New Cigarette packaging in Aus, lack of information.

[Benzito]

I haven't been a cigarette smoker for something like 2 years now, but I have noticed something that I think is unfair to smokers in Australia.

When the government recently introduced their scare-tactics pictures on tobacco products; the ghastly mouth afflicted with cancer, or my personal favourite, the gangrenous foot, they opted to change the way companies were to market their cigarettes aswell.

They can no longer use the words 'light', 'mild', etc. But they also removed the panel on the side of the cigarette packet that contained the 'ingredients' list.

You know, it had how many grams of Nicotine, tar, and Carbon Monoxide were in each cigarette. Supposedly, the way they tested these were inaccurate, because some people would cover the holes in the filter with their fingers while inhaling, but the machines left these holes uncovered.

I say, who ef-ing cares?

Isn't it better to know that if you smoke Winfield Grey you will absorb approximately 0.4gm of Nicotine, and if you smoke a Winfield Blue you will absorb approx. 1.2gm of Nicotine, than to know NOTHING at all!

I know they say 'light' cigarettes have just as much chance of giving you cancer, but it is a DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE!

Imagine going to the chemist because you've got a headache and they offer you Panadol yellow, blue, or red.

"What's the difference between the three?" you ask.

"Mainly the flavour" the chemist tells you.

"So, which drugs, and how much of each, will I get from one tablet of Panadol Red?"

"It doesn't matter" the Chemist says, "No matter what the marketing tells you, all pain-killers kill pain, regardless of their strength."

As far as I am concerned, by changing the labelling on the packet, the government have become street-level drug dealers. They are the kind of guys, who instead of selling you 100mg of MDMA, they sell you some green-speckled tablet called 'Ecstasy' containing who-knows-what.

(/rant)

[occidentalis]

Isn't it better to know that if you smoke Winfield Grey you will absorb approximately 0.4gm of Nicotine, and if you smoke a Winfield Blue you will absorb approx. 1.2gm of Nicotine, than to know NOTHING at all!

gm? i think you mean mg. Nicootine is a pretty potent drug. 1.2g would kill a person several times over.

Other than that I agree with your rant, just thought I'd point that out...

[Benzito]

Yes, I believe you are right there Mr. Creach.

My apologies, treat all mention of grams as milligrams in the above post.

[Lono]

Fu-kn HERE HERE!!!

But what are we going to do about it?

Pro smoking/smokers rights groups are regarded right up there with Al Quaeda, the Australian National Socialists and producers of kiddie porn!

Basically we are willfully destroying our health and costing ourselves thousands each year, methinks thats why people are less concerned about our rights

I've thought for a long time that the only solution would be to ban the sale of tobacco (whilst deregulating non commercial cultivation) and put all of us reprobate addicts into a 6 month government sponsored rehab program, with full disability pensions.

WHO'S WITH ME!!!

Seriously though, if the government is prepared to stand behind its claim that cigarettes of any strength are equally bad for you, then why not put their money where their mouth is and ban filtered cigarettes altogether.

Basically its only the filter which is totally non-biodegradable and results in all the "butts in our waterways" ad campaigns, which divert attention from the raw sewage, dioxin, and non, smoking related flotsam which my "disgusting cigarette butts" are floating in.

[sobriquet]

I actually agree with the removal of the 'light, medium, strong' cigarette terminology.

The delivery device and its mechanisms are completely irrelevant in that an addicted smoker will always just titrate the dose of nicotine they need by increasing their inhalation rate and times together with lighting up more often.

Every cigarette is equivalent in that sense. The real 'delivery device' is the hands, mouth lungs of the end user which can act according to the feedback its getting from a certain cigarette.

So I'm glad they've removed the sham information that only served to make people believe falsely that light cigarettes were less harmful to them; and wooed children and gullible teenage girls into smoking.

[Benzito]

Sobriquet, I would have to disagree. While an addict who is mindless of their habit will just 'titrate their dose' as you say, when someone WANTS to quit, they will be mindful of how many they smoke per day, time between smokes, etc.

For the smokers who want to keep smoking, all those dosages mean nothing, they will suck harder or smoke two in a row if they don't get what they want. But if someone is trying to responsibly manage the health risks they take, then they may well want to be aware of such information.

It's just the age-old government line; "This thing is bad for you, don't ask any more questions, it's just bad mmmmkay!"

Scare campaigns rather than education.

I only ever smoked '4s' when I was a smoker, cause I've got asthma and never should have been smoking. If I was smoking '8s' or '12s' my lungs would seriously deteriorate in a matter of days. My coughing would get worse and my chest would feel really tight. I eventually cut down more and more, from 12-8-4, and found '4s' to be a happy medium.

I got the drug I wanted, but didn't feel like a 60 year old with Emphysemia.

[occidentalis]

So do the numbers refer to amounts of nicotine or tar?

[Evil Genius]

Hi Benzito,

your right, that´s surely some kind of Rip-Off. On the other hand i´ve read that the informations about the nictotine content have been inacurate right from the start. There are variations of a few mg per cigarette as most of them are made from tobacco mixes. So they probably don´t care about the actual nictotine content. The industries thoughts about the light cigarettes have probably been targeted at the better marketing possibilities of more and different brands. bye Eg

[Benzito]

So do the numbers refer to amounts of nicotine or tar?

Both, Creach.

I think it was a '4' had 4mg of tar and generally 0.4mg of Nicotine. A '12'- 12mg tar, 1.2mg Nicotine. etc

The point is, they used to actually have the figures for tar, carbon monoxide, and nicotine printed down the side of the pack, and now don't.

I really only think you need to know how much nicotine is in it, cause that is the main addictive chemical in it, and if you want to reduce your daily dosage of it, it should be easy to do.

How do you judge which Nicotine patches to buy now aswell? If you don't know how much Nicotine you absorb in a day normally?

[Green Osiris]

As a smoker, my toxin of choice used to be Benson & Hedgehogs “Extra Mild” which was changed to ‘Smooth” not long before the awful horror-pictures came into force. What’s in a name ? Neither are indicative of the health risks.

As evil as the big-tobacco companies are, the new packaging must surely be a blow to their bottom line. The Anti-Cancer Council must have a huge sway on the government in changing legislation to allow the mandatory artworks. Let’s face it, the state or federal governments would never do anything constructive to actually stop the addiction of cigarettes (or alcohol & gambling) in this society as they would realise that the tax on said products is so massive.

So how does the Anti-Cancer Council get this put through ? The pictures we see on the cigarette packets (and on television, I believe) are nightmare-inducing to children, and perhaps some adults. Could I be allowed to market a product with such horrific visuals ? It’s highly doubtful.

There’s been a recent ad campaign on melanoma, and it’s quite graphic also (operating theatre stuff) which would have been the brainchild of the anti-cancer council.

How do they (the ACC) manage to get away with these shock-horror approaches ? They must have dirty pictures of government officials and are extorting them to allow such awful visuals to permeate society. No other advertiser could ever be allowed to get away with it.

[whit3rabbit]

Taken from a pack of B&H Classics (16s)

16mg of tar

1.2mg of nicotine

15mg of carbon monoxide

Edited December 30, 2006 by psykopath_juggalo

[Benzito]

Psychopath, is that a current pack?

As I mentioned in my first post, I don't smoke anymore, but all the friends' packs that I look at lack this information now. Is my whole argument just retarded and based on an assumption?

[whit3rabbit]

Psychopath, is that a current pack?

As I mentioned in my first post, I don't smoke anymore, but all the friends' packs that I look at lack this information now. Is my whole argument just retarded and based on an assumption?

Its a pack I kept from before they started putting the pictures. The new packs with pictures dont have that info. So no, your not retarded :D

[Green Osiris]

He still might be retarded. But we can at least concur that there is a void of info on current cic packs

[mescalito]

My question is:why don't they show pics of car crashes on a label in the window of each new car in the lot?? like the new emissions labels?

At least you could see potentially what can happen if you buy "this car"

It's a mad world!

Edited December 31, 2006 by mescalito

[indigo264nm]

My favourite cigarette packet picture is the dingy horrible dark photo of a smoker matched with a bright and attractive quit line lady... mad propaganda.

Some people are really turned off by the horrible photos but quite frankly I don't really notice them at all - I just think about a cigarette and roll one.

How come the stats on the packets are so out of date though??? and I swear to god there are more murders each year than whats listed.

I also disagree with taking the strengths off the packets since young people who decide to start smoking in years to come won't be able to guage the strength... by people starting off buying B&H 'classics' instead of whatever the 4mg are called because the name sounds better the addictive potential will increase in my opinion.

[whit3rabbit]

My favourite cigarette packet picture is the dingy horrible dark photo of a smoker matched with a bright and attractive quit line lady... mad propaganda.

Some people are really turned off by the horrible photos but quite frankly I don't really notice them at all - I just think about a cigarette and roll one.

My friends and I compare what we get. 'Oh you got dirty foot, well I got penis!', referring to the clogged artery or whatever it is. The stats picture is the 'best' because it doesnt have any gross stuff, just some bar graph. With the mouth cancer pic my friend can fit the pack in his mouth and it looks like its his teeth.

[apothecary]

Also the Quitline one doesn't have any manky foot or stuff on it.

A mate of mine always asks the clerk to get one with no disgusting stuff on it. Why not?

Edited January 2, 2007 by apothecary

[Benzito]

With the mouth cancer pic my friend can fit the pack in his mouth and it looks like its his teeth.

I am gonna go try that right now!