It is almost certainly true that the Consultation will be framed in those terms.
“What terms?”, you might reasonably ask. “In terms of ‘PLAIN packaging”, I might reply. If the consultation is, if fact, phrased in terms of ‘plain’ packaging, then it must automatically be a fraud. The reason is that the intention of the people who advocate ‘plain packaging’ has nothing to do with ‘plainness’. In the first place, the packaging is intended to have pornographic pictures of people who have horrific conditions, not necessarily related to smoking at all. In the second place, having already gained control of the front and back of the packets, THE SOLE SERIOUS INTENTION OF THE ZEALOTS IS TO GET CONTROL OF THE SIZE OF PACKETS. By doing so, they get control of the size and shape of cigarettes.
It amazes me that so few people understand this legislation. It has nothing to do with children whatsoever. There is a vague connection with colours and designs, but the real intention has little to do with design and everything to do with SIZE. Even Tobacco Company opposition to ‘standardised packaging’, based upon protection of trademarks, is ignoring the obvious fact, which is that Tobacco Control wish and need to gain LEGAL CONTROL OF THE SIZE OF CIGARETTES in order to persecute smokers. Only if they can do so can they gradually reduce the size of cigarettes. That is why ASH ET AL are so desperate to get this legislation through.
Just as horrifying is the failure of even the best blogs (and I include here such as my good friends DP, LI, FD and everyone) to see reality. ‘Standardised packaging’ deprives us all of the choice of how long or slim or fat or short cigarettes can be.
There is also the failure of Big Tobacco to finance opposition properly. The minimum requirement is that the people of the UK (or is it England, or is it Wales, or is it Scotland?) should know that this consultation is taking place. The Gov will not advertise it, nor will ASH ET AL. Only Tobacco Companies have the funds to ensure that everyone knows about it.
ASH ET AL have, in the past, had a clear field to write their postcards. No one has contested the postcards. We bloggers do not have the ‘clout’ to demand sight of the postcards. However, ONE MP can absolutely demand the sight of the postcards. ONE MP CAN DEMAND SIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. Not only that, but ONE MP can demand to see ANY evidence at all regarding, for example, youth smoking. I have in mind the Stirling Uni situation. ONE MP could have demanded revelation of the FACTS. It did not and should not, have required the intervention of Tobacco Companies, with all the hysteria.
But no MP demanded the facts.
At least ONE should have done so.
NO MP did so.
For years and years, MPs have accepted without proof that SHS harms children. Apart from the odd child which is actually ill, no child has ever suffered as a result of SHS. In fact, many have gained.
The fact that no MP questioned the facts reveals contempt. People who enjoy tobacco are contemptible , even by the MPs who are elected by them.
01/02/2012 at 12:40 |
Frankly, I couldn’t care less about the colour of the packaging the insult was in slapping random medical horrors on them.
Previously, printing the official beliefs of anti-tobacco I regarded as their opinion which they were entitled to.
After all, “Beware of the Dog” does not mean the dog is guaranteed to rip your throat out, but if it’s owner considers it a possibility,it’s a reasonable warning nonetheless.
No ifs, ands or butts: FDA warning photos faked
“For decades, the federal government has accused tobacco companies of running a campaign of relentless deception in order to sell cigarettes and convince customers that their product will make you sexy, skinny, cool or whatever.
On Tuesday, the government unveiled its latest salvo in its campaign against these companies.
Tobacco peddlers will soon be forced to emblazon every package of their product with graphic new warnings that show what the government says will happen to you if you smoke cigarettes.
One warning shows a cadaver lying on a steel table, chest zipped closed by giant staples. Another, a pair of nastily corroded lungs. In another image, an infant is confined to an incubator and hooked up to a breathing tube. In one startling image, a man is puffing on a cigarette with wisps of smoke escaping a tracheotomy hole in the center of his throat.
There is only one problem with the federal government’s great campaign of graphic images aimed at combating the deceit of tobacco companies and rescuing us from our stupid selves.
The images are fabricated.
“Some are photographs; some are illustrations,” a spokesman at the Department of Health and Human Services explained to me Tuesday when I called about the new pictures.
The dead man with the zipped-up chest? “It’s not a dead body,” the spokesman assured me. “It’s an actor. It’s supposed to be a cadaver after an autopsy.”
The man with the wispy smoke coming out of the hole in his throat? “That’s a Photoshopped illustration.”
The baby in an incubator is a creepy drawing.
As for the corroded lungs? Who knows, given their track record so far? Maybe it is a real picture and that of a smoker. Or, perhaps they are the lungs of someone who handled asbestos in a Navy yard for the federal government. Or maybe it is altogether faked.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/21/hurt-no-ifs-ands-or-butts-fda-warning-photos-faked/?page=1
I haven’t ever publicly displayed the ASH propaganda for them, I rolled my own before the pictures arrived and use a silver cigarette case.
Though I was given a beautiful black satin and diamante cigarette pack case as a present some years ago.
If I ever go out socially again, I might start using it.
No brand no pictures.
01/02/2012 at 12:56 |
It seems that The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spotted the real danger to all products.
U.S. Chamber joins fight against new cigarette warnings
“According to the Associated Press, the pro-business group filed a friend of the court brief on Monday with the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., in the lawsuit brought by the two Triad tobacco companies and other cigarette makers against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration challenging the new warning label requirement. In November, a lower court judge blocked the label requirement, saying that the text and images may violate the free speech rights of tobacco companies.
The new warning labels would take up the top half of a pack of cigarettes and were set to be required on packs of cigarettes after Sept. 22.
In its filing, the Chamber argued that allowing the labels would be a “radical departure from traditional government efforts to regulate speech insofar as they force commercial enterprises to disparage the very products that they are lawfully marketing,” the AP reports.”
http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/news/2012/01/31/us-chamber-joins-fight-against-new.html
“force commercial enterprises to disparage the very products that they are lawfully marketing”
And if they are allowed to set a precedent will, with any forthcoming fashionable healthist fad following the tobacco template.
01/02/2012 at 17:16 |
I clicked on your link and then on another link within that link. (If you know what I mean!) Here is an interesting quote:
“In his ruling today, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon found that displaying images of diseased lungs and a cadaver with chest staples on an autopsy table may “unconstitutionally compel speech,” according to Bloomberg.”
Now isn’t that interesting? It seems that ‘Freedom of Speech’ means not only freedom to say things but also freedom not to say things. Thinking about it, “Claiming the 5th” is indeed exercising the right not to answer questions, isn’t it? I seem to remember court cases in the UK where an accused person has refused to enter a plea, and the judge has directed that a plea of ‘Not Guilty’ be entered. Also, we have the right to say ‘No Comment’. There are all sorts of implications – is the caution statement (“….if you do not now, say something which you later rely upon in court….”) constitutional? Is it right that Customs Officers can ask you questions, and if you refuse to answer them, they can confiscate your goods because you refused to answer the questions? The fact that a person who is accused of a crime is not obliged to take the stand must also be an example of the right not to speak.
I like that argument. Cigarette packets belong to the manufacturer/retailer until you buy them, at which point they then belong to you. Can you then be compelled to write on the packets, which belong to you, words with which you disagree, like, “Smoking kills?” How come? We have the right not to speak.
03/02/2012 at 02:21 |
[...] companies are no use at all. They are only now waking up to what ‘plain packaging‘ actually means, when they could have been supporting their customers from the beginning. Screw the tobacco [...]