Jump to content

Support our Sponsors >> Thai Friendly | Luxury Pattaya Condo Rentals | Le Pub Soi Diamond | Pattaya Investigations | Beavers Pattaya | Pattaya News | Pattaya Bars | The Night Wish Group | Add your Text or Event here

dave01

Ciggie Smokers

Recommended Posts

dave01

When you are buying your smokes, take your glasses with you... Plain packaging is being phased in, so they are now all in drab similar coloured packets, much the same as in Australia. The brand name of the smoke is printed on the bottom of the front and back of the pack.. There are no other identifiers allowed on the pack...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr No

Here’s a link with more info 

https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1740067/plain-tobacco-packaging-mandatory-from-sept-12

 

I really can’t help but laugh when I read these types of comments:

“More importantly, the Alliance says, by restricting the tobacco industry’s ability to market to young people, it reduces smoking by youth.”

Never ceases to amaze me how people who know nothing about how big tobacco operates continue to push this line of thinking. It’s just the same old bullshit that has been wheeled out for 30 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
per anum

Tobacco companies rule things with the Thai Government......how else could they get vaping and shisha banned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr No
19 minutes ago, per anum said:

Tobacco companies rule things with the Thai Government......how else could they get vaping and shisha banned?

Which tobacco companies are you referring to? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
per anum
6 minutes ago, Dr No said:

Which tobacco companies are you referring to? 

Probably BAT......They are up to this type of stuff all over the world!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr No
1 minute ago, per anum said:

Probably BAT......They are up to this type of stuff all over the world!

Then you’d be wrong. The TAT (Tobacco Authority of Thailand) is the biggest player in tobacco in LOS. It has 79% market share and is run by the government. 

The big three international players being BAT, PMI and JT are left with the remaining 21% amongst them. As Marlboro and L&M are pretty popular amongst expats and Thais with a bit of baht I’d be safe in assuming BAT probably has less than 7% market share, hardly influential. 

Contrary to popular opinion and the usual vague internet guessing game, BAT, PMI and JT are very much pro smokeless products (like e-cigs and HnB), there’s no reason for them to want them excluded from any market as they are heavily invested in them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
per anum
3 minutes ago, Dr No said:

Then you’d be wrong. The TAT (Tobacco Authority of Thailand) is the biggest player in tobacco in LOS. It has 79% market share and is run by the government. 

The big three international players being BAT, PMI and JT are left with the remaining 21% amongst them. As Marlboro and L&M are pretty popular amongst expats and Thais with a bit of baht I’d be safe in assuming BAT probably has less than 7% market share, hardly influential. 

Contrary to popular opinion and the usual vague internet guessing game, BAT, PMI and JT are very much pro smokeless products (like e-cigs and HnB), there’s no reason for them to want them excluded from any market as they are heavily invested in them. 

I stand corrected!

BAT got e-cigs banned here in Sri Lanka (not the use but the sale), and they also got cigarette quote allowed in by visitors brought to zero! All cigarettes sold in Sri Lanka is manufactured by BAT! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr No
1 minute ago, per anum said:

I stand corrected!

BAT got e-cigs banned here in Sri Lanka (not the use but the sale), and they also got cigarette quote allowed in by visitors brought to zero! All cigarettes sold in Sri Lanka is manufactured by BAT! 

Definitely a rare scenario when a tobacco company has 100% market share, in fact it’s the first I’ve ever heard of. Can’t blame them then for wanting to protect it. 

Doesn’t matter if it’s smokes, alcohol, petrol, soft drinks or bloody loo paper, if you’ve got 100% market share you’d do everything you can to keep that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
per anum
4 minutes ago, Dr No said:

Definitely a rare scenario when a tobacco company has 100% market share, in fact it’s the first I’ve ever heard of. Can’t blame them then for wanting to protect it. 

