# Cigarettes in plain packaging - a good or bad idea?



## Sid James

Here in Australia, the Federal Goverment is going to put a bill before parliament stipulating that, from next year, all cigarettes sold in the country will be in plain packaging. I have put an image below of how it will look like. The colour of the packages will be olive-brown (basically the colour of dog-doo ) and the health warnings will be about twice the size of what they are currently.

The government and anti-smoking groups say that this will make cigarettes less attractive to younger people who are at risk of starting smoking. Australia has a very high rate of smoking amongst generations X and Y especially. All advertising of cigarette products was banned in this country about 20 years ago. People for this latest move argue that it will take away any of the remaining glamour associated with cigarettes.

Cigarette companies (eg. British-American tobacco) however argue that this move will be an infringement of their copyright and branding rights. They also argue that it would be easier for counterfeiters to put black market cigarettes on the market. I also heard a report on the radio yesterday and one of the supermarket chains was arguing that it would be more difficult for staff at supermarkets and shops to find different brands of cigarettes amongst all of the plain packages. However, the laws would not ban putting stickers on the product for them to be more easily identified & of course, they would be stored in specific rows as they are now.

As an ex-smoker, I think this is a great idea. If it wasn't, then the cigarette companies wouldn't be preparing to go into million dollar lawsuits as they are now. The world is also watching Australia, this issue has been put on the table in countries like the UK and Canada...

What do you think?

Below are some reports on this issue from the ABC news website (the first is a recent one, the second one is older) -

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/08/3185876.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/29/2885343.htm


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I voted "yes". (I am a non-smoker.)

The issue from a macroeconomic perspective can be analysed in terms of the trade-off between making the cigarette market relatively inefficient for its consumers (such as high taxes and poor product differentiation/signalling, i.e. what Andre's poll is about) versus the economic gain a society can achieve from having a healthier population - the impact of which can directly be measured for example, by the reduction in national health expenditure a government spends on public hospitals dealing with health related problems associated with cigarette smoking. Public expenditure on national health is consistently one of a few big items of government fiscal expenditure in developed economies (often based on revenue the government raised from taxes elsewhere), and to minimise that, which in turn affects the national health of its human capital, has far reaching long run implications than the inefficiencies of the consumer's market of cigarette consumption. Unless of course, the economy in question (not Australia) also happens to be a major exporter of cigarettes and depends significantly on it for income.


----------



## science

I really don't mind either way; I've hardly ever smoked. 

But anything that would help mafia / black-market guys is bad in my book, so I would not support the bill.


----------



## jurianbai

as I know in Indonesia, cigarettes policy will affect millions of cigarattes workers industry, from the tobacoo farmers, industry, seller etc. that's one of the reason they can't banned cigarettes in conventional, parliament voting procedure. health problem is not enough a reason, you don't have money you don't have health neither.

and yes, I remember most my Australian a heavy smoker.


----------



## Rasa

I think this whole issue is besides the point, and the repackaging illustrates it nicely: we've come to the point where we're selling clearly marked boxes of poison. If you buy and use this, you're retarted but I still feel it's your individual right to act as such.

However, governements play an extremely ambiguous role in this. On the one side, they put out the image that they're trying to protect the population by warning them about the dangerous effects of smoking. On the other hand, they would never forbid it, because of all the taxes they get per sold packet.

Either they should leave it alone, and stop harassing smokers or do the legit thing and make cigarettes illegal.


----------



## Aksel

I voted yes. I am also one of those who thinks that smoking should be made illegal, and I do think think this is a step in the right direction. If made completely illegal today, it would create a massive black market for cigarettes, so I think it has to happen gradually.

But yay for graphic descriptions of lung cancer!


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

There are some interesting points made here.

Definitely agree that there's a Public Policy interest in discouraging smoking to the extent that it can be. I also think most of us are in agreement that an outright ban (at this time, anyway) would only serve to provide the relevant portions of the world a steroidal version of the effects of American alcohol prohibition in the 20s & early 30s.

