• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Tobacco company anti plain-packaging ads score "own goal"

Mayfurr

Mostly Harmless
Here in New Zealand there have been moves by the government since April 2012 to mandate plain (non-branded) packaging for cigarettes, as part of ongoing public health efforts to encourage smokers to quit. These efforts have been given a significant boost by a recent Australian High Court ruling on similar Australian moves that such a plain-packaging law is constitutionally valid - while obviously Aussie and Kiwi laws are different, the precedent set by the Aussie courts is still significant because it blows out of the water any arguments the tobacco companies have over government "stealing" their copyrights on branding.

Of course, the tobacco companies are fighting back, and here in NZ they've started an advertising campaign to persuade the public of the rightness of their case. In essence, the tobacco companies are claiming "If I create it, I should own it" with respect to their branding.

However, given that the very first line of their ad spiel is "We agree tobacco is harmful...", they (in my opinion) have shot themselves in the foot, because the very first question raised is "Well, if you admit that your product is harmful to your customers, why the fuck are you wanting to continue selling it?" In essence, the tobacco companies are saying "Yes, our product harms all of our customers, but the really important thing is not how we're poisoning people who buy our product, but it's that we're not allowed to advertise it. Our advertising is far more important than the wellbeing of our customers."

It's also been pointed out that if the tobacco companies are serious about "If I create it, I should own it", then seeing as their products cause significant health issues like lung cancer, perhaps said tobacco companies should be "owning" these problems and paying for the medical costs that use of their products have produced. But of course that's not the sort of thing that British American Tobacco and their ilk are talking about with "owning their creation"...
 

Rilvor

Formal when angry
It's also been pointed out that if the tobacco companies are serious about "If I create it, I should own it", then seeing as their products cause significant health issues like lung cancer, perhaps said tobacco companies should be "owning" these problems and paying for the medical costs that use of their products have produced. But of course that's not the sort of thing that British American Tobacco and their ilk are talking about with "owning their creation"...

I do not agree that tobacco companies should be paying because someone was foolish enough to smoke, fully aware of the dangers. You should perhaps think of a better analogy. We all know tobacco companies are evil, smoking is unhealthy, etc. but that isn't enough to stop people.

Edit: I don't agree with any of this at all really. Have some willpower people, goodness.
 

Mayfurr

Mostly Harmless
I do not agree that tobacco companies should be paying because someone was foolish enough to smoke, fully aware of the dangers.

Why not? Their product, when used in the correct manner, is fucking harmful to people's health. There is no safe level of tobacco smoking. The tobacco companies are admitting it in their own advertising that their product is harmful.

I'm simply pointing out the selective tobacco company morality in claiming ownership of the brand of their product, but not owning the impacts their product has on their customers. The customers their product turns into addicts before killing them.
 

Rilvor

Formal when angry
Why not? Their product, when used in the correct manner, is fucking harmful to people's health. There is no safe level of tobacco smoking. The tobacco companies are admitting it in their own advertising that their product is harmful.

I'm simply pointing out the selective tobacco company morality in claiming ownership of the brand of their product, but not owning the impacts their product has on their customers. The customers their product turns into addicts before killing them.

It doesn't matter because at the end of the day, you still bought them. That is about all there is to it. If you can't control yourself, that is a problem on your end. People claiming its the tobacco company's fault they got lung cancer are the same people claiming McDonalds made them fat by having Ronald McDonald shovel greasy burgers down their throat. That is just stupid.
 
Last edited:

Lobar

The hell am I reading, here?
It doesn't matter because at the end of the day, you still bought them. That is all about there is to it. If you can't control yourself, that is problem on your end. People claiming its the tobacco company's fault they got lung cancer are the same people claiming McDonalds made them fat by having Ronald McDonald shovel greasy burgers down their throat. That is just stupid.

McDonald's isn't physically addictive. You can't fully put this down to personal responsibility when cigarettes are more addictive than heroin.
 

