No-frills packaging for cigarettes

Jodi - posted on 04/28/2010 ( 52 moms have responded )

3,562

36

3907

ANDREW TILLETT CANBERRA, The West Australian
April 29, 2010, 2:21 am

Cigarette packets will be stripped of colours, logos, slogans and pictures by 2012 under what is being touted as a world-first crackdown on tobacco marketing.

Tobacco products will also be targeted by a tax increase aimed at getting smokers to quit.

The Federal Government will today detail the introduction of mandatory plain packaging for cigarettes and loose-leaf tobacco by January 1, 2012, in an attempt to eliminate one of the few remaining shreds of glamour and advertising tools for smoking.

The Opposition is likely to dismiss the announcement as a smokescreen for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's woes. But the Government argues plain packaging will make smoking less attractive.

The Government is trying to shift its policy emphasis to health after its decision to shelve its emissions trading scheme until at least 2013 was condemned by all sides.

Under the proposed changes, cigarette box sizes will be standardised. Only brand and product names will be printed on the packet in a standard colour, font and position, along with mandatory health warnings.

Packets will only have basic product identification for retailers and to minimise risks of counterfeiting.

The Government will road test different types of plain packets to find the most unappealing design and claims Australia will be the first country to mandate plain packaging.

Health experts argue that removing colourful branding will strengthen health warnings and stop packet designs that suggest some products are less harmful. The World Health Organisation, the Australian Medical Association and the Government's Preventative Health Taskforce recommended plain packaging.

The Government is also tipped to confirm on Sunday an increase in tobacco tax as part of the Henry review, which would make the price of a pack of cigarettes as high as $20.

Tobacco companies are likely to threaten legal action to protect their branding and have claimed plain packaging would breach international treaties. British American Tobacco Australia - maker of brands such as Winfield and Benson & Hedges - said other countries including Canada, New Zealand and Britain had looked into plain packaging and decided it would not work.

Smoking kills more than 15,000 Australians a year and has been identified as the single largest preventable cause of disease and early death.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/nat...


If you check the link you will see a sample of what the packs will pretty much look like.
Also, breaking news just now just confirmed that the price of cigarettes will rise from midnight tonight.

So what do you think? Will it work? Are people smoking, or taking up smoking, because of the "glamorous" look of the packs? Will the warnings work better with no other graphics on the packet? Will increasing the price force people to give up, or stop people starting to smoke?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Jenny - posted on 04/29/2010

4,426

16

129

I don't agree with raising the prices too much. It encourages a black market and it is profiting off addiction which feels slimey to me.

?? - posted on 04/29/2010

4,974

0

172

Anyone can say 'packaging doesn't matter' but it does have an impact. It might not be the deciding factor BUT image DOES have influence. And it's not about people who are already smoking... it's about people who MIGHT START smoking, or might start up again.

Generally, if someone has no attachment to something, and they pick up the package and they KNOW that it's not good for them... and they have doubts... they read the labels, they stare at it contemplating, they already know smoking is not good for them and then they look at the package... and they read this list of harmful crap in it, they see a picture of their lungs bloody and black and oozing puss.... and nothing else. THAT image DOES have an impact and it COULD be the thing stuck in their head that makes them decide smoking is not something they want to do.

I bet most of us do the exact same thing when we are trying a new recipe and we look at the ingredients. If we're looking at the package in the store and the plate of food looks FUCKIN DELISH, there's a better chance you'll give it a shot. But if it is just ingredients... and you don't like red peppers, you'll put it down and walk away.

Same with everything in life, make up, hair product, cleaning products... generally, packaging makes a HUGE difference to the consumer.

Jenny - posted on 04/29/2010

4,426

16

129

If packaging wasn't so important we wouldn't have huge marketing industries. I agree it won't help an addict quit but that's not really the point. We have fairly plain packaging where I live with the health warnings taking up more space than the logo and product info. We can't even display cigarettes in stores, they are hidden behind smoked glass or black curtains. You feel pretty illicit buying a pack of cigarettes and that's a good thing. The only hint that the stores sells them is the sign saying they check for ID for anyone who appears to be under 30. Of course when I smoked my mom bought mine for me so that was a non-issue.

