Philip Morris fumes at Thailand cigarette pack rules

[dalsobrook]

Why does the government owe Philip Morris any explanation at all? If Philip Morris wants to do business in Thailand, then they should have to follow the specs. It's pretty simple actually, one of the more cut and dry things I've seen. The tobacco industry is huge and many people depend on it to feed their families, and in some cases it is the only job they can find, however, sometimes there are prices to be paid for using a product, not only by the consumer, but by the industry.

[vijer]

It's a knee jerk reaction by Phillip Morris, this will not hurt their sales even a fraction.

I think the governments of the world should work hard to get more people to smoke and smoke more, the faster we can kill off more people the better the world will be.

[nisakiman]

Going to court over a 35% increase in warning on the packaging, when even 100% isn't going to stop anyone from smoking?

It might not stop a lot of people, but the fact that the tobacco companies fight it so hard indicates they do lose customers as a result of the packaging

"We decided to enlarge the warning and picture because the number of new smokers is high and the age is younger," he said

Which indicates that warning labels have had no impact on smoking rates whatsoever.

So what do they say?

"Well, that didn't work at all; so let's do more of the same."

Morons.

[BookMan]

Going to court over a 35% increase in warning on the packaging, when even 100% isn't going to stop anyone from smoking?

It might not stop a lot of people, but the fact that the tobacco companies fight it so hard indicates they do lose customers as a result of the packaging

"We decided to enlarge the warning and picture because the number of new smokers is high and the age is younger," he said

Which indicates that warning labels have had no impact on smoking rates whatsoever.

So what do they say?

"Well, that didn't work at all; so let's do more of the same."

Morons.

The quote says high, not increased

Plain packaging is the answer like Australia has done,

[Sayonarax]

I have to agree with Philip - it's really annoying having a photo of a dead man's foot or pair of lungs exposed on the mortician's table while trying to enjoy a night out. I have to keep putting my wallet on top of the cigarttes packet to hide it.

Now, I actually quit again over a week ago but I still think this anti-smoking thing has gone too far.

Smoking is part of our cultural heritage - OK, it may be bad for you but so is standing by the roadside breathing in car fumes - why not insist those photos are printed onto the side of every vehicle?

I always like the one with the man and the baby though - "smoking will make you a handsome young Asian man with a friendly baby" - doesn't seem so bad!

I think "this anti-smoking thing has gone too far" too. And I don't smoke. Love the smell of cigarette smoke though . . . cigars too . . . pipes, yup, don't see many pipe smokers anymore. I don't like the smell of alchohol, however. That reeks like vomit!

Whenever I see the "Hang 'em High" anti-smokers brigade in action I always wonder how many people are sitting in prisons for crimes they committed while under the influence of nicotine . . . or how many road accident deaths were caused by drivers with too much nicotine in their systems . . . or how many people got so fat after quitting smoking they died from heart attacks . . . just wondering.

Also wondering whatever happened to the old saying, "Live and let live" . . . too much government all over the world . . .

lol nicotine doesnt have side effects? Well you smoke an ounce of nicotine in one hit and tell me how you go with that..

[samran]

The companies know it destroys brand recognition, and smokers are extremely brand concious, but can be switched within a few packs or so. Once you start smoking and are associated with a brand, it is very rare that you will change.

This is about destroying the attachment that new smokers feel to a brand. That all said, if it all eventually petered out to zero sales, where would the government's replace the tax revenue? More taxes on everyone.

That is a short sighted comment. Governments are also on the hook for the costs from treatment of smoking related health problems. Taxes from ciggarettes don't cover the costs of these downsides, so stamping out smoking would be a budget benefit. You could actually lower taxes.

[samran]

I have to agree with Philip - it's really annoying having a photo of a dead man's foot or pair of lungs exposed on the mortician's table while trying to enjoy a night out. I have to keep putting my wallet on top of the cigarttes packet to hide it.