On a personal note, I am an almost complete non-smoker, having never had anything to do with tobacco, with the (once or twice a decade) exception of the occasional celebratory cigar. Obviously, if I was barred from further cigars for the remainder of my life, I'd get over it pretty easily.

That said, _Rasa_ rightly points out that governments make a mint's worth of money from taxes on cigarettes. Furthermore, there are those who have opined that (in strictly monetary terms) cigarettes actually lower health-care costs, long term, as the product kills many people prior to their need for for massive, expensive extended-term medical care and treatment. I don't know how true this position is (and doubtless most of us would agree it's beside the point, since we'd rather see more extended life-spans, even if providing for same increases expense).

Many American states famously sued the tobacco companies- on the grounds that the states figured to have increased health-care costs as a direct result of tobacco consumption. The suit was settled for multi-billions (with a "b"). Then, virtually all the states made plans for the money that seemed to involve everything BUT projected increased health-care costs. This outcome did nothing to diminish the credibility of the cynical view cited in the prior paragraph.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Rasa said:


> I think this whole issue is besides the point, and the repackaging illustrates it nicely: we've come to the point where we're selling clearly marked boxes of poison. If you buy and use this, you're retarded but I still feel it's your individual right to act as such.


The trouble is, individuals' 'right' to act like this affects other people. Admittedly, this is not so bad now that smoking in public places is illegal in so many countries, but people can still be prone to 'passive smoking', which can be as deadly as taking the weed yourself. Famously, the trumpeter and comedian Roy Castle died of lung cancer even though he never smoked himself - his disease was caused by inhaling other people's smoke in pubs and clubs over many years. It killed him. No-one has the 'right' to inflict this sort of poison on other people.



Rasa said:


> However, governements play an extremely ambiguous role in this. On the one side, they put out the image that they're trying to protect the population by warning them about the dangerous effects of smoking. On the other hand, they would never forbid it, because of all the taxes they get per sold packet.


Hear, hear!



Rasa said:


> Either they should leave it alone, and stop harassing smokers or do the legit thing and make cigarettes illegal.


Agreed! Ban the weed!


----------



## Sid James

Aksel said:


> I voted yes. I am also one of those who thinks that smoking should be made illegal, and I do think think this is a step in the right direction. If made completely illegal today, it would create a massive black market for cigarettes, so I think it has to happen gradually.
> 
> But yay for graphic descriptions of lung cancer!


I read a few blogs on this subject today, and in a number of them smokers themselves say that cigs should be banned - then they (the smokers) would deal with outcome by being forced to quit. But as is obvious, a fair proportion of them would turn to the ever ready black market, which would positively be itching to fill the void.



Chi_townPhilly said:


> Many American states famously sued the tobacco companies- on the grounds that the states figured to have increased health-care costs as a direct result of tobacco consumption. The suit was settled for multi-billions (with a "b"). Then, virtually all the states made plans for the money that seemed to involve everything BUT projected increased health-care costs. This outcome did nothing to diminish the credibility of the cynical view cited in the prior paragraph.


There was a post on a blog in particular that caught my attention regarding this very issue. The person argued that taxes on cigs should be completely abolished, but governments should calculate and give their yearly health bill (the costs of treating illnesses related to smoking) to cigarette companies. Eg. the companies would have to pay directly for the damage they do, rather than paying any taxes, which only cover a small proportion of the health costs incurred by government of smoking.

On a personal note, I gave up smoking in late April last year (so it's almost been a year!!!). This was after many failed attempts in previous years. I'm still on nicotine replacement (the lozenges) but on much less of a dose than what I started out with. I am also receiving counselling from a psychologist on how to keep up being a non-smoker and how to eventually wean myself off the nicotine replacement products.

I started smoking when I was 30 and I quit last year when I was 33. I don't think that changes in the packaging would really affect me, because I started smoking for emotional reasons (I was going through a tough time the previous few years, smoking kind of became a comforting thing and an emotional outlet). But once I dealt with all those emotional & psychological issues (really, I still am to some extent every day), I was ready to give up.

