Thailand Will Have World's Largest Warning Labels On Cigarette Packs

[Thai at Heart]

Come on guys, you need to stop hating on every single thing the government does, if anything this is a good step forward. Of course there is A LOT more that can be done (e.g. heavy tax on tobacco).

I don't think anyone hates the government (in this case) for their actions. What I hate is the hypocrisy of all governments that continue to allow a product that has been proven (apparently!) to cause death to its users to be sold across the counter only for the tax return it puts into the coffers of that country.

The decals they intend to use (covering 85% of the packet instead of the current 55%) won't, IMHO as a smoker myself, deter anyone more than it does at present. Personally, I use a cigarette case; I have used that for years to stop the soft packets getting crushed in my pockets, and not because of the pictures, so it really doesn't mean anything to me.....................

smoking does not CAUSE death. It causes cancer and other diseases.

It is well proven that natural tobacco is much less harmful than cigarettes. Partially because smoke much less of it. So the right thing would be to get the chemical crap out of the cigarettes. Than I would say, with the pictures on the packs everyone know what he does. So for grown up people it is their own decision if they want to smoke, drink, eat too much etc etc. Don't need the country messing around in my privacy.

(I am not smoking I stopped a few years ago).

Ironically, when cigarettes were stronger people smoked fewer of them. The surgeon general encouraging people to smoke lights was the best thing that ever happened to big tobacco.

40 years a lucky strike in the usa was 28 mg of tar and 2.5 nicotine. Today ultra lights are 1 and 0.1 for the same price but people smoke 3 times add many of them.

[Thai at Heart]

The idea of banning substances contained in cigarettes expressed in readers comments above really appeals to me. Certainly it would be a world first in the campaigns against smoking cigarettes. However such an approach would be very difficult to police. Perhaps better to enforce existing laws against smoking in enclosed spaces or even reinforcing that law to 'No Smoking in Public'.

Short of banning tobacco altogether, there is nothing in a cigarette beyond tobacco that isn't approved for use in food.

[lemoncake]

actually in australia its pretty much 100%, can hardly see the brand or anything but black pack with pics

[Payboy]

I'm waiting for the day when fast food outlets must have 85% of their exterior covered in pictures of fat people, rather than the current 85% of their interior full of fat people.

It's here already, it's called drive-thru.

[sfbandung]

How can anyone be opposed to this?

Smoking is ridiculous. And yes, I'm a reformed smoker. Or the truer term, a smoker who doesn't smoke.

[grahamhc]

sexual dysfunction

That is going to be an interesting one to see.

Will they then charge the companies with publishing Porn.

(PS. I am not a smoker, but up to them. It is there choice)

[Whidbeyboy]

And zero provable effect on consumption so far.

True. Smokers will smoke, but maybe "new wannabees" wil decide not too (?)

Whatever. If less people smoke, the less people buy smokes which equals less people buying smokes which equals less demand, whcih equals cheaper smokes FOR ME!!!

I really don't care about what non-smoking people have to say , in fact it makes me want to smoke more just to piss them off. We all die and I want to die doing what I want to do, not what the latest trend says and if you think it thats a defestist attitude thats fine.

I hate people who think smoking is evil, or maybe it is....then I am the devil.......and loving it. I will dance on the grave of all you pussy anti smokers with glee. I know of what I speak since I know that genetics is what determines our fate.

My grandpa and grandme live tll 102 years (actually 101 for my Gma). And I think you can live forever if you follow your own path and have your own life ignoring the scare tactics of modern society.

[Roota]

The stats show very clearly that smoking has declined in Thailand over the past few years, especially among middle-aged and older people. This is at least partly due to the effect of warning labels, although admittedly much more so thanks to higher taxes and thus prices. Just as with the condom campaign to help prevent HIV, Thailand was an early adopter of warning labels -- a credit to the health authorities in this country.

[chooka]

This is a sensible idea which ultimately might persuade users to quit their addiction.

The nanny state of Australia recently implemented legislation to make all cigi packets an olive green colour- absolute waste of time

and 90% of the package covered in health warnings and graphic pictures.

[chooka]

Sorry Australia has already beaten you to it. Australia now has plain packaging with the entire box taken up with graffic pics and warning. The tabacco companies took the government to court over this and lost. Unless Thailand intend to make bigger packs then sorry they have ran 2nd. The court proceeding were being watched by a lot of other countries who may now follow Australia's lead.