Now, I actually quit again over a week ago but I still think this anti-smoking thing has gone too far.

Smoking is part of our cultural heritage - OK, it may be bad for you but so is standing by the roadside breathing in car fumes - why not insist those photos are printed onto the side of every vehicle?

I always like the one with the man and the baby though - "smoking will make you a handsome young Asian man with a friendly baby" - doesn't seem so bad!

I think "this anti-smoking thing has gone too far" too. And I don't smoke. Love the smell of cigarette smoke though . . . cigars too . . . pipes, yup, don't see many pipe smokers anymore. I don't like the smell of alchohol, however. That reeks like vomit!

Whenever I see the "Hang 'em High" anti-smokers brigade in action I always wonder how many people are sitting in prisons for crimes they committed while under the influence of nicotine . . . or how many road accident deaths were caused by drivers with too much nicotine in their systems . . . or how many people got so fat after quitting smoking they died from heart attacks . . . just wondering.

Also wondering whatever happened to the old saying, "Live and let live" . . . too much government all over the world . . .

Too much government except when you really need it to pay your hospital bills? No such thing as too much government when it comes to issues such as community health.

[Balance]

Raising the price of a pack of marlboro to 200 bhat through taxes and using the money to educate potential smokers is time and effort better spent.

[Ricardo]

But if the government raise the cost of popular international-brands too far, above the prices in neighbouring countries, then they risk the development of a serious transit-trade of smuggled-cigarettes, I recall when you were offered MBO on every street-corner in the 'good old days'.

It happens with diesel on the Malaysian-border, it happens with rice on the Cambodian-border, and smuggled-ciggies pay no tax at all, merely brown-envelopes to facilitators.

[masuk]

However tobacco is the only product sold that will kill when used as intended by the producer (at least to my knowledge)

What about Mortein?

Mortein is one of the safer products, if the formulation is the same as that used in Australia.

A few years ago, Baygon was on sale all over Asia, and it contained some real nasties. Haven't looked lately to see if they've changed.

[LALes]

I have to agree with Philip - it's really annoying having a photo of a dead man's foot or pair of lungs exposed on the mortician's table while trying to enjoy a night out. I have to keep putting my wallet on top of the cigarttes packet to hide it.

Now, I actually quit again over a week ago but I still think this anti-smoking thing has gone too far.

Smoking is part of our cultural heritage - OK, it may be bad for you but so is standing by the roadside breathing in car fumes - why not insist those photos are printed onto the side of every vehicle?

I always like the one with the man and the baby though - "smoking will make you a handsome young Asian man with a friendly baby" - doesn't seem so bad!

I think "this anti-smoking thing has gone too far" too. And I don't smoke. Love the smell of cigarette smoke though . . . cigars too . . . pipes, yup, don't see many pipe smokers anymore. I don't like the smell of alchohol, however. That reeks like vomit!

Whenever I see the "Hang 'em High" anti-smokers brigade in action I always wonder how many people are sitting in prisons for crimes they committed while under the influence of nicotine . . . or how many road accident deaths were caused by drivers with too much nicotine in their systems . . . or how many people got so fat after quitting smoking they died from heart attacks . . . just wondering.

Also wondering whatever happened to the old saying, "Live and let live" . . . too much government all over the world . . .

Wow!! You are one of a kind. I was just remarking to a friend the other day how someone might say, "Gee, that cigar smells great." Or, "I like the smell of your pipe tobacco". But I have NEVER, NEVER heard someone say, "Gee, that cigarette smells great."

[MobileContent]

As a smoker I support the health ministry on the cigarette pack rules.

Just goes to show, not all smokers are fools, just addicted. Good luck.

Yes, I have a small son and don't want him one day to start puffing

[Thai at Heart]

The companies know it destroys brand recognition, and smokers are extremely brand concious, but can be switched within a few packs or so. Once you start smoking and are associated with a brand, it is very rare that you will change.

