Plain packs: tobacco industry bares its butts to bluff Rudd
|
Kevin Rudd has foreshadowed an imminent major announcement about prevention. The “P” word has featured in almost every speech on health since Labor took office and the three-volume Preventive Health Task Force report provides a wish list of policies that are causing high anxiety in the junk food, alcohol and tobacco industries. In other words, policies that move beyond “prevention” being a motherhood confection to be liberally sprinkled over political health-speak, and into the realm of making a difference. A key, cost-free recommendation in the tobacco sub-committee’s report is that Australia should become the first country to require “plain”, unappealing cigarette packs. Packs would all look the same, except for the garish health warnings, being distinguished only by their brand names. Cigarettes, which kill half of long-term users, would thus look like prescription drug packs (that save lives), which have historically come in plain dull boxes, with brand name, lots of words about dosage and contraindications, and stored out-of-sight in the dispensary. If ever there was a symbol of a government’s serious intent about prevention, a move to stop cigarette packs looking like fashion accessories would take some beating and would quickly spread globally, as has every piece of tobacco control legislation. The global tobacco industry is packing death over the proposal and local industry leaders will be humiliated if it gets up. Philip Morris has launched a dedicated website attacking the proposal. It is a site of such abject amateurishness as to make anyone wonder about the calibre of today’s crop of tobacco industry issues management staff. Their strategists have concentrated their attack around four arguments, which range from the very silly, to the very, very silly. First, vox pop videos of retailers (including a bouncy one who breezes “I’m for everybody being healthier”) argue that plain packs will cost the government and retailers money. That can only mean that they fear sales will go down as a result — precisely the whole idea, fellas! As the cover story on the tobacco industry trade magazine Tobacco Journal International put it very nicely in 2008: “Plain packaging can kill your business.” Next, because all the brands will look the same, it’s argued that this will confuse customers and retailers. Come again? The packs will still have brand names such as Marlboro or Alpine on them, smokers will still be able to ask for their brands, and unless some shopkeepers have IQs lower than it takes to grunt, they will be able to read the brand name on the pack like they do now. Next, they argue that there’s no evidence from anywhere that plain packs will lower sales. No country has introduced it, so there’s no evidence it works. Aside from me thinking they do protest rather too much about a plan they say will not affect sales, the intellectual force of this argument would kill all innovation. By this argument, no country would have ever introduced health warnings, random breath testing, seat belts, or indeed anything for the first time. Despite knowing that no company has ever received a cent in compensation for the massive appropriation of the pack for health warnings (Uruguay leads with 80% front and back), the big stick the industry keeps warning governments that they hold behind their backs is the threat of legal action and massive compensation for trademark violation. This is desperate bluff. International public health groups have marshalled extensive legal expertise to examine such industry claims. In Australia for example, High Court rulings have established that the sort of “acquisition” where the government merely prevented the use of trademarks in packaging, would not constitute an “acquisition” of property as described in s.51(xxxi) of the Constitution as it would not provide any benefit to the government that ordered the “acquisition” other than reduced sales. Similarly, the industry blusters that plain packaging would violate terms of the World Trade Agreement. But it has made the same forlorn arguments for years that bans on words such as light and mild contravene WTO law even though such bans now operate in dozens of nations, again with no compensation paid. It also says that the packs would violate international Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) law. Again, this is nonsense as there is nothing in TRIPS that requires WTO Members to permit trademark owner s to use their trademarks. Instead, TRIPs prevents third parties from using others’ trademarks — not at issue here. Simon Chapman is professor of public health at the University of Sydney |
|
|
|
37 Comments
Am I going nuts , did this article really say that the tobacco companies thought -
1. Plain packs would kill sales and cost money.
2. That there was no evidence that plain packs would work.
How on earth can the tobacco companies hold such contradictory views? If they feel that they must defend their commercial interests, they should at least speak with one voice, and put a coherent argument forward. Just about impossible though to defend the indefensible I would have thought.
About the only argument that I could imagine, is that informed people should have the choice to smoke if they pleased as long as tobacco is legal. And fair enough too, as long as the government doesn’t have to pick up the tab for their subsequent health problems.
The only disadvantage I can see is that the tobacco companies will end up saving money on logo and packet design…
The greatest victory that the tobacco companies have had is to be able to portray smoking as an act of individualism or rebellion. What I would like to see is an anti-smoking campaign that shows smoking as the act of the slave and the conformist.
“industry is packing death”
How very droll
Tony Abbott and friends will be out protecting BIG TOBACCO and their profits . Guess who gets donations from Big Tobacco ????? LNP , the smokers party. Both tobacco and the libs are loosing their base voters due to falling of the perch from old age and cancer.
I don’t know about this packaging thing. When those photos of lung cancer, etc, were mandated on the packets a couple of addicted friends of mine simply changed to transferring their cancer sticks to a gold cigarette case instead.
Like MERLOT45 I’m of the opinion there are angles which remain unexplored in anti-smoking advertising.
Character could be the key. The depiction of smokers as pushovers or easily herded sheep may dispel the notion that ‘cool’ or confident personalities adopt the habit.
As for the current packaging, smokers don’t believe they will ever resemble those lurid images.
Hear hear - time for our government to grow some stones and do something good for the public.
Plain packaging is a nice compromise if you’re too gutless a government to just plain ban smoking.
I’m so glad that we finally have bans on smoking in all buildings in NSW - but it took far too long and I still remember the days where you came home stinking of smoke. So much damage done to so many people during the delays taken by governments in banning smoking inside where other people are affected.
But credit where credit is due - at least we do have bans in place.
Who will be the government brave enough to finally do the right thing - ban smoking entirely.
And to anyone who bleats about personal freedoms I say “rack off”!
Burning leaves and paper soaked in deadly chemicals and breathing it in is insane. Dead set insane - there is no reason why it shouldn’t be banned.
Tobacco smoking is another form of addiction like heroin. The only difference is the addiction is not a strong, and the risk of death is long term rather than short-term. The Taliban encourage heroin like our government encourage tobacco smoking. tobacco has a short-term tax benefit and ourlong-term (deferred) health cost disbenefit. Government is focusing on short-term tax benefit and are happy to defer the future cost.
I have reviewed the Phillip Morris website and make the following observations. The behaviour of drug addicts are not easily changed, and big tobacco depends on advertising to attract new addicts. Plain paper packaging will eliminate the logo mentality that many smokers with low self-esteem aspire to as a means of improving their self-image. Maintaining intellectual property in logos is like the Germans wanted to retain the Swastika Largo as a method of social identity. Who wants to miss associated with drug addiction resulting in telling people are the Nazis, psychotics, or at best totally irresponsible businessmen (both genders represented) which give capitalism a bad name.
Smoking rat shit as a contaminant in “Chop Chop” cigarettes rather than a full dose of tobacco may actually extend the smokers life although at a detailed examination of the carcinogenic effect of rat shit have not yet been undertaken.
There is a simple solution to the counterfeiting problem. Require the tobacco manufacturers to have a government provided securely encoded RFID embedded in the cardboard packaging of eachcigarette pack. This would eliminate counterfeiting in retail establishments as checking would be very simple. Similarly a smokers pack could be tested for compliance and if found to be counterfeit a substantial penalty applied. Each chip could be sold for tax equivalent to both tobacco companies counterfeiting is so there is no lost tax revenue.
Of course banning cigarette smoking would be the best long-term solution, and we could start with registering tobacco smokers as drug addicts and requiring and undergo education course before being allowed to buy the filthy objects. Anybody selling tobacco without the appropriate licence should suffer a mandatory five-year custodial sentence working on some project with the objective of the common good such as weeding roadsides or perhaps painting pensioners houses.
Moderator please substitute revised copy. I apologise for the substantial number of typos but I got a bit carried away.
Tobacco smoking is another form of addiction like heroin. The only difference is the addiction is not a strong, and the risk of death is long term rather than short-term. The Taliban encourage heroin production and consumption like our government encourage tobacco smoking. Tobacco has a short-term tax benefit and a long-term (deferred) health cost disbenefit. Government is focusing on short-term tax benefit and are happy to defer the future cost.
I have reviewed the Phillip Morris website and make the following observations. The behaviour of drug addicts are not easily changed, and “big tobacco” depends on advertising to attract new addicts. Plain paper packaging will eliminate the logo mentality that many smokers with low self-esteem aspire to as a means of improving their self-image. Maintaining intellectual property in logos is like the Germans wanting to retain the Swastika as a method of social identity. The only people who want to be associated with drug addiction resulting in killing people are psychopath, lunatics, or at best totally irresponsible businessmen (both genders represented) which give capitalism a bad name.
Smoking rat shit as a contaminant in “Chop Chop” cigarettes rather than a full dose of tobacco may actually extend the smokers live is although at a detailed examination of the carcinogenic effect of rat shit have not yet been undertaken.
There is a simple solution to the counterfeiting problem. Require the tobacco manufacturers to have a government provided securely encrypted RFID embedded in the cardboard packaging of each cigarette pack. This would eliminate counterfeiting in retail establishments as checking would be very simple. Similarly a smoker’ s pack could be tested for compliance and if found to be counterfeit a substantial penalty applied. Each chip could be sold for tax equivalent to both tobacco companies and counterfeiters alike is so there is no lost tax revenue.
Of course banning cigarette smoking would be the best long-term solution, and we could start with registering tobacco smokers as drug addicts and requiring and then to undergo an education course before being allowed to buy the filthy objects. Anybody selling tobacco without the appropriate licence should suffer a mandatory custodial sentence working on some project with the objective of the common good such as weeding roadsides or perhaps painting pensioners houses.
Is there medical proof that heroin is more addictive? The Rolling Stones’ Keith Richards once admitted he’s successfully managed to kick every drug - with the exception of nicotine, that’s the one that had him licked.
Greg Angelo, you make clever suggestions regarding counterfeiting & tax collection.
But suddenly I’m fantasising about counterfeiting getting wildly out of control & the Big Tobacco trolls losing substantial revenue. Money is the sole thing they value.
Just one qustion Greg Angelo, why do you think that banning smoking would be any more effective than banning drugs of addiction has been. After all the banning if alcohol in the USA only provided a nice income boost for organised crime. I suspect that the same would apply in Australia.
The pressure being put on smokers through legislation as to where they are permitted to smoke, plus price stratregies and education is proving reasonably succesful. When I was young just about everone smoked, in the army we even got a tobacco ration. The percentage of smokers is now down to what 18%?
The real target for anti smoking now needs to be the teenagers.
Stephen Martin raises a valid point regarding organised crime becoming involved if smoking was banned.
But there’s one major difference between the practicalities of drug use, alcohol consumption and smokers. The latter stink. There’s no way smokers can eradicate the evidence: it billows around them & engulfs, the stench would reveal themselve as illicit consumers. Just half a cigarette would be sufficient condemnation. Chewing fragrant gum, using mouthwash, dousing with colognes etc merely highlights the odour of the nicotine/chemical cocktail to a non-smoker. And don’t forget the telltale smoke itself!
Smoking would be extremely easy to police.
You people remind me of those fundamentalist anti-gay Americans who ‘love the sinner, not the sin’ - and it seems to escape them that in hating the sin they end up being pretty bloody nasty to the ‘sinners’ who are their fellow human beings. Your attitude is, it’s not the smokers’ fault, but let’s be horrible to them anyway for getting addicted - and (probably worse) actually enjoying their nasty habit. So much self-righteousness! even vindictiveness! Don’t worry, I (a smoker) am getting the message, I’m not only persona non grata, I’m fast becoming a non-person in this society. Nevertheless, if I’m allowed to speak, a few comments on the comments:
‘informed people should have the choice to smoke if they pleased …. as long as the government doesn’t have to pick up the tab for their subsequent health problems.’ Smokers contribute a great deal of tax to government.
‘Both tobacco and the libs are loosing their base voters due to falling of the perch from old age and cancer’ - cancer and old age go together. You don’t have to smoke to get old and have cancer. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: ‘In 2005, for the first time, there were over 100,000 new cases of cancer diagnosed in Australia. This number is projected to grow by over 3,000 extra cases per year in 2006-2010. The growth is due mainly to the ageing of Australia’s population …’ and if they live long enough, one in two men and one in three women will eventually be diagnosed with cancer. That doesn’t tally with rates of smoking at all, does it? http://www.aihw.gov.au/cancer/index.cfm
“As for the current packaging, smokers don’t believe they will ever resemble those lurid images.’ It’s true, I’ve never met a fellow-smoker with green teeth, or a gangrenous toe. The pictures are way over the top and the warnings misleading if not outright untrue - ‘Smoking causes blindness’ for example. It may be a risk factor but you don’t go blind when you light up. The gross photo of someone having their eyelids held open with steel spikes for an eye operation could have been taken during any number of procedures and may have nothing to do with smoking at all. Ditto the heart operation photo. Any medical image of that kind is lurid, I resent having stuff I want to buy emblazoned with it.
‘Tobacco smoking is another form of addiction like heroin. The only difference is the addiction is not a [sic] strong, and the risk of death is long term rather than short-term.’ Pure heroin does not kill if taken properly, what kills is the substances that illegal heroin is cut with by black marketeers, and the lifestyle that being addicted to an illegal substance engenders. Also, I’ve heard that many heroin addicts who have successfully kicked the habit are still smoking, and that nicotine is considered the worse addiction by far.
Finally, a little respect and understanding would not go amiss. Everyone’s got rights these days, haven’t you noticed? Except people like me, apparently. I just stink.
Moira, you sound like a tobacco company stooge. If you are not then you have certainly absorbed a lot of their sophistry.
Your comparison of gay rights and ‘smokers rights’ is fatuous and offensive. Being gay does not spread noxious smoke and stench to those around you.
Tobacco taxes do not cover the damage caused by smoking. Not nearly.
Smokers do have some kind of ‘right’ to their addiction but they have no right to inflict their addiction on others - that means no smoking in any public place. If they have “respect and understanding” for others then they should refrain from public smoking.
I’m an ex-smoker of only 6 months and my partner is still smoking. Every day smokers are bombarded with rude and offensive comments like some of the above. I’m in complete agreement with Moira, and some respect and understanding are badly needed in this area.
Forgive my ignorance, I’m not a smoker.
What’s to stop some cheap knock-off manufacturer (think Bali) from making re-usable cigarette cases that mimic the old full coloured & branded packets?
Would this contravene any laws, apart from the use of trademarked logos and names?
“Every day smokers are bombarded with rude and offensive comments”
Smoking is rude and offensive if not all the people in the vicinity have given their willing consent to ingesting harmful smoke. If an individual insists on behaving in such a rude and offensive manner then that person should not be surprised if they get some less than polite responses to their lack of consideration for others.
Ivor, YOU are being rude and offensive to ME and you haven’t even got within whiffing distance. I work in an open plan office and none of my colleagues seem to consider I am spreading ‘noxious smoke and stench’ around the place. In fact, I am constantly amazed by colleagues who don’t realise I’m a smoker, despite the fact that every hour or so I go to stand outside in whatever weather prevails (since we’re denied seating or shelter … but then that’s the price of being ‘considerate’ … rain, wind and sun). So I can’t smell that bad, eh?
Have YOU got a problem, Ivor? Do you realise that 40 years ago *everyone* smoked, and those few non-smokers around were so used to it that they didn’t even notice, let alone go ape over a whiff of the dreaded weed? In fact, even non-smokers used to keep cigarettes in their homes to offer guests, just the way coffee drinkers like myself always have teabags just in case? Do you think you might be a tad over-sensitive … you are, I presume, exposed to many other harmful environmental toxins (unless you live in the wilds of Tassie)?
Thanks Karen. If a person was Aboriginal, Muslim, disabled … even gay (these days) [and think of any other minority] they could take issue with all the comments above. Smokers are the only people left with NO rights at all and if they speak up they are worse than ridiculed (see Ivor’s comments). For example, hospitals in the ACT (where I live) are now proudly ‘smoke-free’ - that means, next time I need an operation I won’t even have the option of waiting till a nurse is available to take me and my drip and my drain bag down in the lift and outside to have a fag. No smoking at all on hospital grounds is the new rule. I have been through total horrors, post-op, with inadequately treated pain and I don’t think I can do it again without even a cigarette to help. And I have told the Greens party (with whose promised help the latest anti-smoker legislation was passed) that I will no longer be available for letter-boxing, handing out how-to-votes, or scrutineering. I’m a 55 years old activist, and stuffed if I will ever again help anyone who doesn’t give a **** about me.
Smoking is insane. Its like continually cutting yourself with a rusty blade or licking up bits of broken glass. Putting funnel-web spiders down your jocks. Grabbing a raw leg of lamb and jumping into the shark enclosure of tghe aquarium.
Only its worse than that - because you inflict your disgusting and harmful smoke on others. I’m sick to death of breathing in smoke as I am walking to work - and I’m sorry but you don’t deserve respect if you selfishly endanger others with your reckless behaviour.
Its insulting to compare your treatment to that of people of a certain faith or sexuality. Being a Christian or Moslem isn’t anything like choosing to harm yourself with deadly chemicals from a smouldering cancer stick.
People who don’t choose to kill themselves slowly with cigarettes also have to get through life’s little struggles and discomforts without pumping carbon monoxide into their lungs - and you don’t hear them whining about it!
Don’t get me wrong - I certainly sympathise with people who are struggling with the addiction but the people who are unapologetic and are devoid of any consideration of others don’t deserve any respect.
Smoking should be banned - but if not then a packet of cigarettes should be at least $100.
Poor old hard done-by smokers! In the good old days they got away with whatever they wanted. Now people have the timerity to not want to breathe in someone else’s second hand smoke, they don’t like it. Dang! It’s their freedom doncha know.
Still when you’re a rebel, and you’re stuck with your 16 year old’s mind’s failure to withstand peer pressure, why should you care?
I agree that smokers deserve as much respect and care as every other person, but where is the respect and care in staying silent while people harm themselves?
Unfortunately there is no doubt that smoking puts you at greater risk of dying of cancer than your average Australian.
Moira says:
You don’t have to smoke to get old and have cancer. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: ‘In 2005, for the first time, there were over 100,000 new cases of cancer diagnosed in Australia. This number is projected to grow by over 3,000 extra cases per year in 2006-2010. The growth is due mainly to the ageing of Australia’s population …’ and if they live long enough, one in two men and one in three women will eventually be diagnosed with cancer. That doesn’t tally with rates of smoking at all, does it? http://www.aihw.gov.au/cancer/index.cfm
On the same website there is some information on lung cancer in particular. Some facts from there:
- lung cancer is the leading cause of death due to cancer in Australia
- more than 7,000 Australians die from lung cancer each year
- up to 90 per cent of lung cancers are due to smoking
It’s also well known that the risk of lung cancer is high among ex-smokers as well as current smokers, so the fact that smoking is down below 20% now doesn’t mean that only 20% of people are at increased risk.
Moira is right there is little point in insulting individual smokers. They know what the risks are and because of the benefits they feel get from smoking they can continue to choose to do so.
However, smoking has a cost on the community in health costs and smokers even when they try to be considerate often inadvertently impose their smoke on others. Because of this society as a whole and the Government are well in their right to make smoking as difficult as possible to get people to stop and just as importantly to stop new smokers.
This is where I think Moira is being incredibly selfish. As Moira points out she is so reliant on a drug that she may not be able to have life saving surgery (surgery likely needed due to smoking) because she will not be able to smoke in hospital. While we need to accept that smokers can continue to smoke when it doesn’t harm others smokers need to accept that society has an obligation to make it as likely as possible that the next generation won’t smoke.
So I sympathise for you Moira, but you made your choice and now you have to live with those consequences. Hopefully, because of the steps you seem to oppose future generations will not have to face those same deadly and expensive consequences.
We have various governmental agencies bleating and spending money to advertise that smoking is a bad, dangerous and not a nice pastime., yet there are other governmental agencies raking in enormous amounts of money from that exact same practise.
If smoking is so patently dangerous, then why the bleep hasn’t it been banned, or only available by prescription ?
Duhh., I wonder if ‘hypocritical’ would be a good description of the stance that all worldwide governments have adopted regarding tobacco.
A big bucket of money will always convince a politician.
As someone who was recently diagnosed with COPD ( emphysema ) I think any policy that deters smoking is desirable. Giving up is very hard and although I have reduced my smoking by two thirds I haven,t quite broken the habit as yet. March the 31st is my smoke free date I have set myself. With Emphysema that is the only effective thing to do but is not a remedy because there is none. To many people smoking is insane but I have to assume they are much younger than me. I was five or six when television came to Australia and grew into my teens seeing ads telling us to light up a Viscount a viscount a viscount today with a jaunty melody. The cool Stuart Wagstaff suavely telling us how his lifestyle included smoking B&H. So make your comments on the benefits but lay off the snide remarks about smokers. It doesn,t advance your point and probably delays the smokers who are prone to dig their heels in. They know it is killing them regardless if they admit it or not because advertising and statistics are now available. We are products of the environment we grew up with but people like me would support anti smoking legislation but not banning of smokes. Why ? Because you create a free will debate that would hijack things such as plain packaging. It would be unfair as I see no similar ideas about sky diving , mountaineering or driving a car. Sound silly ? Well thats how people already addicted would view it. So advance options to curtail the tobacco industry but lets not get overboard. Some anti smokers have the zeal of neo cons and as much charisma , none.
Moira, you and your filthy smelly smokers can f@ck off. You go out every hour ??? nobody knows i smoke ?? Bull sh@t. Due to a full hospitals, the Govt. of the day will have a OPEN DAY on smokers. for a full month of April. Please head -shots only and leave out on bin days. If delivered to govt. fertilzer factory, a $35.00 reward will be payed.
HARRYBELBARRY, your shameful ranting and foaming mad hatred has no place here.
I wouldn’t put it past tobacco industry staff to be posting stuff like Harrybelbarry’s disgusting post. There are many internal tobacco industry strategy documents (made available through litigation - see http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/) which describe the importance of painting people who support tobacco control as extremists.
great Article Simon - some excellent comments too. Advertising is one of the keys to hitting the cancer companies where it hurts -the back pocket. Also revealing which companies own what ie- KRAFT owned by Phillip Morris - every jar of vegemite you buy profits the tobacco industry! I think it’s utter madness that many smokers complain of not having ‘rights’ , that people who are willfully killing themselves, draining the health system and affecting non-smokers with second hand smoke feel they are hard done by? I applauded the govt stopping smoking in clubs & pubs here in SA yet , now I have to dodge all the 2nd hand smoke of the outdoor smokers - seriously smokers seem to cry foul of no having rights but don’t give too hoots about my or my 2mth old daughters right to breathe fresh air in outdoor cafes! I think a designated smoking are like ones I’ve seen in airports - a dull, grey hermetically sealed room where all the smokers can gather together and share in their mediocrity!
Dear Australian Smokers,
Did you know that British American Tobacco are going to let go of most of their manufacturing staff in Sydney, and production is going off-shore?
Now you’ll get to smoke imported cigarettes from who-knows-where, full of all sorts of nasties…who knows how that is going to affect your mental health!
So, BAT Aussie-made cigarettes are what .. “better” for you than important cigarettes? They have less “nasties” in them? They protect against mental health problems? I think I’ve heard it all now.
Don’t be simple, Simon. But then, you’re probably NOT the author of the article, rather probably someone from the Cancer Promotion Industry engaging in identity theft.
And I didn’t say “important” (as pre your e-mail). I said “imported”.
My comment was tongue-in-cheek. I don’t smoke, and don’t like it.
In terms of mental health, Nicotine has been trialled for treatment of ADHD in the USA, but was not approved by the FDA. It is a stimulant drug, with effects that are analogous to methylphenidate etc.
I too was a smoker in my younger days, but common sense kicked in about 25 years ago, so I did the “cold turkey” with smoking. Smoking is a choice, and like all choices one makes, the consequences have to be accepted. I decided that consequences like a hacking and unattractive flegm filled morning cough, yellowed fingers, shortness of breath and a breath that makes it unpleasant to be within conversational distance, were too much to pay (not to mention the monetary cost) for the habit. I sometimes feel for the smokers as they gather in their designated “smoking area”, usually well away from the general public. They are becoming more and more socially unacceptable - a type of societal “caste” that should be tolerated, but is viewed with distaste.
I have a work colleague who has recently given up smoking. She is amazed at how good she feels so shortly after stopping. One unexpected reward was the comment as she came from the shower, from her daughter: “Gee mum, you smell good!” (Said in a way that conveyed surprise.)
Banning smoking is unlikely to work for reasons already expressed here. The detrimental health and cost effects both on the individual and the public are also evident. Perhaps more research money spent on developing a drug that removes the craving for nicotine, then something that addresses the psychological dependency on smoking.
PICARD: Hear, hear! I also did the “cold turkey” thing about 26 years ago, and the only problem I had was the coughing during weeks 2-6. Nevertheless, it doesn’t happen so easily for others (speaking anecdotally), probably because of possible biological predispositions to nicotine. It is a neurotransmitter (or has that effect via synthesis). Some anti-smoking medication like bupropion are antidepressants, and have been quite efficacious compared to placebos in reducing nicotine cravings and resulting in abstinence. A lot of research is being done.
Exercise can have the same effect…
“But then, you’re probably NOT the author of the article, rather probably someone from the Cancer Promotion Industry engaging in identity theft.”
The paranoids are everywhere and they’re all coming to get us!
Moira - smokings legal at the moment, and as such, you have the right to smoke. Without personally attacking you or any other smoker, the facts are.
smokers bludge - sorry but its fact ! If i were an alcoholic and needed a drink every hour, I would get fired for obvious reasons,whats the difference?
fact 2 -Smokers cause enormous damage to the environment, your butts are in fact litter, and clog up waterways, drains, beaches etc, if I threw my rubbish into the gutter everyday I would get fined, whats the difference?
Fact3 - everyone smoked 40 years ago - well women didn’t work, the white australia policy was in force, aborginals couldn’t vote, etc, there is no relevance to what people did then and whats happening now.
While I support any effort to reduce the habit of smokers and discourage youngsters even taking it up the zeal of some I find off putting. I can only hope those same people are supporters of cutting industrial emissions as I am. They call it a carbon tax but industry belts out emissions of polluting chemicals and we all breathe in that smoke. There is more carcinogens from the exhaust of a bus than a cigarette but thats not an excuse for either. My point is are the zealous as opposed to reasonable anti smoke mob equally as vociferous about emissions ? I live in the Latrobe Valley Vic. where being a smoker or not doesn,t mean you can escape pollutants in the air. Smokers pay for their habit at the counter and with their health polluters of our air get a free ride. Think about that next time you want complain about an emissions scheme.