The difference between smoking and alchohol is if I drink a beer, your liver is unaffected. However if you smoke around me it is going in my lungs too.

I wish they would take the same stance with all drugs. Make them available to adults, educate the crap out of the public, fund rehab/smoking cessation methods to the max and make them socially unacceptable to use. We have managed to really cut back on smoking rates here and we did it without making it illegal for an adult who wants access. It's win-win.

Dana - posted on 04/28/2010

11,264

35

495

After 17 yrs of smoking I spent $50.00 on a hypnotist and never picked up a smoke again. So, it was a lot cheaper for me. ;)

?? - posted on 04/28/2010

4,974

0

172

Some aids might be more expensive than buying cigarettes initially, but once you kick the habit you eliminate both costs.



Take my costs for example;



$300 for 8 weeks of Champix (appr. $34/week)

vs

$600 for 8 weeks of cigarettes. (appr. $75/week)



After 8 weeks of Champix, done, no more costs.

After 8 weeks of cigarettes, continued cost of cigarettes.



Finacially it's a no brainer BUT smoking isn't about finances.

This conversation has been closed to further comments

52 Comments

View replies by

Emma - posted on 05/02/2010

1,590

15

114

I dont know what smokers they blindfolded but i can identify by smell alone between half a dozen brands and more by taste,
It makes no difference about the packet they come in, our cigarette company's have not been aloud to advertise for years on TV, magazines, ect ect it changed nothing but everything is worth a try i suppose.

[deleted account]

This is from today's "Melbourne Age:"

"Professor Chapman (from the University of Sydney's Scoool of Public Health) said the federal government's plan to enforce plain packaging for cigarettes in 2012 would be a big blow to tobacco companies who rely heavily on colours, logos and branding to promote their product. ''There's ample evidence that if you blindfold smokers, they can't even tell their own brand,'' he said.

A recent Scottish study showed that packaging was a key means of promoting cigarettes, and getting around laws banning cigarette advertising.

Tobacco companies have reacted angrily to the government's announcement last week, with the Imperial Tobacco Group and British American Tobacco Australia saying they are prepared to mount a legal challenge.

A spokeswoman said the company would defend the intellectual property of packaging."

So if the tobacco companies are angry about the no-frills packaging, that suggests they think packaging has an effect! Let's hope it does!

Charlie - posted on 05/01/2010

11,203

111

409

I was just at the supermarket and the lady in front bought four packets of cigarettes , $99.95 !!!!! and the clerk said they were the cheaper ones holy crap thats a lot of money :x

Karissa - posted on 05/01/2010

112

26

6

I don't think people smoke because it's "glamorous". I can't really say why I smoke. Everyone has a right to smoke. The government shouldn't try to get anyone to quit anything. Raising taxes and making the packaging plain isn't going to get anyone to quit or not start. There is going to be a point when the government is going to make it illegal, along with other rights that we have.

Jess - posted on 05/01/2010

1,806

3

97

The Aus governement has done a lot the past few years to make smoking a social tabboo ! Not all states have followed suit, but here in Qld its basically illegal to smoke in public. Parks, beaches, schools, hosptials, shopping centre, in a car with a child.... all illegal ! Being a non smoker I think its great, it allows me to walk down the footpath and not breath in nasty second hand smoke.



I think its a case of the "straw that broke the camels back". The governent won't make smoking illegal but they will make it damm hard, and very very costly ! And if this law doesn't have a huge impact you can rest assured knowing that new laws are on there way !

Jenny - posted on 05/01/2010

4,426

16

129

My mom used to buy me menthols when I was sick because they were easier to smoke with a sore throat. Yikes.

Charlie - posted on 04/30/2010

11,203

111

409

Yeah Lea i know , i was illustrating the point that packaging does have effect from the point of view of a former smoker i can see where the government is coming from in regards to packaging , they still tasted better than the cheaper cigarettes with far less woodchips in them , smokers will know what i mean , the large pieces of wood you would find i your cigarettes almost woodchips !