" In Australia, the warnings cover 82.5 per cent of the pack." and no brand logos.

O.k I stand corrected I thought it was 90%. Oh well Thailand will truely be world leaders in this innovative ground breaking measure.

[chooka]

What Australia has at the moment.

[pcliff069]

Sorry Australia has already beaten you to it. Australia now has plain packaging with the entire box taken up with graffic pics and warning. The tabacco companies took the government to court over this and lost. Unless Thailand intend to make bigger packs then sorry they have ran 2nd. The court proceeding were being watched by a lot of other countries who may now follow Australia's lead.

The main Australian lead was the removal of branding from cigarettes and that's why the peddlars of death took them to court and lost.

And as such were world leaders ---

Any move that stops anyone smoking is a good move

Edited February 2, 2013 by pcliff069

[Thongkorn]

Lets face it, there has to be some thing not quite right with Some one who Smokes, maybe they are not 100%. With all the medical evidence what damage it does to the body, So I don't need a warning. it amazes me how many people, quite rightly bang on about drug takers, yet you see people standing in the street killing themselves and others with there smoking. But up to them there body, I live in the UK, So maybe it could be classed as self inflicted, so here is the Bill, and before anyone goes on about the tax they pay, you would never pay enough tax for the cost of the medical bill, and the after care needed. .

[Trentham]

Ok how the heck do you take a picture of bad breath ???

I hope that was said tongue in cheek.

[AgentSmith]

I'm waiting for the day when fast food outlets must have 85% of their exterior covered in pictures of fat people, rather than the current 85% of their interior full of fat people.

Funny you mention this because apparently it's not the fast food that kills. It's people's backgrounds and they also happen to eat out a lot at fast food chains. If you compare different social classes in western society they all eat out at fast food chains equally as often. However the higher classes still seem to be healthier and slimmer despite the fact that they all stuff in equal amounts of burgers. The conclusion is that the effect of say a Mc Donald's or a Burger King is completely absent. Obesity is not like lung cancer to be blamed on solely one or a few clear causes.

Edited February 2, 2013 by AgentSmith

[Amras]

The idea of banning substances contained in cigarettes expressed in readers comments above really appeals to me. Certainly it would be a world first in the campaigns against smoking cigarettes. However such an approach would be very difficult to police. Perhaps better to enforce existing laws against smoking in enclosed spaces or even reinforcing that law to 'No Smoking in Public'.

Short of banning tobacco altogether, there is nothing in a cigarette beyond tobacco that isn't approved for use in food.

You're not serious are you?

I didn't know food contained, benzene (a powerful carcinogenic), acetone, formaldehyde, ammonia, arsenic, hydrogen cyanide and more.

It's not all made up, this rubbish is in every cigarette.

[chooka]

The idea of banning substances contained in cigarettes expressed in readers comments above really appeals to me. Certainly it would be a world first in the campaigns against smoking cigarettes. However such an approach would be very difficult to police. Perhaps better to enforce existing laws against smoking in enclosed spaces or even reinforcing that law to 'No Smoking in Public'.

Short of banning tobacco altogether, there is nothing in a cigarette beyond tobacco that isn't approved for use in food.

You're not serious are you?

I didn't know food contained, benzene (a powerful carcinogenic), acetone, formaldehyde, ammonia, arsenic, hydrogen cyanide and more.

It's not all made up, this rubbish is in every cigarette.

Yummy

[Thai at Heart]

And zero provable effect on consumption so far.

True. Smokers will smoke, but maybe "new wannabees" wil decide not too (?)

Whatever. If less people smoke, the less people buy smokes which equals less people buying smokes which equals less demand, whcih equals cheaper smokes FOR ME!!!

I really don't care about what non-smoking people have to say , in fact it makes me want to smoke more just to piss them off. We all die and I want to die doing what I want to do, not what the latest trend says and if you think it thats a defestist attitude thats fine.

I hate people who think smoking is evil, or maybe it is....then I am the devil.......and loving it. I will dance on the grave of all you pussy anti smokers with glee. I know of what I speak since I know that genetics is what determines our fate.

My grandpa and grandme live tll 102 years (actually 101 for my Gma). And I think you can live forever if you follow your own path and have your own life ignoring the scare tactics of modern society.

There is zero proof that warnings and pictures deter anyone from smoking.

[Thai at Heart]

The idea of banning substances contained in cigarettes expressed in readers comments above really appeals to me. Certainly it would be a world first in the campaigns against smoking cigarettes. However such an approach would be very difficult to police. Perhaps better to enforce existing laws against smoking in enclosed spaces or even reinforcing that law to 'No Smoking in Public'.

Short of banning tobacco altogether, there is nothing in a cigarette beyond tobacco that isn't approved for use in food.

You're not serious are you?

I didn't know food contained, benzene (a powerful carcinogenic), acetone, formaldehyde, ammonia, arsenic, hydrogen cyanide and more.

It's not all made up, this rubbish is in every cigarette.

That is present in the tobacco smoke dimwit.

You think they add it in the processing? The only way to remove that would be as i said to remove the tobacco.

Apples, Mangoes and pears contain cyanide and nicotine is found in eggplants and tomatos too.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[ccarbaugh]

I find this whole topic to be stupid, and superficial. Obviously,

it gives non-smokers reason to feel superior but I doubt that

increasing the size of ugly pictures on the pack are going to

have any beneficial effect for anyone. There are so many

more important, more critical, more urgent issues facing

humanity that to worry about my neighbor indulging in a

self-chosen activity that has no effect on me seems rather

hypocritical.

[Amras]

And zero provable effect on consumption so far.

True. Smokers will smoke, but maybe "new wannabees" wil decide not too (?)

Whatever. If less people smoke, the less people buy smokes which equals less people buying smokes which equals less demand, whcih equals cheaper smokes FOR ME!!!

I really don't care about what non-smoking people have to say , in fact it makes me want to smoke more just to piss them off. We all die and I want to die doing what I want to do, not what the latest trend says and if you think it thats a defestist attitude thats fine.

I hate people who think smoking is evil, or maybe it is....then I am the devil.......and loving it. I will dance on the grave of all you pussy anti smokers with glee. I know of what I speak since I know that genetics is what determines our fate.

My grandpa and grandme live tll 102 years (actually 101 for my Gma). And I think you can live forever if you follow your own path and have your own life ignoring the scare tactics of modern society.

That's all well and good and you may be in the lucky few who can smoke and live to that age. But your attitude is rather anti social. Genetics play a part, but there are also epigenetics and environmental factors which can have a huge effects on your health.

Smoking is a bane on society, there is no arguing that it isn't. Your smoking can directly affect me and that's why 'non smokers' get annoyed at attitudes like yours. It's the attitude that goes along with (a lot) of smokers that really agitates me.

Clearly you do not understand genetics as genetics plays a role in our life (illness, expectancy etc) but it's so much more complicated then just having good genes to have a long life. Filling your body with chemicals everyday can't be overridden by genetics, it's eventually going to (if not already) start killing your organs, cells etc.

[farangroby]

Ok how the heck do you take a picture of bad breath ???

and when they'll warn about all is dangerous in Thailand (99%)??????

[Amras]

The idea of banning substances contained in cigarettes expressed in readers comments above really appeals to me. Certainly it would be a world first in the campaigns against smoking cigarettes. However such an approach would be very difficult to police. Perhaps better to enforce existing laws against smoking in enclosed spaces or even reinforcing that law to 'No Smoking in Public'.

Short of banning tobacco altogether, there is nothing in a cigarette beyond tobacco that isn't approved for use in food.

You're not serious are you?

I didn't know food contained, benzene (a powerful carcinogenic), acetone, formaldehyde, ammonia, arsenic, hydrogen cyanide and more.

It's not all made up, this rubbish is in every cigarette.

That is present in the tobacco smoke dimwit.

You think they add it in the processing? The only way to remove that would be as i said to remove the tobacco.

Apples, Mangoes and pears contain cyanide and nicotine is found in eggplants and tomatos too.

Check your facts before calling me a dimwit. Nor do I need to reciprocate with name calling.

http://www.gasp.org.uk/articles-where-do-toxins-in-tobacco-smoke-come-from-.htm

You think all those chemicals are a by-product of burning tobacco? You need to learn some chemistry. They do infact treat the tobacco, add chemicals to the cigarettes to enhance stability, flavour, adjust burn rate, etc. The burning does produce much of the hazardous chemicals, but they aren't from only burning of tobacco, it's from the other crap that is put in there as well.

