8 2 mins 9 yrs

Wonder what you make of this move that Government is plainly preparing to make?

A UK-wide consultation on government plans to introduce mandatory plain packaging for tobacco will close later.  It was extended by a month to allow more people to respond after strong public interest in the issue. The proposal could mean information about individual brands being removed from cigarette packets, with just the name and warnings visible. Plain packaging is seen by campaigners as the next step in discouraging young people from taking up smoking. It could mean every sign of individual brands, from their logo, colour or typeface, being replaced by standard packaging simply carrying warnings and the name of the cigarettes. Packets are likely to be a dark olive green.

I don’t smoke but this seems totally draconian and indeed totalitarian. If Government really wants to stop young people smoking, why not just BAN tobacco? Ah, that would mean foregoing all that healthy revenue obtained via tax. So this is simply glorified Nannyism, albeit on a grand scale. Remember, the State always knows what is best for you.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

8 thoughts on “PLAIN PACKAGING…

  1. Listening to the debate on R4 earlier this morning, the advocate of keeping the status quo was saying advertising doesn’t work, my question was why bother then?

    To me the carton that cigarettes are in makes no difference to whether you would take up smoking.

    Parents and peer pressure are the two main reasons why people start smoking, there is also the social aspects, so you don’t feel left out, say when all your mates go outside the pub to smoke…

    Personally I don’t have a problem with people who smoke, I do have a problem with people who smoke then move their cigarette away from themselves and into other peoples faces while they talk.

  2. Banning cigarettes would hand the trade over to criminals. What states are now doing with tobacco is what they should be doing with all dangerous drugs, keeping the supply legal but eliminating marketing as much as possible so fewer new addicts get created.

  3. Tobacco kills millions around the world every year. But Rightworld loves it and also totally supports the “nanny state” ban on marujana 🙂

  4. Henry94

    Keeping the price sky high is handing much of the trade to criminals, in Europe.

    In the US, state taxes vary a great deal, which also gives a fine opening to criminals.

    The criminals of the world thank the world’s nannys and prohibitionists. They think you’re all the best.

  5. “Banning cigarettes would hand the trade over to criminals.”

    A group otherwise known as entrepreneurs, supplying people with what they want. The only criminals involved in cigarettes and tobacco is the mafia which violently enforces a 300% cut on all sales.

  6. ” Entrepreneurs ” who have no problem blowing the head off anyone who gets in their way.

    Told you that libertarians were lawless!

  7. Phantom –

    You only get that kind of thing where the State imposes restrictions on the supply of products. Best do away with restrictions, no?

    In any case, when it comes to killing those who get in the way, no-one can hold a light to Il Prez.

  8. You’ve never I believe said that you oppose the legal sale of drugs.

    Do you support the legalization of any drugs that are currently illegal? Which ones?

Comments are closed.