I actually have a friend who tests cigarettes , she is sent a pack whenever she finishes the last pack , it is always a blank white box with a warning all different brands , she has to fill out a survey at the end of each pack and is not allows to buy any cigarettes , if she runs out at 2 in the morning they are delivered , she can tell the difference between the ciggs and the quality , often she can pick the name of the brand by taste !

[deleted account]

An extra $6 for a pack of ciggies? I say tax, tax, tax away!!! Surely there's another tax increase coming for grog too. It pisses my husband off (he smokes and drinks), but I just laugh because it gives me more ammunition to nag at him about. :-)

When that alco-pop tax came about, he dropped buying the cans of bundy (rum) and coke like a hot potato. Who can afford to spend something like $30 for a 6 pack? I'm hoping the same thing happens with the smokes.

He's tried Champix and it worked, until his grandfather died and he fell off the wagon. He went back on them, but it's never stuck mostly because he's not wanted to give up.

Champix is on the PBS, but you can only get it once every 12 months on the PBS. The PBS price is great, something like $30 a course and there are 2 courses. BUT the real price, if you have to buy it again before the 12 months is a bit over $200 for EACH course! It's nuts, especially if the person doesn't give it their all and actually try to quit.

I don't think the plain packaging will deter smokers from smoking, but it may stop some new smokers from starting. Most people start because of friends and peer pressure though. I tried to take up the habit a couple times as a teen because my friends were smoking, but I just couldn't stand it. Luckily for me.

Emma - posted on 04/30/2010

1,590

15

114

Kathy no problem ive got a thick skin...lol
That sounds like a productive move lower the cost of quitting aids.
But i still think we need to come up with something outside the box to stop people starting.
As i said in my first post the first brand i ever smoked where Death cigarettes, and they cane in a plain black box with white writing a skull and cross bones on the front and a big health warning saying smoking will kill you, and that was 15 years before cigarette company's had to put health warning on smokes, they where the most popular brand for youngsters.
Its because as Teens we want to rebel and smoking and drinking getting in to clubs under age, or in at the movie's are no no's that's why we did it no other reason, i think if people had put a age limit on ice cream we would of eaten lots of it too.

[deleted account]

Firstly, Emma, I must apologise for the rudeness of my post - I must have been in a cranky mood!

The cigarette companies here are screaming about the plain packaging, so there must be something they're frightened of. Plain packaging has been recommended by the WHO as a key tobacco control measure.

As for the cost, it's definitely going to affect people, even those for whom smoking is their one pleasure. That is indeed unfortunate, but I don't think we can go round means-testing cigarettes. I can't afford expensive meat, either, so that's my bad luck, and I have to make do with cheap cuts.

This is an interesting comment in today's Melbourne Age:

"Cancer Council Victoria research shows that about seven out of 10 smokers are in favour of a cigarette tax increase provided some of the money goes towards providing them with more affordable nicotine replacement therapy; and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee has recommended nicotine patches be listed on the PBS, which would reduce the cost barriers to smokers needing to manage their cravings while quitting."
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society...

Yes, it might set up a black market in cigarettes - that's a risk that has to be taken. As it is, the the rich cigarette companies who are making a profit from addiction, and that's pretty slimey too! We need to try anything to deter people from taking up smoking.
(And other drugs, too, I'm aware of that, but starting with one drug is a good beginning!)

Emma - posted on 04/29/2010

1,590

15

114

The SA market is fooled with cheep knock off's and all of them have way more Tar in than the real brands, but as our cigarette tax has just gone up again so a box of smokes in the shops is on average R25 where if you by the knock off your only paying R10 per box guess who' people are starting to buy off ?

Charlie - posted on 04/29/2010

11,203

111

409

I agree Jenny , the black market is going to have a field day with these easy to reproduce packets .

Charlie - posted on 04/29/2010

11,203

111

409

Honestly when my fiance and i smoked we smoked peter styvo's because they tasted better and were considered the classier brand of cigaretteso i guess it could make a difference .