Check your facts.

[mca]

When they originally introduced the graphic pictures on the packs that one of a cancerous lung shook me up so much I had to have a ciggie to calm down....

[Amras]

I find this whole topic to be stupid, and superficial. Obviously,

it gives non-smokers reason to feel superior but I doubt that

increasing the size of ugly pictures on the pack are going to

have any beneficial effect for anyone. There are so many

more important, more critical, more urgent issues facing

humanity that to worry about my neighbor indulging in a

self-chosen activity that has no effect on me seems rather

hypocritical.

Not true, it's a huge public health issue and at a huge cost to the public, especially in the west were public health is mostly covered by taxes.

This is the problem. Not some lonely intervention into deciding what people should do in their own past time.

[Thai at Heart]

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/pubs/tobac-tabac/carcinogens-cancerogenes/index-eng.php

A wide variety of chemicals such as nicotine, sugars, minerals and proteins, are naturally-occurring in tobacco leaves. During the burning of a cigarette (combustion), both the chemicals which exist naturally in the tobacco and the new chemicals which are formed during the combustion are released into the tobacco smoke. To date, over 4,000 chemicals, comprising a combination of gases, liquids and breathable particles, have been identified in tobacco smoke. Of the 4000 chemicals, more than 70 chemicals are known to cause, initiate or promote cancer (1, 2).

[h90]

This is a sensible idea which ultimately might persuade users to quit their addiction.

The nanny state of Australia recently implemented legislation to make all cigi packets an olive green colour- absolute waste of time

army camouflage look??

So if smoke in the garden you may not find it anymore?

Or what is the thought behind it?

that people don't like olive green? I actually like it....

Maybe on the next revision (after they figure out that olive green doesn't work) they make a law that cigarettes brands smoked by men must be pink and may have hello kitty promotion on it and cigarettes smoked mostly by women must have car tuning parts on it?

[Robby nz]

Dont know how much effect this can have in Thailand for shops ar not allowed to display cigarettes, they must keep them out of sight.

So therefore you must first buy them before you can see the pix, unless of course you are bludging one from someone else.

[h90]

Come on guys, you need to stop hating on every single thing the government does, if anything this is a good step forward. Of course there is A LOT more that can be done (e.g. heavy tax on tobacco).

I don't think anyone hates the government (in this case) for their actions. What I hate is the hypocrisy of all governments that continue to allow a product that has been proven (apparently!) to cause death to its users to be sold across the counter only for the tax return it puts into the coffers of that country.

The decals they intend to use (covering 85% of the packet instead of the current 55%) won't, IMHO as a smoker myself, deter anyone more than it does at present. Personally, I use a cigarette case; I have used that for years to stop the soft packets getting crushed in my pockets, and not because of the pictures, so it really doesn't mean anything to me.....................

smoking does not CAUSE death. It causes cancer and other diseases.

It is well proven that natural tobacco is much less harmful than cigarettes. Partially because smoke much less of it. So the right thing would be to get the chemical crap out of the cigarettes. Than I would say, with the pictures on the packs everyone know what he does. So for grown up people it is their own decision if they want to smoke, drink, eat too much etc etc. Don't need the country messing around in my privacy.

(I am not smoking I stopped a few years ago).

Ironically, when cigarettes were stronger people smoked fewer of them. The surgeon general encouraging people to smoke lights was the best thing that ever happened to big tobacco.

40 years a lucky strike in the usa was 28 mg of tar and 2.5 nicotine. Today ultra lights are 1 and 0.1 for the same price but people smoke 3 times add many of them.

Not only that....there are substances that make the smoke easier to accept.

If you make yourself a cigarette from natural tobacco, you may smoke half a cigarette which contains half the amount of tobacco....and long after another, hardly 5-10 per day. While with cigarettes the same person easily smokes 2-3 packs.

Similar with the strong cigarettes...it was common to smoke half a cigarette and save the rest for later.....

[h90]

How can anyone be opposed to this?

Smoking is ridiculous. And yes, I'm a reformed smoker. Or the truer term, a smoker who doesn't smoke.

yes it is ridiculous but it is everyones own choice, or?

(edit: corrected spelling mistake)

Edited February 2, 2013 by h90