Rilvor

Formal when angry
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2707143.stm :V

I don't know how our Government is allowed to take away rights from a legal product. The Australian constitution doesn't give us nearly as many rights as the American one. :U

Even then, attempting to claim the addiction was simply suddenly there is absurd. If people are informed of the risks, you chose to take that risk.

Tobacco companies, fast food, alcohol, you name it. I do not agree with hiding the risks or downplaying them, nor do I agree with alluring imagery but that is not what I am arguing here.
 

Volt-048

☢WARNING: High Explosives☢
McDonald's isn't physically addictive. You can't fully put this down to personal responsibility when cigarettes are more addictive than heroin.
I agree that its not fair to yell at someone for being physically addicted to something, but Rilvor is not totally wrong. Anyone in their 20s or younger has had the truth about smoking told to them for years, plus there are many proven tools out there to quit smoking, many of them costing about the same as the daily cost of the smoking in the first place.

I wouldn't call them totally stupid, or claim its 100% their fault (Honestly, I blame whoever got them to try it in the first place) but there are some levels of personal responsibility people need to pay mind to.
 

Mayfurr

Mostly Harmless
McDonald's isn't physically addictive. You can't fully put this down to personal responsibility when cigarettes are more addictive than heroin.

Not to mention that it is possible to eat a safe amount of McDonald's products without any harm. The same cannot be said for tobacco.
 

Mayfurr

Mostly Harmless
I agree that its not fair to yell at someone for being physically addicted to something, but Rilvor is not totally wrong. Anyone in their 20s or younger has had the truth about smoking told to them for years, plus there are many proven tools out there to quit smoking, many of them costing about the same as the daily cost of the smoking in the first place.

I wouldn't call them totally stupid, or claim its 100% their fault (Honestly, I blame whoever got them to try it in the first place) but there are some levels of personal responsibility people need to pay mind to.

If we're talking about responsibility for their actions, what responsibility do you see that the tobacco companies should shoulder seeing as they're marketing a product that they themselves now admit is harmful to the health of their customers? Do companies marketing any product not have a duty of care that their product, when used in the correct manner, does not kill the people who use it?

Or is it perfectly OK to sell say, sweets laced with rat poison, as long as you have a label on the packaging that says "CONTAINS RAT POISON" - and if someone dies from eating your sweets you can just shrug your shoulders and say "Meh, they were warned" and not be done for selling a defective and harmful product?
 

Rilvor

Formal when angry
If we're talking about responsibility for their actions, what responsibility do you see that the tobacco companies should shoulder seeing as they're marketing a product that they themselves now admit is harmful to the health of their customers? Do companies marketing any product not have a duty of care that their product, when used in the correct manner, does not kill the people who use it?

Or is it perfectly OK to sell say, sweets laced with rat poison, as long as you have a label on the packaging that says "CONTAINS RAT POISON" - and if someone dies from eating your sweets you can just shrug your shoulders and say "Meh, they were warned" and not be done for selling a defective and harmful product?

Their only responsibility is to own up to what their products do. Alcohol's primary use with people is to drink it, and consumed over a long period of time will also kill you. I cannot prove that the same slow but steady consumption of greasy McDeath burgers will also kill you in a fair number of years, but I would be inclined to think so. Trying to claim "only a little won't hurt" seems absurd. People who bother eating fast food do not typically eat "only a little".

Your second example is absurd hyperbole and nothing more.
 

Hinalle K.

Banned
Banned
Who cares

If people want to damage their own health despite all the obvious warnings ,that's their problem
 

Rilvor

Formal when angry
Who cares

If people want to damage their own health despite all the obvious warnings ,that's their problem

It is definitely Coca-Cola's fault that people have eroded teeth. They should pay everyone's dental bills that ever drank X amount of their products.
 

Hinalle K.

Banned
Banned
It is definitely Coca-Cola's fault that people have eroded teeth. They should pay everyone's dental bills that ever drank X amount of their products.
Are you seriously comparing tobacco and lung complications to a drink and aesthetic problems?

But anyway, you got the right idea
 
Last edited:

Rilvor

Formal when angry
Are you seriously comparing tobacco and lung complications to a drink and aesthetic problems?

But anyway, you got the right idea

Silly replies for silly arguments is all I meant to imply.

That being said, I have a friend who found his life surprisingly impaired by the erosion he suffered from drinking more Mountain Dew than any human being ever should. Thankfully he has had extensive dental work since then. I can't imagine it helped his job searching.
 
Z

Zoetrope

Guest
I find it hilarious that the tobacco companies are getting upset about plain packaging. If they can't comply with a country's laws, then their product isn't going to be sold there. It's either comply... or lose revenue. Ta daaa.
 

Contrast

New Member
I've never smoked a single cigarette in my entire life. Not even a puff. It's really expensive and it shortens your lifespan. That's all the info I need to make an intelligent decision.
 

Randy-Darkshade

Bike riding squirrel thing.
It wont work, it's just a scam by the government to make it look like they are doing something about it. Smokers will smoke regardless of what the packaging looks like.

Here in the UK supermarkets have to keep tobacco products behind shut display doors to deter young smokers. How the fuck they think that will work I don't know.
 

Slaton

Victrix Patientia Duris
It's a vicious circle with the tobacco industry and governments across the world. No matter what country you are in, the nations government ultimatly wants to stop people smoking. Here in the U.K at least it is to save billions of pounds on the NHS treating smoking related illnesses, which is all well and good but the there is alot of tax on a box of fags which also brings in the money. Catch 22.

So restrict what the 'baccy companies can and can't do. My uncle who works for British American tobacco say it has affected sales a bit, but at the end of the day if people want to smoke then that is there choice. Same as drinking. Ok, so it's bad for health and addictive, but you cannot stop it all together.

Here the campaings started with the F1 cars and no smoking advertising, then the T.V. So bang some gross images on the boxes becasue that will stop it surley? Nope. In reality, no one pays a blind bit of notice to the images of lung caner on the packet, or the big bold warnings on the front. Why should they? It's an addiction, as long as it's legal to keep buying ciggys whats the issue?

So latest stunt is hide the display in the shops. Apparently to discourage people randomly walking into buy them which is crap, again if you want them you buy them. Tobacco companies are business so yeah they know the product is harmful, but they have to make money. Not nice i know, but its not an ideal world we live in.

If the Kiwi government wants to ban advertising, the big boys will just adhere to it eventually as ultimatly, they cannot afford to loose business.

Is smoking banned in public places there?

edit- Randy posted whilst i was writing. I agree, it will never ever stop people buying smokes. Only way, is to outlaw it completley. And it brings in too much tax to do that ;)
 

Randy-Darkshade

Bike riding squirrel thing.
It's a vicious circle with the tobacco industry and governments across the world. No matter what country you are in, the nations government ultimatly wants to stop people smoking. Here in the U.K at least it is to save billions of pounds on the NHS treating smoking related illnesses, which is all well and good but the there is alot of tax on a box of fags which also brings in the money. Catch 22.

Bollocks, the government is just making it "look" like they want people to quit. Bottom line is they don;t because the generate so much revenue from smoking. So in truth the government is only making it look like they are trying to do something about it.

So restrict what the 'baccy companies can and can't do. My uncle who works for British American tobacco say it has affected sales a bit, but at the end of the day if people want to smoke then that is there choice. Same as drinking. Ok, so it's bad for health and addictive, but you cannot stop it all together.

Alcohol isn't addictive to everyone. Fuck I can drink alcohol, get pissed one night and go absolutely months without touching a drop, or wanting a drop, no cravings or anything.

Here the campaings started with the F1 cars and no smoking advertising, then the T.V. So bang some gross images on the boxes becasue that will stop it surley? Nope. In reality, no one pays a blind bit of notice to the images of lung caner on the packet, or the big bold warnings on the front. Why should they? It's an addiction, as long as it's legal to keep buying ciggys whats the issue?

Exactly. If people want a smoke they will smoke. People aren't stupid. I mean what is hiding cigs in supermarkets going to do? Smokers KNOW where the cigs are kept regardless of whether they are hidden behind closed display doors or not. Not only that but that new law doesn't apply to small shops and convenience stores. Those places can still openly display cigs.

So latest stunt is hide the display in the shops. Apparently to discourage people randomly walking into buy them which is crap, again if you want them you buy them. Tobacco companies are business so yeah they know the product is harmful, but they have to make money. Not nice i know, but its not an ideal world we live in.

Tobacco itself isn't really harmful, in small doses. If you're gonna smoke 40 or 60 or even more a day then yeah, expect a short life span and the possibility of other related diseases. But 10 a day? or less? Probably wont do much to you. Same as Alcohol and your liver. If you get drunk once or twice a week it probably wont do much to your liver, after all your liver will repair itself if the damage is small. Yet people who walk around constantly drunk, true alcoholics where the first thing they do is down an alcoholic beverage when they wake up, will eventually end up with liver failure.

It's basically down to the quantity you consume.

If the Kiwi government wants to ban advertising, the big boys will just adhere to it eventually as ultimatly, they cannot afford to loose business.

Is smoking banned in public places there?

edit- Randy posted whilst i was writing. I agree, it will never ever stop people buying smokes. Only way, is to outlaw it completley. And it brings in too much tax to do that ;)

Exactly, but we all know that no government will do that because too much tax revenue is generated from it, same as alcohol.
 

Smelge

Hey, Assbutt
I do not agree that tobacco companies should be paying because someone was foolish enough to smoke, fully aware of the dangers. You should perhaps think of a better analogy. We all know tobacco companies are evil, smoking is unhealthy, etc. but that isn't enough to stop people.

Rubbish. What about people who end up with health problems from cigarettes who have never smoked in their life? Are you saying it's their fault other people smoked around them and gave them second hand smoke? Are you saying that in countries with proper healthcare, the general public should be paying their taxes so that people with lbg cancer can be treated while the people who caused it get to moan about restrictions to theiir product?

Fuck it. They're the ones poisoning people, let them pay. Or add on more tax to their products that is put straight into the healthcare system.


It wont work, it's just a scam by the government to make it look like they are doing something about it. Smokers will smoke regardless of what the packaging looks like.

Yes, it's all a big conspiracy theory with the government. Whooooooooooo. It has no real basis for this theory, but it's probably involving the New World Order and maybe even the Freemasons.

Here in the UK supermarkets have to keep tobacco products behind shut display doors to deter young smokers. How the fuck they think that will work I don't know.

No they don't. They have them on regular shelves behind a counter so people can't just grab them. If it looks like it's behind a display door, it's because of a really complex piece of eqquipment called a "glass-fronted display unit" which allows them to display it from the front while only being accessible to the staff at the rear. It's a theft precaution, not a smoker deterrent. The smoker deterrent is the age restrictions in effect and the age checks required to purchase.

Bollocks, the government is just making it "look" like they want people to quit. Bottom line is they don;t because the generate so much revenue from smoking. So in truth the government is only making it look like they are trying to do something about it.

And another gem right the fuck here.

Ok, so the governments earn too much revenue off of smokers? How much does it lose to places like the NHS to treat lung cancer and other diseases stemming from smoking? A lot is the answer. The reason they're not just outright banning is because you'd end up with a lot of pissed off people who would then vote for the other party at the next elections, and a roaring trade in black-market cigarettes which the government has even more trouble controlling.

Notice how smoking is slowly getting sort of phased out bit by bit. They're not allowed to smoke in indoors public spaces, harsher buying restrictions, taxes on them going up, and so on. It's making it more of a hassle to smoke while flooding us with help on quitting.
 
Last edited:

Slaton

Victrix Patientia Duris
No they don't. They have them on regular shelves behind a counter so people can't just grab them. If it looks like it's behind a display door, it's because of a really complex piece of eqquipment called a "glass-fronted display unit" which allows them to display it from the front while only being accessible to the staff at the rear. It's a theft precaution, not a smoker deterrent. The smoker deterrent is the age restrictions in effect and the age checks required to purchase.


Might be different north of the the border, but here, Tesco, Asda, Morrisons etc... its all behind big doors now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...ket-shelves-under-new-anti-smoking-laws.html#
 

Smelge

Hey, Assbutt

Slaton

Victrix Patientia Duris
Small business places have got till a later date iirc. Watford Gap i stop at for a coffee in a morning is still on display, but it will come. But still it won't stop people going in and doing the usual "pump 2 please mate and pack of 20 bensons"

Btw, off topic i know, but the alps are a beutiful place to drive. That's some treck you did, fair play! (Sounds like my trip last year, visited that many petrol stations lost count after the first 10 lol!)
 

Randy-Darkshade

Bike riding squirrel thing.
Rubbish. What about people who end up with health problems from cigarettes who have never smoked in their life? Are you saying it's their fault other people smoked around them and gave them second hand smoke? Are you saying that in countries with proper healthcare, the general public should be paying their taxes so that people with lbg cancer can be treated while the people who caused it get to moan about restrictions to theiir product?

Fuck it. They're the ones poisoning people, let them pay. Or add on more tax to their products that is put straight into the healthcare system.

People choose to smoke on their own free will. Tobacco companies just supply the shit to smoke. Don't blame tobacco companies for the actions of people who smoke it. We are responsible for our own actions mate.


No they don't. They have them on regular shelves behind a counter so people can't just grab them. If it looks like it's behind a display door, it's because of a really complex piece of eqquipment called a "glass-fronted display unit" which allows them to display it from the front while only being accessible to the staff at the rear. It's a theft precaution, not a smoker deterrent. The smoker deterrent is the age restrictions in effect and the age checks required to purchase.

Wrong. All supermarkets had to put cigs out of view by LAW. My local sainsbury's still has the usual display unit at the kiosk but the cigs are kept behind SOLID closed doors. Not fucking transparent ones. Perhaps the law doesn't apply in Scotland maybe? Cause it does down here.

Here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cco-disappear-supermarket-displays-today.html
Here: http://www.itv.com/news/2012-04-06/...rs-from-displaying-cigarettes-in-public-view/
Here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/06/england-cigarette-display-ban_n_1407972.html

Want more proof? cause there is a fuckton more links on this on the first page when you google it. Perhaps you should do some research before shouting your mouth off and basically saying I'm an idiot.



And another gem right the fuck here.

Ok, so the governments earn too much revenue off of smokers? How much does it lose to places like the NHS to treat lung cancer and other diseases stemming from smoking? A lot is the answer. The reason they're not just outright banning is because you'd end up with a lot of pissed off people who would then vote for the other party at the next elections, and a roaring trade in black-market cigarettes which the government has even more trouble controlling.

I'm voting for a different party at the next elections anyway, this coalition government is fucking bollocks.

Notice how smoking is slowly getting sort of phased out bit by bit. They're not allowed to smoke in indoors public spaces, harsher buying restrictions, taxes on them going up, and so on. It's making it more of a hassle to smoke while flooding us with help on quitting.

They increase taxes on cigs every year.

Last week I drove from the Alps, back in through Dover, across the M4 to Devon then up the M5/M6 to Scotland. I stopped at multiple services, I even went in to supermarkets vfor fuel, and I didn't see any change in fag placement. They can't be doing it very well.

As I sated earlier in this thread it only applies to big stores. Service stations, convenience stores and even corner shops don't have too comply.
 
Top