[deleted account]

I think the packaging idea is good, but I do feel sorry for smokers who are constantly being hit by tax increases.

I knew an old lady who didn't get out much. She said that smoking was one of the few pleasures she still gets to enjoy. Who are the health fanatics to deprive her of this privilege?

Joanna - posted on 04/29/2010

2,096

19

137

This topic makes me want a smoke (and for a second, a beer). But it's been almost 2 months since I quit (thanks, morning sickness!)

I smoked for a little over 10 years, and quit for both my pregnancies. After my last pregnancy, I started smoking Cloves (Djuram Vanilla, mmmmm), which I'm pretty sure were worse for you than normal cigarettes. I actually loved the packaging (along with the taste), but I still would have bought them if they were in a teeny plain white package. I started wanting to quit when they went up to $7 a pack, but I didn't. And then, Cloves were discontinued (some flavors were made in cigars, but clove cigarettes I think were banned in the US). So I figured GREAT! I can finally quit! But no, I just moved to regular cigarettes, disgusting as I found them (the flavor compared to cloves was so harsh to me). Would I have kept buying cigarettes if they were $20 a pack? Probably. I would have done my best to cut down, but I wouldn't have quit. And I definitely wouldn't have quit due to plain packaging.

Now one thing I'm looking forward to IS the price increase... I'm hoping it happens in the next 6 months, because once I have my baby, I'm hoping everything will be against smoking for me, so I don't start again this time.

?? - posted on 04/29/2010

4,974

0

172

Cold turkey isn't an option for some people though... that quitting aid can be the nudge they need. If they're gonna tax the shit outta cigarette's cause they don't want people smoking, they should put it towards lowering the costs of quitting aids.

C. - posted on 04/29/2010

4,125

35

242

@Jo.. Yes, but when you have a limited amount of funds per month, cigarettes are much cheaper and if you buy the cigarettes INSTEAD of the nicotine supplement, you can still buy your child diapers, wipes, food, clothes with just enough money left so you don't have an overdraft fee..



At least that was MY experience. Eventually I just got so sick of feeling like I couldn't breathe, so I just quit- cold turkey.

Emma - posted on 04/29/2010

1,590

15

114

Im guessing the aim is to stop teenagers starting smoking,
but the main attractant is the fact its something your not meant to be doing, the bigger the taboo the more attractive it becomes,
Look at Drugs they don't come in in fancy packaging and teens love to try them.....
I don't think it will make any difference but im not against doing it i just think its an exorcize in futility.

Rosie - posted on 04/29/2010

8,657

30

321

ok, so i've smoked for 12 years, quit 3 times (last time 6-7 weeks ago, yay!!) and none of the times i picked up a pack of cigarettes did i think to myself gee this packaging is soooooo cool, i must smoke now. its complete bull. i also don't agree that flavored things attract younger smokers. i'm 32 and i fancy a cherry cig. every now and then, or a clove.
smoking isn't started because of the way it tastes, or the way packaging is. it's started for one of two main reasons. peer pressure, or the desire to look cool. and once you start, most likely you aren't going to stop when you realize that those were stupid reasons.
i don't think it will work, but i guess i'm not against trying it. in my experience it isn't going to work, but maybe it would for someone else, who knows?

Christa - posted on 04/29/2010

3,876

14

209

I smoked for about 7 years and I never picked my cigs because of the packaging. It was all about "taste" for me. I also didn't start smoking because of the package, it was total peer pressure. Having said that, I don't see why they shouldn't do this. If every company has to do the same thing then it will have an equal effect on all of them. And if it does happen to stop one person from smoking then that's a good thing.

They banned smoking in pretty much any public building here a few years back. I think casinos are the only place you can smoke anymore. Before the ban restaurants complained it would hurt business. It hasn't. If they can't smoke anywhere then the playing field is even. I view this the same way.

Kylie - posted on 04/29/2010

2,391

81

190

I think anything they can do to make it more anti-social to buy a pack of ciggies the better.. and i think the dull packaging will discourage younger/new smokers. I know when i smoked i chose the winnie golds because the packaging looked more classy than the bogan winnie reds or blues..i didn't know what milligrams meant so image had a lot to do with my choice..... Screw the tobacco companies right to branding..their product kills they should get no "rights"

Increasing the price will absolutely encourage some people to quit and stop them from starting.

[deleted account]

Absolutely, Cathy. I don't think anyone's going to argue that alcohol is just as bad - as well as the effect on the drinker, there's the undoubted effect on the person/s who are killed/injured as a result of a car accident with a drunken driver.-, and living in a family of alcoholics can be horrendous. But this particular forum is about smoking so I'm sticking to that.
My considered opinion is, we should try everything to get people to cut down on smoking and to prevent people from starting.

[deleted account]

I wish they'd ban it, but they won't, as they're getting too much money, and the cigarette companies have too much power.

I can't stand the smell of cigarettes. I hate having to wash my clothes when I come home from a smoke-filled pub.

Smoking affects far more than the person who smokes : "Secondhand smoke is a toxic cocktail consisting of poisons and carcinogens. There are over 4000 chemical compounds in secondhand smoke; 200 of which are known to be poisonous, and upwards of 60 have been identified as carcinogens.

When a cigarette is smoked, about half of the smoke is inhaled / exhaled (mainstream smoke) by the smoker and the other half floats around in the air (sidestream smoke). The combination of mainstream and sidestream smoke makes up environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)"

Also " The U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) has classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen.

Cancers linked to passive smoking include:

* Lung cancer - 3000 nonsmokers die every year from lung cancer caused by ETS
* Nasal sinus cavity cancer
* Cervical Cancer
* Bladder cancer"

This is from : http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/secondha...

So Emma, you might be fooling yourself when you say that your smoking doesn't put a burden on anybody else, but it's not the case. You might have private medical cover, but not everybody does.

Must admit I can't understand your examples comparing alcohol and smoking - no-one has ever claimed that people will fight over a box of cigarettes, or crash their car after smoking! But smoking will lead to conditions like cancer. That's why it should be banned. And if the government won't take the hard decision to ban it, then I'm all for these measures that will, hopefully, deter people from starting.

Sarah - posted on 04/29/2010

5,465

31

344

I do love the alcohol adverts on tv with "please drink responsibly" written in teeny tiny writing along the bottom!

Emma - posted on 04/29/2010

1,590

15

114

The first cigarettes i smoked where called Death they cane in a black and white box with a scull and crossbones on it and had theses will kill you written on the box....

Years later i used to smoke Peter Styvasent's and when the price went up a changed to Voyager which are much cheaper but also contain twice the amount of tar ect ect.

And have people forgotten about when they where teenagers half the appeal of smoking and drinking is because we are not meant to do it, the more they try and make Smoking bad the more Teenagers will be drawn to the rebel image of smoking.

If that want it gone so badly ban it !! but they wont because they know it will still happen and they wont be getting there slice of the profit pie.

The hypocrisy is amazing, Alcohol is way more a danger to society than smoking is yet why are they not clamping down on Alcohol commercials or there packaging ????
Trust me ive never seen a fight brake out because someone bumped a table and knocked someone smokes on the floor, but ive seen it plenty due to Alcohol,
How many people have you heard of being killed because the driver of the car had a cigarette before driving ??? NON

If you want to remove all Potentially dangerous things get rid of all of them, that goes for heavy industry areas too as the pollutants could kill me, Cars as standing at a busy intersection for 10 mins is like smoking 200 smokes at once, Cell phones as they might cause Caner ect ect.

And before any one says that me smoking puts a burden on anyone else, no it dose not as i pay for my own medical and no i don't smoke with my kids in the car, actually our house is a smoke free Zone we only smoke outside even thought both my hubby and i are smokers. Our choice our body's my kids have not made that choice as they are to young to understand the possible health ramifications.

OK Rant over ...lol

Sarah - posted on 04/29/2010

5,465

31

344

To be honest, i think that if you are a hardened smoker, very little is going to put you off!
I think trying to dissuade people from starting in the first place is the best course of action.
So yeah, put ALL the ingredients on the packet, cover them in pictures of diseased lungs and skanky teeth!

Or maybe the government could just ban them altogether?? Ah, no, wait, they make FAR too much revenue from them to do that! ;)

Sarah - posted on 04/29/2010

5,465

31

344

They may as well give it a go! It's not going to do any harm if they do change the packaging, and it might help, so go for it!

@Cathy. The only ingredients on the packet are the levels of Tar, Nicotine and Carbon Monoxide. (on my brand at least!)

[deleted account]

I think it's a bit defeatist to say "oh, this won't work, so let's not bother." No, of course not everything will work, but some parts of this legislation might affect some people. And preventing people from starting is always good. The financial penalty might be a bit of a wake-up call to our young people, who generally don't have much money!

[deleted account]

I'm in favour of anything that reduces the number of people smoking!! Maybe the plain packaging won't have any effect on some people, but it might on others, so it's worth a try! The $20 dollars a packet is definitely worth a try - it probably won't deter those who are already completely addicted, but it might make lots of people think twice before starting. My son-in-law thinks he might have to cut back and I know my daughter will be in favour, as their financial situation is pretty dire!

It's a big problem here in Australia, so drastic methods are the way to go. The health costs due to smoking are huge, so let's do anything to nip it in the bud!

It's a disgusting habit and it stinks!

Dana - posted on 04/28/2010

11,264

35

495

It really depends on what type of hypnotist and how serious you are about it.

Johnny - posted on 04/28/2010

8,686

26

322

I don't think the packaging thing will work at all. Some people, as mentioned, are just DIEhard. Here, we've got ugly pictures of blackened lungs, shrunken babies, etc on our cigarette packs and people just keep on puffing. Now outfitting them with electric shock devices could work....

Jodi - posted on 04/28/2010

3,562

36

3907

I tried a hypnotist too Dana.....didn't work. I tried 2 different ones, and I am just not susceptible. They can't get me to go under :)

C. - posted on 04/28/2010

4,125

35

242

That's definitely one that I was in an uproar about when I was trying to quit (I quit one month ago!!!) But the Nicorette and the like are all way more expensive than buying cigarettes!

Jocelyn - posted on 04/28/2010

5,165

42

275

Yeah I never started smoking (or chose my brand) based on the packaging. I don't think making the package uglier will have any real affect, nor will the price increase. I think there are better ways to stop people from smoking. Make the nicotine alternatives cheaper for one!

C. - posted on 04/28/2010

4,125

35

242

Most people don't smoke b/c of the stupid packaging.. I think that's ridiculous. Most people think it's "cool".. Or in my case, I started when a friend and I had a little too much to drink one night (she smoked, I was adamant about NOT smoking, but was too drunk to care.. But that was long before I ever got pregnant) and from then on, I was hooked. Quit on a whim and started back up when my husband was about to deploy. Definitely didn't do it b/c the package was "pretty". I will say that Camel cigarette boxes are a little more appealing than Marlboro.. But I started on Marlboro, so again.. Definitely not b/c of the packaging.

?? - posted on 04/28/2010

4,974

0

172

My status on facebook the other day was about the money I haven't spent on smokes since I quit. I would spent approximately $75 - $100 a week on smokes. So since I quit, I have not spent about $5000 on cigarettes. That money went towards some debt I had accumulated and the rest of it went to diapers and food and clothes and shelter and toys and all the costs of having a child instead.

My mom though, she tried Champix because of my success and although she cut down, it wasn't enough to make her quit, because she didn't WANT to quit.

Our packaging for the past 5-10 years (I don't remember exactly when they started doing it) has had a graphic picture of some sort of disease riddled body piece with a warning of some sort on them. I remember I used to go to buy smokes and ask for the packages with the "impotence warning" - it may seem humorous but it's really quite awful !!! But it was the only one that didn't make me wanna hurl everytime I looked at my pack of smokes. And in all honesty I don't think I really paid all that much attention to the packaging - I had 'mastered the art' of removing the plastic, and pulling out a smoke without having to look down, pop the filthystick in my mouth and light up while putting the package in my purse or pocket..... so the amount of time I even spent looking at the package was slim to none.

What made me quit?

Being sick of it. Feeling like I was going to have a heart attack when I walked for even 10-15 minutes. The smell. Sometimes having people looking at me like I was personally killing them would bug me. The comments, sneers and rolling eyes didn't really bother me all that much until the end when I had my newly born beautiful baby.

I saw that even though I NEVER smoked around him, I ALWAYS washed my hands and even changed my clothes after smoking and going to hold him... it was just such a huge inconvience and it took away from the time I had with this brand new person.

The money though... that was never an issue. I even went without eating anything other than PB&J sandwiches because I had to buy smokes... it's sad and it's disgusting really but raising the price will only cause more problems and it won't do anything to help the issue they say they're trying to address.

Jodi - posted on 04/28/2010

3,562

36

3907

Just to clarify, that $20 per pack is about USs or Canadian $18.50..... Our dollar isn't much different in value than yours :)

Jodi - posted on 04/28/2010

3,562

36

3907

Oh Dana, those images have been on the cigarette packs for a couple of years. You think they are gross, you should see our TV advertisements!! I can't watch them. And I really hate that they put them on during prime time viewing while my children are in the room.

Jo, I used Champix too, and haven't touched a cigarette for 8 months. Hubby too. We have an extra $150 a week in our pockets, and have now saved $5,000. Just about ready for another holiday, LOL.

Anyway, I absolutely agree that the new laws won't stop people smoking if they are already smoking unless they really WANT to give up. Instead, it will take food out of their children's mouths. For some people, this will mean $280 a week in cigarettes (2 pack a day smokers). That's half the minimum wage here in Australia.

The Champix here is on our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme so costs next to nothing compared to the price of cigarettes.

I think they are struggling with measures to stop people from smoking. I think now, they are focusing very heavily on preventing people from taking it up.

Dana - posted on 04/28/2010

11,264

35

495

LMAO!!! That's pretty harsh as far as packaging goes.
I'm sure it's more for those who are thinking about smoking rather than those that already do. That being said, when I smoked it would have bothered me to see that every time I picked up my pack. It would probably have driven me to quit a lot sooner than I did. For a year before I quit I had a magazine page that I ripped out, stuck to my fridge, stating that women who smoke die 15 yrs earlier than those who don't. I hardly paid attention to it but every now and then I'd see it, I know that it helped me to have the balls to quit.

?? - posted on 04/28/2010

4,974

0

172

Champix / Chantix worked for me. It will be 1 year in 18 days since I quit thanks to Champix. When I started smoking, a pack of 'my brand' was $4.25. When I quit, $9.56. But there are a number of other crappier brands that are as lil as $6.75.



I think when it comes to cigarette's, nothing matters EXCEPT the mental attachment of the individual and what's in the cigarette.



That being said... $20 a pack is insane. Nicotine addiction is nothing to fuck around with... I know a family that have lost a car because the parents need $ for smokes so their car payments didn't get paid...



I hope those taxes are going to programs that make quitting aids more affordable and accessible...



I stayed on Champix for 8 weeks at $34 a week = $272+ taxes AND I stopped taking Champix before my doctor recommended. Most doctors recommend taking it for at least 3 months to ensure your body has enough of a resistance built up... that's app. $500. Champix is a LOT cheaper than smoking ;)



($XXX = $CDN)

Charlie - posted on 04/28/2010

11,203

111

409

It will just make it easier to counterfeit the cigarettes and sell them on the black market to anyone regardless of age .

People smoke because its an addiction to a drug not because of pretty packaging .

LaCi - posted on 04/28/2010

3,361

3

171

We don't smoke because of the package. I smoke because I'm mental.



Until I fix the mental issue I'll pay anything to get my upper. price increase? they've already doubled, and I am still smoking.



They should focus more time on removing the carpet glue they've started injecting into our cigarettes. (US) I don't know if they do that over there... but they sure do here. Nice thought... ingesting carpet glue. But hey, I'm still here, smoking.



They should think about giving out free chantix. Chantix is pretty amazing.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms