i do not smoke ciggertts, but do have an occasional cigar on special days etc, and the warning on the tube pisses me off, it spoils the desighn which for me is part of the enjoyment, i like the qaulity packaging and enhances it, so yes i agree with you totally. way i see it, EVERYONE knows smoking kills, and does bad things to you, so does fried bacon, so no one is going to stop just cos theres a gruesome pic on the packet, a while back they bought out DEATH CIGARETTES, which proclaimed THESE WILL KILL YOU, and had skull and cross bones on them.. they sold like wild fire !! no one cared about the dangers or the packaging..bit same with the shops now hiding the CIGARETTES behind sliding doors in the kiosk, right next to it is bottles of whiskey and vodka on offer ! also, as i dont know much about cigars, i cant just go in and ask for what i want, as i need see them, hence, ive now started going eles where for them..its all pointless. might as well put a sign up on every door proclaiming ''going out without a coat in the winter will give you flu'' no really ?? shocking, never knew that...

Smoking poses a more directly linked risk to health (ie the ingestion of freakin' poison), and therefore should be branded with these kinds of images, to discourage their use. You can't deny that these images are working as a long-term cumulative deterrent - statistics say they do. They are, as such, reducing strain on the health system over the long term, and thus should be implemented.

You're correct that there is a double standard on other products, but the idea is to deter the person who holds the packet from lighting up at all. This may not only save the individual's life but also assist our hospitals and non-smoking patients.

Aditionally, you should really keep the customer informed of what they're actually putting into themselves. Imagine the fines for "altering" nutritional information! Now, what sanction should be applied to cigarette companies for failing to raise the significant risks posed to smokers?

Sure, you should have the right... but you should also have the right to know the effect of the product on your body.

i totally agree!! and i think your ideas about the charities or missing persons using the space is really good! but..itl probably never happen because they "think" these images will actually make people quit ha what a joke.. but when it comes to smoking theres always gonna be a debate about something to do with it.. my country (NZ) is tryna make it a smokefree country.. theyre doing this by raising taxes on it dramatically! my opinion, if they think its such a bad thing and are always gonna be rubbing facts and pictures in our faces they might as well make it illegal..

They should just change it back to the big written warning on the back like it used to be...like the warning on the front of the pack - even better, just get rid of the warning on the back altogether...it's on the front and annoys people, what difference does it make being on the BACK as well?

I recently wrote a paper on the packaging of cigarettes and would like to get a response on the basic idea. The general gyst of things was: if we pay such a price on our cigarettes should we not have the right to choose whether or not we have a gruesome image on the back? I personally feel that of I am paying close to seven pound a packet, I should have the right to freedom of choice, the freedom to choose not to have a gory image bombarding me when I smoke my cancer stick. Alcohol is not branded with images of soriosised livers and alcoholics yet alcohol kills thousands a year? I feel that there could be alternative uses for the space on a packet of fags, I understand companies cannot advertise but it could be used for things like, charities to raise awareness and missing people to try to find them. Please I do not want a debate on the morals of smoking just and opinion on my proposition. Thanks