Australian Court OKs Cigarette Logo Ban: Should Your Country Do the Same?

by mrosen814 Posted 2012/08/16 22:00:00

Related Topics: Cancer, smoking, Health, Australia, Corporate, Government, Tobacco, News, Country, Court, Branding, Image, Images, Logo, Packs

Read More

1,106 votes
Read all 948 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	474 votes	43%
	No	632 votes	57%

Starting this December, branding and logos from cigarette companies cannot be displayed anywhere on cigarette packages in Australia. According to CBS News, "the packs will instead come in a uniformly drab shade of olive and feature graphic health warnings and images of cancer-riddled mouths, blinded eyeballs and sickly children." The government hopes the new packs will make smoking as unglamorous as possible.

CBSNEWS.COM reports:
Cigarette packs in Australia on track to be stripped of corporate logos, despite tobacco lobbying

+29

Add a comment above

Bud 2012/08/17 14:35:50

No

+24
Yet another example of government attempting to dictate how people live their lives. Government has thrown out the principle of personal responsibility by placing blame on things. Cigarettes do not kill people, misusing them does. Twenty ounce sodas do not make people any fatter than twenty ounce lattes but misusing them does. Government has also maligned the fast food industry which is a useful, lawful enterprise because some people over indulge and become obese, that is the responsibility of people who eat too much not the responsibility of fast food. Lastly, we hear "Guns kill people!" Guns do not kill people, people kill people. Left to themselves all guns can do is slowly rust away.

What we need is for government to get the hell out of our lives and leave us alone!

Bud
>> See Replies

More polls by mrosen814

dog 2012/09/07 23:25:25

Yes

They should hire me to spray smokers with dog piss in a super soker.

reply
Riku Xander 2012/09/03 03:42:15

No

This would make it a nightmare for people who have to sell these products as part of making a living.

reply
Tere 2012/08/23 19:17:35

No

It seems that alcohol kills more people, why not put bans on that. The news shows more people, teens being the majority are in drunk driving accidents then someone lighting a cigarette. We all know both are bad for us, so why be secrative about it.

reply
anthony.shopkeeper.power 2012/08/23 14:04:33 (edited)

Yes

Yes definitely no other choice should be given put pictures of all the nasty things that happen to you when you smoke and then you have been warned and if you have to go to hospital for surgery or other treatment as a result of smoking you should be ORDERED to GIVE THEM UP and if you do not then treatment should be refused or withdrawn from you and say you continue to smoke then YOU are ON YOUR OWM goodbye.I would make a small concession to the cigarette conpany's i would let them put their brand in small print below the pictures

reply
Scooter 2012/08/22 00:51:50

No

+1
I don't personally smoke, but I do want to continue to live in as free a country, as the law will allow. I believe the more restraints we put on the general public, the more we recess as a nation. People possess will power. Granted advertisements reinforce the craving if you are a smoker. I still believe if something has been deemed acceptable this long, why not be able advertise it.

reply
munda 2012/08/21 21:01:54

No

+2
I guess booze would have pictures of livers on it, cars would have pictures of blood on it, kitchen knives with severed fingers? Are people really becoming that incompetent that they need Pictionary to understand the consequences of their chosen actions.

reply
twiggy 2012/08/21 21:00:50

Yes

I am Australian, so it is a moot point for me. Regardless, I read this story yesterday:

"Tasmania's Upper House has passed a motion supporting a ban on the sale of cigarettes.
The Independent Member for Windermere Ivan Dean has proposed making it illegal for people born after the year 2000 to buy tobacco once they turn 18."

Hopefully this will come into effect for the rest of the country

reply
belinda baardsen 2012/08/21 19:37:06

Yes

Why not show users exactly what is going to happen to them? As taxpayers, and family members - we are impacted by the cost of their deteriorating health/death caused by smoking - both emotionallly and financially.

reply
Fredrick House 2012/08/21 16:35:02

Yes

Smoking kills and maims people. That is their business. Smoking raises insurance and Medicare and Medicaid rates. That is our business. Don't encourage self destruction at our expense. If people want to smoke, do drugs, and drink excessively, let them sign away their insurance and taxpayer funded healthcare and hold hospitals, ER's Doctors harmless for not treating them. Sorry Charley!

reply
Сергей Темноходов 2012/08/21 14:11:22

Yes

Cigarettes are poisonous! To take an example from Australia. Russia probably did not adopt such legislation in the near future! It would be interesting to add such pictures on the banks of coffee, energy and alcoholic drinks. I don't smoke and don't abuse alcohol, though he sometimes would like to drink a bottle of beer. All people need more than to ride on bicycles, breathe fresh air and to drink only milk and mineral water! And the pictures on cigarette packs more afraid of us who do not smoke. Smokers like the anti-advertising probably a funny thing.

reply
Che Guevara - Hero 2012/08/21 13:21:08

Yes

+2
Yes, The Cigarette cartels have had too much power for to long. They have murdered millions and should be treated like the scum they are.

reply
Dan to Che Gue... 2012/08/31 04:53:59

+1
That's GREAT!

reply
Dan ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮ 2012/08/21 11:18:32

No

+3
Just let people make the choice themselves rather than be bombarded with propaganda...

reply
Dan to Dan ☮ R... 2012/08/21 12:58:14

+1
So, tobacco companies paying Hollywood to promote smoking isn't propaganda? Tobacco advertising isn't propaganda?

reply
Dan ☮ R... to Dan 2012/08/21 13:08:00 (edited)

+1
Never said that. But as far as I'm concerned, either both sides can engage in their propaganda battle, or neither should.
The debate should at least be fair, rather than just giving one side the advantage of the other being gagged.

Oh, and I dont think hollywood is able to have as much cigarettes as in the past. Cigarette use in movies is next to nothing now.

reply
Dan to Dan ☮ R... 2012/08/31 04:51:12

Well, anything deadly for consumption should be one sided.

reply
Dan ☮ R... to Dan 2012/08/31 20:32:59

Then the entire medical industry should be one sided anti medicine propaganda. According to the FDA 100,000 people die from adverse reactions from prescription drugs. That makes it the 4th leading cause of death in America.

I will never agree with limiting the debate to one side. That is anti-liberty. Let the tobacco companies have their say, and the anti-tobacco groups can have their say too.

reply
Dan to Dan ☮ R... 2012/09/01 06:59:37 (edited)

Big tobacco was one-sided over 100 years. What you fail to realize and report from your FDA statement is the millions of lives saved by those same prescription drugs. It's a war on disease, sometimes there are casualties.

You can't say the same with tobacco. The adverse health effects from cigarette smoking account for an estimated 443,000 deaths, or nearly one of every five deaths, each year in the United States. With what life saving benefit?

Your logic is flawed.

reply
Dan ☮ R... to Dan 2012/09/01 12:07:32

What you stated is a complete violation of the Hippocratic oath. Especially since many of those drug companies get away free when they mislabel, or even sell contaminated drugs, like Bayer (a nazi company btw) HIV contaminated factor VIII.

reply
Dan to Dan ☮ R... 2012/09/01 20:24:52

There is currently no legal obligation for medical students to swear an oath upon graduating, 98% of American medical students swear SOME form of oath, while only 50% of British medical students do.

It is NOT against the Hippocratic oath to save people. Every person is has the means of knowing the risks. Those known risks are spelled out with every given prescription. Doctors are not clairvoyant nor is there ANY safe drug.

You've never made a mistake at your job? Heaven forbid anyone else makes mistakes. I happens all the time...with every profession.

Bayer is NOT a Nazi Company. Why do you presume every company from Germany is a Nazi company? Nazism is ILLEGAL in Germany.

You are being absolutely ridiculous.

reply
Katherine to Dan 2012/08/23 04:13:42

"Propaganda?" More accusing others of what you're doing stuff. Having a cigarette or smoking in movies these days make MPAA rating higher. Love the logic. Murdering people in movies, ok. But Gaia forbid someone smokes.

reply
Tere to Katherine 2012/08/23 19:27:33

This is how old I am, I remember when you could smoke in the theaters, then after awhile the new theaters had smoking rooms and crying rooms. the crying rooms were for children and came in handy for tear jerkers. My mom spent alot of time in there, she cried alot lol. We kids sat in the middle of the theater so we could be watched because mom was in the crying room and dad was in the smoking room. I also remember when you could smoke in the grocery store, the mall, in the hospital waiting rooms, pretty much anywhere.

reply
Dan to Katherine 2012/08/31 04:52:18

I don't like either.

reply
Dan ☮ R... to Katherine 2012/08/31 20:35:05

?
I think you misunderstand. I never said cigarettes are bad and murder in movies is good. I was stating that both propaganda groups deserve equal rights to spew their propaganda. I dont like smoking, but I dont restrict free speech because of it.

reply
Butch 2012/08/21 10:50:12

Yes

+1
Having voted yes I have to say that I am opposed to too much government regulation. Private industry ought to be able to regulate itself, and private individuals ought to be able to restrain themselves, but the fact is that neither is capable of doing so. Private industry is pure and simply in business to make money bottom line, so some governmental regulation is beneficial. Can you imagine what the pharmaceutical industry would be like without regulation, or picture the processed food industry without government regulation? What would a processed food's package look like? There would be no nutritional information on it at all, and the pharmaceutical industry could make any wild unsubstantiated claim they wanted to about any medication. Or how about the automobile industry, would you trust the automobile manufacturers to regulate themselves and maintain their own idea of quality control regulations? Wasn't it governmental regulation that put seat belts in every vehicle and then later airbags in all automobiles. Isn't it governmental regulation that made it illegal to drive without seat belts and illegal to operate a motorcycle, in most states, without a helmet? and isn't it governmental that is responsible for the current line of child safety car seats? IDK. Maybe I'm wrong. M...

Having voted yes I have to say that I am opposed to too much government regulation. Private industry ought to be able to regulate itself, and private individuals ought to be able to restrain themselves, but the fact is that neither is capable of doing so. Private industry is pure and simply in business to make money bottom line, so some governmental regulation is beneficial. Can you imagine what the pharmaceutical industry would be like without regulation, or picture the processed food industry without government regulation? What would a processed food's package look like? There would be no nutritional information on it at all, and the pharmaceutical industry could make any wild unsubstantiated claim they wanted to about any medication. Or how about the automobile industry, would you trust the automobile manufacturers to regulate themselves and maintain their own idea of quality control regulations? Wasn't it governmental regulation that put seat belts in every vehicle and then later airbags in all automobiles. Isn't it governmental regulation that made it illegal to drive without seat belts and illegal to operate a motorcycle, in most states, without a helmet? and isn't it governmental that is responsible for the current line of child safety car seats? IDK. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe these examples I've mentioned and others would, without governmental regulation, be forced to implement their own just as strict safety and quality control regulations to remain competative to their consumers and stay in business.

So while I think some governmental regulation is necessary, I also believe that the present administration is out of control, and that obama is a socialist and will not be happy until everyone depends on the government for their very livelihood. He is certainly a socialist and may prove to be a despot.
(more)

reply
Butch to Butch 2012/08/21 17:32:02

OH well! The truth is often a hard pill to swallow! Time will tell.

reply
marylou5 2012/08/21 04:43:10

No

+1
Whoa...that's a reach.......it always starts with a 'sin' activity and before you know it...the Govt. has you in a strangle hold....like BIg drinks at the fast food restaurant!

You never give the Govt. an inch to dictate that which is none of their business, and blatantly unconstitutional!

reply
Butch to marylou5 2012/08/21 09:31:02

+1
Exactly how is it unconstitutional? You can't just throw out a statement like that without backing it up with direct evidence. I'd like to know.

reply
marylou5 to Butch 2012/08/22 03:50:17

+1
READ THE CONSTITUTION AND STOP ACTING LIKE A MORON!

"Exactly how is it unconstitutional? You can't just throw out a statement like that without backing it up with direct evidence. I'd like to know."

Do your own homework, dolt! You want ME to waste MY time doing your research to prove you wrong?? Are you serious? Prove yourself right and waste your own time!!

Look it up yourself and quote where I am wrong, or do like most moronic liberals do and
say it "ain't" so because I wouldn't let you waste my time and do your research for you!

C'mon, be a true to form liberal and post.."she can't prove it"!

Get real and get over yourself!

reply
Dan to marylou5 2012/08/21 13:02:06

It's funny...People who who claim things are unconstitutional have never read the Articles or Amendments of the US Constitution. You comment is a good example of this.

reply
marylou5 to Dan 2012/08/22 03:50:22

+1
READ THE CONSTITUTION AND STOP ACTING LIKE A MORON!

Do your own homework, dolt! You want ME to waste MY time doing your research to prove you wrong?? Are you serious? Prove yourself right and waste your own time!!

Look it up yourself and quote where I am wrong, or do like most moronic liberals do and
say it "ain't" so, because I wouldn't let you waste my time and do your research for you!

C'mon, be a true to form liberal and post.."she can't prove it"!

Get real and get over yourself!

reply
Dan to marylou5 2012/09/01 07:11:40

I'm not a liberal, you imbecile. I've read ALL the Articles and Amendments of the US Constitution. I don't know where you learned you misinformation, but you are completely wrong! It's obvious to me you haven't read the US Constitution. I've proven myself to be right. You can't produce anything otherwise, because frankly, it doesn't exist!

Quit acting like you know what's in the US Constitution and making yourself look like a fool.

reply
marylou5 to Dan 2012/09/01 19:31:28

Article X is broad enough to cover it!
I have two copies of the Constitution on my desk and excellent reading comprehension! :-)
I did not intend to insinuate that you were a liberal but were using a liberal tactic to discredit! There is a difference!

I don't give a hoot what they do in Australia and I'll cross that bridge when and if it is here.
I called you a dolt..you called me a fool. We are even :-) Truce!

Conservatives should be using their energy to get rid of the "fool and dolt" in the WH!
I'm too busy with getting rid of a real threat to my country to continue this dialogue!

Therefore....have a nice day!

reply
LaLa 2012/08/21 01:42:12

No

+1
I smoke spirits. Without logos I'll have to smoke hundreds of additional additives and they'll taste disgusting.

reply
Dan to LaLa 2012/08/21 13:04:02

Why? It would still say the brand name.

reply
rubixx cube 2012/08/20 23:12:10

Yes

+1
it would help people to decide if they wanted to smoke to smoke or because it looks cool.

reply
SimianSays 2012/08/20 22:50:01

Yes

+1
Unless you prefer complete self-reliance and are free to kill others at random with no concern for repercussions. Cigarette smokers are killing themselves along with others. Nobody is happy when people gun others down in the streets, at schools or in theatres...why is this any different? It's just a slower method of murder-suicide.
You smoke the cancer stick because you basically don't give a $#!+, not about yourself or anyone else, it's a twisted form of selfishness.

reply
moiraregis 2012/08/20 21:19:24

Yes

+1
cigarettes are ferociously addictive killers, and i say this as an ex-smoker who adored smoking. but graphic depictions of their effects may help more people to quit. also, the electronic cigarette is quite fabulous, thank God--

reply
TimothyBrianFoley 2012/08/20 20:32:39

Yes

time to scare americans straight

reply
V~POTL~PWCM~JLA 2012/08/20 16:27:27

No

Cigarettes are a serious health problem, so warnings (even scary ones) are appropriate. Smoking-related health problems impose a burden on society, so taxes are appropriate too. But banning a logo is ridiculous. Use the upper half of the box for warnings and leave the other half up to the manufacturer.

As long as the taxes are sufficient to recover the hidden cost of smoking, the government's role is merely to advise citizens of the risk, not to babysit for them.

reply