Plain cigarette packaging could boost Bradford's economy by millions, claims government

Plain cigarette packaging could boost Bradford's economy by millions, claims government

CONCERN: Mike Ridgway, Director of Consumer Packaging Manufacturers Alliance

PROBLEM: More than 20 per cent of people in Bradford are smokers

(9062422)

First published in News Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author by , T&A Reporter

PLAIN packaging for cigarettes could boost Bradford's economy by more than £6 million, according to a government department.

Public Health England (PHE) said the standardised packaging of tobacco products would not only improve health by cutting the number of smokers, but also lead to financial improvement.

The organisation claims families would have more disposable income - money that could then be spent on other things and boost the local economy.

However, there has been concern in Bradford that the introduction of plain packaging could cost jobs in Bradford.

It also said retailers earn between seven and nine per cent of the cost of tobacco, compared with 20 to 30 per cent for food and drink products, and that money saved by customers from reduced spending on tobacco would likely be spent elsewhere locally and benefit local businesses more.

The new figures come after recent official data from Australia, where standardised packaging was introduced in December 2012, showed a 3.4 per cent fall in tobacco sales by volume in the first year following the introduction of plain packets Down Under.

If that was mirrored here, PHE predicted that total savings across England would be up to £500 million.

In Bradford, according to the estimates, tobacco sales would drop from £163,659,909 to £157,486,696 - a saving for the city of £6,173,213.

PHE also estimated that 22.8 per cent of people in Bradford aged 18 years or over are smokers - 88,456 people out of a population of 388,064.

Dr Cathy Read, from PHE in Yorkshire and Humber, said: "Smoking remains the biggest cause of premature mortality in Yorkshire and the Humber, accounting for more than 8,000 deaths every year. Standardised packaging is a powerful measure that would help to save lives.

"Only last week we saw smoking levels among young people at an all-time low but that still means that everyday in Yorkshire and the Humber 51 young people aged 11 to 15 start smoking and that’s 51 too many.

"The introduction of standardised packaging will be a major boost to our tobacco control efforts – helping move us closer towards achieving a tobacco free generation."

Last month Mike Ridgway, of Consumer Packaging Manufacturers Alliance, warned that plain packaging could cause job losses in Bradford. The Alliance includes local packaging firms Weidenhammer and Chesapeake.

Mr Ridgway said: "Plain packaging would have a catastrophic effect on the packaging industry and its supply chain that currently employs over 60,000 people across the UK.

"It would remove the need for a series of highly skilled printing and packaging techniques that currently support jobs and flourishing apprenticeship schemes."

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:40am Fri 8 Aug 14

Albion. says...

Does this take into account the large amount of smuggled tobacco?
Does this take into account the large amount of smuggled tobacco? Albion.
  • Score: 13

6:46am Fri 8 Aug 14

More of the same.. says...

Civil lberty erosion by the state. Smoke smoke smoke! If you want to. Bradford council don't deserve this money: in that fashion. Watch 'fat' and 'sugar' take a hit in the future too.
Civil lberty erosion by the state. Smoke smoke smoke! If you want to. Bradford council don't deserve this money: in that fashion. Watch 'fat' and 'sugar' take a hit in the future too. More of the same..
  • Score: 7

7:41am Fri 8 Aug 14

OLDLAD says...

Less smokers means less people have to go in the shops that sell cigarettes thus shop closes due to lack of custom. Proposed figures show a saving to the city but doesnt say how this is achieved. People, when I last looked, have the freedom of choice. We are given the facts and we make a decision so why do we need airheads telling us what is good and bad. Remember when we were tod diesal cars are better, now they are talking about charging you if your engine is on and you are not moving. Is the window tax coming back next week?
Less smokers means less people have to go in the shops that sell cigarettes thus shop closes due to lack of custom. Proposed figures show a saving to the city but doesnt say how this is achieved. People, when I last looked, have the freedom of choice. We are given the facts and we make a decision so why do we need airheads telling us what is good and bad. Remember when we were tod diesal cars are better, now they are talking about charging you if your engine is on and you are not moving. Is the window tax coming back next week? OLDLAD
  • Score: 11

8:19am Fri 8 Aug 14

Bone_idle18 says...

OLDLAD wrote:
Less smokers means less people have to go in the shops that sell cigarettes thus shop closes due to lack of custom. Proposed figures show a saving to the city but doesnt say how this is achieved. People, when I last looked, have the freedom of choice. We are given the facts and we make a decision so why do we need airheads telling us what is good and bad. Remember when we were tod diesal cars are better, now they are talking about charging you if your engine is on and you are not moving. Is the window tax coming back next week?
Or maybe it means more people living longer and spending their money for longer?

Of all the people I have known who have died of cancer, every single one was a heavy smoker.
[quote][p][bold]OLDLAD[/bold] wrote: Less smokers means less people have to go in the shops that sell cigarettes thus shop closes due to lack of custom. Proposed figures show a saving to the city but doesnt say how this is achieved. People, when I last looked, have the freedom of choice. We are given the facts and we make a decision so why do we need airheads telling us what is good and bad. Remember when we were tod diesal cars are better, now they are talking about charging you if your engine is on and you are not moving. Is the window tax coming back next week?[/p][/quote]Or maybe it means more people living longer and spending their money for longer? Of all the people I have known who have died of cancer, every single one was a heavy smoker. Bone_idle18
  • Score: 0

8:20am Fri 8 Aug 14

Bone_idle18 says...

Of course, the undertakers might be up in arms over lost trade!
Of course, the undertakers might be up in arms over lost trade! Bone_idle18
  • Score: 7

8:28am Fri 8 Aug 14

OLDLAD says...

Bone_idle18 wrote:
Of course, the undertakers might be up in arms over lost trade!
If everyone stopped smoking the government would lose a fortune in tax, how would they replace this huge shortfall? Smoking figures dropping, cigerette prices rising but income from sales not falling.
[quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: Of course, the undertakers might be up in arms over lost trade![/p][/quote]If everyone stopped smoking the government would lose a fortune in tax, how would they replace this huge shortfall? Smoking figures dropping, cigerette prices rising but income from sales not falling. OLDLAD
  • Score: 9

8:35am Fri 8 Aug 14

izzystillbreathing says...

Cigarettes are legal highs. If they were invented today they would be banned by tomorrow. Remember Wigand?
Cigarettes are legal highs. If they were invented today they would be banned by tomorrow. Remember Wigand? izzystillbreathing
  • Score: 2

8:46am Fri 8 Aug 14

imi-r6 says...

Where do you get the figures. Smoking in Oz has increased with plain packaging. It also makes it easier to counterfeit cigs putting huge profits into the hands of criminals. It was no coincidence that the Mafia became very powerful due to prohibition. It costs taxpayers millions to fund these idiots
Where do you get the figures. Smoking in Oz has increased with plain packaging. It also makes it easier to counterfeit cigs putting huge profits into the hands of criminals. It was no coincidence that the Mafia became very powerful due to prohibition. It costs taxpayers millions to fund these idiots imi-r6
  • Score: 11

9:10am Fri 8 Aug 14

llos25 says...

izzystillbreathing wrote:
Cigarettes are legal highs. If they were invented today they would be banned by tomorrow. Remember Wigand?
Totally agree people who smoke should be disposed of.
[quote][p][bold]izzystillbreathing[/bold] wrote: Cigarettes are legal highs. If they were invented today they would be banned by tomorrow. Remember Wigand?[/p][/quote]Totally agree people who smoke should be disposed of. llos25
  • Score: -8

9:28am Fri 8 Aug 14

Oldwestbowling says...

izzystillbreathing wrote:
Cigarettes are legal highs. If they were invented today they would be banned by tomorrow. Remember Wigand?
Legal high? You don't get high by smoking cigarettes. Nicotine is probably the only addictive substance out there that isn't mind-altering.
[quote][p][bold]izzystillbreathing[/bold] wrote: Cigarettes are legal highs. If they were invented today they would be banned by tomorrow. Remember Wigand?[/p][/quote]Legal high? You don't get high by smoking cigarettes. Nicotine is probably the only addictive substance out there that isn't mind-altering. Oldwestbowling
  • Score: 10

9:58am Fri 8 Aug 14

llos25 says...

Oh but it does you must be a smoker saying that load of rubbish.
Oh but it does you must be a smoker saying that load of rubbish. llos25
  • Score: -8

10:37am Fri 8 Aug 14

G_Firth says...

The only economy it will raise is that of the black market and counterfeiters.
Plus the tobacco companies will instigate a court case that will cost the country millions under the copyright laws as is still underway in Australia that has still 2 more years to run.
The only economy it will raise is that of the black market and counterfeiters. Plus the tobacco companies will instigate a court case that will cost the country millions under the copyright laws as is still underway in Australia that has still 2 more years to run. G_Firth
  • Score: 8

10:58am Fri 8 Aug 14

Oldwestbowling says...

llos25 wrote:
Oh but it does you must be a smoker saying that load of rubbish.
So must you be too.....or how do you know that there's a (non-existent) high from smoking cigarettes. I wonder what type of cigs you DO smoke? We're talking about cigarettes or tobacco bought over the counter. You need to explain what you're talking about.
[quote][p][bold]llos25[/bold] wrote: Oh but it does you must be a smoker saying that load of rubbish.[/p][/quote]So must you be too.....or how do you know that there's a (non-existent) high from smoking cigarettes. I wonder what type of cigs you DO smoke? We're talking about cigarettes or tobacco bought over the counter. You need to explain what you're talking about. Oldwestbowling
  • Score: 6

11:12am Fri 8 Aug 14

Cityman23 says...

imi-r6 wrote:
Where do you get the figures. Smoking in Oz has increased with plain packaging. It also makes it easier to counterfeit cigs putting huge profits into the hands of criminals. It was no coincidence that the Mafia became very powerful due to prohibition. It costs taxpayers millions to fund these idiots
I ask where do YOU get your figures from? It was reported in the 'I' newspaper yesterday when this story was running that smoking in Australia is down by 3%!

Some on here say A) govt. taxes will go down and B) shops will suffer loss of trade. They also say C) smoking is a matter of freedom of choice and D) people know the risks.

In answer to all those points:
A) Yes, tax revenue from smoking will go down but the costs to the NHS of dealing with smoking related disease such as heart, lung and throat problems will also go down. So too will smoking related deaths?!! In addition, people are likely to buy other things with the money saved, so Tax revenue on these could go up.

B) When people buy other things with money saved, shops will benefit from this. But yes, they will lose from loss of sales, but this I believe has to be a price worth paying. Shops will have to use imagination in other ways to tempt customers in to their businesses.

C) Yes, smoking is a matter of freedom of choice and should remain so. However, choice has to be INFORMED CHOICE. Many tricks are used by businesses to sell us their products. One of these is packaging . Taking glamourous packaging and fancy logos away from cigarettes strips them down to their bare essentials. Those who are older long term smokers will likely carry on undetected but it is the YOUNGER potential smoker that this measure is trying to get to? Youngsters are often starry eyed by packaging and hype. Stopping many younger people from starting is surely a measure worth attempting. Even older smokers might agree with that if they think of their own grandchildren surely.

D) You would think all know the risks, but ignorance can be more prevalent that anyone can suppose. Certainly the young are the most oblivious of obvious risks and of course they think they're invulnerable, they're going to live forever metaphorically speaking and ' it happens to other folk.' Plain packaging is just another way, apart from education in schools, no advertising in the media, no smoking in public places to make young people feel smoking is much less acceptable nowadays, a minority activity mostly among the older people and NOT a very clever thing to start doing.
Isn't saving even just a few lives from being ruined early by smoking worth it? And saving thousands would be even better!!!
[quote][p][bold]imi-r6[/bold] wrote: Where do you get the figures. Smoking in Oz has increased with plain packaging. It also makes it easier to counterfeit cigs putting huge profits into the hands of criminals. It was no coincidence that the Mafia became very powerful due to prohibition. It costs taxpayers millions to fund these idiots[/p][/quote]I ask where do YOU get your figures from? It was reported in the 'I' newspaper yesterday when this story was running that smoking in Australia is down by 3%! Some on here say A) govt. taxes will go down and B) shops will suffer loss of trade. They also say C) smoking is a matter of freedom of choice and D) people know the risks. In answer to all those points: A) Yes, tax revenue from smoking will go down but the costs to the NHS of dealing with smoking related disease such as heart, lung and throat problems will also go down. So too will smoking related deaths?!! In addition, people are likely to buy other things with the money saved, so Tax revenue on these could go up. B) When people buy other things with money saved, shops will benefit from this. But yes, they will lose from loss of sales, but this I believe has to be a price worth paying. Shops will have to use imagination in other ways to tempt customers in to their businesses. C) Yes, smoking is a matter of freedom of choice and should remain so. However, choice has to be INFORMED CHOICE. Many tricks are used by businesses to sell us their products. One of these is packaging . Taking glamourous packaging and fancy logos away from cigarettes strips them down to their bare essentials. Those who are older long term smokers will likely carry on undetected but it is the YOUNGER potential smoker that this measure is trying to get to? Youngsters are often starry eyed by packaging and hype. Stopping many younger people from starting is surely a measure worth attempting. Even older smokers might agree with that if they think of their own grandchildren surely. D) You would think all know the risks, but ignorance can be more prevalent that anyone can suppose. Certainly the young are the most oblivious of obvious risks and of course they think they're invulnerable, they're going to live forever metaphorically speaking and ' it happens to other folk.' Plain packaging is just another way, apart from education in schools, no advertising in the media, no smoking in public places to make young people feel smoking is much less acceptable nowadays, a minority activity mostly among the older people and NOT a very clever thing to start doing. Isn't saving even just a few lives from being ruined early by smoking worth it? And saving thousands would be even better!!! Cityman23
  • Score: 3

11:14am Fri 8 Aug 14

Cityman23 says...

"Carry on undetected!!!"

I meant to say! UNAFFECTED!!
"Carry on undetected!!!" I meant to say! UNAFFECTED!! Cityman23
  • Score: 0

11:31am Fri 8 Aug 14

Cityman23 says...

PS
As to the matter of 'Prohibition' in the USA in the 1920s, the wide use of illegal drugs and their consumption is surely more worthy of comparison. Smoking isn't illegal and no one is suggesting here or anywhere that it should be.
PS As to the matter of 'Prohibition' in the USA in the 1920s, the wide use of illegal drugs and their consumption is surely more worthy of comparison. Smoking isn't illegal and no one is suggesting here or anywhere that it should be. Cityman23
  • Score: 1

11:55am Fri 8 Aug 14

Farsley Bantam says...

Cityman23 wrote:
imi-r6 wrote:
Where do you get the figures. Smoking in Oz has increased with plain packaging. It also makes it easier to counterfeit cigs putting huge profits into the hands of criminals. It was no coincidence that the Mafia became very powerful due to prohibition. It costs taxpayers millions to fund these idiots
I ask where do YOU get your figures from? It was reported in the 'I' newspaper yesterday when this story was running that smoking in Australia is down by 3%!

Some on here say A) govt. taxes will go down and B) shops will suffer loss of trade. They also say C) smoking is a matter of freedom of choice and D) people know the risks.

In answer to all those points:
A) Yes, tax revenue from smoking will go down but the costs to the NHS of dealing with smoking related disease such as heart, lung and throat problems will also go down. So too will smoking related deaths?!! In addition, people are likely to buy other things with the money saved, so Tax revenue on these could go up.

B) When people buy other things with money saved, shops will benefit from this. But yes, they will lose from loss of sales, but this I believe has to be a price worth paying. Shops will have to use imagination in other ways to tempt customers in to their businesses.

C) Yes, smoking is a matter of freedom of choice and should remain so. However, choice has to be INFORMED CHOICE. Many tricks are used by businesses to sell us their products. One of these is packaging . Taking glamourous packaging and fancy logos away from cigarettes strips them down to their bare essentials. Those who are older long term smokers will likely carry on undetected but it is the YOUNGER potential smoker that this measure is trying to get to? Youngsters are often starry eyed by packaging and hype. Stopping many younger people from starting is surely a measure worth attempting. Even older smokers might agree with that if they think of their own grandchildren surely.

D) You would think all know the risks, but ignorance can be more prevalent that anyone can suppose. Certainly the young are the most oblivious of obvious risks and of course they think they're invulnerable, they're going to live forever metaphorically speaking and ' it happens to other folk.' Plain packaging is just another way, apart from education in schools, no advertising in the media, no smoking in public places to make young people feel smoking is much less acceptable nowadays, a minority activity mostly among the older people and NOT a very clever thing to start doing.
Isn't saving even just a few lives from being ruined early by smoking worth it? And saving thousands would be even better!!!
Some good points Cityman.
[quote][p][bold]Cityman23[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]imi-r6[/bold] wrote: Where do you get the figures. Smoking in Oz has increased with plain packaging. It also makes it easier to counterfeit cigs putting huge profits into the hands of criminals. It was no coincidence that the Mafia became very powerful due to prohibition. It costs taxpayers millions to fund these idiots[/p][/quote]I ask where do YOU get your figures from? It was reported in the 'I' newspaper yesterday when this story was running that smoking in Australia is down by 3%! Some on here say A) govt. taxes will go down and B) shops will suffer loss of trade. They also say C) smoking is a matter of freedom of choice and D) people know the risks. In answer to all those points: A) Yes, tax revenue from smoking will go down but the costs to the NHS of dealing with smoking related disease such as heart, lung and throat problems will also go down. So too will smoking related deaths?!! In addition, people are likely to buy other things with the money saved, so Tax revenue on these could go up. B) When people buy other things with money saved, shops will benefit from this. But yes, they will lose from loss of sales, but this I believe has to be a price worth paying. Shops will have to use imagination in other ways to tempt customers in to their businesses. C) Yes, smoking is a matter of freedom of choice and should remain so. However, choice has to be INFORMED CHOICE. Many tricks are used by businesses to sell us their products. One of these is packaging . Taking glamourous packaging and fancy logos away from cigarettes strips them down to their bare essentials. Those who are older long term smokers will likely carry on undetected but it is the YOUNGER potential smoker that this measure is trying to get to? Youngsters are often starry eyed by packaging and hype. Stopping many younger people from starting is surely a measure worth attempting. Even older smokers might agree with that if they think of their own grandchildren surely. D) You would think all know the risks, but ignorance can be more prevalent that anyone can suppose. Certainly the young are the most oblivious of obvious risks and of course they think they're invulnerable, they're going to live forever metaphorically speaking and ' it happens to other folk.' Plain packaging is just another way, apart from education in schools, no advertising in the media, no smoking in public places to make young people feel smoking is much less acceptable nowadays, a minority activity mostly among the older people and NOT a very clever thing to start doing. Isn't saving even just a few lives from being ruined early by smoking worth it? And saving thousands would be even better!!![/p][/quote]Some good points Cityman. Farsley Bantam
  • Score: 3

12:50pm Fri 8 Aug 14

bald148 says...

What about the alcohol drinkers - are the government proposing bringing in plain labels for wine? Alcohol is a more destructive chemical than tobacco and smoking does not usually result in violence towards others. About time everyone stood up and objected to these freedom of choice regulations and start saying no. We voted in the government and we can vote them out if we don't like the way they are dealing with our countrys rules. BTW i am not a smoker or a heavy alcohol user, but i do know which one of them causes more problems for families and is also growing in popularity with younger people. I used to go to the shops for my parents cigs when i was younger, but i never took up smoking.
What about the alcohol drinkers - are the government proposing bringing in plain labels for wine? Alcohol is a more destructive chemical than tobacco and smoking does not usually result in violence towards others. About time everyone stood up and objected to these freedom of choice regulations and start saying no. We voted in the government and we can vote them out if we don't like the way they are dealing with our countrys rules. BTW i am not a smoker or a heavy alcohol user, but i do know which one of them causes more problems for families and is also growing in popularity with younger people. I used to go to the shops for my parents cigs when i was younger, but i never took up smoking. bald148
  • Score: 6

3:04pm Fri 8 Aug 14

Robin of Loxley says...

PLAIN packaging for cigarettes could boost Bradford's economy...


Could, would, should...

More BS from the Government.
[quote]PLAIN packaging for cigarettes could boost Bradford's economy... [/quote] Could, would, should... More BS from the Government. Robin of Loxley
  • Score: 6

3:54pm Fri 8 Aug 14

OLDLAD says...

Cityman23 wrote:
imi-r6 wrote:
Where do you get the figures. Smoking in Oz has increased with plain packaging. It also makes it easier to counterfeit cigs putting huge profits into the hands of criminals. It was no coincidence that the Mafia became very powerful due to prohibition. It costs taxpayers millions to fund these idiots
I ask where do YOU get your figures from? It was reported in the 'I' newspaper yesterday when this story was running that smoking in Australia is down by 3%!

Some on here say A) govt. taxes will go down and B) shops will suffer loss of trade. They also say C) smoking is a matter of freedom of choice and D) people know the risks.

In answer to all those points:
A) Yes, tax revenue from smoking will go down but the costs to the NHS of dealing with smoking related disease such as heart, lung and throat problems will also go down. So too will smoking related deaths?!! In addition, people are likely to buy other things with the money saved, so Tax revenue on these could go up.

B) When people buy other things with money saved, shops will benefit from this. But yes, they will lose from loss of sales, but this I believe has to be a price worth paying. Shops will have to use imagination in other ways to tempt customers in to their businesses.

C) Yes, smoking is a matter of freedom of choice and should remain so. However, choice has to be INFORMED CHOICE. Many tricks are used by businesses to sell us their products. One of these is packaging . Taking glamourous packaging and fancy logos away from cigarettes strips them down to their bare essentials. Those who are older long term smokers will likely carry on undetected but it is the YOUNGER potential smoker that this measure is trying to get to? Youngsters are often starry eyed by packaging and hype. Stopping many younger people from starting is surely a measure worth attempting. Even older smokers might agree with that if they think of their own grandchildren surely.

D) You would think all know the risks, but ignorance can be more prevalent that anyone can suppose. Certainly the young are the most oblivious of obvious risks and of course they think they're invulnerable, they're going to live forever metaphorically speaking and ' it happens to other folk.' Plain packaging is just another way, apart from education in schools, no advertising in the media, no smoking in public places to make young people feel smoking is much less acceptable nowadays, a minority activity mostly among the older people and NOT a very clever thing to start doing.
Isn't saving even just a few lives from being ruined early by smoking worth it? And saving thousands would be even better!!!
OBESITY has taken over in this country as the biggest cost to the NHS.
[quote][p][bold]Cityman23[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]imi-r6[/bold] wrote: Where do you get the figures. Smoking in Oz has increased with plain packaging. It also makes it easier to counterfeit cigs putting huge profits into the hands of criminals. It was no coincidence that the Mafia became very powerful due to prohibition. It costs taxpayers millions to fund these idiots[/p][/quote]I ask where do YOU get your figures from? It was reported in the 'I' newspaper yesterday when this story was running that smoking in Australia is down by 3%! Some on here say A) govt. taxes will go down and B) shops will suffer loss of trade. They also say C) smoking is a matter of freedom of choice and D) people know the risks. In answer to all those points: A) Yes, tax revenue from smoking will go down but the costs to the NHS of dealing with smoking related disease such as heart, lung and throat problems will also go down. So too will smoking related deaths?!! In addition, people are likely to buy other things with the money saved, so Tax revenue on these could go up. B) When people buy other things with money saved, shops will benefit from this. But yes, they will lose from loss of sales, but this I believe has to be a price worth paying. Shops will have to use imagination in other ways to tempt customers in to their businesses. C) Yes, smoking is a matter of freedom of choice and should remain so. However, choice has to be INFORMED CHOICE. Many tricks are used by businesses to sell us their products. One of these is packaging . Taking glamourous packaging and fancy logos away from cigarettes strips them down to their bare essentials. Those who are older long term smokers will likely carry on undetected but it is the YOUNGER potential smoker that this measure is trying to get to? Youngsters are often starry eyed by packaging and hype. Stopping many younger people from starting is surely a measure worth attempting. Even older smokers might agree with that if they think of their own grandchildren surely. D) You would think all know the risks, but ignorance can be more prevalent that anyone can suppose. Certainly the young are the most oblivious of obvious risks and of course they think they're invulnerable, they're going to live forever metaphorically speaking and ' it happens to other folk.' Plain packaging is just another way, apart from education in schools, no advertising in the media, no smoking in public places to make young people feel smoking is much less acceptable nowadays, a minority activity mostly among the older people and NOT a very clever thing to start doing. Isn't saving even just a few lives from being ruined early by smoking worth it? And saving thousands would be even better!!![/p][/quote]OBESITY has taken over in this country as the biggest cost to the NHS. OLDLAD
  • Score: 5

5:09pm Fri 8 Aug 14

imi-r6 says...

Farsley Bantam wrote:
Cityman23 wrote:
imi-r6 wrote:
Where do you get the figures. Smoking in Oz has increased with plain packaging. It also makes it easier to counterfeit cigs putting huge profits into the hands of criminals. It was no coincidence that the Mafia became very powerful due to prohibition. It costs taxpayers millions to fund these idiots
I ask where do YOU get your figures from? It was reported in the 'I' newspaper yesterday when this story was running that smoking in Australia is down by 3%!

Some on here say A) govt. taxes will go down and B) shops will suffer loss of trade. They also say C) smoking is a matter of freedom of choice and D) people know the risks.

In answer to all those points:
A) Yes, tax revenue from smoking will go down but the costs to the NHS of dealing with smoking related disease such as heart, lung and throat problems will also go down. So too will smoking related deaths?!! In addition, people are likely to buy other things with the money saved, so Tax revenue on these could go up.

B) When people buy other things with money saved, shops will benefit from this. But yes, they will lose from loss of sales, but this I believe has to be a price worth paying. Shops will have to use imagination in other ways to tempt customers in to their businesses.

C) Yes, smoking is a matter of freedom of choice and should remain so. However, choice has to be INFORMED CHOICE. Many tricks are used by businesses to sell us their products. One of these is packaging . Taking glamourous packaging and fancy logos away from cigarettes strips them down to their bare essentials. Those who are older long term smokers will likely carry on undetected but it is the YOUNGER potential smoker that this measure is trying to get to? Youngsters are often starry eyed by packaging and hype. Stopping many younger people from starting is surely a measure worth attempting. Even older smokers might agree with that if they think of their own grandchildren surely.

D) You would think all know the risks, but ignorance can be more prevalent that anyone can suppose. Certainly the young are the most oblivious of obvious risks and of course they think they're invulnerable, they're going to live forever metaphorically speaking and ' it happens to other folk.' Plain packaging is just another way, apart from education in schools, no advertising in the media, no smoking in public places to make young people feel smoking is much less acceptable nowadays, a minority activity mostly among the older people and NOT a very clever thing to start doing.
Isn't saving even just a few lives from being ruined early by smoking worth it? And saving thousands would be even better!!!
Some good points Cityman.
Google the Australian newspaper for the story. They are closer to the real statistics. Can't cut and paste link from the mobile
[quote][p][bold]Farsley Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cityman23[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]imi-r6[/bold] wrote: Where do you get the figures. Smoking in Oz has increased with plain packaging. It also makes it easier to counterfeit cigs putting huge profits into the hands of criminals. It was no coincidence that the Mafia became very powerful due to prohibition. It costs taxpayers millions to fund these idiots[/p][/quote]I ask where do YOU get your figures from? It was reported in the 'I' newspaper yesterday when this story was running that smoking in Australia is down by 3%! Some on here say A) govt. taxes will go down and B) shops will suffer loss of trade. They also say C) smoking is a matter of freedom of choice and D) people know the risks. In answer to all those points: A) Yes, tax revenue from smoking will go down but the costs to the NHS of dealing with smoking related disease such as heart, lung and throat problems will also go down. So too will smoking related deaths?!! In addition, people are likely to buy other things with the money saved, so Tax revenue on these could go up. B) When people buy other things with money saved, shops will benefit from this. But yes, they will lose from loss of sales, but this I believe has to be a price worth paying. Shops will have to use imagination in other ways to tempt customers in to their businesses. C) Yes, smoking is a matter of freedom of choice and should remain so. However, choice has to be INFORMED CHOICE. Many tricks are used by businesses to sell us their products. One of these is packaging . Taking glamourous packaging and fancy logos away from cigarettes strips them down to their bare essentials. Those who are older long term smokers will likely carry on undetected but it is the YOUNGER potential smoker that this measure is trying to get to? Youngsters are often starry eyed by packaging and hype. Stopping many younger people from starting is surely a measure worth attempting. Even older smokers might agree with that if they think of their own grandchildren surely. D) You would think all know the risks, but ignorance can be more prevalent that anyone can suppose. Certainly the young are the most oblivious of obvious risks and of course they think they're invulnerable, they're going to live forever metaphorically speaking and ' it happens to other folk.' Plain packaging is just another way, apart from education in schools, no advertising in the media, no smoking in public places to make young people feel smoking is much less acceptable nowadays, a minority activity mostly among the older people and NOT a very clever thing to start doing. Isn't saving even just a few lives from being ruined early by smoking worth it? And saving thousands would be even better!!![/p][/quote]Some good points Cityman.[/p][/quote]Google the Australian newspaper for the story. They are closer to the real statistics. Can't cut and paste link from the mobile imi-r6
  • Score: 1

11:11pm Fri 8 Aug 14

Its Granola - Granola says...

bald148 wrote:
What about the alcohol drinkers - are the government proposing bringing in plain labels for wine? Alcohol is a more destructive chemical than tobacco and smoking does not usually result in violence towards others. About time everyone stood up and objected to these freedom of choice regulations and start saying no. We voted in the government and we can vote them out if we don't like the way they are dealing with our countrys rules. BTW i am not a smoker or a heavy alcohol user, but i do know which one of them causes more problems for families and is also growing in popularity with younger people. I used to go to the shops for my parents cigs when i was younger, but i never took up smoking.
Fair comment , but surely having a responsible drink with friends is far more sociable and better than stinking of stale tobacco .
[quote][p][bold]bald148[/bold] wrote: What about the alcohol drinkers - are the government proposing bringing in plain labels for wine? Alcohol is a more destructive chemical than tobacco and smoking does not usually result in violence towards others. About time everyone stood up and objected to these freedom of choice regulations and start saying no. We voted in the government and we can vote them out if we don't like the way they are dealing with our countrys rules. BTW i am not a smoker or a heavy alcohol user, but i do know which one of them causes more problems for families and is also growing in popularity with younger people. I used to go to the shops for my parents cigs when i was younger, but i never took up smoking.[/p][/quote]Fair comment , but surely having a responsible drink with friends is far more sociable and better than stinking of stale tobacco . Its Granola - Granola
  • Score: 2

6:44am Mon 11 Aug 14

Papa Smurfs Wig says...

OLDLAD wrote:
Bone_idle18 wrote:
Of course, the undertakers might be up in arms over lost trade!
If everyone stopped smoking the government would lose a fortune in tax, how would they replace this huge shortfall? Smoking figures dropping, cigerette prices rising but income from sales not falling.
They certainly would lose out on tax and you might find the NHS might have to charge like in America. Imagine paying a grand to fix a broken wrist and £25 to just see a doctor or a visit to A&E (that would stop people going for trivial things)
I stopped smoking eighteen months ago and l used to buy the Polish imports for £4.00, many do and that would increase.
I honestly think smokers have been shafted over the years with super high tax, smoking ban and treated like leapers.
Now they want health warnings on alcohol, ha ha. Now if they do the minimum price on alcohol then they would make more on tax and less trouble and visits to hospital as the supermarket fans would have to pay the price it would have been if they had put it up with inflation. Then pubs would get a decent shout.
Anyway, all hail ecigs and the excise duty they have lost out ob :-)
[quote][p][bold]OLDLAD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: Of course, the undertakers might be up in arms over lost trade![/p][/quote]If everyone stopped smoking the government would lose a fortune in tax, how would they replace this huge shortfall? Smoking figures dropping, cigerette prices rising but income from sales not falling.[/p][/quote]They certainly would lose out on tax and you might find the NHS might have to charge like in America. Imagine paying a grand to fix a broken wrist and £25 to just see a doctor or a visit to A&E (that would stop people going for trivial things) I stopped smoking eighteen months ago and l used to buy the Polish imports for £4.00, many do and that would increase. I honestly think smokers have been shafted over the years with super high tax, smoking ban and treated like leapers. Now they want health warnings on alcohol, ha ha. Now if they do the minimum price on alcohol then they would make more on tax and less trouble and visits to hospital as the supermarket fans would have to pay the price it would have been if they had put it up with inflation. Then pubs would get a decent shout. Anyway, all hail ecigs and the excise duty they have lost out ob :-) Papa Smurfs Wig
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree