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

mrosen814 2012/08/16 22:00:00
Add Photos & Videos
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

Read More: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57493362/austr...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Bud 2012/08/17 14:35:50
    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!


Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • Kibbles 2012/08/20 15:31:46
    Damnit, I meant no. I don't look at someone smoking and think "Oh my how very glamorous" I think "Well I''l be pissed off if they outlive me"
  • GLaDOS Kibbles 2012/08/20 19:22:07
    Fate can be unkind that way, can't it?
  • Kibbles GLaDOS 2012/08/21 08:52:14
    zThat it can
  • Anonymouse ~superdoge~ 2012/08/20 15:18:35
    Anonymouse ~superdoge~
    Don't force them to do anything, I think it would be a good idea to tax cigarettes based on how harmful they are - companies put all sorts of nasty things in them, and as they're taxed the same no matter what, they are incentivised to put as much nasty stuff in as possible. Tax cigarettes more when they're more harmful and addictive, and people will buy cigarettes that are better for you and companies will make them better for you to reduce the tax load. Cigarettes will get healthier and cheaper, without forcing them to put nasty pictures on the packets.
  • pofmaster 2012/08/20 12:45:23
    Smoking is very harmful, but people must not be forced to stop, one has to do that according to his free and independent will.
  • Bill pofmaster 2012/08/20 13:50:45
    Wouldn't it make more sense NOT to subsidize farmers with millions of taxpayer dollars to grow a crop that kills people?

    subsidize farmers millions taxpayer dollars grow crop kills people
  • Stephen 2012/08/20 08:31:55
    Everything causes death and disfigurement. Even too much vitamins can cause bone and blood problems. Give us the warnings and then go away. It's our life and we'll live it the way we want.
  • Brad 2012/08/20 07:07:47
    No, but smoking is still gross.
  • DDogbreath 2012/08/20 06:54:57 (edited)
    Australia also stripped all it's citizens of their right to bear arms. Crime there has increased dramatically.

    This used to be a free country until so many stupid laws have turned it into a police state.
  • Bill DDogbreath 2012/08/20 13:55:22
    Australia was a British prison colony where the worst of the worst were banished to.
  • moiraregis Bill 2012/08/20 21:25:22
    and your point is . . . ?
  • Bill moiraregis 2012/08/20 21:48:19
    You said it used to be a free country. Not.
  • HS 2012/08/20 04:14:54
    It's an immoral industry based on deceit and addiction. One with a lot of deaths on its shoulder (more than any illegal drug) and knowingly, so the hell with it already. Frankly, if one thinks about it, it is the only drug that if banned tomorrow, no one will go out of its way for given it provides no trill, no high, but a mere look given years of shameless ads and its legality (then when the look no longer matters, people are already addicted). Hey, keep them around, let us be free about it no less than drinking gasoline, but make sure youth and everyone are not lied upon.
  • Wulfdane 2012/08/20 03:52:31 (edited)
    It is time to get the government out of our lives, not more into it.

    I don't give a damn who smokes, I am perfectly fine taking care of my own business. I don't need or want a Nanny State telling people how to live.
  • Moh Al-a 2012/08/20 02:27:00
    Moh Al-a
    Yes ban cigarette logo and ligalize drug WTF is wrong with world
  • Duane Freemantle 2012/08/20 01:36:58
    Duane Freemantle
    They should be banned out right, however that would create illicit trade. So, the only real solution is education.
  • duns 2012/08/20 00:15:34
    I'd like that to be done here... But I don't think it will work. Smokers will just ignore the warning until their habit will take its toll on their health. They'd just go on with it until they actually see the signs and feel the symptoms.
  • Todd 2012/08/19 23:54:36
    People are always going to do what they are going to do. I remember the Smoking Joe ads from Camel... Yet the Government said Camel was using commercials to sale tobacco to children.... Not so if you look at the # ! selling brand of Marlboro that the majority of kids were smoking...
    The problem is all these governments are allowing the companies to add stuff to the tobacco that is actually the culprit in many of the side effects of smoking. To make things worse the US finally put tobacco under the FDA. Did they make regulations to get the poisons removed from tobacco??? No!!! In fact the added another poison that with has a really bad side effect... It will cause Neurological damage to the central nervous system...
  • desperatedan 2012/08/19 23:18:03
    Yes i would say it is now time to give people the true facts out front up to now they have been telling us all about the danger's and cancer causing cigarettes are doing to us and we will still not believe them well now let them show us as well. Frighten us all into giving them up as well. Maybe refuse to treat us in hospital if we do not give up the cigarettes as well. I think it is now about we all took responsibility for our actions and not expect to get free treatment when we do not obey the doctor's and meet them half way. what is the point of getting treatment and continue to smoke a total waste of momey and also a life.
  • Chris despera... 2012/08/20 01:42:11
    Or treat alcohol poisoning.
  • GLaDOS 2012/08/19 23:06:20
    Companies' branding and packaging shouldn't be dictated by the government. That may fly in Australia, but it shouldn't, here.
  • hannah 2012/08/19 22:37:02
    man why doesnt OUR government care enough to do that for US?? that is so ridiculous how many people out here are killing themselves with those ciggs. but maybe with a package sign like that it would drastically reduce smokers and potential smokers to come. :) thats a smart plan. gotta protect the health. :P
  • GLaDOS hannah 2012/08/19 23:07:03
    Do your parents still hold your hand when you cross the street?
  • hannah GLaDOS 2012/08/20 00:15:41
    yes. yes they do even though im almost 18. REALLY? come on now how intelligent of a reply do you think that was? when you come up with a reasonable reply as to your point of view we'll talk (and no im not trying to be arrogant. im pretty serious with what i said cause really your attitude within such a reply was uncalled for. i would have listened to reason. however a sassy attitude where no sassy attitude is due is unneeded)
  • GLaDOS hannah 2012/08/20 00:21:27 (edited)
    "why doesn't OUR government care enough to do that for US?"
    That is what called for it. Our government shouldn't tell businesses what they can put on their product packaging, unless it is inappropriate for some people. They have every right to try to make pleasant looking packaging in order to try to gain a broader customer base.

    That said, my mother smokes, neither of her children, or her, have developed any problems from it. The only people who do end up with problems are the ones with weak genetics.
  • hannah GLaDOS 2012/08/20 00:47:09
    it still does damage and takes off some years. im just saying that it would be good if they encourage people not to smoke. AND for the youth especially. meaning the ones who havent smoked yet. they can be even more encouraged to not smoke later in life than current smokers. i didnt say that the government should make smoking illegal and lock people up forever for it if they dont stop but they still should be doing what they can to encourage not smoking. now whats so wrong with that? nothing. (of course i dont think OUR government cares enough to do that for us so its just whatever. but i thought id put my input out there anyway. cant say itll make a difference but hey you never know)
  • GLaDOS hannah 2012/08/20 01:50:36 (edited)
    It may do damage. It's not a guarantee. There are centenarians who smoke, have smoked, and so on. The ones who end up with health problems, quite frankly, have weak genetics.

    It is up to the people if they're going to smoke or not, young or old. If you think that the government should be our parent, and babysitter, constantly there, holding our hands, telling us what we should and shouldn't do because it's good or bad for us, then that's all you, and contrary to what your political affiliation says, is a very liberal belief.

    The people who choose to smoke can read the side, if they want to, they get to hear about how bad drugs (including cigarettes) are in D.A.R.E. programs. So, I would imagine that most of them know what they're doing.
  • hannah GLaDOS 2012/08/22 14:11:47
    saying that i think the government should "hold our hand"is a COMPLETE exaggeration. however i think they should care more about the general health of our population.
  • GLaDOS hannah 2012/08/22 14:58:13
    So, they should be able to say, "don't do this, it's bad for you! So, it's illegal." I figure as long as you're only hurting yourself, it's up to you.
  • hannah GLaDOS 2012/08/22 22:44:35
    i see you like making assumptions about what im trying to say. i didnt say illegal. what i SAID is encouraging them to not smoke or do other harmful things.
  • GLaDOS hannah 2012/08/23 01:01:26
    Alright, so you might not like the idea of making it illegal, but throwing crap in people's faces. Of course, I highly doubt that any of the people who smoke are going to go, "OMG! I thought cigarettes were GOOD for you!"
  • hannah GLaDOS 2012/08/24 15:19:54
    of course not. they just dont care. but theres nothing wrong with putting the severity of the dangers of smoking out there to make it harder to ignore. besides we should be helping prevent the youth from wanting to smoke. if they still choose to thats up to them. however its good to try to help prevent it at least. obviously some people will still ignore it (since our population is BURSTING with stubborn people who live life with the motto "my way or the highway"), but every little bit helps. just like some protesting and stuff can help change. but if nothing is done nothing changes. and seeing these little children around i think its only natural to not want to see them smoke when their older. help them learn not to destroy their bodies later. and parents or older friends or siblings giving a 13 year old a smoke is not acceptable either. if anything smoking should be DISCOURAGED. not ENCOURAGED.
  • GLaDOS hannah 2012/08/25 04:48:16
    So, you want them to browbeat everyone, constantly barraging them with images that say, "You're wrong/evil/whatever for choosing to smoke!"

    People shouldn't be crucified for what they choose to do with their liberty.
  • hannah GLaDOS 2012/08/25 21:40:55
    exaggeration again. not meaning to be a beotch but i have to sayy you have a knack with exaggerating what i say. no no and NO (and did i mention NO?) to crucifying. but YES to putting out there how bad it is for them. i didnt say pick on and destroy the people and their self-esteem. i said discourage the HABIT. theres a difference between the HABIT and the PERSON. they are both two different words and therefore have two different meanings and crucifying or discriminating has no part in either words or my explanation now or EVER with this topic.
  • GLaDOS hannah 2012/08/26 16:01:04
    It's called "hyperbole." You evidently have a knack for taking things at face value. I will attempt to cut it down.

    You think that the people smoking want to see those images on their packs of cigarettes? Not that it matters, does it? whether they do or not, as long as you're "discouraging" them from smoking. It doesn't matter how the images make them feel, because if they disgust them, enough, who knows? They may just quit. Yes? Is that your defense for it? That it doesn't matter that the government is controlling totally reasonable packaging that is meant, as all product packaging is intended, to be appealing, as long as it is discouraging people from doing what they want by inciting a potentially visceral response through such imagery, yes?

    I'm pretty sure that post was hyperbole-free.
  • hannah GLaDOS 2012/09/22 03:58:56
    so i guess that the government should have no part in trying to help people quit (i didnt reply for a while cause my pc was down). what kind of government is that? heres what it is: one that doesnt care about its own people
  • GLaDOS hannah 2012/10/06 15:52:54
    It is a government that cares about its people's right to pursue happiness, in legal manners. If that happiness includes smoking cigarettes, so be it. And no, the government isn't there to babysit, or coddle us.

    What is the role of the federal government in the Constitution? Foreign Relations - Diplomacy and Defense. That's pretty much it.
  • hannah GLaDOS 2012/10/23 01:45:57
    not coddle. but then isnt condoning people destroying their bodies and lives just so they can be happy coddling them? they should care about our well-being
  • GLaDOS hannah 2012/10/23 03:11:43
    I was referring to the "overprotection" part. And, aren't the pursuit of happiness and liberty both freedoms that we're supposed to have?

    If people want to destroy their bodies, it's their choice, just like if women want to abort, it's their choice, as long as I'm free and over 21, I don't want the government playing "parent." I had enough overprotectiveness for one lifetime.
  • hannah GLaDOS 2012/10/23 04:15:00
    i dont mean parent. God you really dont get what im trying to say here. but i neednt further explain. all im saying is that they should be more concerned about our well-being. there is nothing wrong with that. they should be our friends. not unconcerned bystanders.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.


2016/02/08 14:44:44

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals