Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

To think the branding messages forced on nicotine products are unreasonable?

120 replies

CauliflowerSneezed · 14/02/2021 12:43

Just as the title says really. Does anyone else think it's unreasonable to sell a product but only on the terms and conditions forced by the government, government who make huge taxes on said product, have to display grotesque images and/or worrying messages on product?

Completely putting aside the "is smoking harmful" debate, I am not a smoker myself so not advocating for smoking on behalf of me, but just from a selling point of view, does anyone else think that is massively unreasonable? And hypocritical? I can't think of one other single thing sold in the whole world that has to display messages on the product that are directly anti to the product they are selling. Does anyone else think this is weird, odd, and very unfair or just me lol.

OP posts:

SimonJT · 14/02/2021 12:43

No I think its fine and I love smoking.

shouldistop · 14/02/2021 12:46

Completely putting aside the "is smoking harmful" debate,

There is no debate surely?

The images are fine if they even stop one person smoking. I saw my dad slowly die from lung cancer over a 3 year period. Anything that can be done to stop people should be done.

Original poster

CauliflowerSneezed · 14/02/2021 12:48

@SimonJT

No I think its fine and I love smoking.

Why do you think it's fine? If you had a company and the government let you sell things only if you put messages about how damaging your product was, would you think that was fine?

OP posts:

Meredithgrey1 · 14/02/2021 12:48

Completely putting aside the "is smoking harmful" debate

What debate?

SimonJT · 14/02/2021 12:49

Why do you think it's fine? If you had a company and the government let you sell things only if you put messages about how damaging your product was, would you think that was fine?

Yes as long as those messages reflected the truth.

Unhomme · 14/02/2021 12:50

The 'is smoking harmful debate'?

That's like the 'is child pornography bad' debate is it?

Invisimamma · 14/02/2021 12:51

really? It's a product that is extremely harmful and kills most of it's long term customers. They should be made aware of that. Smoking is biggest cause of preventable death and ill health in our country.

It costs far more to treat the illness and disease caused by smoking that the government raises in tax from it.

If a company tried to invent and market tobacco today as a new product there's no way it would be allowed to be legally sold.

I can't quite believe this is a questions someone needs to ask...

Meredithgrey1 · 14/02/2021 12:52

If you had a company and the government let you sell things only if you put messages about how damaging your product was, would you think that was fine?

Well, I imagine the companies themselves don’t love it. But it’s not up to them, and their feelings on it aren’t really relevant.

Saucery · 14/02/2021 12:54

I doubt tobacco companies care. They know they’ve had their heyday in the UK, USA etc and are busy promoting their product elsewhere.
I say that as an ex smoker. The photos and warnings didn’t really make a lot of difference to me. I liked smoking, I was able to compartmentalise the significant risks to my health for years. That’s addiction for you.

Original poster

CauliflowerSneezed · 14/02/2021 12:54

@shouldistop

Completely putting aside the "is smoking harmful" debate,

There is no debate surely?

The images are fine if they even stop one person smoking. I saw my dad slowly die from lung cancer over a 3 year period. Anything that can be done to stop people should be done.

There IS a debate and I said put the smoking debate thing aside because it turns it into a question that I'm not asking. It's just from a purely selling product POV.

You have said your experience with what happened with your dad. I am very sorry to hear about that. There will also be children with parents who have died in third world countries. Should the fashion industry be forced to attach tags to clothes saying "children have died in sweatshops making 2p an hour for these clothes you are buying"? If you think they shouldn't, then how or why are nicotine products fair game to be singled out? If you think clothes should be made to have tags on like this but you would still buy clothes, then it renders it pointless, surely?

OP posts:

PickAChew · 14/02/2021 12:55

It's not like tobacco companies are struggling small businesses with high ethical standards.

olderthanyouthink · 14/02/2021 12:56

In California and therefor a lot of other places because packaging is the same there has to be a warning on ANYTHING that might possibly maybe kinda sorta cause cancer or reproductive issues. So in McDonald's restaurants and at Disneyland and there's signs up and I've seen seen the stickers on artists paint in the UK. It's call Prop 65.

It's nice picking up a kids toy which says it may cause cancer.