Doesn’t matter if it’s smokes, alcohol, petrol, soft drinks or bloody loo paper, if you’ve got 100% market share you’d do everything you can to keep that. 

I agree.....strange indeed! Ceylon Tobacco is a BAT company and has been around since British rule! They have had their wings clipped considerably with regards to advertising and warnings but is yet a massive source of excise revenue for the Government.....basically the worst form of an incestuous relationship! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WalterA
36 minutes ago, Dr No said:

Then you’d be wrong. The TAT (Tobacco Authority of Thailand) is the biggest player in tobacco in LOS. It has 79% market share and is run by the government. 

The big three international players being BAT, PMI and JT are left with the remaining 21% amongst them. As Marlboro and L&M are pretty popular amongst expats and Thais with a bit of baht I’d be safe in assuming BAT probably has less than 7% market share, hardly influential. 

Contrary to popular opinion and the usual vague internet guessing game, BAT, PMI and JT are very much pro smokeless products (like e-cigs and HnB), there’s no reason for them to want them excluded from any market as they are heavily invested in them. 

No matter what, all these companies promote products that are harmful to health ... and will lead to cancer , lung cancer in particular ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr No
15 minutes ago, WalterA said:

No matter what, all these companies promote products that are harmful to health ... and will lead to cancer , lung cancer in particular ....

100% legal products. Explain to me how they promote their products in LOS and other developed countries? 

Edited by Dr No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WalterA
21 minutes ago, Dr No said:

100% legal products. Explain to me how they promote their products in LOS and other developed countries? 

Sounds like you work for a Cigarette company, yes off course they are legal and my statement is also correct, all these products cause cancer .... there are mountains of literature available on this topic .... no need to say anything else ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr No
10 minutes ago, WalterA said:

Sounds like you work for a Cigarette company, yes off course they are legal and my statement is also correct, all these products cause cancer .... there are mountains of literature available on this topic .... no need to say anything else ....

Yes and yes, undeniably that these products cause cancer, that information had been in the public domain for decades, PMI on their global site even clearly state this: 

https://www.pmi.com/our-business/about-us/our-views/health-effects-of-smoking-tobacco

You stated that these companies ‘promote’, and that’s what I’m trying to ascertain. Tobacco advertising has been banned for a very long time, even in LOS. Where’s the promotion? 

Perhaps you just used the wrong word, sell rather than promote would be correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WalterA
2 hours ago, Dr No said:

Yes and yes, undeniably that these products cause cancer, that information had been in the public domain for decades, PMI on their global site even clearly state this: 

https://www.pmi.com/our-business/about-us/our-views/health-effects-of-smoking-tobacco

You stated that these companies ‘promote’, and that’s what I’m trying to ascertain. Tobacco advertising has been banned for a very long time, even in LOS. Where’s the promotion? 

Perhaps you just used the wrong word, sell rather than promote would be correct. 

Your point is valid but you are nitpicking .... a see little difference between the word sell and promote , the end result is one and the same .... in just about every country except Australia, you have branding on the packet, technically speaking that is “promotion” , brand recognition etc .... the user identifies with a particular brand name, package colour, image .... hence you are selling and promoting .... Australia tried to put an end to that a few years ago by plain packaging (olive colour) ....

 

I used to be a heavy smoker and quit .... I am not against the sale of tabac ... that said, it is a highly addictive substance and I do agree with the Australian approach ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr No
37 minutes ago, WalterA said:

I used to be a heavy smoker and quit .... I am not against the sale of tabac ... that said, it is a highly addictive substance and I do agree with the Australian approach

I very much disagree with the Australian approach. The worlds most expensive cigarettes have created the worlds most lucrative black market that funds massive amounts of money into crime and possibly terrorist organisations, not to mention over $2 billion worth of lost revenue to the Australian government. The penalties for import of illicit cigarettes are a joke, the profits are immense.

Its created huge expense with the creation of a new division within Customs and Border control, an issue created out of bad policy. 

