NATION

PASSWORD

Anti-Tobacco Plain Packaging coming to Britannia soon

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Untaroicht
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1978
Founded: Feb 09, 2013
Ex-Nation

Anti-Tobacco Plain Packaging coming to Britannia soon

Postby Untaroicht » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:45 pm

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30926973

A law introducing plain cigarette packaging in England and Wales could come into force in 2016 after ministers said MPs would be asked to vote on the plan before May's general election.

It follows a series of public consultations on the issue.

Public Health Minister Jane Ellison told MPs the move was likely to have a positive impact on public health, particularly for children.

Labour has already pledged to ban images on packets if it wins power.

And doctors say the move would save thousands of lives.

BBC health editor Hugh Pym said the changes could come into force as soon as 2016 if Parliament passes legislation before the end of March.

'Not complacent'
Ms Ellison said all the evidence pointed to the step having a positive impact - although she warned of a potential legal challenge from the cigarette industry which strongly opposes the move.

"We cannot be complacent. We all know the damage smoking does to health," she said.

"This government is completely committed to protecting children from the harm that tobacco causes."

Jump media playerMedia player helpOut of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.
Public Health Minister Jane Ellison announced plans for a vote on plain packaging
A review of the public health implications of standardised packaging last year by Sir Cyril Chantler concluded it was very likely their introduction would lead to a modest but important reduction in the uptake and prevalence of smoking.

MPs are now expected to be given a free vote on the issue before Parliament is dissolved ahead of the general election campaign, which begins in April.


(Apologies in advance for the following rant, cigar aficionado rage incoming)

Image


Why do these dickheads want to take my tobacco away so badly? When I was a kid they still allowed smoking in restaurants and even public parks with playgrounds, now I can't think of any place that allows smoking inside except for my local cigar lounge. On the contrary, I see these whimps with those pussy e-cigs and vaporware shit puffing in movie theaters, libraries, and classrooms.

It just seems like such a stupid thing to get fussy over, taking away peoples right to enjoy something. Most smokers will never get cancer, if I get it in 50 years who cares who the fuck wants to be old for most of their existance anyways?

Bottom line: Britain, Your nanny state is out of fucking control and you need to something about it. With how close Obama and Cameron are getting over political issues like surveillance and this I'm guessing this will (unfortunately) try to make it's way across the pond soon. Your thoughts, NSG?
Last edited by Untaroicht on Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
NSG's NEW (un)official resident survivalist/doomsday prepper - BURY YOUR SILVER!

User avatar
Second Blazing
Minister
 
Posts: 2503
Founded: Dec 08, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Second Blazing » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:46 pm

What a bunch of Fascists.
"I don't want to be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product of me."

User avatar
Washington Resistance Army
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54796
Founded: Aug 08, 2011
Father Knows Best State

Postby Washington Resistance Army » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:46 pm

What a bunch of communists.
Hellenic Polytheist, Socialist

User avatar
Untaroicht
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1978
Founded: Feb 09, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Untaroicht » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:47 pm

Second Blazing wrote:What a bunch of Fascists.


Even fascists and people with sympathies for fascism (like me) find this shit unacceptable.
NSG's NEW (un)official resident survivalist/doomsday prepper - BURY YOUR SILVER!

User avatar
The Lotophagi
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 385
Founded: Nov 01, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Lotophagi » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:49 pm

A review of the public health implications of standardised packaging last year by Sir Cyril Chantler concluded it was very likely their introduction would lead to a modest but important reduction in the uptake and prevalence of smoking.


What a bunch of reasonable people making a good decision supported by the evidence to decrease the prevalence of a socially-expensive and unpleasant habit.

User avatar
Condunum
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26273
Founded: Apr 26, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Condunum » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:51 pm

Untaroicht wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30926973

A law introducing plain cigarette packaging in England and Wales could come into force in 2016 after ministers said MPs would be asked to vote on the plan before May's general election.

It follows a series of public consultations on the issue.

Public Health Minister Jane Ellison told MPs the move was likely to have a positive impact on public health, particularly for children.

Labour has already pledged to ban images on packets if it wins power.

And doctors say the move would save thousands of lives.

BBC health editor Hugh Pym said the changes could come into force as soon as 2016 if Parliament passes legislation before the end of March.

'Not complacent'
Ms Ellison said all the evidence pointed to the step having a positive impact - although she warned of a potential legal challenge from the cigarette industry which strongly opposes the move.

"We cannot be complacent. We all know the damage smoking does to health," she said.

"This government is completely committed to protecting children from the harm that tobacco causes."

Jump media playerMedia player helpOut of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.
Public Health Minister Jane Ellison announced plans for a vote on plain packaging
A review of the public health implications of standardised packaging last year by Sir Cyril Chantler concluded it was very likely their introduction would lead to a modest but important reduction in the uptake and prevalence of smoking.

MPs are now expected to be given a free vote on the issue before Parliament is dissolved ahead of the general election campaign, which begins in April.


(Apologies in advance for the following rant, cigar aficionado rage incoming)

Image


Why do these dickheads want to take my tobacco away so badly? When I was a kid they still allowed smoking in restaurants and even public parks with playgrounds, now I can't think of any place that allows smoking inside except for my local cigar lounge. On the contrary, I see these whimps with those pissy e-cigs and vaporware shit puffing in movie theaters, libraries, and classrooms.

It just seems like such a stupid thing to get fussy over, taking away peoples right to enjoy something. Most smokers will never get cancer, if I get it in 50 years who cares who the fuck wants to be old for most of their existance anyways?

Bottom line: Britain, Your nanny state is out of fucking control and you need to something about it. With how close Obama and Cameron are getting over political issues like surveillance and this I'm guessing this will (unfortunately) try to make it's way across the pond soon. Your thoughts, NSG?

I'm a smoker and I have no problem with this.

I also couldn't give a shit for cigars. And way to go, really solidifying the point by calling other smokers whimps. "FUK HIM. HE DUSNT USE MY CANCER STICK"

Man, chill. I'll puff an e-cig while i chain smoke. they're just a new device.
password scrambled

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 58536
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:51 pm

Second Blazing wrote:What a bunch of Fascists.


Washington Resistance Army wrote:What a bunch of communists.


Never change NS.

As for OP, whatever.
Don't care.
They're already hidden behind walls of metal, this will effect precisely noone. I smoke regularly btw.

Fuck, having white plain packaging will make em better for the environment maybe.
Might even shave a few pence off the cost.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ostro.MOV

There is an out of control trolley speeding towards Jeremy Bentham, who is tied to the track. You can pull the lever to cause the trolley to switch tracks, but on the other track is Immanuel Kant. Bentham is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Principles of Moral Legislation. Both men are shouting at you that they have recently started to reconsider their ethical stances.

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 163903
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:52 pm

All the restrictions on tobacco products that I'm aware of exist to either protect people other than the adults who choose to use them or to inform those adults as to what exactly they're risking by choosing to use them. If it upsets one that one cannot inflict one's habit on other people, or that the tobacco industry isn't given free reign to lie about their product then one can fuck right off. This isn't even an anti-tobacco measure, for fuck sake.
He/Him

beating the devil
we never run from the devil
we never summon the devil
we never hide from from the devil
we never

User avatar
Militarists
Secretary
 
Posts: 31
Founded: May 06, 2014
Ex-Nation

..........

Postby Militarists » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:52 pm

Down with addiction to substances with 0 health benefits.

User avatar
Dooom35796821595
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9309
Founded: Sep 11, 2011
Father Knows Best State

Postby Dooom35796821595 » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:53 pm

Yeah, facists, communists...or maybe a country trying to lessen the strain on the NHS from people addicted to a damaging substance. Or maybe it's cultural diffrences between a nation more concerned with the right to life then petty freedoms.
When life gives you lemons, you BURN THEIR HOUSE DOWN!
Anything can be justified if it is cool. If at first you don't succeed, destroy all in your way.
"Your methods are stupid! Your progress has been stupid! Your intelligence is stupid! For the sake of the mission, you must be terminated!”

User avatar
Sebastianbourg
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5717
Founded: Apr 06, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Sebastianbourg » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:53 pm

Meh.

User avatar
New Aerios
Minister
 
Posts: 2250
Founded: Apr 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby New Aerios » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:53 pm

This is pointless. I don't smoke, and I don't necessarily approve of smoking, but I don't see the need to actively legislate against it, and feel this particular measure will have a very limited effect with regard to reducing the number of smokers. The education system here dedicates a huge amount of time to warning everyone of the dangers of smoking; those who wish to do it are already aware of the health risks and won't be discouraged by plain packaging. All in all, another nanny state measure from a government who delight in imposing their own moral values on 64 million other people. Not that any of the other options we have with regard to possible governments are any better. Maybe they should buy a one-way ticket to True Democratic People's Republic of Best Korea. I think they'd fit right in there.
Last edited by New Aerios on Fri Jan 23, 2015 6:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.
-------------------------------I--M--P--E--R--I--V--M----N--O--V--A----A--E--R--I--O--S---------------------------------
"No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong"

"Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 58536
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:54 pm

Dooom35796821595 wrote:Yeah, facists, communists...or maybe a country trying to lessen the strain on the NHS from people addicted to a damaging substance. Or maybe it's cultural diffrences between a nation more concerned with the right to life then petty freedoms.


Nobody is removing my freedom to smoke.
And if they tried, I just wouldn't fucking listen.
What they are doing is making it easier for adults to make INFORMED CONSENSUAL decisions on whether they want to smoke or not.
That seems to line up just fine and dandy with "petty freedoms."
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ostro.MOV

There is an out of control trolley speeding towards Jeremy Bentham, who is tied to the track. You can pull the lever to cause the trolley to switch tracks, but on the other track is Immanuel Kant. Bentham is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Principles of Moral Legislation. Both men are shouting at you that they have recently started to reconsider their ethical stances.

User avatar
Condunum
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26273
Founded: Apr 26, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Condunum » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:54 pm

New Aerios wrote:Same old shit from the governmtne. Ban it all wankers should go fuck off to north koeea and eat dogs and have stupid hair like Kim jong cunt. I don't smoke and I don't like it but this is pointless shit that wont discourage people from doing Jr and just generally reinforced wanker nanny state mentality. Fuck Cameron and fuck all the others with a cactus.

explain how this is nanny state or at all impedes your ability to inhale sweet nicotine

easy answer: it isnt and it doesnt
Last edited by Condunum on Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
password scrambled

User avatar
Untaroicht
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1978
Founded: Feb 09, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Untaroicht » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:58 pm

If I'm of age to smoke and I choose to smoke, chances are I've already been taught the dangers of it in elementary school or later, high school at the latest.

Tobacco companies making brilliant, vibrant, and unique artwork and brand logos on their packages isn't threatening to others and it isn't "lying to people"- it's advertising the fucking product.

Maybe not directly related, but, there are so many things that cause harm - where does this stop?

Mcdonalds causes obesity and obesity causes deaths- let's forbid them from using their franchise characters like Ronald Mcdonald and instead force them to put naked, morbidly obese people on all their bags!
Last edited by Untaroicht on Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NSG's NEW (un)official resident survivalist/doomsday prepper - BURY YOUR SILVER!

User avatar
Second Blazing
Minister
 
Posts: 2503
Founded: Dec 08, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Second Blazing » Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:00 pm

Condunum wrote:
New Aerios wrote:Same old shit from the governmtne. Ban it all wankers should go fuck off to north koeea and eat dogs and have stupid hair like Kim jong cunt. I don't smoke and I don't like it but this is pointless shit that wont discourage people from doing Jr and just generally reinforced wanker nanny state mentality. Fuck Cameron and fuck all the others with a cactus.

explain how this is nanny state or at all impedes your ability to inhale sweet nicotine

easy answer: it isnt and it doesnt


Its needless regulation, changing the packaging to all white isn't going to deter anyone.
"I don't want to be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product of me."

User avatar
Communist Volkstrad
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6878
Founded: Oct 22, 2014
Father Knows Best State

Postby Communist Volkstrad » Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:02 pm

I honestly don't see the point of taking the pictures off tobacco products. I would never smoke myself, and they slam it through your head every year in school and on TV here in America that smokes are bad.

Chances are, if someone chooses to smoke, they already know it's poison and go with the risk. If people wanna smoke, they'll do it. Pictures on the boxes will do nothing.
I'm not actually a communist.

User avatar
Condunum
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26273
Founded: Apr 26, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Condunum » Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:03 pm

Second Blazing wrote:
Condunum wrote:explain how this is nanny state or at all impedes your ability to inhale sweet nicotine

easy answer: it isnt and it doesnt


Its needless regulation, changing the packaging to all white isn't going to deter anyone.

I've personally changed brands because one brand had a flashier package than the other. (Hear that, L&M? Being cheap doesn't win everyone)

I personally have no problem with flashy packaging, but I can see the merit in the idea that flashy packaging is harmful. It's not a myth, flashy packaging is specifically designed for a younger market of fresh smokers. It's the same thing as eccentric names for brands. It's another marketing scheme aimed at getting new smokers. One I personally don't care about, but understand the reaction to.
Last edited by Condunum on Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
password scrambled

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 58536
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:04 pm

Communist Volkstrad wrote:I honestly don't see the point of taking the pictures off tobacco products. I would never smoke myself, and they slam it through your head every year in school and on TV here in America that smokes are bad.

Chances are, if someone chooses to smoke, they already know it's poison and go with the risk. If people wanna smoke, they'll do it. Pictures on the boxes will do nothing.


I dunno, when they added those pictures of corpses and fucked up lungs and stuff a lot of people I know quit.
Ostro.MOV

There is an out of control trolley speeding towards Jeremy Bentham, who is tied to the track. You can pull the lever to cause the trolley to switch tracks, but on the other track is Immanuel Kant. Bentham is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Principles of Moral Legislation. Both men are shouting at you that they have recently started to reconsider their ethical stances.

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:06 pm

What? There isn't a tobacco lobby in the UK?
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
The Risen Jaguar Warriors
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1446
Founded: Apr 06, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby The Risen Jaguar Warriors » Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:09 pm

I think it's the time of the year where everyone blames us Australians...
⇦ Keep to the left
100% Raiderist Сюнна 20% Defenderist

My puppet-juggling skills are like a drinking straw... meaning they suck...
I am a girl

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:10 pm

The Risen Jaguar Warriors wrote:I think it's the time of the year where everyone blames us Australians...


Cricket, tobbaco... no matter what it's always about ashes.
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Communist Volkstrad
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6878
Founded: Oct 22, 2014
Father Knows Best State

Postby Communist Volkstrad » Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:11 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Communist Volkstrad wrote:I honestly don't see the point of taking the pictures off tobacco products. I would never smoke myself, and they slam it through your head every year in school and on TV here in America that smokes are bad.

Chances are, if someone chooses to smoke, they already know it's poison and go with the risk. If people wanna smoke, they'll do it. Pictures on the boxes will do nothing.


I dunno, when they added those pictures of corpses and fucked up lungs and stuff a lot of people I know quit.

Well that's adding something.
From what I understand, they just want to remove all the pictures.
I'm not actually a communist.

User avatar
Tubbsalot
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9196
Founded: Oct 17, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Tubbsalot » Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:17 pm

Untaroicht wrote:Why do these dickheads want to take my tobacco away so badly?

They don't. You can still buy cigarettes. It's just another way to prevent younger people from starting to smoke, which nobody should have a problem with, since smoking is universally acknowledged as a horrendous habit which destroys your lungs and makes you cough and stink.

Like, seriously, it's not a big deal. If you need pictures on your cigarette packets that desperately, it seems like you're exactly the sort of person who requires a nanny state.
"Twats love flags." - Yootopia

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 163903
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:17 pm

The Lotophagi wrote:
A review of the public health implications of standardised packaging last year by Sir Cyril Chantler concluded it was very likely their introduction would lead to a modest but important reduction in the uptake and prevalence of smoking.


What a bunch of reasonable people making a good decision supported by the evidence to decrease the prevalence of a socially-expensive and unpleasant habit.

Those bastards.


Untaroicht wrote:If I'm of age to smoke and I choose to smoke, chances are I've already been taught the dangers of it in elementary school or later, high school at the latest.

But with health warnings on tobacco packaging that changes that from a probability to a damn near iron-clad guarantee. Is that a bad thing?

Tobacco companies making brilliant, vibrant, and unique artwork and brand logos on their packages isn't threatening to others and it isn't "lying to people"- it's advertising the fucking product.

Exactly. Advertising it to children, by trying to make smoking look cool.

Maybe not directly related, but, there are so many things that cause harm - where does this stop?

When a cost-benefit analysis comes up more cost than benefit, obviously.


Second Blazing wrote:
Condunum wrote:explain how this is nanny state or at all impedes your ability to inhale sweet nicotine

easy answer: it isnt and it doesnt


Its needless regulation, changing the packaging to all white isn't going to deter anyone.

Somehow I'm inclined to believe the people who have researched this over you.
He/Him

beating the devil
we never run from the devil
we never summon the devil
we never hide from from the devil
we never

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Emotional Support Crocodile, ImSaLiA, Likhinia, Majestic-12 [Bot], Philjia, Post War America

Advertisement

Remove ads