But the reason why this plain packaging idea is a good one, imo, is that it takes away the last bastion of advertising, marketing and brand power that the cigarette companies have over people who are starting to smoke, particularly teenagers and people in their 20's. Even if we prevent a handful of people like that from taking up smoking, I think that these kinds of ideas can possibly work on some level. Yes, I agree, it is a step in the right direction...


----------



## World Violist

I support it. As said before, they could always put stickers on the packages to make sure they have the right brand, and that's the only problem I see with it. I'm not concerned with the tobacco industry's welfare; I feel like it's been killing people for long enough. It's good to see something finally being done that might actually work.


----------



## nickgray

I smoked for about four years, quit three months ago. A disgusting, utterly pointless and very, very addictive habit. I think this packaging is a good idea, it probably won't affect the smokers, but it should discourage non-smokers from starting, especially young people. It's sort of a "don't fool yourself" package - no fancy design, no misleading labels like "light" (surprisingly, many smokers do think light cigarettes are somehow better).


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Andre said:


> Cigarette companies...argue that it would be easier for counterfeiters to put black market cigarettes on the market


I suppose this could be avoided by requiring them to put holograms of diseased lungs on the packs--hard to counterfeit, but still repellent to customers

The UK government has opted not to require plain packaging, at least for the time being, but by the end of 2012 supermarkets will have to sell tobacco from under the counter, with nothing on display. Smaller shops have until 2015 (I think) to implement this change.

Interestingly, I've read that some American Republican politicians have called for tax in their states to be reduced, in order to sell more cigarettes. Not hard to guess where their campaign funding came from.


----------



## Potiphera

I have never smoked and find the habit obnoxious.
Showing deseased lungs, I'm not too sure what the effect this will have on smokers , at present they take no heed of the already warning notice on the package. I think if the whole tobacco industry burned down, they would still find something to smoke, make their own baccy maybe. 
Having said that, I feel sorry for folks that really do want to kick the habit, I know it must be very difficult, because after all it is like a drug.


----------



## Aksel

Potiphera said:


> I have never smoked and find the habit obnoxious.
> Showing deseased lungs, I'm not too sure what the effect this will have on smokers , at present they take no heed of the already warning notice on the package. I think if the whole tobacco industry burned down, they would still find something to smoke, make their own baccy maybe.
> Having said that, I feel sorry for folks that really do want to kick the habit, I know it must be very difficult, because after all it is like a drug.


I don't think the packaging will discourage current smokers, and I don't think that is the point either. I think it is to discourage people from starting to smoke in the first place.


----------



## sospiro

I voted yes. My Mum smoked & started in an age when the adverts actually said doctors approved of smoking. My dear Mum died of lung cancer & I hate the tobacco manufacturers and all the lies they told over the years. 

Smoking is incredibly addictive & very hard to kick & I hope that the plain packaging stops people from starting.


----------



## wingracer

Rasa said:


> However, governements play an extremely ambiguous role in this. On the one side, they put out the image that they're trying to protect the population by warning them about the dangerous effects of smoking. On the other hand, they would never forbid it, because of all the taxes they get per sold packet.
> 
> Either they should leave it alone, and stop harassing smokers or do the legit thing and make cigarettes illegal.


There is more to it than just taxes. Look at prohibition and what a disaster that was. Look at current drug policy and how badly that is going. Simply forbidding something does not make it go away. It can in fact make it far worse. The only way to end it is for the people to decide for themselves not to do it. This AU trick might actually help that a bit.


----------



## Rasa

Current cigarette consumption is also good proof that non-prohibition doesn't work either.


----------



## Krummhorn

I also voted yes ... now a former smoker who kicked that ugly habit over 6 years ago after having smoked for 39 years. Now, when around people who still smoke and having to smell that awful odor on their clothes, I realize that I too must have smelled like a walking ashtray to others.

I quit cold turkey ... threw it all away before going to bed one night, woke up the next morning with a new outlook on my life, and smoke free. I have not had any desire or urges to begin smoking since that day.

I wonder if the liquor industry should start placing pictures of car accidents caused by drunk drivers on their packing ... (fat chance :lol. Have not ever seen a published account of any car accident where someone was killed or maimed where it said "the driver was smoking a cigarette" ... No ... the comments are always "alcohol was involved in the accident." There's the _real_ killer, imho.


----------



## Almaviva

It's yes for me. Anything to prevent youngsters from adhering to this nasty and dangerous habit is worthy of consideration.


----------



## Chris

I have just doubled the No vote. Nothing against health warnings on cigarette packets. There might be people so lacking in curiosity they have never learned that cigarette smoke is not good for the lungs. But faeces-coloured packaging, in my view, crosses the line that divides providing helpful information from finger-wagging, tut-tutting, hectoring, nannying, busybodying intrusiveness. I have never smoked in my life but the smug white-coated clipboard toters I imagine behind this initiative make me want to reach for the nearest packet of Benson and Hedges and light up three simultaneously. If I sound a little jaundiced that may be attributable to Health and Safety fatigue, brought on by endless media reports of interfering officialdom taking it upon itself to wrap us all in cotton wool. Only last week Stockport council launched a voluntary scheme called ASK under which participating cafeterias, restaurants and fish and chip shops hide the salt behind the counter. If you want salt you have to ask for it. Whether of not the proprietor shouts 'Shame!' when you do so is not reported. Last year the same council ran another initiative which involved fish and chip shops using salt shakers with only five holes.

I hope the above does not put me in the category of Friends of the Tobacco Industry. I will be upset if free gifts from BAT start arriving at the door. I do not have a high view of these people and I remember they once argued tobacco was safe even as the contrary evidence was piling ever higher. I recall one of my pharmacology lecturers explaining how they used statistical evidence (which on its own was difficult to refute) while ignoring the cytological evidence.


----------



## Polednice

Chris said:


> But faeces-coloured packaging, in my view, crosses the line that divides providing helpful information from finger-wagging, tut-tutting, hectoring, nannying, busybodying intrusiveness. I have never smoked in my life but the smug white-coated clipboard toters I imagine behind this initiative make me want to reach for the nearest packet of Benson and Hedges and light up three simultaneously.


I despise the kind of people you imagine behind ideas such as these, and it would not surprise me if indeed they were, but I still think that it is a good approach because, frankly, I find it disgusting that there is such blatant marketing, branding, and general consumerism on a product that does nothing other than slowly kill people. There should be no place for advertising things like that in any way, shape, or form.


----------



## Potiphera

I see you like Brahms, Polednice. I do too :tiphat:

OK, carry on with the, to smoke, or not to smoke thread.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

When I was in an airport in a country outside the US, I saw some cigarettes being sold that way, I thought it was pretty funny. A huge label on them saying "Smoking Kills." Personally, unless the buyer is absolutely determined (or unintelligent enough) to ignore the label, I think it would work to deter them.


----------



## Ravellian

_There is more to it than just taxes. Look at prohibition and what a disaster that was. Look at current drug policy and how badly that is going. Simply forbidding something does not make it go away. It can in fact make it far worse. The only way to end it is for the people to decide for themselves not to do it. This AU trick might actually help that a bit._

I have this same concern. However, I think that the packaging design is the right decision. It doesn't prohibit you, it just tells you what a moron you are for doing it. It's both constitutional and morally correct. Will people go out of their way to buy something on the black market just to get different packaging? I doubt it.


----------



## Sid James

It looks like a huge majority of the TC community (or rather those who have voted) favour the Australian government's idea. The reaction has been far more mixed in this country, but it's early days yet. It will be interesting to see if the bill gets a chance to get through parliament, because the Labor Party is a minority government, only able to rule with the votes of a handful of independents (who range from Greens to independents of various political shades from left to right and in between). The opposition (the conservatives) haven't said yet whether they will support the bill (but don't forget that they recieve some of their funding from tobacco companies which doesn't really help, does it?). The public's reaction, from what I've seen on a few blogs, has also been mixed & a bit polarised. Just like the blind man said, "We'll see"...

Kudos to Krummhorn for giving up cold turkey (& after many decades of smoking - wow!  ). I went through various quit attempts before this one (& I have been quit for nearly a year - it'll be the anniversary in late April). One of the attempts was cold turkey but I only got as far as two months off the cigs. Then I tried nicotine lozenges which have worked, I'm still on a lower dose of them & I'm working with a psychogist to get off them as well. I think that if prospective smokers knew how damned hard it is to get off these "death sticks" as one of you have described them above, they wouldn't bother taking them up in the first place. Cigs are a very insidious drug, they tend to take over your life without you knowing it half the time.

Classical music on the other hand, is a completely 100% healthy "addiction,"  it's one of those rare good things in life, and with some of the money I've been saving from not buying the cigs, I've been able to go to concerts (went to 30 last year since I quit, admission to many not being that much more than the price of a pack of cigs!)...


----------



## Polednice

Potiphera said:


> I see you like Brahms, Polednice. I do too :tiphat:


That's good to hear! It means I immediately like you!


----------



## Edward Elgar

If showing diseased organs on boxes isn't enough to put smokers off, I doubt plain boxes will do much good. If a government is so concerned about smoking they can always ban it.


----------



## Sid James

Just an update on this, guys. The Australian Federal Parliament has just passed the bill for mandated plain packaging of cigs in it's lower house. Report here on the ABC news website.


----------



## itywltmt

I voted yes (I don't smoke, though my mother and brother did).

I have not read other posts oin this thread, but I will say that this strategy was adopted a few years ago in Canada, along with very strict rules about "carding" people who don't look 25 when they buy smokes. (BTW - age of majority here is 18, though some jurisdictions don't allow alcohol sales/consumoption until 19).

Maybe it;'s just me (and I do work with military and ex-military personnel, who do have a large contingent of smokers), but *I don't see less smoking *by young people today Vs. when I was young. Maybe these approaches don't work.


----------



## Sid James

itywltmt said:


> ...but I will say that this strategy was adopted a few years ago in Canada...


Thanks for letting me/us know, I wasn't aware of that, I thought Oz was the first place to do this.



> ...but *I don't see less smoking *by young people today Vs. when I was young. Maybe these approaches don't work.


I don't know, there are many factors here, with issues of why young people take up smoking. Anecdotally, I see heaps of younger women smoking than I did a number of years ago. & the statistics say that in Australia we have the highest amount of smokers per capita in the young age bracket compared to other countries (late teens to early twenties). This is definitely not an easy problem/cycle to break, but I'm glad our politicians are doing something about it...


----------



## kv466

"ban the weed"?? let's not get out of hand here! 

As far as the packaging,...if it is going to help put some people off of smoking, it is a good thing...I smoked for about six years in another time and then stopped; I'll still have a square every now and then...maybe up to ten a year...extreeeemely social...anyway, as a club and bar performer I can say that it is horrible to drive home and have my whole car smell worse than an ashtray as the smoke sticks to my clothes and worse still, the rug on my amp! 

Still, the food on our tables is more plastic than protein and we're constantly being poisoned at every turn...to attack only the cigarettes is highly hypocritical...big change is needed to keep this blue ball from chewing us up and spitting us out...change, very few of us are prepared to make.


----------



## graaf

Quite frankly, I'm on the same page with Iceland:

*Iceland considers prescription-only cigarettes*

Tobacco bill proposes outlawing shop sales, with only doctors allowed to prescribe cigarettes to addicts unable to kick habit. Iceland is considering banning the sale of cigarettes and making them a prescription-only product. The parliament in Reykjavik is to debate a proposal that would outlaw the sale of cigarettes in normal shops. Only pharmacies would be allowed to dispense them - initially to those aged 20 and up, and eventually only to those with a valid medical certificate.

more on: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/04/iceland-considers-prescription-only-cigarettes


----------



## Sid James

^^ Interesting stuff. I think it makes sense for an island nation like Iceland, as it says in the article (I've quoted below). They're quite cut off & isolated from the rest of the world, so little or no chance of smuggling of cigarettes into the country. Down here in Australia we're also an island, but not so isolated relative to Iceland, so I think this may not work for us. However, as in Iceland where the article says cigs are slugged with a hefty 25% tax, it's the same here, taxes on cigs are rising all the time, but I'm unsure what's the current rate. All I can tell you is that the tax on cigs here is climbing, now if only we could do the same with alcohol, make it more expensive so that all the violence, etc. caused by it can maybe be stemmed. Now that would be a very good move indeed...



> ...As an isolated island, Iceland arguably stands a greater chance of success with such draconian measures than other nations...With no neighbouring countries and rigid customs controls at ports and airports, it will be difficult for anyone to smuggle in contraband cigarettes.


----------



## Lenfer

I think it's a stupid idea children don't go into shops and say "oh give me that kind as I like the packaging"

They go for the cheapest ones and then maybe lighter ones like menthols. The only way you'll stop that is to remove the cigarettes from the packets, maybe then you'll achive something. 

I think people should allow people to smoke if they wish to do so as long as your not smoking around children that don't always have the option to leave then let people enjoy themselves.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Nobody thinks cigarettes are healthy. This is just a form of shaming.


----------



## Sid James

*@ L'Enfer* - What the laws just passed here in Australia are for is removing the branding/marketing power of the cigarette companies. The logic is to remove the advertising "pull" of the product, eg. the "brand power" they have (but all other advertising was banned about 20 years ago or more). I agree that younger people may well still be attracted to smoking cigarettes, but anything to at least stem the amount of younger people getting hooked on this very addictive drug is not a bad idea, imo. Whether it works or not will pan out in the long run, we are the first country to have gone down this route. Now, as I said, similar things should be done with alcohol, the problems it's causing in this country are very serious indeed, esp. amongst our youth ("binge drinking" on weekends is now common, as well as the violence and anti-social behaviour that goes along with it, etc.)...


----------



## Lenfer

Dear *Sid*,

Cigarettes have not been advertised on the television in *Europe* for a long time. So I didn't think they would have all that much brand power behind them. I agree with you though that anything that will stop younger people smoking is a good thing. However the *BBC* had a program on a few months ago about counterfeit cigarettes that are 10 times worse than normal over the counter ones and they are look alike copies at times.

My fear is that if you remove the branding the buyer won't always know what their getting acording to the program many smaller shops sell counterfeit but people know they are counterfeit they buy them as they are cheaper. Maybe it will get to the point here in the UK that you'll be buying counterfeit goods and not knowing.

Removing the brand only saves the makers money or that's the way I see it. It's sad to hear that binge drinking is a problem over there to I had always pictured *Australia* in general healthier than the *Brits*. Cheap booze is another problem no ones taking the labels off them yet and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Thanks for the relpy,

*L*


----------



## elgar's ghost

I don't think it will make any difference to younger people who feel tempted to dabble. They will often buy the cheapest ones and if the first packet they buy happens to be dressed in unpleasant livery then they will automatically be desensitized to the appearance of the packaging should they continue to want to smoke. I personally think that the UK government would like to phase out smoking with incremental 'salami' tactics but realising the amount of revenue the treasury would continue to lose I wonder if they're attempting to compensate for the shortfall by allowing the cost of bog-standard booze to be relatively low in places like off-licences and supermarkets?


----------



## Sid James

*A somewhat related issue in the news today...*

British Tobacco using our Aussie icon, the kangaroo, on their cigarette packets.

I think this is simply not on! Our government is not happy either, they are protesting against the corporation (for once?).

Details HERE.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

They should put this on cigarette packages as well and bump the price up by 350%


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Lenfer said:


> I had always pictured *Australia* in general healthier than the *Brits*.


I am baffled as to why you though that.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Sid James said:


> British Tobacco using our Aussie icon, the kangaroo, on their cigarette packets.
> 
> I think this is simply not on! Our government is not happy either, they are protesting against the corporation (for once?).
> 
> Details HERE.


Disgusting use of marketing. There's not much the Australian government can do because the company is not even an Australian company, letting alone selling the products here. If the latter, then at least it might ban the product or issue a warning to the company to comply with Australian standards of advertising etc.


----------



## Sid James

^^Yeah, but I hope Qantas makes a copyright issue out of it too, it looks like a rehash of their logo, basically...


----------



## Vaneyes

There must be healthier alternatives.


----------



## Sid James

^^You're joking, right? :lol:

Marijuana is said to be multiple times more cancer-causing than tobacco...


----------



## Sid James

> Originally Posted by *Lenfer*
> I had always pictured Australia in general healthier than the Brits.
> 
> 
> 
> I am baffled as to why you though that.
Click to expand...

It's the classic bronzed Aussie on the beach stereotype. Maybe a reality on Bondi Beach, but not exactly for the rest of Australia?...


----------



## Chrythes

Sid James said:


> ^^You're joking, right? :lol:
> 
> Marijuana is said to be multiple times more cancer-causing than tobacco...


Really?
I've read the opposite. Marijuana itself doesn't contain carcinogens, smoking it produces the same amount of carcinogens found in cigarettes, but people don't smoke 10 or 20 joints a day. Using a bong makes it even less harmful, and using the vaporizer basically makes it one of the "healthiest" drugs you can take. 
http://www.nowpublic.com/thc_marijuana_helps_cure_cancer_says_harvard_study

Overall , choosing between alcohol and marijuana I'd pick the latter. High people usually tend to not harm each other, I wonder what would be the number of violent incidents in the Coffee Shops of Amsterdam when compared to pubs.

Edit: Sorry, relating to the topic - I've been a smoker for 6 years. Experimenting with all the various brands I just chose Camel, as I found it to be the tastiest, but eventually due to financial problems I changed to rolling tobacco because it's the cheapest option, which is another problem.

It's usually one brand that sells many kinds of tastes (at least in Lithuania, in UK I've only seen one brand and two types of tobacco) so it's bought disregarding the manufacture. Banning ONLY the cigarettes might reduce the number of smokers, but they'd usually find out about the rolling and it's basically the same poison. So instead of the cigarette brands there will be more tobacco brands. Banning smoking tobacco just doesn't really make sense. 
It's banning cigars, pipes, water pipes etc.


----------



## Sid James

^Well I based it on remarks of a friend who has researched this area as well.

THIS site of Australian Health Department lists the harmful effects of cannabis generally.

I didn't bring alcohol into it but young people here, a growing number of them over the decades, are combining cannabis with alcohol and the effects in some cases have been lethal. Again said by this friend who has worked in this area.

Anyway, this thread is not the place for a debate about cannabis versus tobacco or anything. I basically think they are all rubbish...


----------



## Crudblud

The idiots behind shop counters can barely get the right pack now, if they're all **** brown they don't stand a chance.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Sid James said:


> It's the classic bronzed Aussie on the beach stereotype. Maybe a reality on Bondi Beach, but not exactly for the rest of Australia?...


I didn't know there was a "bronzed Aussie on the beach stereotype."


----------



## Crudblud

Well now you do!


----------



## TrazomGangflow

I am a non-smoker but live in an area where smoking is a big problem. Thankfully about three years ago smoking was banned in restuarants. (no more smoking and non- smoking sections) 

This idea about the packaging is great. Anything that will reduce the chances of young people to start smoking is good in my opinion. However I'm not sure it will have a great impact. In the end there will always be someone who smokes trying to pressure others into smoking. In the end it is the choice of the individual.


----------