Smoking rates in Aus have flat lined for the last 2 years, the government refuses to admit that nearly 14% of the market is now illicit and growing. 

If you don’t smoke, great, never take it up. If you do smoke then quit, it’s the best thing you’ll ever do. If you can’t quit, then what? The Australian (and many others) governments will be of no help to you, except taking more of your money. 

The UK is pretty much on the right track, shame others are so blind or unwilling to help smokers. 

Edited by Dr No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WalterA
23 minutes ago, Dr No said:

I very much disagree with the Australian approach. The worlds most expensive cigarettes have created the worlds most lucrative black market that funds massive amounts of money into crime and possibly terrorist organisations, not to mention over $2 billion worth of lost revenue to the Australian government. The penalties for import of illicit cigarettes are a joke, the profits are immense.

Its created huge expense with the creation of a new division within Customs and Border control, an issue created out of bad policy. 

Smoking rates in Aus have flat lined for the last 2 years, the government refuses to admit that nearly 14% of the market is now illicit and growing. 

If you don’t smoke, great, never take it up. If you do smoke then quit, it’s the best thing you’ll ever do. If you can’t quit, then what? The Australian (and many others) governments will be of no help to you, except taking more of your money. 

The UK is pretty much on the right track, shame others are so blind or unwilling to help smokers. 

I do agree about the black market aspect .... when I was still smoking I just ended up buying from under the counter .... I lived in a really fucked up area, so this was available .... it’s not wide spread ... the tabac was just so rough, my throat always hurt, I’m guessing it was even worse than the real thing ... same same the cheap cigarettes people bring from Cambodia , Myanmar .... just crap .... 

 

The authoritarian Australian way has been effective because smoking rates are drastically down, not because they did anything overtly smart, they are just taxing it out of reach .... the main injustice is that ordinary/working class families bear a higher burden because if buying smokes, it’s eats up a bigger slice of their income .... so the burden is not evenly distributed ....

 

as for 

29 minutes ago, Dr No said:

 black market that funds massive amounts of money into crime and possibly terrorist organisations, not to mention over $2 billion worth of lost revenue to the Australian government. The penalties for import of illicit cigarettes are a joke, the profits are immense.

The penalties for just about anything .... is a joke in Australia .... agreed , you could do much much worse shit than importing tabac illegally with little or no consequences ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr No
1 hour ago, WalterA said:

The authoritarian Australian way has been effective because smoking rates are drastically down, not because they did anything overtly smart, they are just taxing it out of reach .... the main injustice is that ordinary/working class families bear a higher burden because if buying smokes, it’s eats up a bigger slice of their income .... so the burden is not evenly distributed ....

This is where I think you’re wrong mate, it hasn’t drastically brought down smoking rates, it’s just helped the government collect more tax. 

So since the yearly tax hike policy was brought in around 2013 there’s been a drop of just 2.3%, 16.1% in 2011/ 2012  to 13.8% in 2017/ 2018, hardly a drastic drop and due to population increase, the actual number of smokers seems to have remained the same while the tax has increased 120%. 

Figures below are from the ABS:

“In 2014-15, 14.5% of adults aged 18 years and over were daily smokers (2.6 million adults), down from 16.1% in 2011-12

In 2017-18, just under one in seven (13.8%) or 2.6 million adults were daily smokers, while a further 1.4% of people also reported smoking, they did so on a less than daily basis.”


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WalterA
3 hours ago, Dr No said:

This is where I think you’re wrong mate, it hasn’t drastically brought down smoking rates, it’s just helped the government collect more tax. 

So since the yearly tax hike policy was brought in around 2013 there’s been a drop of just 2.3%, 16.1% in 2011/ 2012  to 13.8% in 2017/ 2018, hardly a drastic drop and due to population increase, the actual number of smokers seems to have remained the same while the tax has increased 120%. 

Figures below are from the ABS:

“In 2014-15, 14.5% of adults aged 18 years and over were daily smokers (2.6 million adults), down from 16.1% in 2011-12

In 2017-18, just under one in seven (13.8%) or 2.6 million adults were daily smokers, while a further 1.4% of people also reported smoking, they did so on a less than daily basis.”


 

It has nearly halved although it seems to have stabilised now ....

 

 

C83888B2-803B-48C0-B92F-68E0E62D914B.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldmaterb

It's still a quarter of the price I pay at home (Aus) so the packaging is of no effect to me.  When the price of a pack is the same as a root on the 6, I might be persuaded otherwise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhiteThai
11 hours ago, WalterA said:

No matter what, all these companies promote products that are harmful to health ... and will lead to cancer , lung cancer in particular .

 

8 hours ago, WalterA said:

...I used to be a heavy smoker and quit .

Did you get lung cancer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WalterA
14 minutes ago, WhiteThai said:

 

Did you get lung cancer?

No, but eventually I would have or most likely died of a cigarette related disease. Does this answer your question?

I can tell you that I’ve done great damage to my body, when I had a chest X-ray done they immediately could tell I used to be a smoker .... surprisingly when I went to the eye clinic, he knew I had been a smoker from damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhiteThai
3 minutes ago, WalterA said:

No, but eventually I would have or most likely died of a cigarette related disease. Does this answer your question?

I can tell you that I’ve done great damage to my body, when I had a chest X-ray done they immediately could tell I used to be a smoker .... surprisingly when I went to the eye clinic, he knew I had been a smoker from damage.

I'm happy your ok.

George Burns smoked everyday and lived to 100. So saying that something is going to happen to EVERYBODY who smokes is not entirely accurate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WalterA
1 hour ago, WhiteThai said:

 

George Burns smoked everyday and lived to 100. So saying that something is going to happen to EVERYBODY who smokes is not entirely accurate. 

ahh  .... he smoked cigars and not cigarettes, only marginally better ..... I never finished high school but I wouldn’t make such ridiculous statements .... tabac is harmful, a two year old knows that, there is a mountain of literature on this topic .... 

 

im glad George Burns lived to 100 .... I loved his movies , especially “Oh God”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr No
13 hours ago, WalterA said:

It has nearly halved although it seems to have stabilised now ....

 

 

C83888B2-803B-48C0-B92F-68E0E62D914B.jpeg

Not sure how you get halved, the middle Line is survey total, in 2016 it’s sitting at what looks to be about 14.5% give or take, around 2011 when the new mandated twice yearly price rises came in it looks to be about 16 - 17%. 

Smoking rates have halved since 1995 but that’s got nothing to do with taxation as the tax hikes didn’t start for nearly 20 years later, that IMHO is all about greater public awareness of the dangers of smoking. That in itself to me says better education with an emphasis on youth awareness is a much better tool to curb smoking rates than the massive taxation route the Aus government has gone down. 

And to add, as I’m privy to a lot more recent data, it has stabilised over the last 2 years, in fact there’s been a very small amount of growth which is proof in itself what the Aus government is doing isn’t working, there’s other options that other countries are having success with, but when you’re addicted to the money the tax brings in, why would you change it? 

Edited by Dr No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr No
10 hours ago, WhiteThai said:

I'm happy your ok.

George Burns smoked everyday and lived to 100. So saying that something is going to happen to EVERYBODY who smokes is not entirely accurate. 

He died from a heart attack correct?  Even at 100 yrs old it’s highly likely his cigar smoking helped contribute to his death. Perhaps if hadn’t ever had a cigar he may have lived to 120 yrs. 

I don’t think it’s entirely inaccurate to say smoking has an adverse effect on everyone, for some it comes sooner and is very apparent, for others it’s a contributing factor later in life, albeit possibly a smaller one. Smoking magnifies the risk of many other illnesses by a huge factor, not just cancer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.