NoIDontWatchLoveIsland · 14/02/2021 12:58

Yabvu. Smoking is toxic and also affects people around the smoker and the environment. We should be doing absolute everything possible to discourage people.

StrangerHereMyself · 14/02/2021 12:59

The difference between tobacco and pretty much any other product is that it will damage you when used exactly as intended.

Alcohol, gambling, sugary drinks, pain killers, when consumed in moderation and in accordance with guidelines will not harm you - but they still have warnings printed on them because so many people do use them to excess.

Cigarettes have no safe dose, they are quite simply poisonous.

NoIDontWatchLoveIsland · 14/02/2021 12:59

Should the fashion industry be forced to attach tags to clothes saying "children have died in sweatshops making 2p an hour for these clothes you are buying"?

Yes that would be a good idea.

Original poster

CauliflowerSneezed · 14/02/2021 12:59

@SimonJT

Why do you think it's fine? If you had a company and the government let you sell things only if you put messages about how damaging your product was, would you think that was fine?

Yes as long as those messages reflected the truth.

"This product has been sold from [x] country. It has caused damage to the planet as it has travelled [x] amount of miles, using [x] amount of fuel, releasing pollution into the air to get to your [x] (location), which you have contributed by buying this product." You would be fine with a goverment slapping that on each and every item of a product you were trying to sell? Because that would be truthful.

OP posts:

SewVeryLazy · 14/02/2021 13:00

I wish they would put those sweatshop labels in things tbh as it would make it much easier to an ethical consumer and would probably force industries to up their game. I would also be happy for high sugar content foods to have warnings about the health impact of eating those, it wouldn't stop me buying them as I eat them in moderation, but I wouldn't be bothered by the warning to people who overdo it and if it helped even 1 person lead a healthier lifestyle then that would be a good thing

TheMobileSiteMadeMeSignup · 14/02/2021 13:01

I think unethical standards should be highlighted more actually. If a big label detailed how little people are actually paid for the product and made people think about their part in the process then it might change things more quickly.

The tobacco companies are free to stop producing their cigarettes if they don't like the rules imposed on their packaging. If you sell a product then you abide by the rules for branding, whether that's what you can claim about your product or having to put a health warning.

avocadospringseternal · 14/02/2021 13:01

There IS a debate and I said put the smoking debate thing aside because it turns it into a question that I'm not asking. It's just from a purely selling product POV.

Meredithgrey1 · 14/02/2021 13:01

Should the fashion industry be forced to attach tags to clothes saying "children have died in sweatshops making 2p an hour for these clothes you are buying"? If you think they shouldn't, then how or why are nicotine products fair game to be singled out?

That’s not a like for like comparison. The smoking warnings are about dangers to the user.

AStudyinPink · 14/02/2021 13:01

I think it strikes the right balance. You can buy this but here’s the information you should have when deciding whether to do so. Fine by me.

NoIDontWatchLoveIsland · 14/02/2021 13:02

The difference is we do actually need many other products. Cheap clothes might be the only uniform a family can afford. Same re cheap food etc.

Smoking is literally pointless and unnecessary.

Original poster

CauliflowerSneezed · 14/02/2021 13:03

@NoIDontWatchLoveIsland

Should the fashion industry be forced to attach tags to clothes saying "children have died in sweatshops making 2p an hour for these clothes you are buying"?

Yes that would be a good idea.

Would you simply stop buying clothes for the rest of your life? Or would you still buy some clothes with those tags on?

OP posts:

shouldistop · 14/02/2021 13:04

Your comparison with the fashion industry doesn't make sense, clothes don't harm the person wearing them.
You think there's a debate about whether smoking is harmful or not? Even the most ardent smoker knows it's harmful.

TheMobileSiteMadeMeSignup · 14/02/2021 13:04

This product has been sold from [x] country. It has caused damage to the planet as it has travelled [x] amount of miles, using [x] amount of fuel, releasing pollution into the air to get to your [x] (location), which you have contributed by buying this product." You would be fine with a goverment slapping that on each and every item of a product you were trying to sell? Because that would be truthful.

Yeah. Companies don't have the right to exist just because they sell things. Billionaires don't have the right to exploit labour just because we buy their tshirts that cost less than the material they're made from. If ethical production and consumption meant that they went out of business I would not be shedding a tear for them.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Swipe left for the next trending thread