Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Before I start I'd just like to say that non-smokers will have little sympathy for what I'm about to discuss. You have been warned

So there are new cigarette and tobacco laws coming in force imminently in the EU, as far as I can see most outlets have already implemented them. The two main ones:

Branding is removed, all packaging is now the same style, regardless of brand.

10 packs of cigarettes and tobacco packs less than 30 grams are now banned.

The first point I don't really care about (though I can see why tobacco manufacturers do). The second point does bug me though. I can see the logic, it makes it more expensive to buy a pack so young people (with low disposable income) are less likely to impulse buy, or buy at all.

For me though this isn't very helpful. I tend to buy tobacco when I'm drinking, finish it and not buy more until I drink again. This worked well with 12.5 gram packs, 30 gram packs last a long time though. I also can't bring myself to throw the pack away at the end of the night as it was expensive and large. Since these changes have come in I seem to have gone from being an occasional smoker to a full time one.

So what do y'all Euopean smokers think about these changes?

Who decides that? Will they still have such authority post Brexit?

I'm a non-smoker, never have, but I don't care. I think the anti smoking stuff has gone a bit far, particularly when they're so keen to get taxation off it. Smacks of hypocrisy.

The problem arises when the freedom to choose to smoke collides with the cost of public healthcare. I resent my public healthcare costs being higher because someone is too stupid to choose not to smoke.

Non- smoker who dies when he gets a whiff of second hand smoke....
I think its dumb, let people in life make their own choice and dont punish them for it. Educate them, but after that, let them do what they want.
San-Fran just banned(Or is about too) Flavored tobacco because it appeals to kids, Not thinking "KIDS SHOULDNT BE SOLD IT IN THE FIRST PLACE"
Let people live their life, Tobacco is the new alchoho and a new prohibition is here

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Non- smoker who dies when he gets a whiff of second hand smoke....
I think its dumb, let people in life make their own choice and dont punish them for it. Educate them, but after that, let them do what they want.
San-Fran just banned(Or is about too) Flavored tobacco because it appeals to kids, Not thinking "KIDS SHOULDNT BE SOLD IT IN THE FIRST PLACE"
Let people live their life, Tobacco is the new alchoho and a new prohibition is here

In the US, where you are responsible for you own poor health choices, I fully agree.

feeder, how do you feel about alcohol then? Or red meat? Or soda? Or anything with salt or sugar in it?

 feeder wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Non- smoker who dies when he gets a whiff of second hand smoke....
I think its dumb, let people in life make their own choice and dont punish them for it. Educate them, but after that, let them do what they want.
San-Fran just banned(Or is about too) Flavored tobacco because it appeals to kids, Not thinking "KIDS SHOULDNT BE SOLD IT IN THE FIRST PLACE"
Let people live their life, Tobacco is the new alchoho and a new prohibition is here

In the US, where you are responsible for you own poor health choices, I fully agree.

Since you have public healthcare, would it be possible to just make it so the system did not cover costs incurred from the effects of smoking (or other tobacco use)? In effect structure the system itself to act as a disincentive?

(honestly not trying to get political, just curious as to if it is 'a way' of addressing your issue with smoking)

Sugar, Red Meat, most processed food and much much more causes things way worse then Smoking feeder.
#1 killer in america is heart disease.

 feeder wrote:
The problem arises when the freedom to choose to smoke collides with the cost of public healthcare. I resent my public healthcare costs being higher because someone is too stupid to choose not to smoke.

If you said you object when cigarette smoke gets into your lungs then I would be with you 100%.

When you say you object because it impacts healthcare, well thats excuse of the dictator. Won't someone think of the children! *


*smokers routinely die more quickly then if they didn't smoke. They should be given awards by the healthcare industry for sacrificing themselves to save money for the healthcare business.

 CptJake wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Non- smoker who dies when he gets a whiff of second hand smoke....
I think its dumb, let people in life make their own choice and dont punish them for it. Educate them, but after that, let them do what they want.
San-Fran just banned(Or is about too) Flavored tobacco because it appeals to kids, Not thinking "KIDS SHOULDNT BE SOLD IT IN THE FIRST PLACE"
Let people live their life, Tobacco is the new alchoho and a new prohibition is here

In the US, where you are responsible for you own poor health choices, I fully agree.

Since you have public healthcare, would it be possible to just make it so the system did not cover costs incurred from the effects of smoking (or other tobacco use)? In effect structure the system itself to act as a disincentive?

(honestly not trying to get political, just curious as to if it is 'a way' of addressing your issue with smoking)

In theory that's a good idea, but in practice I'm not sure how it would work. It would require a lot of time and money and bureaucracy to determine who is a smoker and who isn't, at which point the costs saved are probably lost.

Smoking is just one of my personal bugbears, along with pay parking and other people's gakky children.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Sugar, Red Meat, most processed food and much much more causes things way worse then Smoking feeder.
#1 killer in america is heart disease.

I agree, and people who overindulge in unhealthy eating habits are also a drain on public healthcare.

Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:
The problem arises when the freedom to choose to smoke collides with the cost of public healthcare. I resent my public healthcare costs being higher because someone is too stupid to choose not to smoke.

If you said you object when cigarette smoke gets into your lungs then I would be with you 100%.

When you say you object because it impacts healthcare, well thats excuse of the dictator. Won't someone think of the children!

PUBLIC healthcare Frazz. My tax dollars paying for Smoky McBlacklung's (or as hotsauce points out, Fatty McBurgersoda's) lifetime of bad choices. Public healthcare works best when the public is healthy.

El Torro wrote:

So what do y'all Euopean smokers think about these changes?

I'm not a smoker, but I'm thinking its a good time to invest into the Andorran tobacco smuggling. And Gibraltar tobacco smuggling once Brexit hits.

The business is about to boom! (even more).

I'll get my backpack, snow parka and skis, better to get a feel for the terrain and the border police posts before they get serious.

 Frazzled wrote:
Who decides that? Will they still have such authority post Brexit?

It's an EU law. New laws (probably) won't apply in the UK after Brexit, though any existing ones will.

The U.K. government will probably be able to repeal it after Brexit, though I'd be very surprised if they did.

 aldo wrote:

El Torro wrote:

So what do y'all Euopean smokers think about these changes?

I'm not a smoker, but I'm thinking its a good time to invest into the Andorran tobacco smuggling. And Gibraltar tobacco smuggling once Brexit hits.

The business is about to boom! (even more).

I'll get my backpack, snow parka and skis, better to get a feel for the terrain and the border police posts before they get serious.

At first my mind thought you typed Andorian smuggling, and then my inner Kirk started shouting KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

El Torro wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Who decides that? Will they still have such authority post Brexit?

It's an EU law. New laws (probably) won't apply in the UK after Brexit, though any existing ones will.

The U.K. government will probably be able to repeal it after Brexit, though I'd be very surprised if they did.

Interesting. When did the EU legislature pass this and how do you get a cushy gig as an EU legistator?

 Frazzled wrote:
Interesting. When did the EU legislature pass this and how do you get a cushy gig as an EU legistator?

Same as stateside. Be a rich as feth bastid, and well connected to other rich as feth bastids.

Bah... no different when state has "soda tax" or "sugar tax" in attempt to combat obesity.

Bah... my body... my choice.

 feeder wrote:
The problem arises when the freedom to choose to smoke collides with the cost of public healthcare. I resent my public healthcare costs being higher because someone is too stupid to choose not to smoke.

I'm going echo this and add that it goes beyond a smokers healthcare costing me money. Smokers make my meathcare cost money directly. I choose not to smoke, but second and third hand smoke follow smokers everywhere they go, and carry equal or even more consequences on me. Smokers don't just make a choice for themselves they make a choice for everyone they come into contact with (seriously, being a smoker should be grounds for CPS to remove children from a home it takes literal years off a childs life having a smoker for a parent).

Tobacco should be restricted from certain areas (Public and closed) to evite things like in the past, where you enter a bar or the metro (Or even the Hospital!) and a cloud of smoke was all around the place.

And personally I think that the addition of nicotine in cigarrs should be banned too, not the tobbaco itself.
And ban selling tobbaco to minors and publiciting it on TV, etc...

And I'm a no-smoker. Besides those three things, to me all of those extra regulations are inefective.

The healthcare argument to me is not valid, because it can be used to eliminate public healthcare alltogether:
Why should I pay for people going to sky and breaking their legs?! why should I pay for the abortion of a irresponsable woman? Why should I pay for the heart problems of a alcoholic? etc, etc....

 Galas wrote:


The healthcare argument to me is not valid, because it can be used to eliminate public healthcare alltogether:
Why should I pay for people going to sky and breaking their legs?! why should I pay for the abortion of a irresponsable woman? Why should I pay for the heart problems of a alcoholic? etc, etc....

I would agree except you can tax those items according to their risk and offset the general cost.

As for why people should pay for other people, idk, why should I pay for a justice system that serves rich donkey caves but would send me to jail in a heartbeat? DOWN WITH THE JUSTICE SYSTEM!



You pay for it because it keeps things from turning to gak, which is pretty much the best return on investment possible because in a society without order a bunch of 1 and 0s in a banks computer system that represent the value of a state backed fiat currency ceases to have any value whatsoever.

I was not defending the elimination of public healthcare, I was just saying that it can't cover jus the thing we think it should cover.

I agree with the taxation to items too. Thats why I think drugs should be legalized but not normaliced. If kids whant to put cocaine throug their noses at least make it in a proper laboratory, not from a bunch of sudamericans with gasoline into the jungles of Panamá and bringed to europe in the ass of one guy.

 Galas wrote:
I was not defending the elimination of public healthcare, I was just saying that it can't cover jus the thing we think it should cover.

