This will be fun!

[boxy]

I don't think that "a right to brand" is self evident. This is a push to limit the damage, by breaking the addiction cycle. Seeing peers with attractive cigarette packs encourages younger people to mimic the behaviour.

Recieving tax revenue from cigarettes does not mean that the govt is legitimising it in any way. Those taxes are designed as a price disencentive (to addicts) and to pay for the increased medical costs caused by tobacco.

[Plough]

I don't think that "a right to brand" is self evident. This is a push to limit the damage, by breaking the addiction cycle. Seeing peers with attractive cigarette packs encourages younger people to mimic the behaviour.

Recieving tax revenue from cigarettes does not mean that the govt is legitimising it in any way. Those taxes are designed as a price disencentive (to addicts) and to pay for the increased medical costs caused by tobacco.

I dont disagree that smoking is bad. I have a problem with a govt that decides that a totally legal product cant differentiate itself from competing brands. If they want this straegy they should nationalise the product and be done with it. The taxes they take from this product are substantial and I doubt they all go into a badly funded health system. I am a happy person now that this filthy habit is virtually banned in all public places, cafes, pubs and eateries. i just dont think it is fair on these companies. I would prefer to see them banned and made illegal and just be done with it. The govt wont do it because of the tax revenue

[boxy]

Also in the mix is that they don't want to ban it because of the voter backlash of the millions of smokers out there, and because forcing people onto chop chop isn't going to improve their outcomes. Weed is illegal, yet no one who wants it would have any trouble sourcing it.

[TomB]

.... Weed is illegal, yet no one who wants it would have any trouble sourcing it.

There is substantial financial reward for growing/dealing Mary Jane which, IMO, tobacco is unlikely to emulate.

[Jovial Monk]

Tobacco is much, much more addictive than mj. It would be grown/smuggled etc.

[boxy]

.... Weed is illegal, yet no one who wants it would have any trouble sourcing it.

There is substantial financial reward for growing/dealing Mary Jane which, IMO, tobacco is unlikely to emulate.

Growing MJ is probably a more attractive prospect at the moment... but to grow a crop that people are actually addicted to? Don't tell me that wouldn't be a growth industry.

There are no doubt differences, mainly because of the hippies, and their "spiritual connection" to the herb but at least MJ gives a decent buzz to most people, I guess, for it's downsides. Ciggarettes seem to be all down sides, with very little benefit.

[TomB]

..... to grow a crop that people are actually addicted to? Don't tell me that wouldn't be a growth industry.

Nicotine may be addictive but tobacco doesn't have the other benefits of a narcotic which make it attractive to 'anyone'. I certainly would never have started smoking tobacco if it wasn't readily available over the counter and easy to keep going back to. Ganja on the other hand ......

[boxy]

It really makes you wonder about the way that drug policy has been made over the years.

What are the benefits to society in allowing nicotine/caffine/alcohol yet disallowing MJ/morphine/speed?

[boxy]

Anyone else notice how the tobacco industry doesn't even attempt to make an objective arguement about the benefits of their poison?

[boxy]

Another issue with making it illegal, and only available via prescription is that smoking causes cancer. Doesn't that go against the whole premise of health care that doctors sign up to? Prescribing something that will kill you (and open the doc up to numerous lawsuits).

I can see them prescribing substitutes, but not ciggies.