This is about destroying the attachment that new smokers feel to a brand. That all said, if it all eventually petered out to zero sales, where would the government's replace the tax revenue? More taxes on everyone.

That is a short sighted comment. Governments are also on the hook for the costs from treatment of smoking related health problems. Taxes from ciggarettes don't cover the costs of these downsides, so stamping out smoking would be a budget benefit. You could actually lower taxes.

Which governments would that be? I hear Thailand spends fortunes on cancer related diseases. lol

http://www.stopthewarondrugs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ASH-2011-The-Economics-of-Tobacco.pdf

In the UK, the total tax take overwhelms total cost to the NHS of treatment by nearly 4 times.

The Treasury earned a total of £8.8 billion in revenue from tobacco duties in

the financial year 2009-2010 (excluding VAT).14 Including VAT at an

estimated £1.7bn, total tobacco revenue was £10.5bn.15

Research commissioned by ASH has shown that the cost to the NHS of

treating diseases caused by smoking is approximately £2.7 billion a year

This doesn't count for example the tax revenues also paid by the cigarette companies in the UK on profits. Of course, if you read on, they will bring in hundreds of imponderables such as productivity losses, and absenteeism caused by smoking and the cost of fires to try to evaluate the cost of cigarettes to society as a whole.

However, direct tax take exceeds tax spend attributed to cigarettes.

It would be very naive to believe that any government would happily give up tax revenues on cigarettes.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[mrfill]

hyocritical behaviour from the governments, if they are so concerned about our health then why not ban cigs altogether, its more about the health costs and tax money, while they are at it why not ban alcohol, that has to be the biggest killer

Before starting to rant and rave about banning things, read up about previous efforts and learn something.

Try looking up '18th amendment', 'prohibition' and 'Al Capone' for starters.

[wolf5370]

Seems to me that they either make it illegal (ban it), or as a legitimate business, allow it to compete on brand. Taking away its ability to show its brand and colouring properly on the packaging (advertising already having been banned) is doing just that. The images are horrific and obvious - people either ignore them or not - making them cover more of the box will make no difference.

[wolf5370]

The companies know it destroys brand recognition, and smokers are extremely brand concious, but can be switched within a few packs or so. Once you start smoking and are associated with a brand, it is very rare that you will change.

This is about destroying the attachment that new smokers feel to a brand. That all said, if it all eventually petered out to zero sales, where would the government's replace the tax revenue? More taxes on everyone.

That is a short sighted comment. Governments are also on the hook for the costs from treatment of smoking related health problems. Taxes from ciggarettes don't cover the costs of these downsides, so stamping out smoking would be a budget benefit. You could actually lower taxes.

This is true - if we ignore the direct funds given to election campaigns, sponsorships and lobbying. There is always more than pure statistical facts and accountancy behind decisions made at parliamentary level. This goes to any "democratic" government btw.

//Grammar and last sentence (clarification)

Edited June 27, 2013 by wolf5370

[wolf5370]

hyocritical behaviour from the governments, if they are so concerned about our health then why not ban cigs altogether, its more about the health costs and tax money, while they are at it why not ban alcohol, that has to be the biggest killer

Before starting to rant and rave about banning things, read up about previous efforts and learn something.

Try looking up '18th amendment', 'prohibition' and 'Al Capone' for starters.

Cigarettes are not in the same social class as drinking. Drinking is a social activity, smoking is not (OK people may chat in smoking rooms - but they also will in any close setting). There is unlikely to be a large increase in cigarette smuggling - even if there was, that would not stop the impact of the ban as much as bootlegging did - simply because smoking is a single person activity and "spreads" by the young seeing the older doing it - if it was underground there'd be much less opportunity to do this.

