passed, and everyone patted you on the back. Then you rode your high-horse into your office to sign your retirement paperwork. Having completed your mission now you survive on a 6 figure fully indexed pension. Not bad.

  17. BrettW

    Dot,
    Somebody posts something you don’t agree with and you accuse him of sucking Government cock.

    You are all class.

    Hard to believe you have some sort of connection to law. I did not realise the standard was that low.

  18. .

    Hard to believe you give a shit about freedom Brett when the law is that an individual can be fined $360,000 for buying non-plain packaged cigarettes.

    You don’t even give a shit about this.

    Keep on sucking Brett.

    You are directly affecting my liberties and you are the enemy and an extremist.

  19. Bryn

    All true, but I thank the “system” that only rarely do I smell others’ smoke. I am Ferdinand the Bull, I would rather smell the flowers.

  20. Some History

    Worth the quick read – blog posts and comments.

    Another “Nurse Ratched” of Tobacco Control/Public Health – Judy Mackay – now riding the “slippery slope” to other products:
    http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/the-tobacco-template.html

    See comments here for how far down the brainwashed gurgler is Australia:
    http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/ban-children-from-cars.html

  21. .

    Ban children from cars

    Strike a light.

    This West really is a shithole.

  22. Some History

    Prohibitionism is extremism.
    Great point.

    While it despises all else about the West, the bloodthirsty murderers of ISIS have adopted the West’s antismoking, something more with which to bludgeon their captives, instituting a complete (everywhere) ban on smoking with brutal fervor ….. for the “good” (at gunpoint) of their captives, of course…. for a “healthy” society:
    http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/13/jihadi-militants-ban-smoking-and-guns-in-conquered-territories/#ixzz34cdxaMGD
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/isis-thugs-viciously-beat-cowering-5722162

    The bonfire disposal of cigarettes is a nice tyrannical touch. And it’s not an isolated incident. There are similar bans and bonfires (and guns) in Africa.

    Antismoking is “anti”; it’s an extreme, prohibitionist view. It’s always a symptom of a dictatorial mindset. The only issue then is the magnitude of coercive measures to conformity. With ISIS, a brutal, savage bunch, people are ordered not to smoke under threat of having fingers and ears lopped off, if not worse. In the less brutal West, for example, the punitive measures are more “civilized”, consisting of inflammatory propaganda concerning the “risks” of smoking and secondary smoke to nonsmokers, pitting a majority against a minority, ostracizing/de-normalizing smoking/smokers from normal, mainstream society, smoking bans galore – indoors and out, the depiction of smokers as a “leper” class that contaminate the “clean”, and fleecing smokers through baseless, ever-increasing extortionate taxes. Maybe the West’s Public Health wants us to be thankful that it hasn’t [yet] ordered smokers be shot on sight.

  23. BrettW

    Dot,
    Have you thought of a career change ? I am thinking comedian.

  24. .

    I think a 360,000 or 1,800,000 AUD fine for not complying with a childish regulation brought upon by a psychologically damaged woman seeking grief therapy by exercising megalomania that effectively bans branding is savage, brutal, oppressive and inherently unjust.

  25. .

    Brett – you follow Nicola Roxon. Spare me your advice.

  26. Baldrick

    Penalties apply to an individual that buys non-compliant tobacco product. As at August 2015, the maximum penalty for a fault-based criminal offence under the Act is 2,000 penalty units or $360,000 for an individual.

    What a country! You’d get less for dumping a truckload of asbestos next to a kindergarten.

  27. Some History

    He doesn’t mind that the world’s highest rate of tax on tobacco means the smuggling business is booming and government is missing out on billions of dollars of revenue.

    David L, you’re playing the government’s game. Beyond a certain point, extortionate taxes are viewed by those at whom the extortion is directed as plain and simple robbery. In using an “alternative supply” consumers are intending to avoid being robbed by ever-increasing amounts by government that is supposed to represent them.

  28. BrettW

    Dot,
    Since it clearly is a major deal for you could you tell us how many people been fined $300,000 for buying plain packaged cigarettes ?

    I think it would have been fairly big news but I must have missed it.

    I won’t wait up.

  29. Some History

    I was having a chat with a bloke a couple of weeks ago.
    He’s on a low income.
    He always makes sure he has his smokes and that means he is buying less in the way of food, and what food he does buy is not good for him.
    Why don’t the people who make these decisions to slug a ‘legal’ product with this extravagant tax realise that smokers are addicted. Meaning, they will go without other things to satisfy their addiction.
    Either make the bloody things illegal, or remove the tax you bastards!

    Concerning this “bloke’s” life being made harder….. more miserable by antismoking legislation, the United Nations agency – the World Health Organization (which is at the root of the current tobacco prohibition crusade), politicians of major political parties, government bureaucrats (specifically Health, Finance), prohibitionists (e.g., Simon Crapman, Mike Drab), and prohibitionist organizations (e.g., Cancer Societies) couldn’t give two hoots. They couldn’t care less, as should be obvious by now. We’re talking about the dangerous combination of “Nurse Ratched” plus government greed, both aggressively encouraged by the [unelected, unaccountable] WHO.