I gotcha. I was more offering my own thoughts on that general line of reasoning, because I'm tired of hearing it. If public policy is going to start being dictated by who is paying for things that don't directly benefit them, then the whole point of public policy ceases to work because the vast majority of policy doesn't directly benefit the vast majority of people.

I agree with the taxation to items too. Thats why I think drugs should be legalized but not normaliced

Well I mean, we already tried the whole banning alcohol thing. That just didn't work XD

If kids whant to put cocaine throug their noses at least make it in a proper laboratory, not from a bunch of sudamericans with gasoline into the jungles of Panamá and bringed to europe in the ass of one guy.

This is a scathing assault on cocaine dealers everywhere

The EU Tobacco Products Directive came in last May, 2016 as an advisory. It becomes full law on the 20th of May this year.

The main provisions are:

Minimum size of rolling tobacco is 30g.
Minimum size of ready made cigarettes is pack of 20 sticks.
All packaging must follow a standard design in terms of colour, font for the name, lack of logos, and 35% of the surface area to be covered with photos showing medical consequences of smoking.
There are various other points to do with cigars and vaping equipment, not worth listing in detail.

One of the key effects is to make a packet of fags cost nearly £10. This is a huge deterrent to youngsters taking up smoking.

I had first hand experience of this operating in my previous job as a licensed retailer managing an off-licence. From the New Year until I left the job in mid-March, more and more people would come in, ask for the cheapest bag of rolly or pack of fags, and go away without purchasing because "It is too expensive."

Although we sold a lot of tobacco in my shop, it was always declining long-term, and these new laws just accelerate it to the point where fairly soon the new manager will cut the tobacco shelving in half and use the space for more booze.

I think smoking should be discouraged as much as possible. As it stands now, it is still way too easy to get cigarettes. I don't think the issue is with the packaging or even the price of cigarettes, but rather with the ridiculous amount of places you can buy them. You can get cigarettes on practically every street corner. That should change. Cigarettes imo should only be available at specific places.

note: I don't smoke (at least, not anymore, thank God)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The EU Tobacco Products Directive came in last May, 2016 as an advisory. It becomes full law on the 20th of May this year.

The main provisions are:

Minimum size of rolling tobacco is 30g.
Minimum size of ready made cigarettes is pack of 20 sticks.
All packaging must follow a standard design in terms of colour, font for the name, lack of logos, and 35% of the surface area to be covered with photos showing medical consequences of smoking.
There are various other points to do with cigars and vaping equipment, not worth listing in detail.

One of the key effects is to make a packet of fags cost nearly £10. This is a huge deterrent to youngsters taking up smoking.

I had first hand experience of this operating in my previous job as a licensed retailer managing an off-licence. From the New Year until I left the job in mid-March, more and more people would come in, ask for the cheapest bag of rolly or pack of fags, and go away without purchasing because "It is too expensive."

Although we sold a lot of tobacco in my shop, it was always declining long-term, and these new laws just accelerate it to the point where fairly soon the new manager will cut the tobacco shelving in half and use the space for more booze.

Whats an advisory? Did anyone actually vote on this law?

 Frazzled wrote:


Whats an advisory? Did anyone actually vote on this law?

I found this which looks like a proposed mock up for what new packaging would look like. Also this one.

Similar to stuff I've seen from Australia who have had packages like this for a awhile now.

......Da feth?
Jesus, this is just like the movie "Thank You for smoking"
Just let us live our lives and stop trying to make us feel guilty for doing something we like and let us life our life.

I would agree if tobacco companies weren't still spending billions of dollars annually trying to convince people that tobacco has no connection whatsoever to cancer.

Though I think the pictures are a bit over the top. A blatant and clear warning "this gak will kill you" is sufficient for me.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
......Da feth?
Jesus, this is just like the movie "Thank You for smoking"
Just let us live our lives and stop trying to make us feel guilty for doing something we like and let us life our life.

Sorry... this incurs a cost to our society... so, society has a say in these matters.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
I would agree if tobacco companies weren't still spending billions of dollars annually trying to convince people that tobacco has no connection whatsoever to cancer.

They're still doing that?

Though I think the pictures are a bit over the top. A blatant and clear warning "this gak will kill you" is sufficient for me.

Sure... we live in a society that mandates warning labels on things like shop vacs... since in wayback land, someone's kids straddled one such devices and had his balls sniped up by the vac's fan intake.

Everything occurs a cost.
Should we stop Car drivers because that does from accidents?
Should we stop people from eating processed food because it ruins your insides?
Should we...
Should We..

No, we shouldnt. We educate, tell them the effects, then, if they still do, let them on their way.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Everything occurs a cost.
Should we stop Car drivers because that does from accidents?
Should we stop people from eating processed food because it ruins your insides?
Should we...
Should We..

No, we shouldnt. We educate, tell them the effects, then, if they still do, let them on their way.

I was being snarky if that wasn't clear...

...and I purposed wrote a statement earlier that should subliminally highlight the double-standards between the various topics.