Anyway banning is probably not the best way to reduce smoking - education is (but as we all know this fails here due to the Buddhist karma concept - same as it does with drink driving and crash helmets). Better way would be to make it inhibitive rather than prohibitive - by way of cost. Make it too expensive and people will have to stop. Thai leaf tobacco cigarettes (like they smoke in the sticks) are much healthier (not healthy - but not as bad as no saltpetre KNO₃ etc) - so whack up import tax on branded cigarettes instead and shift those that can not give up to healthier versions. They are also not so "cool", so hopefully the shift will also dissuade kids. Just a thought.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

Cigarette cases!

An opportunity for all the cigarette companies to make even more profit by giving away (or selling) promotional branded cigarette cases.

Then everyone can just throw the packets away and use their smart new cases.

[chooka]

hyocritical behaviour from the governments, if they are so concerned about our health then why not ban cigs altogether, its more about the health costs and tax money, while they are at it why not ban alcohol, that has to be the biggest killer

Before starting to rant and rave about banning things, read up about previous efforts and learn something.

Try looking up '18th amendment', 'prohibition' and 'Al Capone' for starters.

What's the 18th amendment and how does it effect Thailand?

[Thai at Heart]

Seems to me that they either make it illegal (ban it), or as a legitimate business, allow it to compete on brand. Taking away its ability to show its brand and colouring properly on the packaging (advertising already having been banned) is doing just that. The images are horrific and obvious - people either ignore them or not - making them cover more of the box will make no difference.

Correct.

Who ever thought that the cheapest product was the best.

[ThomasLoughney]

I am an ex smoker, quit because it was too difficult to find a place to smoke. Happy I quit, save money and time, but liked to smoke.

A few years ago I saw the statistic that 570,000 people died of smoking, asked how many people died that same year, 2,400,000 USA.

So 24% of all people who died, died of smoking?

How many people smoke? About 24% or so...... Humm.... 100% of smokers die of smoking???? don't think so.

Checked the WHO data base and found that based on statistics the real number was/should be about 50,000 people should have contracted cancers/illness due to smoking. About 10% of smokers die directly of smoking illnesses.

This is a very bad number but more realistic than 100%.

So why the difference, seems when you die with multiple illnesses/causes they all get counted. So if you are obese, Smoke, drink, diabetics high LDL, etc they all go into various databases and get counted.

I ask why the huge difference, told for my own good because smoking is bad..... It is a good lie.....

The result of this good lie is that the number of smokers has stayed about the same for the last 30 years at about 25% of the population.

This scare campaign does not work, so increasing the SCARE will not work either.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

If a drug helps 5,000,000 people but harms 500 people it is pulled off the market in a heartbeat.....

If smoking is so bad ban it, if no and it is legal let it alone. Don't support smoking by allowing it to be sold and then telling me it is bad.

Same issue with Pot, government said SOOOO BADDDD but no evidence of it and now becoming legal in parts of the USA.

If it was REALLY bad it would not be sold.

Remember before you flame I quit.....and I am happy I quit....

[Tomtomtom69]

Anyone who has spent any time in Thailand can see just how strong a hold tobacco has on people, particularly young people. This is a dismal and terrifying fact that will result in ever increasing and needless suffering, as well as a great burden on the health system. Tobacco is a toxic and addictive drug marketed by skilled propaganda technicians, designed to trick and delude people into smoking. These corporations specifically target the young. Thailand should implement a ban on advertising, enforce smoking bans, and promote a non-smoking culture.

Agreed but I believe they have already done so. You can say what you want about the Thai government, but one area in which the government has been very effective even on a worldwide basis is enactment and enforcement of anti-smoking laws. Very, very few people dare to breach anti-smoking laws in this country, which is a good sign. If anyone does, check to make sure they're not Chinese from mainland China, lol.

[spidermike007]

The Tobacco firm, which makes the Marlboro brand, says the industry was not consulted before an April decision by Thailand's Health Ministry to extend health warnings from 50 to 85 percent on both sides of every cigarette packet sold in the country.

How hilarious is that? Is it always customary to ask the feedback of the corporate marauders before changing the warnings? Who the hell are they to sound indignant? I am indignant that they murder hundreds of thousands of fools, who are idiotic enough to consume their products. As far as I am concerned there may not be a greater weakness known to mankind, nor a more filthy, toxic habit. All these tobacco executives should not only never be consulted, but should be jailed.

[JulesMad]

So the logical conclusion should be: "make smoking illegal"

No, no, NO! You're going backwards. There's enough laws already telling us "do this", "do that", "don't do this". Make EVERYTHING I or anyone else wants to use LEGAL. I'm an adult. I like to make my own decisions. Good or bad.

EDIT ... I'm a non smoker by the way.

You are right My personal point of view is to make ALL drugs legal (worldwide!)

It is completely up to the individual whether or not he/she takes them. With all the money saved (prisons, courts, lawyers, mafia), the government could even tax the drugs in a normal way and give proper education about drugs. Very good way to get rid of the drug-dealing criminals!

Wishful thinking, but not likely to happen

[wolf5370]

So the logical conclusion should be: "make smoking illegal"

No, no, NO! You're going backwards. There's enough laws already telling us "do this", "do that", "don't do this". Make EVERYTHING I or anyone else wants to use LEGAL. I'm an adult. I like to make my own decisions. Good or bad.

EDIT ... I'm a non smoker by the way.

You are right My personal point of view is to make ALL drugs legal (worldwide!)

It is completely up to the individual whether or not he/she takes them. With all the money saved (prisons, courts, lawyers, mafia), the government could even tax the drugs in a normal way and give proper education about drugs. Very good way to get rid of the drug-dealing criminals!

Wishful thinking, but not likely to happen

There is a distinct difference between taking pills, having a scotch and smoking. Smoking is the only that directly affects the health of those sitting around you. While I can accept that people have a right to kill themselves if they wish, what right have they to kill others? I'm all for the right to smoke - as long as they are locked up in a smoking room with adequate ventilation and filtering (and non-smokers do not need to enter it). This is the way most governments, including Thailand's, is going - rather than an outright ban, limit the locations that smokers may partake to those which limit the risk to the public - this is fare I think.

The obvious argument might be drunks and druggies commit violence and crime, and thus hurt people too - but this is "being under the influence" and it is the lack of personal control (another freedom that is restrained for public good) rather than the individuals choice to take the pill or drink. Smoking one cigarette releases carcinogens and toxins which does immediate damage to those around - having a beer or popping an E do not.

Wearing a crash helmet can be categorised as an infringement of rights as it is unlikely to hurt anyone but the person who made the choice. Driving drunk can not carry the same argument and thus justifies legislation to restrain the right.

I once was a smoker - this was around the time that most businesses in the UK banned smoking in the office. It actually was much better to pop outside (or to the smoking room) for a ciggie every hour or so - gave a nice break and time for a chat - and offices were nicer places to work to boot.

Edited July 2, 2013 by wolf5370

[timewilltell]

What is at issue here? It is not people's right to smoke. It's about profit by the tobacco company and about the Thai Health Ministry being seen to be doing something. Others will say increase the tax which works to a degree in a more advanced economy but here Thai smokers will just wrap up a few leaves in bit of paper, stick a few twigs in the bottom and make a roll up with any old leaves. Taxation just drives them to smoking something much worse.

I think the Health Ministry has it right - about the first thing this government has done that makes sense!

[jpeg]

I once was a smoker - this was around the time that most businesses in the UK banned smoking in the office. It actually was much better to pop outside (or to the smoking room) for a ciggie every hour or so - gave a nice break and time for a chat - and offices were nicer places to work to boot.

While the rest of us had to get on with our work.

BTW, anyone serious about stopping smoking can do no better than to read Allan Carr's 'The Easy Way To Stop Smoking'. It doesn't lecture, it educates. So for those capable of critical thinking only.