  30. Some History

    BrettW, maybe you could field the question: Can a prohibition crusade go too far as highlighted in an earlier comment?

  31. Some History

    But it’s all good isn’t it Nicola? You got your stupid laws passed, and everyone patted you on the back.

    Nicola didn’t come up with “plain packaging”. PP is a WHO directive. Most countries, including Australia, have signed up to the WHO “Framework Convention on Tobacco Control” (FCTC). The FCTC has certain requirements that must be met within a particular timeframe by signatories. PP is a non-mandatory directive: It’s extra curricular. Most countries meet with at least some resistance to required antismoking measures and are happy if they can meet the requirements. Not Australia. It flew through the required measures with essentially no resistance whatsoever. And so our political class/bureaucrats, beholden to the WHO….disciples of the WHO, decided that they were going to further serve their WHO masters by being the first to implement PP.

    And it’s typically Labor that is most entranced by the WHO and its harebrained ideas. It’s typically Labor that introduces “groundbreaking” antismoking policies, e.g., PP. The Liberals initially resist, but within a few weeks fall into line, adopting the very same policies. The 4 x 12.5% hikes in tobacco excise followed by another 4 x 12.5% hike in tobacco excise that will inflate the cost of a pack of cigarettes to ~$45 by 2020 is also a WHO directive. Both sets of hikes were introduced by Labor. The Liberals initially resisted but quickly fell into line, adopting the exact, same policies.

    The WHO and useful idiot politicians were warned that unreasonable hikes in excise would invite a contraband market. It’s not rocket science. “No”, they replied. “That’s just fear-mongering by the [evil] tobacco industry”. For quite some time the prohibitionist nut cases denied the existence of a contraband market. Now the evidence is undeniable. The last WHO Conference of the Parties (to the FCTC) acknowledged contraband as a global problem, a “problem” that these dangerous nitwits singularly, solely created. And they now want to “solve” the problem of their own making. How? The WHO directive is to increase tobacco taxes as high as possible….. into the stratosphere! And Australia here, too, wants to so please the WHO, being a leader [of nitwits] with its eye-watering tax hikes. Moreover it’s “easy money” for debt-ridden government.

    What a mess!!

  32. Senile Old Guy

    DL, once again, tackling the big issues. He is noisy but irrelevant.

  33. Entropy

    Well, it is an very good example of oppression by too much government, SOG.

  34. Senile Old Guy

    Well, it is an very good example of oppression by too much government, SOG.

    Most people do not smoke. This does not justify victimising smokers but DL appears to spend most of his time on causes that most people are not interested in.

  35. Captain Crunch

    LOL I saw the same scene at a country roadhouse last week. The attendant rummaged around for five minutes calling out what was in the draw. Alas no Winnie Golds for the poor chap. The customer settled on another brand. That’ll be $36 thank you. Faark!

    Wal1957 is right. Low income people are will go without food to have a child cigarette.

    Fat lazy Government getting fatter and lazier on the backs of the poor.

  36. Captain Crunch

    Sorry that should read
    Wal1957 is right. Low income people will go without food to have a cigarette.

  37. Senile Old Guy

    Fat lazy Government getting fatter and lazier on the backs of the poor.

    I am not defending the government. I think taxes on smokers are out of control.

  38. john constantine

    If smokes are bad, then it is immoral to profit from taxing them.

    A party that goes to an election promising to introduce legislation to drop smoke taxes to a level that kills off the black market should be on a winner.

    The crushing power of the State loves reducing free living people to a Ground Down life of craven compliance, any way they can, any time they can, for whatever excuse they can grasp.

  39. Senile Old Guy

    A party that goes to an election promising to introduce legislation to drop smoke taxes to a level that kills off the black market should be on a winner.

    Not really. Most people do not smoke so it is irrelevant. In fact, to most people, cutting taxes on smokes will probably mean increased taxes elsewhere, which most people will end up paying.

  40. amortiser

    I’m a non smoker and a member of a golf club. The club introduced restrictions on smoking to comply with new health regulations many years ago. At least 50% of the premises had to be smoke free. To comply the club designated odd numbered holes as “smoking” holes, and even numbered holes as “no-smoking”.

    In addition smoking was prohibited whe food was being served or consumed. I could immediately see problems with this. I phoned the Dept of Health and spoke to a bureaucrat. The conversation went like this:

    Me: I’m a member of a golf club which has imposed smoking restrictions in accordance with your regulations.

    Bureaucrat: yes

    Me: the first hole is a designated smoking hole. It is 500 metres long with a long downslope to the hole from about 200 metres from the tee.

    Bureaucrat: yes, what is your concern.

    Me: I like to eat a banana before I tee off. As it is a designated smoking hole, am I prohibited from eating the banana?

    Bureaucrat: No, sir. You can eat your banana, but nobody can smoke while you are doing so.

    Me: really. So the restrictions for smokers extend depending on the actions of other players.

    Bureaucrat: that’s correct. If another player lights up while you are eating he is committing an offence. If he is smoking when you start eating he has to put it out.

    Me: wow. If I am waiting on the tee to hit and a player in the group in front at the bottom of the slope out of sight lights up and I am eating a banana, is he committing an offence?

    Bureaucrat: yes he is. He is prohibited from smoking even in a smoking designated area where food is being served or consumed.

    Me: the law is a complete ass!!

    The drinks cart was unable to serve food to players on smoking holes. The cart was banned from half the course. In the end the club banned smoking from the course altogether because of the risk to players inadvertently committing offences and risk to the club for failure to enforce restrictions.

    The club is still at risk, of course, because players are still going to smoke out on the course regardless.

    I am convinced that the purpose of the game here is to create more offenders.

  41. PK

    Oh, the concern for the health of the hapless smoker is palpable. The crappy smokes I buy are undoubtedly stuffed with all sorts of nasties. They make me feel like shit. When I (rarely) have the resources to or am forced to buy legitimate smokes, the discernible physical effects are negligible in comparison. I can’t pass a three quarter smoked, discarded cigarette in the street without being sorely tempted to pick it up. However such treasures are now a rarity compared with former days. No doubt partly smoked cigarettes are still being discarded but equally surely they are being pounced upon by the not so well off victims of the rampant ‘health’ industry. On top of all that we are being forced to support the cabal of drug and firearm smugglers that are contributing to the breakdown of society. Those smokers in good employment still seem to have a packet of forty or so at the ready with a spare pack in the car. Those of us in more straitened circumstances, those of us more likely to be vulnerable to negative health outcomes are the victims of this self indulgent campaign. Hat’s off to David for taking this on. A pox on the rest of the political class who see nought but an opportunity for a cash grab and virtue signalling.

  42. notaluvvie

    Cherry Ripes? They should be in plain packaging.

  43. A Lurker

    I don’t smoke and get asthma from cigarette smoke – that being said, I loathe Government interference in cigarettes, the idea of plain-packaging and targeting smokers.

  44. Roberto

    Ridiculous prices for fags started with Krudd, propped up by Gillard, kept rolling by Abbott and left skyrocketing by Melvin … Now the booming illegal trade, costs of policing it, gang robberies of servos, effect on Asian tourism (half Chinese adult males smoke) etc surely make the excercise even (from a gummint’s point of view) financially dubious.

  45. john constantine

    Promising a cut in smoke tax will enrage the deep green nanny staters that only vote green.

    The ‘Brexit’ voters, like the old Labor men that have nowhere to go but are hated by the new left could be shocked into trying something new.

    The left have preferrence playthings, why not libertarians?.

    The “no cigarette tax party’ feeding prefs to libertarians in the senate needs to be trademarked as a weapon against the filth.

    Along with the ‘No premixed alcohol tax’ party.

  46. john constantine

    Put up posters for the no cigarette tax party outside all shops selling smokes.

    Targetted marketing to a motivated voter base.

    Freedom for free living people.

    I might stand meself.

  47. Qley

    This kind of stuff all stems from government involvement in healthcare. Without this there is no purpose and is probably where they are so keen to stay involved in healthcare. Under the guise of health they are able to legislate for almost anything

  48. Phill

    Who is this bloke selling ten dollar smokes? I want to hook up.

  49. PK

    Who is this bloke selling ten dollar smokes? I want to hook up.

    They’ve gone up to twelve but he’s not advertising. Sales to recognised faces only. The excise man is for ever vigilant!

  50. Baldrick

    Most people do not smoke so it is irrelevant.

    You’re missing the point SOG. If the Leftard wowsers have their way they’ll be taxing sugar next and campaigning for plain packaging sugary treats and then fining people for possessing illegally imported Cherry Ripes in colourful packaging.

  51. Dr Faustus

    The Government Claw gathers in $9 billion+ pa in tobacco tax. The Government loves its subjects far too much to let go of this tiny fraction of the $257.327 billion real cost of smoking – as measured by 97% of allied health scientists.

    (Unless fairness unexpectedly dictates that a better health outcome can be had from a 2% increase in Medicare levy for ‘Those Who Can Afford It’.)

  52. john constantine

    Their left announced this week that eating fried potato products doubles your risk of dying.

    Tax the Potato, comrades.

  53. Senile Old Guy

    Most people do not smoke so it is irrelevant.

    You’re missing the point SOG. If the Leftard wowsers have their way they’ll be taxing sugar next and campaigning for plain packaging sugary treats and then fining people for possessing illegally imported Cherry Ripes in colourful packaging.

    The wowsers are already campaigning to tax sugar and have been doing so for some years.

  54. Shannon

    Nicola didn’t come up with “plain packaging”. PP is a WHO directive

    @Some History

    Fully understand that Nicola did not “come up with PP” but she certainly was the chief advocate for them in this country. She desperately wanted to be the first one to successfully ram it down the industry. I had my fingers and toes crossed that the government would get destroyed in the subsequent court case but alas they won that too, which was wrong.

    And yes I agree fully, the Libs are utter cowards, always caving into the demands to pass the next stupid big intrusion into personal feeedom. The issue is that the battle is always fought on the grounds of the advocates. A position is taken, no matter how extreme. Anyone who dares question it is “in bed with big tobacco”

    Ridiculous.

  55. Haidee

    Thank you, David Leyonhjelm. Prohibitionism IS extremism. It doesn’t matter how long I smoked or when I quit. (or if I really did quit). But when I had a recent ‘scan’, for which I was prepared to pay $150, I decided to object to the questioning of my wicked smoking past. And it felt really good to say, politely: “That’s my business. I’m not answering”.

    ‘illegally imported Cherry Ripes in colourful packaging’, funny

  56. a happy little debunker

    memoryvault @ #2416176, posted on June 18, 2017 at 10:55 pm
    Obviously written by a bureaucrat who has never worked in retail

    Does running Tassie’s undoubted ‘busiest’ Servo for 8 bloody years (from setup) not count as retail?

  57. thefrolickingmole

    I can’t pass a three quarter smoked, discarded cigarette in the street without being sorely tempted to pick it up. However such treasures are now a rarity compared with former days. No doubt partly smoked cigarettes are still being discarded but equally surely they are being pounced upon by the not so well off victims of the rampant ‘health’ industry.

    My lovely old hometown has frequent facebook posts of “someone stole my outdoor ashtray” as the desperate search for butts.
    Well done Nanny Roxton, you vinegar titted old hag.

  58. Most people do not smoke. This does not justify victimising smokers but DL appears to spend most of his time on causes that most people are not interested in.

    The good Senator is doing the right thing, he’s just going about it the wrong way. Instead of singling out the tax on tobacco, he should be attacking the notion of discriminatory taxes altogether, and just using the tobacco tax as an example. Taxation is meant to be the means by which government raises money to run the place, not a tool for social engineering.

    Simply attacking the tobacco tax may get some smoking voters onside, but has no appeal to non-smokers, in fact, might alienate some of them. However, discriminatory taxes have the potential to affect everybody (sugar tax, coffee tax etc), and so arguing against them would have wider appeal.

    If smoking does indeed place an extra burden on health care costs, then by all means place a levy on their sale to cover it. Last realistic figure I saw was $318 million, for the year 2012, I think. A “Medicare Levy” of ten cents a packet would more than cover this, and smokers would happily pay it.

  59. Senile Old Guy

    MV, excellent points but the mainstream parties are addicted to the revenue from the smoking tax. I don’t remember the figures but the revenue from the smoking tax covers the associated health care costs several times over. Further, if all gave up smoking, some/many would live longer and so cost more.

  60. Does running Tassie’s undoubted ‘busiest’ Servo for 8 bloody years (from setup) not count as retail?

    It counts for something, Debunker. It counts towards demonstrating just how far out of touch you are with the real world. After eight “bloody” years you would be intimately familiar with every square inch of your shop front, and every product in it, and its location and price.

    That’s hardly a comparable experience to Miss B, who started at the local Woolies last week and finds herself on the tobacco/information counter for the very first time, this morning. The fact that you expect her to be able to provide the same level of service as you are capable of delivering, probably explains that high staff turnover problem you’ve been having.

  61. a happy little debunker

    Never expected that from Miss B, nor indicated that I expected that.

    The fact is you just don’t like being called out.

    Bad Luck!

  62. .

    BrettW
    #2416214, posted on June 19, 2017 at 12:39 am

    Right. Bad laws don’t hurt anyone until they do.

    I’m sure you’re okay to live with live wiring because it hasn’t killed you yet? Idiot.

  63. Some History

    Further, if all gave up smoking, some/many would live longer and so cost more.

    Longevity has been the main variable in the medical assault on smoking. There are quite a few problems with using longevity as a major variable. Longevity was also used by medical forebears in the eugenics catastrophe of the early-1900s in America and Germany.

    If the shallowness of the “medical model” was recognized, it would also be obvious how fickle it can be. Proponents can do an about-face on matters in a moment.

    Smokers have been pounded for decades that they are a burden on the health system, specifically, and society, generally. They’ve been told that, on average, they don’t live long enough compared to nonsmokers. The baby boomers coming into old age is about to put a massive strain on the health care and pension system. It’s a time bomb ready to blow. And, so, the talk of euthanasia is being ramped up. While smokers have been pounded/punished that they’re not living long enough into very old age, the same system is about to try to convince some (to begin with) folk that they’ve lived too long and that bumping themselves off with medical assistance is a good idea.

    Euthanasia is being peddled as an option for those that are terminally ill and severely incapacitated. It’s peddled as a “benevolent” option. But this is not how Public Health folk speak of assisted suicide for whom it’s mostly about economics. People should be disturbed reading the following:

    Cost analysis of medical assistance in dying in Canada

    http://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/3/E101.full?sid=89724335-7669-4ece-bd9b-60ddbebd433f

    While one part of Public Health aggressively pushes playing a flimsy statistical risk game to extend longevity, another part of Public Health is considering how “assisted dying” can produce cost savings to the health care system. The bean counters are looking to where savings can be made. In their world you can have outlived your usefulness. Too old? Taking up intensive-care resources? They’ll have their eye on you, making a case for you bumping yourself off with their assistance. And who can’t see a “slippery slope” here. Even more concerning is that there are other economic disasters in the wings, e.g., housing bubble, derivatives bubble. If the economic standing of countries becomes even more compromised, that “assisted dying” slope is going to get really slippery.

  64. Tim Neilson

    No doubt partly smoked cigarettes are still being discarded but equally surely they are being pounced upon by the not so well off victims of the rampant ‘health’ industry.

    A definite yes. Bumpers are picked up all along Victoria Street in Melbourne. I know one shouldn’t stereotype, but the people you see picking them up look and sound as though they are clientele of the local Centrelink rather than people in receipt of a comfortable white collar health bureaucracy salary.

  65. Some History

    When prohibitionists (alcohol/tobacco) are given free rein, absurdities are close behind.

    Antismokers (misocapnists/capnophobes) have depicted those who smoke as “addicts” engaged in a “slow suicide” (40, 50, 60, 70 years). That’s a really slow “suicide”. These are entirely arguable antismoker slogans that go back more than a century, specifically America. Prohibitionists argue that smokers must be stopped from this “suicide” at all costs so that they “might” live longer.

    Having conformed to the edicts of Public Health, e.g., not smoking, does not result in immortality. Ageing beyond 60 becomes progressively more difficult, painful, and restrictive, as Crapman knows only too well. Simon Crapman, an avowed atheist, is also a passionate advocate of euthanasia.
    https://www.dwdnsw.org.au/more-on-our-inaugural-fund/

    If the path to mortality gets too difficult, he offers assisted suicide. Not the fantasy “slow suicide” mentioned above, but actual suicide ensuring death in minutes.

    Here is a perverse contradiction where Crapman wants to go all out to prevent a fantasy “slow suicide” – tobacco prohibitionism – to then offer actual suicide as a “solution”.

    Crapman is all for euthanasia, portrayed as “dying with dignity”. Yet the same Crapman has no qualms about stealing smokers’ dignity in living, the many decades of living before we get to the dying part. The punitive tools of prohibitionism has been to denormalize, humiliate, shame, ostracize, and rob smokers into conformity. Non-conformers will be subject to continuing punishment.

    We see a similar absurdity with ISIS.

    While it despises all else about the West, the bloodthirsty murderers of ISIS have adopted the West’s antismoking, something more with which to bludgeon their captives, instituting a complete (everywhere) ban on smoking with brutal fervor ….. for the “good” (at gunpoint) of their captives, of course…. for a “healthy” society:

    ISIS has even used the antismoking slogan that smoking is “slow suicide”. Engage in the “slow suicide” (involving old age) and ISIS will mutilate or kill young adults in the here and now. While trying to prevent “slow suicide” at gunpoint, ISIS members are the ones that are actually suicidal in the accurate sense of the term. There’s a subset of these nut cases that do actual suicide by blowing themselves up with bomb vests and belts, taking as many with them as possible.

  66. H B Bear

    “In today’s episode the part of Richard will be played by Professor Simon Crapman.”

  67. Tim Neilson

    Some History
    #2416367, posted on June 19, 2017 at 10:37 am

    Yes. A mate of mine, non-smoker, who has worked in clinical medicine, medical administration and medical academia, told me that any proper analysis of smoking would conclude that it benefitted the health budget.

  68. wes george

    David Leyonhjelm gets it! Reads like a scene from an Ayn Rand novel, only David writes better than Rand.

    But the David didn’t finish the chapter…

    Yes, Richard, the civil servant, enjoys screwing cigarette companies – Richard is a self-righteously pious and sadistic scold – but that’s not what animates his parasitic existence. Richard craves power, which is good because his KPI’s demand he keeps expanding his power to micro-manage other people’s lives ever further. Richard believes that his agency requires more power because the common people are little better than livestock. Citizens require constant management from a benevolent and well-remunerated caste of elite technocrats, but the expert caste is hamstrung by archaic and unjust concepts of democratic due process and civil rights.

    Wendy’s report to Richard is yet another opportunity to issue a presser to the ABC to push a friendly story about how Richard’s agency needs increased funding and a doubling of personnel in order to further restrict the free market of ideas, goods and services or victim-citizen (VictCits in the jargon) morbidity will increase. Of course, no mention of the failure of plain packaging and the rise of black markets will be reported by the ABC. That’s restricted eyes-only information or “unspoke” which is a new lesser form of hate speech defined as “fake news” that would lead to a “deficit in citizen attention” to the “scientifically approved narrative”.

    Later, at the elite’s club over a few drinks, Richard daydreams about power unimaginable back in the days of Keating or Howard. How could his agency quietly slip through a directive requiring mandatory registration of the nation’s smokers? Perhaps he could require GP’s to file online forms reporting the name/stats of all their smoking patients. Just slip it in as part of the ever growing admin workflow. Hmmmm…. His agency could assign each smoker an ID number and track their movements in the population as well as other vitals. We’ll need more server farms! Or perhaps the way to approach this is through an NGO attached to the UN….. Perhaps, if the UN Human Right Council issued a directive to register all smokers globally we could bypass the usual democratic process bullshit and go over everyone’s head. After all, Australia is an signatory to the UNHRC charter, or something, right? ….Gotta think big, Richard, my man!

    Richard smiles and orders another scotch. Just wait until Shorten is PM, he muses to himself and chuckles. Heck, maybe we should register and track the whole damn bloody population, after all, no ordinary citizen can be trusted not to become a smokes victim. They’re all VictCits of one type or another!

  69. Some History

    H B Bear and wes george, you guys are good.

    How could his agency quietly slip through a directive requiring mandatory registration of the nation’s smokers?

    Richard “Dick” Crapman has been there.
    Should smokers require a license? Vote in the PLOS Medicine Poll
    http://blogs.plos.org/speakingofmedicine/2012/11/13/should-smokers-require-a-license-vote-in-the-plos-medicine-poll/

    Smartcard Licence Scheme Proposed For Smokers
    http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/smartcard-licence-scheme-proposed-for-smokers-20130804-2r7pr.html?

  70. Some History

    A few more on licences from Crapman.

    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/now-butt-out-new-push-seeks-to-outlaw-cigarettes-20110521-1ey2s.html

    And here’s Dick Crapman on [short] video (only ~1min 30secs):

  71. Senile Old Guy

    What a fascist arsewipe.

    Many in ‘public health’ are fascists, just itching for the chance to dictate how people live. And I do agree that success with one product only encourages them to go after more restrictions and other products.

  72. Never expected that from Miss B, nor indicated that I expected that.

    So it was somebody parodying you who started off by writing:

    So unless your attendant is a bit of a thickee or works in a really crap servo – selling fags is no hassle at all!

    You were saying, about being “called out” . . .

  73. Pedro the Ignorant

    The owner of the World’s Most Punchable Face, “Professor” Mike Daube would be Dick Crapman’s bestie.

    Like Hitler and Goebbels. (Iknow, I know, Godwin. . . . . )

    “Dick Crapman” What a great name for a rabid wowser.

  74. Three of the biggest health problems today are drug addiction, depression, and obesity. Addiction and depression seem to go hand in hand, and drug addiction and/or depression now account for over half of the nearly one million people currently receiving a Disability Pension.

    Stress almost always leads to depression, which, in turn, can lead to addiction, including eating. Anybody who has smoked knows it relieves stress, and anybody who has ever smoked and quit quickly learns that it is an effective appetite depressant.

    Since the matter will never be seriously studied (doesn’t fit the meme), one can only speculate on how much the war on nicotine has contributed to our epidemic of depression, addiction and obesity.

  75. a happy little debunker

    Suck it up princess!

    Your moral high ground is demonstrably low enough as it is.

  76. .

    The moral high ground is freedom.

  77. Tim Neilson

    drug addiction and/or depression now account for over half of the nearly one million people currently receiving a Disability Pension.

    I’m very suspicious of the ever increasing numbers of diagnoses of “depression”, but at least there’s no doubt that depression can be a genuine illness.

    But getting a DSP just for being a drug addict?

    I’ve got a deal for the government. I’ll voluntarily become a non-contributor to society, just like a drug addict (but I won’t go full sociopath like an ice addict) and the government can pay me a DSP. All we’re doing is cutting out the middle man drug dealers. I mean they’re criminals anyway. And not being an actual drug addict will pose less threat to my health, thus saving the health budget some money.

    It’s a win all round isn’t it? You know it makes sense.

  78. a happy little debunker

    . @ #2416587, posted on June 19, 2017 at 1:32 pm

    I rather thought the demonstrated high ground was dishing out abuse when inconvenienced by truth (something most observable in the intolerant left)

    But, If you find it freeing to go round calling such truth-tellers ‘cocksuckers’ – then you may be surprised by the choice & range of words people would use to describe you!

  79. .

    No, you have the morality of a child.

    Coercion is immoral. Telling you that you are a useful idiot is not.

    You’re not a debunker. You’re a disinformation merchant.

  80. wes george

    Thanks for the update, Some History….Jeez, it’s hard to keep up with our progressive slide into Chapman’s totalitarian utopia.

    Back to Richard at the Elites’ Club in downtown Canberra. Now on his third or forth scotch, an old private school mate, Jake, who works with the CSIRO takes the leather bound easy chair next to Richard by the open fire (the chimney is a new mandatory carbon sequestrating model, very pricy) and after the usual pleasantries, Richard runs his idea of registering all smoking victim citizens (VictCits in the jargon) by Jake.

    Jake says, “that’s great idea, you need to contact this fellow, Prof. Simon Chapman, who already has a well developed proposal to license the smoking VictCit population while raking in 100’s of millions of dollars in fees, then churning it through the system as it is paid back with interest in what amounts to a yet another you beaut wealth redistribution scheme.”

    Jake rubs his money fingers together indicting what they both know. Richard’s slush funds can skim the license fees twice, both while being collected and paid back out to the VictCits who manage to quit. Richard nods in knowing approval.

    “Damn, Jake,” Richard said, “We’ll need f*cking parole officers and survelliance teams to ensure that smokers who quit don’t cheat, right? Man, I have always wanted to add some muscle to the department!”

    Jake winks, “not just parole officers, mate. GPS leg bands, drones, the works… Your department will qualify for tactical squads in major urban areas under the new federal rules of VictCit engagement.”

    Paul from the BOM’s CMD (Citizen Management Department) pulls up a chair and listens to Jake and Richard talk about the potential data goldmine to be harvested.

    “You know,” Paul says during a pause in the conversation, “there might be the potential for an interdepartmental collaboration in this. We at the BOM are interested in collecting data related to micro-climate carbon pollution emissions to expand our area of interest to indoor spaces. Your smoking VictCits by unnecessarily increasing Cpol are at the very least in misdemeanour violation of our new Climate Criminal Law Code. But as of now we have no way to tap this cohort. We’re already building a database of Climate Deniers and businesses who reap profits by trafficking in consumer byproducts of Cpol. The fines to be levied alone could pay for the server farm expansion. Just a thought.”

    “And Jake’s right about the muscle,” Paul adds, “the BOM has quietly added SWAT teams to Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. Once the paperwork goes through, we’ll have irresistible force capacity in Perth as well. You should look into it, mate.”

    Richard strokes his chin. Hmmm, and says, “The possibilities are endless, I agree. But let’s not over reach with the fines and misdemeanor charges. OK? I mean, hey if we actually did exterminate the smokes VictCit cohort, I’d be out of a job, eh?”

    Everyone chuckles and nods. “No worries, mate, I hear you. That’s the prime directive: Never kill the golden goose.” More laughs all around.

  81. BrettW

    Oh well, no surprise that Dot can’t find any cases of people being fined $300,000 for buying non plain packaged cigarettes.

    Just because it may be in some legislation somewhere does not mean it has actually happened.

    No doubt his idea of supporting “freedom fighters” includes a little bit of false information to back his views up. Isn’t this exactly what Sinc and Some History etc. complain about when commenting about Government and Cancer Council statistics ?

    Sorry Dot, but when you use the words cocksucking because you don’t like somebody’s opinion then you do your side of the argument no favours.

  82. .

    Keep on sucking Brett. You don’t give a shit about freedom so we won’t take your advice.

  83. a happy little debunker

    What was the likelihood to catch & gut 2 fish, on the one hook?

    Might try a lottery ticket, you never know!

  84. .

    So you’re trolling people because you like these laws? They’re indefensible garbage no adult can justify imposing on other adults.

  85. a happy little debunker

    Never, ever tried to justify, sanctify or approve these laws & there are lots of reasons to oppose them.

    Someone presented a false scenario about a servo worker to illustrate their argument and I corrected that falseness (using first hand experience & knowledge).

    For that, you would heap abuse.

    So, settle down petal – you’ve got the wrong end of the stick and its been poking you in the eye.

  86. Roberto

    Trying to justify Puffing Billy’s last election brainstorm to up the ante on fags by 12.5 per cent per year for four years (one which obviously Melvin thought had great merit), Tanya Pilbershriek told us that smoking costs Oz $31 billion per year. That’s right folks, every non-smoking Aussie ( man, woman and mewling puking child) are down $40 a week EACH because of our selfish, stinking four million durry sucking brothers and sisters (who contribute a billion a month to the nation’s coffers). Incredibly she managed to tell us this while maintaining a straight face

  87. .

    Someone presented a false scenario about a servo worker to illustrate their argument and I corrected that falseness (using first hand experience & knowledge).

    It isn’t a false scenario at all. I’ve had to wait five minutes sometimes in a tobacconist when a junior staff member is on without the owner/manager. Or they tell you they are out of stock because they have NFI.

    I do not wait to buy other legal items because government mandated packaging makes it confusing for shoppees. This is just another nudge we all have to suffer.

  88. BrettW

    Uh oh, now Dot is upset because he has had to wait 5 minutes or because out of stock. Wow, the trials and tribulations of being a smoker. The Government and Cancer Council should apologise to him via full page newspaper ad. I demand Dots human rights be protected !

    These threads always full of drama but Queen Dot rules.

  89. a happy little debunker

    Where did you think SERVO workers work?

    a) They work at the information/service desk at the local Woolies
    b) They work at a local tobacconists
    c) Other, Please specify _______?

  90. Mark A

    .
    #2416703, posted on June 19, 2017 at 3:04 pm
    I do not wait to buy other legal items because government mandated packaging makes it confusing for shoppees. This is just another nudge we all have to suffer.

    Nuts and bolts all look alike specially within a a range of few millimeters and yet hardware stores manage remarkably well in picking the right one the customer asks for.

    Is it a miracle or they know something tobacconists don’t?

  91. Where did you think SERVO workers work?

    And since when were servos the the only places that sold tobacco products?

  92. a happy little debunker

    Still haven’t sucked it up yet, eh princess!

    Back to prove your righteous indignation and pompous self importance – by making mischief with points NOT in DISPUTE?

  93. by making mischief with points NOT in DISPUTE?

    So, you didn’t claim that shop assisstants who had difficulty locating plain packaged tobacco products “are a bit thick”?

    I’m glad we straightened that out.

  94. a happy little debunker

    FFS.

  95. Tel

    Nuts and bolts all look alike specially within a a range of few millimeters and yet hardware stores manage remarkably well in picking the right one the customer asks for.

    Is it a miracle or they know something tobacconists don’t?

    Yeah, the nuts and bolts in the hardware store are CONVENIENTLY PACKAGED WITH BIG, CLEAR LABELS.

    Whoda thunk it? Some genius much have thought of that idea.

    Also, when was the last time you were in a hardware store? I ask this because it has not been standard practice for the customer to ask and wait for the attendant to pick something off the shelf… not since about 1955.

  96. I ask this because it has not been standard practice for the customer to ask and wait for the attendant to pick something off the shelf… not since about 1955.

    All true, Tel. Plus the fact that with nuts and bolts they are only worth a few cents each, and if you get it wrong the shop will usually exchange them for you. Conversely a 50g pouch of tobacco is now nearly $60.00, and if you walk away from the counter with the wrong product, that’s stiff sh1t.

  97. .

    If conservatives cannot see what is wrong with this, this is why Cory, the LNP and the ALA have all failed miserably.

    You can cut the fake “we’re more libertarian than the libertarians” bullshit now as well.

    You sleep at night like I do.

    The Nanny State does not:

    http://cpas.anu.edu.au/research/projects/would-plain-packaging-alcohol-communicate-health-risk-factors-youth

    Australian National University
    Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science

    Would plain packaging for alcohol communicate health risk factors to youth?

    Alcohol is a legal and social drug available for sale and consumption Australia-wide. It carries a comparable health risk to cigarettes when the long term, short term and health statistics are taken into consideration, yet the policy around health warnings is vastly different. Cigarettes have government mandated, graphic health risk labelling requirements and are not allowed to be displayed by shop keepers until the point of sale. In contrast, alcohol’s health warnings and packaging is industry regulated, very small and sometimes even ambiguous in the message it conveys to the consumer. This study builds on the literature that found there was a need for broader reach of health information and graphic or emotive images could form part of that strategy. The case for stricter labelling requirements of alcohol modelled on current plain packaging requirements for cigarettes was put to the youth demographic, identified as more at risk of high risk drinking behaviours. The research engaged youth under twenty-five to reflect on current alcohol labelling in comparison to cigarette packaging and to consider a model for proposed plain packaging for alcohol.

    This is worth worrying about, not gay marriage which you think is a hoax anyway but decide to be blatant offence merchants about.

  98. Empire GTHO Phase III

    Uh oh, now Dot is upset because he has had to wait 5 minutes or because out of stock. Wow, the trials and tribulations of being a smoker. The Government and Cancer Council should apologise to him via full page newspaper ad. I demand Dots human rights be protected !

    You’re perfectly entitled to love government, Brett. There’s no need to be coy about it, much better to get it out in the open.

  99. Tel

    All true, Tel. Plus the fact that with nuts and bolts they are only worth a few cents each, and if you get it wrong the shop will usually exchange them for you.

    I’m certainly not going to doubt you over what happened in 1955.

  100. Chris M

    She is getting her supply from the same criminal network that supplies teenagers with ice and terrorists with guns.

    Well if you are a Libertarian every adult should have free access to drugs and guns right. So this is not really criminal under DLP.

  101. .

    The LDP is only a moderate libertarian party.

    It is hard enough convincing conservatives that Nicola Roxon’s plain packaging laws are evil.

  102. Chris M

    Evil or stupid?

    Yep LDP or whatever…

  103. .

    The penalties under the plain packaging law have been laid bare here on this thread…if you can’t accept it – you have no interest in freedom.

    None at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *