In March 2015, Ireland and the United Kingdom become the first EU countries to pass laws mandating plain packaging for cigarettes. They follow Australia which decided in 2012 to remove branding from cigarette packs – replacing it with graphic health warnings.

The World Health Organization has welcomed the British and Irish moves, and urged others to follow. Plain-packaging legislation is already pending in France, and in EU neighbours Norway and Turkey. Research from Australia suggests smoking fell by 12.8% since the packaging laws came into force – although the tobacco industry says that’s down more to higher prices than the gory images covering packs.

With WHO statistics showing 16% of all deaths in adults over 30 across Europe can be attributed to tobacco – above the global average of 12% – is it time to the rest of the EU to move ahead to plain packaging? Or adults be be allowed to make their own informed choices on whether to smoke, without more nanny state scare-tactics?

We got the views of Eoin Bradley, Advocacy Officer at Irish Cancer Society. He had no doubt about the benefits of de-branding cigarette packs.

BradleyPlain packaging does a number of things. The first and main thing is that it reduces the appeal of tobacco to young people. The other thing is that it reduces the pleasure that smokers get out of it … Young people, as we have found here in Ireland with our own studies and elsewhere around Europe and around the world, really are attracted to brands, attracted to packaging which really reflects their particular ideals. What plain packaging does basically is that it strips away the need and the want that young people have towards these brands.

Not surprisingly we got a different response when we asked Axel Gietz, Director of Group Corporate Affairs at Imperial Tobacco, about the impact of plain-packaging laws. He said underage smoking and the illicit trade in cigarettes have gone up in Australia since the legislation was introduced.

Contributor Pedro from Portugal wrote in via Facebook to suggest higher taxes on tobacco and junk food should be directed towards financing health services:

citizen_icon_180x180Instead of taxing permaculture or biodynamic farming products, we should have higher taxes for unhealthy things like junk food and tobacco and spend the profits on our healthcare systems.

Here’s the response from Eoin Bradley:

BradleyAbsolutely. There needs to be more than one thing when it comes to tobacco control and in terms of plain packaging, it is not a silver bullet. The evidence from Australia is absolutely positive, but like Australia, Ireland too is looking at other areas to stem the use of tobacco. For example, we now have the highest cost for a pack of 20 cigarettes, it’s currently around €10 here in Ireland. In terms of that, what we have found is that tobacco users react to the price as much as, for example, plain packaging … The cost of tobacco here in Ireland on the health service is between €1 billion and €2 billion, so we think certainly that some element of the tobacco tax should go towards smoking cessation.

Finally, we spoke to Simon Clark, Director of the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking. We asked him if he thinks if there is a public health argument to be made for reducing the number of smokers:

What do you think? Does Europe need to step up legislation and taxation to cut the estimated 700,000 avoidable deaths blamed on tobacco every year? Or do tighter restrictions make matters worse by pushing cigarette sales underground? Send us your questions and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policy-makers and experts for their reaction.

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / Flickr – Alessandra

122 comments Post a commentcomment

    • avatar

      Exactly! Unless they take off the 74% pre-tax (in NL called accijns)! The VAT of 21% still remains! In Nl the pack = nearly 90% tax! :(

    • avatar

      Ferenc, beszélek tjak ez kitchit Magyarul, In Angolrul: you do not understand what it’s about! Not about warnings!!! Should all packs be the same without any typical brand marks. Just only the brand in one letter type on top of pictures of cancer lungs. That’s the question. :)

    • avatar

      Fine, if you pay me back those € 8-9 a day I’m paying on tax only! B-)

  1. avatar
    Rémi Martin

    Instead of looking “for health warnings to replace all branding on cigarette packs”, EU should better look for employment for the europeans countrys, the messages on the packs aren’t certainly the most important problem the people have in their life!

  2. avatar
    Ermal Senior Luka

    I think that all the cigarettes company should be closed and not produce more cigarettes which it can never happen cuz brings big benefits on the gov,but I the drugs get band all kind of them then why not and the cigarettes,cigarettes kills people all over the world so I think they should ban the cigarette and instead they can produce just nicotine patches

  3. avatar
    Geoff Cliff

    The madness of depriving manufacturers of a legal product of their intellectual property such as branding in the name of a moralistic and ideological crusade needs to be stopped. This is so especially given that the evidence to date shows that so-called ‘plain’ packaging has no negative effect on smoking prevalence, and may in fact be leading to increased consumption of more dangerous counterfeit products.

    • avatar

      It’s madness indeed! :) in NL it’s nearly 90% tax a pack. In France it must be 130 % and in the UK… it was nearly 200% ten years ago. Unbelievable! I’m paying 1/3 of my net income on tax on sigarettes! :( I don’t care if it’s a blanco pack with only the warning like “smoking kills” when they take off the 90% tax!

    • avatar

      Ah! So your picture instead of the camel? Fine! :D talking about ugly pictures… Indeed, with you on my pack…. I would hesitate…. :(

  4. avatar
    Bob Taylor

    Yes, and all confectionary products should have a skull and cross-bone with warnings about how being overweight can cause heart failure.
    And all politicians should have integrity warnings tattooed on their foreheads…

  5. avatar
    Nicholas Pavlidis

    You are naive people who says YES, the sales are the same or even they get higher. It’s if you wanna smoke or you wanna quit deep inside, a photo won’t make a smoker to quit. Stop ignorance non-smokers and anti-smokers, you know nothing about smokers.

    • avatar

      They might know smokers! But that’s all indeed! :( you’re likely wrong in one aspect: those pics won’t STOP me smoking after 50 years. But might prevent youngsters to START smoking. I don’t care about the pics or warnings… :D I care about the fact that 1/3 of my net income goos to sigarettes due to 90% tax on sigarettes in NL! :(

  6. avatar
    Chralton C Jones

    Get over it. people who smoke are either. A) in denial or, B) well aware of the risks involved and accept them.

    • avatar

      I’m 100% B ! At least after 50 years smoking…. Definitely B! ;)

  7. avatar
    Mike Kirkup

    I like to Stick to the Story i sold to the Daily Mail 30 Years ago – ” Philip Morris – who make Marlborough – donate 9 cents to the Ku Kluck Klan for every packet sold ” – It sounded nice – i never knew the Idiots would Believe me ! i even made up stories about the Fire Cross ( printers mark) and tearing Packet up to show 3 K s plus Gold n Black roundals that the Head of K K Klan wears – all bullshite – but Thanks for Paying me for it :-) – i gave the cash to a Charity and still laugh !

  8. avatar
    Penny Bunn

    No. It is time for the EU and the Nanny State to (literally) BUTT OUT of people’s lives, and leave us alone to enjoy our smoking! The UK Government certainly benefits from all the massive taxes we have to pay to enjoy what is still a perfectly legal habit. The anti-smokers would have a great deal to say about it when the NHS fell apart, their children’s education was seriously affected and the defences of this country were reduced so much we HAD no defence! If the Govt is SOOOO concerned about the dangers of smoking, why doesn’t it make it illegal altogether? Because it can’t afford to, is the answer! The British Government wants smokers to keep smoking, and paying massive taxes, so that it can fund the country. But it also wants the right to persecute us, foster hatred against us, spread false stories and blatant lies about the dangers of smoking and the ‘risk’ smokers pose to society, and now we have plain packaging and the debate about health warnings all over packages. WE KNOW the dangers, thank-you, just as people know the dangers of driving, of eating too much fat in their diets, of sugary sweets and treats, of dangerous sports, of excessive alcohol consumption and so on. But as adults making decisions for ourselves, it’s time our human rights were respected and the hypocrisy and persecution brought to an end. LEAVE SMOKERS ALONE!! (We ALSO need to get out of the EU as soon as possible, in my opinion, so it can stop MEDDLING in affairs that are none of its business!).

    • avatar

      Hear, hear! :) well… At least about “leave smokers smoke” and the tax factor! :) those aren’t EU but individual state laws and taxes! I”m 100% pro Europe! :)

  9. avatar
    Anatilde Alves

    I AM a smoker , i enjoy my cig with my coffe , i know the effects and dont care, no matter what you put in it i AM still going to smoke.

    • avatar

      Totally agreed!

  10. avatar
    Max Wevers

    But only if there are also pictures of car accidents or a broken liver on liquor bottles !!!

  11. avatar
    Michael Peel

    An absolute nonsense. This pathetic charade against smokers has gone on for far too long. Goebbels would have been proud of the fascists who continue this campaign.

  12. avatar
    Rui Manuel Simões Oliveira

    We should have more disciplines that helps teenagers to avoid smoking. Teach them from the elementary School that tobacco, is an evil thing that provoques serious damages to our health. Applying high taxes to tobacco, will result in higher contributions that could be invested in the health national system from each country, providing with that measure , better public services.

    • avatar

      We all could know that eating sweets is not healthy. So why is it that we cannot prohibit eating sweets?

      We all could know that drinking alcohol is not healthy. So why is it that we cannot prohibit drinking alcohol?

      We all could know that eating burgers is not healthy. So why is it that we cannot prohibit eating burgers?

      Do you see how stupid your argument is?

      “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
      – C.S.Lewis

  13. avatar

    There’s a lot of “interest” interfering in production-distribution chain of tobacco and alcohol industries, because there’s a lot of money at stake. The so called “medical concern” is in fact asking for bribes. The same old strategy where in the end the little guy is ripped off for being allowed small “pleasures” considered by many governments “unhealthy and bad unnecessaries habits” and being taxed accordigly. Over the pond, yanks learn that lesson a long time ago and every time when their government decide a new tobacco tax increase, next day you see promotions like “Buy one (pack of smokes) get one free” kind of deals.

  14. avatar
    Toni Muñiz

    Useless. Might as well do the same with alcohol, fat foods etc. etc. Is there any evidence it stops people from smoking? Should it just be banned? Higher taxes on cigs?

  15. avatar
    Alex Bell

    No. Health warnings are like suggestive hypnotic msgs so they make the mind feel worse. Remove the pretty branding but also the messages themselves. If you want to make it something, make it plain.

  16. avatar

    These measures will not reduce the number of people smoking. This is essentially governments laying their hands on a product that is not theirs. Plain packaging goes against EU rules on the free movement of goods, removes intellectual property rights from the perfectly legal tobacco industries, and plays into the hands of criminals seeking to make counterfeit products.

  17. avatar
    mandy vincent

    If I smoked 4 packs a day it would not kill me, if I took 4 packets of paracetamol or similar it would. Why no filthy warning pictures on those? misleading information is dangerous.

  18. avatar
    EU reform- proactive

    Is it one of the highly ranked priorities of our EU officials-(like with some ‘life threatening’ issues of black spots on imported oranges)-how they express their health concerns for us?

    The maddest thing one can do with ones own life is to enjoy the acceleration towards one’s own death and adding negatively to the national health care budget- financed by all of us!

    I wouldn’t mind supporting ~100,000 poor global tobacco growing subsistence farmers (25% ‘associated’ with the British American Tobacco Company, ‘BAT’)- would they rather grow less life & soil destructive crops and contribute to real happiness!

    Since bad habits & greed are difficult to change, one has at least the option to invest in ignorance & buy ‘BAT’ shares instead any of their despicable products- with or without nice pictures on them!

  19. avatar
    Kevin Brindley

    There should be a health warning on political parties. Warning!!!! Voting Will Damage Your Freedoms.

  20. avatar
    John Caradimas

    Someone should explain to our EU politicians, that we do not pay them to decide on stupid things. There are more important things than that, in EU. They’d better spend their time and energy on those.

  21. avatar
    Chris B

    The question should more appropriately be “Is it time for Tobacco Control to be declared unfit for purpose?”
    Their ever increasing budgets and demands have failed to increase the decline of tobacco use . Even the UK smoking ban had no appreciable effect on smoking levels but destroyed social venues and society at a massive cost to the economy and the social lives of many vulnerable members of society whilst major players in Tobacco Control enjoyed ever increasing obscene levels of funding from Government and Big Pharma.
    Our Governments support a group of prohibitionists promoting exaggeration and downright lies supported peer reviewed only by others in the group and in a despicable abuse of Democracy refuse to even debate with their opponents or allow access to their international discussions organised with our (and Pharmaceutical) money. How can it be that 2 so-called public consultations showed 64% and 99% of (mainly unfunded) contributors roundly rejected plain packaging yet only the opinions of Government funded organisations/individuals held sway with the opinion makers?
    There are so many more examples of democratic abuse, ineffective and damaging impositions and misuse of public finances. The one thing we know for certain is that they listen only to their friends and funders and will never, ever listen to those they abuse.
    Inexpensive and rational education not regulation reduced smoking levels far more effectively than any Tobacco Control Industry measure so lets return to branding, choice and common-sense.

  22. avatar

    “…the estimated 700,000 avoidable deaths blamed on tobacco every year…”

    The so-called ‘smoking related disease’ is one of the antismokers’ cleverest inventions. To say that a disease is ‘smoking-related’ is not the same as saying that it is directly caused by smoking, or that there is any actual proof of anything. It means simply that someone has decided that smoking MAY be a factor in that disease.

    Over the last couple of decades, more and more diseases have been added to the list, often with very little evidence. Heart disease was one of the first, even though it has something like 300 risk factors, and some major studies (for instance, that of the citizens of Framingham, Massachusetts, which has been going on since 1948) have shown not only that the link with smoking is weak, but that moderate smokers have LESS heart disease than nonsmokers.

    More recently it has become fashionable to blame smoking for just about everything… from ‘clogging up’ of the arteries (which happens to everyone as they get older) to blindness (well, they can’t blame masturbation any more) to AIDS. It has also become fashionable, every time a smoker dies, to try to find a way to blame their death on smoking.
    The fact is that many statistics about smoking (and especially ‘secondhand’ smoke) are simply made up. For instance, until cervical cancer was recently proven to be caused by a virus, a completely random 13% of cases were attributed to smoking!

    The great thing about the ‘smoking-related disease,’ is that it allows you to create the perception of a raging epidemic. The UK government says that 100,000 or 120,000 deaths per year (depending on who is speaking at the time) are caused by ‘smoking-related disease’. The impression given is that these are all deaths specifically, and provably, caused by smoking, but it is no such thing.
    It includes non-smokers who die of bronchitis or strokes, and smokers who die of heart attacks in their 90s. It includes people who quit smoking decades before. It is not exactly lying, but it is deliberately misleading, it is scaremongering, and in my opinion these people should be ashamed of themselves.

  23. avatar
    Pam Bray

    I was talking to a corner shop owner today about them having to cover up displays of cigarettes and asked him if he thought these would deter people from buying them his answer to that was “no” I also asked to same question to the chap behind the ciggie counter of a super store and his answer was also “no” He said it had made no difference to the sale of cigarettes. at all.

  24. avatar
    Norman Sharp

    Oh yeah, a gift for counterfeiters and smugglers! And yet another ‘law’ we get no vote on because it’s decided by the undemocratic European commission. Who voted them in? No-one.

  25. avatar
    Vinny Gracchus

    No, plain packages should not be introduced. Plain packages will not reduce smoking. They will increase counterfeiting and increase profits for organized crime. Reject plain packages fro tobacco and repeal smoking bans.

  26. avatar
    Paul X

    You can put what you want on the packet, buy the time the person sees it, it is too late as they have already brought the packet and they certainly aren’t going to dump a full packet of cigarettes in the bin just because of a warning or gory photo on the packet

    Face facts, the majority of smokers are addicts and I very much doubt many started smoking because of fancy looking cigarette packets, most start through peer pressure and the only way to stop is through a strong will

    I can talk through experience as a smoker for 15 years who gave up 25 years ago, and that was despite all the fancy advertising and F1 sponsorship that was around at the time..if people don’t have the incentive or will power to stop then they never will, and tbh if it is helping to keep my taxes down then good luck to them

  27. avatar
    Guillem Martí Bou

    Is time for EU leave to regulate every little thing in tarde and economics, and think in citizens like babies that can decide what they consume by theirselfs????

  28. avatar
    Graham Anthony.

    I have bought chrome cigarette cases – I am not going around displaying government created horror pictures, which ultimately will do nothing to people like myself who ENJOY smoking.

  29. avatar
    Iro Cyr

    Uniform (aka plain) packaging will leave nothing other than the price for tobacco companies to compete with each other for the smoker’s market. Lower prices mean lower quality and less r & d for safer products. As well, lower prices can lead to higher consumption of tobacco. Big T in Australia started marketing at least one cheaper (less quality) brand as soon as plain packaging came in. And this doesn’t even begin to tell how cheaper contraband tobacco will proliferate even more than it already does A legislation such as this is a public health disaster waiting to happen. Tobacco control has gone more than far enough short of making tobacco illegal. It is time they call it quits.

  30. avatar
    Nando Aidos

    Smoking is not just legislation and taxation. It is education, it is a life style, it is the social image. All that has to change together through social initiatives and possibly legislation and taxation too.
    Smoking is a human social behaviour problem! Caused by an idiotically stressful society that we keep nurturing?

  31. avatar
    Denis Dergic

    Europe should stop interfering in individual affairs. People are not stupid, let people decide even if it affects them negatively. I do support the ban of smoking in places where other non-smokers can be affected. But from that point to restrict. I personally didnt ask europe for taking care of me, i can do that by myself as I decide to.

  32. avatar
    Ivan Burrows


    Most people would consider such actions draconian & those of a dictatorship.

    Not that it will apply to us as we are leaving the antidemocratic EU very soon.

  33. avatar

    Europe should stop interfering in individual affairs. People are not stupid, let people decide even if it affects them negatively. I do support the ban of smoking in places where other non-smokers can be affected. But from that point to restrict. I personally didnt ask europe for taking care of me, i can do that by myself as I decide to.

  34. avatar

    Smoking must be prohibited. Not to protect smokers, but to protect all the other people that are getting lung problems because the stupid want to smoke.

  35. avatar
    Buj Alex

    don’t know what they should do … but they should ban the preservatives and/or chimical substances and processing of tabacco!!! i’m guessing that kills half the people … give people good tabacco … and mabe some will survive longer … lets make some changes in the other direction …

  36. avatar
    Pierre Samu Tandorf

    Let them smoke. But they need to do it in private. Behind closed doors and windows. It is not acceptable to bother people with this selfish behavior.

  37. avatar
    John Flerianos

    No, it’s none of your goddamn business. Stop trying to turn the EU into australia. Let people consume what they want. guess what will happen if you keep rising taxation? People will import tobacco illegally. Then you’ll have a new generation of crime to take care of. Stop trying to control peoples’ thoughts and actions.

  38. avatar
    Gatis Gailitis

    need control of shadow economy. Everyone knows someone can sell you some illegal cigarettes. Taxation will only bring more problems. I think ot has to be attacked from all angles. Smoking as such is a disgusting habit. Even laws about smoking in public place can be introduced.

  39. avatar
    Fernando De Rojas Parets

    NO!!! If EU Council want to earn money, start working and saving as we all do!! LOL. I don’ t need authorities care about my health, I am tired of States acting like parents or protectors when really are just looking for my pocket.

  40. avatar
    Lucas Michel

    What about not treating the European citizens like babies and let them rule their lives?

  41. avatar
    Eugenia Serban

    Leave smoking alone. Such HYPOCRISY.
    Europe is on the brink of war..NATO is mobilizing troups on UE borders with Russia and you care so muxh about our health.
    Better avoid conflicts.
    Not deal with such treffles.

  42. avatar
    Eugenia Serban

    And YES the point above is so pertinent : STOP INRERFERING WITH PERSONAL OPTIONS AND CHOICES. including smoking. Solve narcotics abuse first. And children porn.

  43. avatar
    Natasha Antonie

    I quit smoking after 10 years last year, in nov. Not smoking it’s a personal decision. Increasing taxes will not change people’s behaviour – I’ll recommend social campaigns showing the risks on people’s health, educating people to have a better life by taking important decisions like this one. My country is among the few left countries that allow smoking in pubs and restaurants…happy thoughts from Romania

  44. avatar

    What about a warning label on all documents produced by the EU?

    I suggest a big blue sticker with a red cross and the text ‘no democracy allowed, unelected politicians make the decisions, voting is irrelevant’.

  45. avatar
    Darcy Brás da Silva

    My apologizes if someone already said this, I didn’t had the time to read all the comments. The warnings are good in their current form as they ‘inform’. The complete mask will have little to no effect in my opinion. Having that said, did anyone consider that the decrease may be due to the large adoption of this new ‘e-cigs’ which have 0 warnings and are just as addictive and dangerous yet often classified and sold as ‘harmless’ ?

    Food for thought.

  46. avatar
    Nando Aidos

    On cigarette packs, on liquor bottles, on factory smoke stacks, on guns… on a number of other things that people do all day and are damaging to others… but let us not forget alcohol!

  47. avatar
    Tamás Heizler

    A uniform khaki-colored pack with a uniform Times New Roman label without logo or anything else would make cigarettes much less “cool” for young people.

  48. avatar
    Sander de Regt

    yes, replace all the warning tags with one message, otherwise you attract the collectors to get em all

  49. avatar
    Vinko Rajic

    That is just about human tragedy . That is how we care for human life . People started smoking just to be cool and how many people died because of it ? Obesity is one of the greatest public health challenges of the 21st century. WHY ? They don’t teach people how to eat and they sell fat food everywhere . Pollution – In Europe, emissions of many air pollutants have decreased substantially but air pollution is still responsible for more than 400 000 premature deaths . WHY ? We are not investing in solar and wind power .

  50. avatar
    Eduardo Branco

    I saw men dying at the age of 100 who smoked since their 7’s, and people who never smoked die of cancer at the age 20. If that picture was right, I would have an highway from Lisbon to Moscow inside my lungs, and I know my chest is not that large. Smoking is horrible for your health AND for your pocket? YES! I pay a tax to the portuguese State of around 3.5?/day for being a smoker, for the last 25 years. I will always discourage everyone from starting to smoke, but dont address the problem as if it was the islamic state. I find ridiculous that, if I die tomorrow of a lung cancer, my family could prosecute a tabacco company, or even blame cigarettes for it…It just sound crazy!

    • avatar
      Prince du Sang

      What happened to freedom of choice?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

  51. avatar
    Dino Šakanović

    For almost all debates here- east and south of Europe say NO, north and west Europe say YES. Worrisome…

  52. avatar
    David Petty

    I think people are now well aware of the dangers of smoking, being adults let us make that decision for ourselves. Government ain’t no big daddy.

  53. avatar
    John Flerianos

    Enough is enough. We don’t need more big government baby sitting. We know the dangers of tobacco. How about you finally realize that we want the right to make what you think are bad decisions? I don’t give a shit that I have a higher risk. We’re all slowly dying. I want the right to spoil myself with whatever I want until then. I’d rather die sooner than live under your authoritarian regime. You don’t own me, or anyone else. What you need to do is throw away all regulations and legalize all drugs, while you’re at it.

  54. avatar
    Nando Aidos

    Cut into the smokers (and the drinkers, let us not forget) pockets. High taxes on the products, no public smoking places, higher life and health insurance rates, higher rents and mortgage rates, heavy fines for throwing cigarette butts on the ground, a heavier garbage collection tax… and teach the children openly about the dangers of smoking (and drinking). Children are good preachers for their family members!
    Plenty of opportunities!

  55. avatar
    Ed Cocks

    Keep strong warnings and age restrictions but if someone wants to kill themselves let them make their own decision as to how.

  56. avatar
    Jason Williams

    “Or adults be allowed to make their own informed choices on whether to smoke” Well that’s exactly what plain packaging does! The harsh warnings and graphic images which replace the tobacco companies’ brand logos are based on what happens to a large percentage of smokers. It makes perfect sense to show this to young people when they are starting to smoke, particularly when studies have shown their brains aren’t fully matured for inhibition of risky behavior (and for this reason many jurisdictions are raising the driving age or placing more restrictions on young drivers).

    And “pushing cigarette sales underground” is one of Big Tobacco’s more cynical arguments, since they are ultimately the ones providing the tobacco. I think it’s a safe bet that the net effect of plain packaging is positive or else governments and tobacco control advocates wouldn’t be pushing for it, nor would the tobacco industry be opposing it. This is actually an education program, and it’s good for everyone except the tobacco industry.

    This could be a nail in the coffin of Big Tobacco and they are clearly scared. I find it very telling that these so-called “freedom to smoke” groups would oppose something that does nothing to take away the freedom of smokers, but is aimed right at the heart of the tobacco industry’s ability to recruit new smokers by glamorizing its product.

  57. avatar
    Nando Aidos

    Yes, on cigarette packs, on bottles of alcohol, on sugar packs, on red meat, on GMOs, on pesticides, on herbicides, etc, etc, etc…
    And not just “health warnings” but rather “educational information”, such as limits on sugar intake, the danger to diabetes, the alternatives to “poisons”, sources of further information…
    Use the promotional space to educate people, and not just scare them… people will argue all sorts of excuses to justify why these dangers do not apply to them. But if the are educated about the impact and the effects then they will make better decisions.
    Trust them!

  58. avatar

    Yes, on cigarette packs, on bottles of alcohol, on sugar packs, on red meat, on GMOs, on pesticides, on herbicides, etc, etc, etc…
    And not just “health warnings” but rather “educational information”, such as limits on sugar intake, the danger to diabetes, the alternatives to “poisons”, sources of further information…
    Use the promotional space to educate people, and not just scare them… people will argue all sorts of excuses to justify why these dangers do not apply to them. But if the are educated about the impact and the effects then they will make better decisions. Trust them!

    • avatar
      Debbie P.

      Trust me that if they keep putting the taxes up and up and Taxation with no representation, and picking on and bullying smokers they won’t have to worry about the packs because everyone will be buying the black market brand or they could even grow their own and roll their own. You want to legalize hemp, are you going to put them in white packages or are you going to make them all pretty and in cookies and hemp squares and candies??? Oh yes and there is also the flavours, why is rum flavoured, wine dipped allowed but not Cherry or Vanilla???

  59. avatar
    Wendy Harris

    No, it’s time to accept people like smoking and create a safe cigarette that is actually beneficial for others to passively inhale and alcohol that gives you the same buzz but doesn’t ruin the liver, sugar that adds sweetness but does no harm, delicious food that isn’t fattening. Why is it we can we go to Mars but we can’t do anything to make life more enjoyable?

    • avatar
      Debbie P.

      You are so right. I believe in live and let live and mind your own business about what other people are doing unless it directly affects you..

  60. avatar
    Vânia Tuga

    I believe that if the messages were positive it would have a bigger impact. Instead of talking about what happens if one continues to smoke, talking about the positive impact on health, on he environment, on personal savings …

  61. avatar
    Debbie P.

    I say, why don’t people mind their own business about my health, my bank account or anything else that I’m doing that is no business of theirs. Want me to start doing research on your likes and dislikes and then budding my nose into your life, your childrens, what you smoke or not in your car with your children?? Mind your own business or it might come back to haunt you.

  62. avatar
    Jason Alden

    Cigarette boxes are customized in various shapes and designs with color printing and logo printing as per to the demand.

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.