View Full Version : Australia is the first country to ban branding on cigarette packets
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15673797
Note: 10 November 2011 Last updated at 16:15 GMT
What else do you expect from Australia, wont be long and it will be against the law to smoke here! That will kill tourism for sure!:nope: Who said we were a democracy, the country is run by a bunch of dictators, 100%:dead::stare:
What else do you expect from Australia, wont be long and it will be against the law to smoke here! That will kill tourism for sure!:nope: Who said we were a democracy, the country is run by a bunch of dictators, 100%:dead::stare:
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/9141/australiagetsfirstwoman.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/32/australiagetsfirstwoman.jpg/)
For ya Reece, :DL
Jimbuna
11-11-11, 06:50 AM
What else do you expect from Australia, wont be long and it will be against the law to smoke here! That will kill tourism for sure!:nope: Who said we were a democracy, the country is run by a bunch of dictators, 100%:dead::stare:
Are you a smoker mate?
The list of things that are verboten in the Holy Australian Empire seems to be getting longer and longer...
Jimbuna
11-11-11, 09:31 AM
At this rate they'll soon be catching up with us Brit folk :doh:
Herr-Berbunch
11-11-11, 09:42 AM
That will kill tourism for sure!
Why? Because that's the reason people visit Oz? :doh: :hmmm:
Jimbuna
11-11-11, 09:45 AM
Why? Because that's the reason people visit Oz? :doh: :hmmm:
Probably....I've heard it's full of fags :O:
Herr-Berbunch
11-11-11, 09:47 AM
Probably....I've heard it's full of fags :O:
Okay, now Oz is crossed off my 'places to visit' list. :up:
Sailor Steve
11-11-11, 10:16 AM
This is ridiculous. I don't even smoke, and I think this is idiocy at its finest. The whole point of having a business to make money, and if no one is allowed to put their own name on their product, what's the point?
As for banning cigarettes altogether, they will find out what we learned eighty years ago - that prohibition doesn't work, and only serves to promote black markets and criminal organizations. Of course we didn't learn our lesson either, and will probably follow our downunder cousins along the same road.
VENDOR!
DID YOU HAVE TO PUT A MASSIVE PICTURE UP OF THAT WELSH BITCH?
Good job she naffed off down under. :rotfl2:
I can see someone making a killing selling plain metal cigaret cases.
http://www.sz-wholesale.com/uploadFiles/upimg8%5CMetal-Cigarette-Case_536238.jpg
Guilt factor sorted. :smug::O:
Jimbuna
11-11-11, 12:22 PM
I can see many now....awaiting their flight back down under.
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/9154/9fumar1.gif
VENDOR!
DID YOU HAVE TO PUT A MASSIVE PICTURE UP OF THAT WELSH BITCH?
Good job she naffed off down under. :rotfl2:
I can see someone making a killing selling plain metal cigaret cases.
http://www.sz-wholesale.com/uploadFiles/upimg8%5CMetal-Cigarette-Case_536238.jpg
Guilt factor sorted. :smug::O: Nuff,:()1:
Skybird
11-11-11, 03:04 PM
http://www.ajpmonline.org/webfiles/images/journals/amepre/AMEPRE_3253-stamped.pdf
Background:
More states and localities are passing restrictions on smoking in public places and workplaces.
Purpose:
To determine what, if any, association exists between enactment of strong laws making public places or workplaces smokefree on adoption of voluntary smokefree-home policies, particularly whether such laws are associated with increased smoking at home.
Methods:
Logistic regressions were used to estimate the OR of a person living with a 100% smokefree-home rule as a function of individual characteristics, household composition, and whether or not the residential region is covered by clean indoor air laws. The data came from successive waves of the Tobacco Use Supplement to Current Population Survey (TUS-CPS) for the years 1992-2007, and the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation database of state and local government clean indoor air laws. Analysis was conducted in 2010 and 2011.
Results:
Living in a county fully covered by a 100% clean indoor air law in workplaces or restaurants or bars is associated with an increased likelihood of having a voluntary 100% smokefree-home rule both for people living with smokers (OR7.76, 95% CI5.27, 11.43) and not living with smokers (OR 4.12, 95% CI3.28, 5.16).
Conclusions:
Strong clean indoor air laws are associated with large increases in voluntary smokefree-home policies both in the homes with and without smokers. These results support the
hypothesis of norm spreading of clean indoor air laws.
(Am J Prev Med 2011;xx(x):xxx) © 2011 American Journal of Preventive Medicine)
:yawn: Thanks for your participation, we send a bill :D
Well who cares if another drug is sold with plan wrapping? This one just doesn't require a prescription. This is a lot of fuss about sod all.
Jimbuna
11-11-11, 06:50 PM
Well who cares if another drug is sold with plan wrapping? This one just doesn't require a prescription. This is a lot of fuss about sod all.
Agreed mate..but a source of you know what for some :03:
Are you a smoker mate?
No but it is a persons right to smoke if they want!!:x
Why? Because that's the reason people visit Oz? :doh: :hmmm:
Not that alone but imagine if a smoker comes here and their smokes are confiscated, lets face it almost half the western world would be smokers and if they couldn't smoke or bring there own they are not likely to come, if I were a smoker I wouldn't go to a country that banned them!:x
CaptainMattJ.
11-12-11, 02:48 AM
im sick of this mentality that peoples MUST save others from their own sins and all that nonsense. If a person wants to smoke, what right is it of yours to tell them no. If a person wants to do something (that doesnt infringe on yours rights), then its no business of yours to tell them they cant or shouldnt. i understand businesses banning smoking and and around their restaurant, but this is a bit too far.
Jimbuna
11-12-11, 05:32 AM
No but it is a persons right to smoke if they want!!:x
Not that alone but imagine if a smoker comes here and their smokes are confiscated, lets face it almost half the western world would be smokers and if they couldn't smoke or bring there own they are not likely to come, if I were a smoker I wouldn't go to a country that banned them!:x
I can't see it stopping that many people...they will always find somewhere to smoke whether it be behind the walls of a private residence or some other building...surely.
Yes but it shouldn't be, this is as bad as forcing adults to wear helmets on pushbikes and horses, fining me $150 for endangering my life!!:x or banning fireworks etc, it's a crime to enjoy yourself!!:doh:
Skybird
11-12-11, 07:40 AM
im sick of this mentality that peoples MUST save others from their own sins and all that nonsense. If a person wants to smoke, what right is it of yours to tell them no. If a person wants to do something (that doesnt infringe on yours rights), then its no business of yours to tell them they cant or shouldnt. i understand businesses banning smoking and and around their restaurant, but this is a bit too far.
Yes, but two demands I have.
First, diseases caused by the abuse of tobacco, alcohol, should not be payed for by health insurrances when becoming treated. If you intentionally do harm to yourself, I wonder why I am expected to pay for your compensation. You can poke your eye with a pencil intentionally, if you like it. But I hate to pay the doctors bill when you go to hospital. My sense of solidarity (as expressed on social security systems) is for you suffering damage when being caught in an accident, getting struck by fate without it being your fault, or becoming ill by age or more natural means. My solidarity ends when you act stupid and against better knowledge.
Second, the public sphere should be clean of smoke. Especially intense smokers stink like hell, even when not smoking, because the stuff is in their hair, their cloathing, on and in the skin. While that cannot be changed, you can at least demand smokers to not contaminate the air with actively blowing their stinking smoke from a burning cigarette around: Verursacherprinzip - the one causing the dirt or the noise, is responsible for stopping the pollution.
In Germany, many bar owners said that their business has not changed much in numbers, but the audience sometimes has changed. Some smokers stay away, but they won new customers, non-smokers, that before choosed to not enter a smoke-hole.
In Saudi Arabia smoking is banned on the streets as far as i know due to muslim law....:-)
:yawn:
And what happens if that Welsh Noodle bans Beer?
Tarjak will over throw her.
:D:rotfl2:
Or throw up over her. :p:har::har:
Herr-Berbunch
11-12-11, 04:39 PM
No but it is a persons right to smoke if they want!!:x But what about the non-smokers right to not smell the stinky stuff? At present when I walk out of one particular supermarket I'd have to walk through about a dozen peoples' fug! Same for shopping malls and pubs. And as for other buildings, like my workplace, or a restaurant - people returning after smoking reek, as nice-a-person as they may be it just isn't nice.
Not that alone but imagine if a smoker comes here and their smokes are confiscated, lets face it almost half the western world would be smokers and if they couldn't smoke or bring there own they are not likely to come, if I were a smoker I wouldn't go to a country that banned them!:x
If people pre-flight are aware that they will be confiscated they wouldn't take them, but buy them on arrival - taxes to Oz, nice move by your government really.
Roughly 20% of the world's population are smokers (1.3bn), mostly males, and Russia and China make up the largest bulk of that. Can't be bothered to do the maths for western-only. :D
They aren't banned, only the branding is banned.
For once, I'm with Sky' :yep:
The mad Welsh ranga is not banning smoking, just the right of a drug manufacturer to have pretty packaging and advertising of their product.
The only reason people are getting het up about this, is history. If a manufacturer came up with a new product today that was known to kill half of its users and contained the many toxins that cigarettes do, then it wouldn't even make it to market.
And I curse Sir Walter Raileigh, he was such a stupid git!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7YBaiJMnik
They aren't banned, only the branding is banned.This has been a slow move to banning for a long time, it will happen, the price with all the taxes on cigarettes makes it almost impossible to afford it! And it's against the law to grow your own tobacco!:stare:
But what about the non-smokers right to not smell the stinky stuff?I agree, I'm a non smoker but there are already enough laws prohibiting smoking in many areas.:yep:
Jimbuna
11-12-11, 06:35 PM
I remember the announcement in advance on a ban on smoking in public places by June 07 (IIRC) and it came to nothing when the date arrived...people were resigned to the fact.
sidslotm
11-13-11, 02:03 PM
I don't know if is a wind up, but I heard that Austrialia is also about to launch instant powdered beer, just add water :har:.
Jimbuna
11-13-11, 02:07 PM
Heard that one too...I belive there going to call it Fosters.
Just be careful where the water comes from:
http://www.thechicecologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/pee-outside.jpg
This is a shot of the Foster's factories bottling section
Jimbuna
11-13-11, 05:15 PM
LOL :DL
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YGuUbHg8Pug/0.jpg
sidslotm
11-14-11, 02:00 PM
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YGuUbHg8Pug/0.jpg
Hughy, dam diced carrots block the sink :timeout:
kiwi_2005
11-14-11, 02:19 PM
And New Zealand will follow. What ever the Aussies think up our government tries to copy them, there were talks of banning brand names on cigs here and will hit our stores next year if National get into government again (election vote this month) and all parties want NZ to be smoke free by 2025.
Well at least its safe to know Australia will never ban beer. :DL Therefore we wont either!
Well at least its safe to know Australia will never ban beer. :DL Therefore we wont either!
Are you sure?:hmmm:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.