Thailand's new cigarette warnings more macabre and bizarre than ever

[RtotheC]

Why not simply raise taxes on the fags? Tripling the price should encourage people to smoke less.

1st) They're less than 30 baht a pack in Cambodia. How difficult do you think it would be for someone to cross the border with them illegally and sell them here in Thailand as another TV member posted.

2nd) There's the liberty question. Why should the government interfere in any individual person's business? If someone wants to smoke why shouldn't they be allowed to smoke? Why should someone be taxed out of the right and/or ability to smoke? What if they taxed alcohol so high nobody could afford it? what then? salt? soda? refined sugar? red meat? To give a government the ability to tax something so high that nobody can afford it is dangerous and slippery slope.

The answer to that is that when the smokers get cancer they expect free treatment. They should be free to smoke but should also pay their own medical costs. Cigarettes and other items mentioned above should be taxed to cover the true cost of the damage they do. At the moment they are subsidized by taxpayers who have to pick up the bill for medical costs for all the damage caused. Eat all the junk food you want but don't expect others to pay your medical costs.

Also, nearly all smokers just throw their cigarette butts on the floor. They have zero respect for the environment around them.

I don't count the healthcare thought as a legitimate argument because obesity is just as bad, if not worse, than cigarette smoking yet we don't target beer, soda, salt, refined sugar and anything else we deem "fattening"

There's also argument one that I raised which was that outlawing, or raising taxes to the point where someone can't afford them, will only result in a black market which would be unregulated and pose an even more dangerous threat to society than cigarettes would in the first place.

[boomerangutang]

My mom used to offer me ciggs when I was 11. If I refused, she would shake the Kent packet in front of me, like some back alley floozy and say, "come on, don't be a woos."

Luckily, I was able to quit by age 21. Currently, I avoid sugar, MSG, beef, and try and eat as healthy and tasty as reasonably possible. I eat lovely food at home, no headaches. I eat one meal at any restaurant in town: 50% chance of headache. I've found the best restaurants for lowest prices, tasty/healthy food, and least amount of harmful additives are guest houses where backpackers go. At the least, they're less likely to use MSG. Heck, they may even have organic produce, but don't get your hopes up too high, this is still Thailand: 'Hub of Unhealthy Food.' ....ever wonder where those millions of tons of poor quality mildewed rice are going? ....keep on wondering, ha ha ha.

Edited August 29, 2014 by boomerangutang

[Cereal]

Why not simply raise taxes on the fags? Tripling the price should encourage people to smoke less.

This has been tried in the West and it just doesn't work. Education is what works. I believe if they raised the price of cigarettes by any considerable it would correspond to an increase in crime and the black market of cigarette trafficking.

[boomerangutang]

Why not simply raise taxes on the fags? Tripling the price should encourage people to smoke less.

This has been tried in the West and it just doesn't work. Education is what works. I believe if they raised the price of cigarettes by any considerable it would correspond to an increase in crime and the black market of cigarette trafficking.

I love the image you use for your account. Where can I find it full size?

[catweazle]

Didn't help much in the past, did it? Best would be life long cancellation of health benefits and revoking the right to use the 30 Baht health scheme for smokers, private health insurances revoking smoking clients and the possibility for non-smokers to legally sue anyone who smokes in their presence with a few show cases resulting in jail time and fines of up to 1m Baht.

[BudRight]

Didn't help much in the past, did it? Best would be life long cancellation of health benefits and revoking the right to use the 30 Baht health scheme for smokers, private health insurances revoking smoking clients and the possibility for non-smokers to legally sue anyone who smokes in their presence with a few show cases resulting in jail time and fines of up to 1m Baht.

You would have to prove gross criminal negligence and that you had suffered direct injury due to the smoke. While this would be difficult, it would be much easier to prove that your lawsuit was frivolous and the person you sued could recover damages due to time lost from work, attorney's fees, and possibly even to their reputation.

Price your righteous indignation. It may be more expensive than you think.

[Jimbolai]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I have no idea how can be these warnings more macabre and bizarre.
aaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
May be they give you some human part of body effected with cancer inside the box ?

In some towns in the Philippines they have large Pictures posted along main streets every 50 M or so. The pictures are like the ones proposed on cigarette packs in Thailand. I gave up smoking 35 years ago and agree that tobacco use should be taxed at a minimum to pay for the damage caused. Nicotine should be declared a highly addictive drug and be against the law every where.

[hotsoup]

This is a case of totally misplaced advertising. The photos are so gross that no-one will believe them!

[doremifasol]

Yeah.....they want you to believe that they actually care about you when in fact they blast this kind of

ugly pics on your face to make you feel guilty for smoking and graphically think about sickness which

is a very powerful stuff (to your disadvantage obviously).

Best revenge is to quit smoking, live a guilt free life and up theirs!

[Fab5BKK]

Passive smoking can be lethal. Surveys which stated that there was no established correlation were funded, directly or indirectly, by the tobacco industry...

[WhizBang]

2nd) There's the liberty question. Why should the government interfere in any individual person's business? If someone wants to smoke why shouldn't they be allowed to smoke? Why should someone be taxed out of the right and/or ability to smoke? What if they taxed alcohol so high nobody could afford it? what then? salt? soda? refined sugar? red meat? To give a government the ability to tax something so high that nobody can afford it is dangerous and slippery slope.

Well, mainly because smoking is a public health hazzard. If you want to smoke, that is your choice, but you should only be allowed to do it in the privacy of your own dwelling, not anywhere in public.

[Absolut]

Why not simply raise taxes on the fags? Tripling the price should encourage people to smoke less.

here in Norway as tobacco price so high that it has led to more smuggling of tobacco, as I think will happen in thailand if they do, it will become more smugglers of cigarettes from Cambodia, Vietnam, Burma and lao ... if people want to smoke then it's best to just let them smoke and do not care

Tobacco companies estimate tbere's a $9 billion USD loss in taxes to governemts due to the illicit trade, most of this is due to the high taxes imposed. It's correct in what you and otbers have posted. That's a lot of loss revenue that could be used for some good. Tobacco companies stillmake their margin, it's the government coffers that are losing out.

[Absolut]

Why not simply raise taxes on the fags? Tripling the price should encourage people to smoke less.

This has been tried in the West and it just doesn't work. Education is what works. I believe if they raised the price of cigarettes by any considerable it would correspond to an increase in crime and the black market of cigarette trafficking.

I love the image you use for your account. Where can I find it full size?

Just google "cooking with poo" tons of images. Edited August 29, 2014 by Absolut

[dwcrist]

I wonder when they start putting ugly pictures on soft drinks. After all, overweight is killing more people than smoking.

Right? That's what I was thinking. Put pictures of dead fat people and botched liposuction and tummy-tuck surgeries on bags of chips and sweets.

[BudRight]

2nd) There's the liberty question. Why should the government interfere in any individual person's business? If someone wants to smoke why shouldn't they be allowed to smoke? Why should someone be taxed out of the right and/or ability to smoke? What if they taxed alcohol so high nobody could afford it? what then? salt? soda? refined sugar? red meat? To give a government the ability to tax something so high that nobody can afford it is dangerous and slippery slope.

Well, mainly because smoking is a public health hazzard. If you want to smoke, that is your choice, but you should only be allowed to do it in the privacy of your own dwelling, not anywhere in public.

Is meant to be ironic that your avatar is a Guy Fawkes mask yet you take stridently anti-freedom positions?

Meteors are a public health hazard. The term means nothing. What does matter is that there is no science to support outdoor 'second hand smoke' as a contributing factor in any disease at all.

[HiSoLowSoNoSo]

Something must be wrong today, there has not been a new ban or crackdown announced, what’s happening?

[Gweiloman]

Health Ministry would be better off promoting electronic cigarettes

Apparently, these are being outlawed as well, to the point of it being illegal to own electronic cigarettes. Heard this from a friend whose business is in selling e cigs and the juices for it.

Does anyone else know anything about this ban?

[nisakiman]

Why not simply raise taxes on the fags? Tripling the price should encourage people to smoke less.

1st) They're less than 30 baht a pack in Cambodia. How difficult do you think it would be for someone to cross the border with them illegally and sell them here in Thailand as another TV member posted.

2nd) There's the liberty question. Why should the government interfere in any individual person's business? If someone wants to smoke why shouldn't they be allowed to smoke? Why should someone be taxed out of the right and/or ability to smoke? What if they taxed alcohol so high nobody could afford it? what then? salt? soda? refined sugar? red meat? To give a government the ability to tax something so high that nobody can afford it is dangerous and slippery slope.

The reason you should be taxed is to cover the cost of medical care for smoking related diseases and illnesses. Why should non smokers pay for the health care of smokers when everyone knows that smoking is dangerous to your health.

This is a fair argument, but I would really like to see a true correlation of tobacco tax revenue and public health expenditure. From any country.

In the UK, according to the doubtless inflated figures from the NHS, the cost of treating 'smoking related' diseases is £2.7 billion per annum. The UK government collects in excess of £11 billion per annum in tobacco taxes.

So in fact smokers not only cover their own health expenses, they also massively subsidise the healthcare costs of non-smokers.

[nisakiman]

This is a case of totally misplaced advertising. The photos are so gross that no-one will believe them!

Heh! In fact all the medico-porn they plaster over cigarette packs around the world are photoshopped images, and the diseases they purport to represent are not only very rare, but occur as much in non-smokers as they do in smokers.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good propaganda campaign?

As far as Tobacco Control are concerned, their ethos is "the end justifies the means". That's why they have no compunction about disseminating lies and misinformation, because theirs 'is a righteous war', an ideological agenda they feel it is their duty to force on everybody.

It is not, and it never has been, about health. 'Health' was the fig-leaf they used to cover their dogma, but with the recent advent of e-cigarettes the emperor has been shown to have no clothes. Suddenly, they can't claim 'health' anymore. Now the realities of their pogrom are starting to show through. They just don't like smoking, or anything that even faintly resembles smoking. They are trying to ban e-cigs on the basis that "it looks like smoking", and risks undoing all their persecution of smokers by 're-normalising' the act. They hate e-cigs with a passion because people are circumventing their spiteful bans.

Oh the horror! Not only are people vaping in non-smoking areas, but worse, they are enjoying it!

It pains the anti-smoking lobby to see this, because the bans were a punishment intended to make smokers suffer, to cast them as untermensch exiled from polite society. E-cigs are undermining all that, so expect to see a whole raft of lies deployed to justify banning them. Only when e-cigs are made safely illegal will the anti-tobacco zealots be able to relax and get back to the core business of persecuting smokers.

And if you don't like the medico-porn on your pack, an enterprising guy in UK has the answer!

http://www.smoke-screenz.com/

[Don Aleman]

C'mon, distasteful pictures to discourage a 66 yr., 4 months, 1 week and, 2 days, smoker ? Most of the people I have associated with much of this time were smokers as we are always herded to some undesirable place to light up in spite of the fact some of our excessive sin tax paid for their kid's college .... and more !

I say, truthfully and , being truthful is not one of my strong points, but really truthfully that, I have never had a friend/relative resemble any of the horror pictures on ciggie paks nor did I even hear of anyone having/dying of lung cancer. I have, however had several close to me die of problems relating to obesity.

I am not suggesting cigarette smoking is good as it's not good/expensive/anti social and a host of other ills but avoiding the issues of chemical/vehicular/ fire

pollution and blaming all the world's health problems, on my smoking is far worse than the undesirable habit it self and, it hurts my feelings !

[Nuddy]

I read an article on TV here that said smokers tax revenue was 70 billion and the Hospital cost to treat diseases caused by smokers was 150 billion.

Seems simple solution to me iix that they at least double the tax and then its closer to even.

I am a smoker trying to quit...I expect to pay more.

Regards

[OttoPollmann]

Why not simply raise taxes on the fags? Tripling the price should encourage people to smoke less.

1st) They're less than 30 baht a pack in Cambodia. How difficult do you think it would be for someone to cross the border with them illegally and sell them here in Thailand as another TV member posted.

2nd) There's the liberty question. Why should the government interfere in any individual person's business? If someone wants to smoke why shouldn't they be allowed to smoke? Why should someone be taxed out of the right and/or ability to smoke? What if they taxed alcohol so high nobody could afford it? what then? salt? soda? refined sugar? red meat? To give a government the ability to tax something so high that nobody can afford it is dangerous and slippery slope.

The reason you should be taxed is to cover the cost of medical care for smoking related diseases and illnesses. Why should non smokers pay for the health care of smokers when everyone knows that smoking is dangerous to your health.

Perhaps, that’s applicable at your country but not in Thailand.

What kind of health care system they have? If you go to a government hospital, whatever sickness you have, you just get Paracetamol.

[nisakiman]

I read an article on TV here that said smokers tax revenue was 70 billion and the Hospital cost to treat diseases caused by smokers was 150 billion.

Seems simple solution to me iix that they at least double the tax and then its closer to even.

I am a smoker trying to quit...I expect to pay more.

Regards

You obviously missed my post on the previous page:

In the UK, according to the doubtless inflated figures from the NHS, the cost of treating 'smoking related' diseases is £2.7 billion per annum. The UK government collects in excess of £11 billion per annum in tobacco taxes.

So in fact smokers not only cover their own health expenses, they also massively subsidise the healthcare costs of non-smokers.

And that is in a country with a nationalised health service, and the NHS will have quoted the absolute maximum they can get away with in terms of 'smoking related' diseases. It's common knowledge that almost any complaint, from a dose of flu to a bout of gout, when it happens to a smoker it becomes (for the records) a 'smoking related disease'.

Just as when a smoker finally pops his clogs at 100 years old, he is included in the statistics as having 'died prematurely of a smoking related disease'. It's how they generate the ridiculously high figures for smoker mortality. Most of the 'deaths from smoking', and I do mean the vast majority, are people aged over 70 years. What they fail to mention of course is that the biggest killer of all is life itself, and everybody dies of that.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/sammec/newproof.htm

"...any such pronouncements regarding numbers killed by smoking are subject to many valid criticisms that may very well impugn the methodology used, the statistical techniques involved, and the results claimed(10). These estimates certainly contradict results of large-scale studies such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics National Health Survey(11), which showed that smokers were the healthiest group, followed by non-smokers, and a long way behind, ex-smokers."

Eysenck, circa 1997.

http://www.data-yard.net/science/active_smoking/eysenck_circa_1997.pdf

Edit to change broken link.

Edited August 29, 2014 by nisakiman

[khaowong1]

I have many friends who tear open the packs and put the cigarettes in a fancy box.

[Likener1]

I hesitate to say most Thais just love gore - be it photos or videos, not all just most, yes I hesitate but only for a brief moment.

These graphic images will merely be treated as initially "look this ewwww, its cool", there will be little, if any self relation to them.

Tell kids and show photos, faked or not, of their hair falling and their faces rotting in young people making it impossible to be attractive to others would certainly strike a chord and instil at least a wariness of smoking.

Kick the kids vanity and it may work, sure its playing a long game but middle aged to elderly smokers are probably not by smoking anyway.

[Thai at Heart]

Why not simply raise taxes on the fags? Tripling the price should encourage people to smoke less.

1st) They're less than 30 baht a pack in Cambodia. How difficult do you think it would be for someone to cross the border with them illegally and sell them here in Thailand as another TV member posted.

2nd) There's the liberty question. Why should the government interfere in any individual person's business? If someone wants to smoke why shouldn't they be allowed to smoke? Why should someone be taxed out of the right and/or ability to smoke? What if they taxed alcohol so high nobody could afford it? what then? salt? soda? refined sugar? red meat? To give a government the ability to tax something so high that nobody can afford it is dangerous and slippery slope.

The reason you should be taxed is to cover the cost of medical care for smoking related diseases and illnesses. Why should non smokers pay for the health care of smokers when everyone knows that smoking is dangerous to your health.

Cigarette taxes more than cover treatment costs in most countries. If everyone stopped smoking , taxes would have to go up to make up the funding deficit.

Be happy people smoke. They don't take as much pension from the state either.

[nisakiman]

Why not simply raise taxes on the fags? Tripling the price should encourage people to smoke less.

1st) They're less than 30 baht a pack in Cambodia. How difficult do you think it would be for someone to cross the border with them illegally and sell them here in Thailand as another TV member posted.

2nd) There's the liberty question. Why should the government interfere in any individual person's business? If someone wants to smoke why shouldn't they be allowed to smoke? Why should someone be taxed out of the right and/or ability to smoke? What if they taxed alcohol so high nobody could afford it? what then? salt? soda? refined sugar? red meat? To give a government the ability to tax something so high that nobody can afford it is dangerous and slippery slope.

The reason you should be taxed is to cover the cost of medical care for smoking related diseases and illnesses. Why should non smokers pay for the health care of smokers when everyone knows that smoking is dangerous to your health.

Cigarette taxes more than cover treatment costs in most countries. If everyone stopped smoking , taxes would have to go up to make up the funding deficit.

Be happy people smoke. They don't take as much pension from the state either.

"Be happy people smoke. They don't take as much pension from the state either."

That rather looks as if it may be another myth created by the Tobacco Control Industry.

If you take a look at the couple of links I put up in my last comment, both written by people highly rated in their fields (and both non-smokers), it would seem that smokers live longer and are healthier than non-smokers.

I make no comment on their conclusions, apart from the fact that what they say concurs with my admittedly limited observations.

[Thai at Heart]

Why not simply raise taxes on the fags? Tripling the price should encourage people to smoke less.

1st) They're less than 30 baht a pack in Cambodia. How difficult do you think it would be for someone to cross the border with them illegally and sell them here in Thailand as another TV member posted.

2nd) There's the liberty question. Why should the government interfere in any individual person's business? If someone wants to smoke why shouldn't they be allowed to smoke? Why should someone be taxed out of the right and/or ability to smoke? What if they taxed alcohol so high nobody could afford it? what then? salt? soda? refined sugar? red meat? To give a government the ability to tax something so high that nobody can afford it is dangerous and slippery slope.

The reason you should be taxed is to cover the cost of medical care for smoking related diseases and illnesses. Why should non smokers pay for the health care of smokers when everyone knows that smoking is dangerous to your health.

Cigarette taxes more than cover treatment costs in most countries. If everyone stopped smoking , taxes would have to go up to make up the funding deficit.

Be happy people smoke. They don't take as much pension from the state either.

"Be happy people smoke. They don't take as much pension from the state either."

That rather looks as if it may be another myth created by the Tobacco Control Industry.

If you take a look at the couple of links I put up in my last comment, both written by people highly rated in their fields (and both non-smokers), it would seem that smokers live longer and are healthier than non-smokers.

I make no comment on their conclusions, apart from the fact that what they say concurs with my admittedly limited observations.

I was being a little humorous. But the accusation that smokers cost more than they contribute is largely false.

Smoking isn't great but governments are as addicted to the money as the smokers are to cigarettes. If everyone stopped smoking , taxes would need to go up to compensate.

[Somtamnication]

Just don't label sticky rice and mango!!!!!!!

[cgphuket]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Why not simply raise taxes on the fags? Tripling the price should encourage people to smoke less.

1st) They're less than 30 baht a pack in Cambodia. How difficult do you think it would be for someone to cross the border with them illegally and sell them here in Thailand as another TV member posted.

2nd) There's the liberty question. Why should the government interfere in any individual person's business? If someone wants to smoke why shouldn't they be allowed to smoke? Why should someone be taxed out of the right and/or ability to smoke? What if they taxed alcohol so high nobody could afford it? what then? salt? soda? refined sugar? red meat? To give a government the ability to tax something so high that nobody can afford it is dangerous and slippery slope.

The reason you should be taxed is to cover the cost of medical care for smoking related diseases and illnesses. Why should non smokers pay for the health care of smokers when everyone knows that smoking is dangerous to your health.

Same can be said for alcohol. I don;t drink so a 500% tax on booze is fine for me, since alcohol causes more death and expenses in Thailand than smoking does.