SA plans to ban brands on cigarette packets

2012-08-16 09:22

Johannesburg - South Africa will follow Australia's example by trying to ban the display of brand names on tobacco packets, according to a report on Thursday.

"... We will do it, definitely," Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi was quoted as telling The Times newspaper.

"Rest assured, I am extremely excited."

On Wednesday, the High Court of Australia ruled that the measures did not breach the country's constitution. They stipulate that, from December 1, tobacco products be sold in drab, uniform packaging with graphic health warnings.

Four companies had challenged the law, claiming it infringed their intellectual property rights and was unconstitutional.

However, the court rejected the argument by British American Tobacco [JSE:BTI], Japan Tobacco International, Imperial Tobacco and Philip Morris.

Australian Attorney General Nicola Roxon said Britain, Canada and New Zealand were considering similar measures, and that China, South Africa and the European Union had followed the case with interest.

Motsoaledi has said previously that if the Australian government won the case, South Africa would follow suit.

* Follow Fin24 on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.


  • mofstok - 2012-08-16 09:33

    Yeah, this is going to work so well...not. I do not like smoking and I do not like smokers smoking around me when I am in a public place. That said: they are perfectly within their rights to choose what they wish to put in their mouths and set alight, why infringe on that? Are we becoming a nanny state where the government believes it always knows what is best for us?

      mofstok - 2012-08-16 09:46

      It is the individual's choice whether he/she wishes to smoke or not to smoke, and the individual will take the ultimate responsibility for that. It is not the government's place to prescribe to people what the should/should not do. Where does it stop? When the government decides how many liters of water you are allowed to drink per day?

      komorison - 2012-08-16 09:52

      Nail on the head "Nanny State". Big government want's to look after you! We are stupid sheeple that cannot make informed decisions.

      nrgx.nrg - 2012-08-16 10:04

      @curriemafia - please explain what the health risks, or "smoking is bad for you" got to do with brand identity? Its not like a child will see a logo of a tobacco company and have the urge to smoke it!

      mofstok - 2012-08-16 10:09

      curry, then ban the cigarettes, not the branding: even that will lead to a surge in cigarettes. This is not about smoking, it is about the government telling people what they can and cannot do: I do not approve of that one bit. You seem to have missed the fact that I am not a smoker, and that I do not enjoy smoking. I abhor individual freedoms being stomped upon by the government! Do not fall into this trap!

      mofstok - 2012-08-16 10:10

      ^ I meant surge in illegal cigarettes.

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-08-16 10:16

      Yeah it seems people want to be policed and censored.

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-08-16 10:18

      I agree with Mofstok, it is the individuals right to choose what to put in his/her body. When they ban these ANC people from having extravagant parties, with thousands of Rands in liquor bills, then maybe this motion can be considered.

      burningdogz - 2012-08-16 12:56

      Curriemafia, you are a sheep. Bah bah baaahhhhh\r\n\r\nYes he can compare water to cigarettes because he is illustrating a concept which you seem unable to grasp. I suggest you indulge in some philosophy books dealing with metaphorical concepts.\r\n\r\nSecondly, by your logical the state should intervene and halt everything that is bad for us. You don't see the problem in giving any person or leader that kinda power? In that case I fear that freedom, democracy and just plain conscious thought is wasted on you.\r\n\r\nSo then, alcoholism is a real threat, not to mention drunk drivers, and of course the amazingly stupid things people get up to when drunk. Banned.\r\n\r\nAmerica yelled OBESITY epidemic! Well then, chocolates, cakes, sweets, cooldrink, fast food yada yada all gone. From now on you may only eat and drink what the government tells you!\r\n\r\nThat reminds me, due to people speeding and taxis etc. people will only be allowed to use public transport. Yup, let the government drive for you!\r\n\r\nOh no no no, you can't be married to that man, STD's are a real threat. From now on you may only have sex with your government selected partner using government provided condoms.\r\n\r\nSo the list goes on....on a final note, non-smokers are very well protected by law against smokers, so any non-smoker complaining about second hand smoke should probably get out the smokers booth, or learn a little tolerance as smokers already bend over backwards.

      barker.ruing - 2012-08-16 14:10

      Next law to be introduced: ALL citizens will wear ANC T-Shirts on Fridays.

      salee.sithwell - 2012-08-17 08:32

      Mofstok - the Australian government is not banning smoking. It is banning branding on cigarette packets. Smokers can still happily "choose what they wish to put in their mouths and set alight".

  • Asdiedamwalbars - 2012-08-16 09:40

    Why don't the Gov not concentrate on banning corruption and do something more on the safety aspect of all South Africans.. than concentrating on what other countries do about their smoking habits. They keep on came about with other ideas except the right ideas and plans to tackle the things of real interest of troubles.

      squeegee.pilot - 2012-08-16 09:45


      daan.vandenberg.773 - 2012-08-16 10:26

      This is the way the cANCer rules. "Find something insignificant to get the population occupied while we screw them somewhere else".

  • cameron.macfarlane.12 - 2012-08-16 09:44

    They should remove the filters too, why are smokers afforded that luxury when second hand smokers are not. Can't wait for smoking to be banned in all public places!

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-08-16 10:24

      You don't like smoking? Well then remove YOURSELF from the smoke. Smokers are already treated like a disease, being packed into a smoking area like sardines. Sure non-smokers shouldn't be unnecessarily exposed to smoke, but it is up to YOU to remove yourself from the offending situation. If i don't like people who swear and curse a lot, i am not so self-righteous as to force them to go somewhere else and swear, or ban them altogether; i remove myself from the situation. Simple Non-smokers need to get off their high-horses and stop thinking that they are above the smokers. We are all equal. Deal with it.

      jacob.isaacs.188 - 2012-08-16 10:31

      @wesley: So if I make a big, stinky fart it's up to the other people to remove themselves from the area? Farts stink. Smoke stink. Why must everyone else who doesn't enjoy the smell deal with it?

      alan.gernet - 2012-08-16 10:43

      @Wesley - Thats a pretty selfish comment. More fair is to say that smokers need to remove themselves from polluting free air, where their smoke affects the health of people who dont smoke as well. What you choose to do to your health is your choice, but it gives you no right to infringe on the health of others.I think that at grass roots - the problem with most smokers is that hey are unable to stop smoking - hence all the justifications, arguments etc. And I sympathise - it is an addiction that is very hard to stop.

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-08-16 10:58

      Well if you let off stinky farts in public, im sure most people won't have a problem with removing themselves from that area of stench... unless they enjoy someone else's brand. Pun intended :)

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-08-16 11:40

      Not really, its selfish of people to think that because they are offended or don't like something, everyone else must adhere to draconian rules. My body, my decision. You have no right to dictate to anyone else on what they can and cannot do. Same as i don't have the right to tell you how to raise your kids, or to not drink alcohol or coffee... I can stop if i wanted to, but i don't. Smokers are already forced to smoke outside, 20m away from any entrances, which is fine and reasonable. What more do you want, do you expect smokers to only smoke in their cars or private property? I agree that non-smokers shouldn't have to deal with smoke, but this is getting a bit too much. Cars and alcohol kills thousands of people a year. Will the next step be to ban car and alcoholic brands?

      salee.sithwell - 2012-08-17 08:36

      Wesley.bischoff - smokers are not BEING treated like anything. They choose to smoke. You make it sound like they are victims, which they aren't. Well, they may have been victims of peer pressure in high school, but they certainly aren't victims of anything now. They are getting what's coming to them.

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-08-17 12:18

      Whatever moron If you chose to drink wine every night after work, and you were forced to sit in a tiny space, or forced to drink outside, wouldn't you also get irritated? Where did i say smokers are the victims? Stop pulling drivel out you ass.

      salee.sithwell - 2012-08-17 13:26

      wesley.bischoff - don't fool yourself. The question of choice falls out as soon as addiction kicks in. There is no choosing here. The only choice that smokers ever made was when they first started smoking - a stupid choice at that. Now, they go from day to day under the control of a filthy habit. So, yes, they are getting exactly what is coming to them for their failure to acknowledge that they have a real problem. Who would "wisely" choose something that makes their breath and clothes stink, messes up their teeth and gums, kills their sex drive and general fitness - the list goes on?

      salee.sithwell - 2012-08-17 13:48

      Hahahaha wesley.bischoff - you can stop if you wanted to? Really? Funny, that's what ALL addicts say.

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-08-17 13:58

      Yes and? It's MY stupid choice, and I must deal with the consequences. You don't see me or anyone else going around pointing out YOUR stupid or ill-informed decisions. Get off you high horse. I am fit, sexually healthy, and i can go a few hours without a cig. Assuming ALL smokers are the same is just dumb. Please go see a psychologist to sort out your issues with smokers and/or smoking. To allow it to enrage you so it quite worrying.

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-08-17 14:00

      Ok sh*twell, clearly you are psychic or a omniscient deity to know all these things.

      salee.sithwell - 2012-08-17 14:17

      Exactly - it was your stupid choice. So, don't cry if it is viewed and treated as same. It also doesn't have to be the next teenager's stupid choice. You go on smoking outside in winter. We couldn't care less. But we don't want our kids doing the same. I do not have to be psychic to know these things. It's pure science. You won't be fit for long. And oh, denial doesn't make what you are saying true, anyway. One day, you will be mature enough to come off the denial. Denial is an addict's affliction. Known fact. By the way, "thumbs-upping" your own comments is a bit suspect :-/

  • danny.archer.589 - 2012-08-16 09:44

    Wishy washy legislation. The ANC gets big brownie points for a law that has near-zero impact.

  • john.loveland.9 - 2012-08-16 09:46

    As a non-smoker this is absurd. Its an infringement on both peoples and business's basic rights. Its time the Health minister, our "moral godfather", worried about the state of our hospitals and clinics. If he spent as much time trying to improve the health facilities as he did worrying about tobacco advertising he may achieve something. Just don't give him his "favorite" bottle of whiskey without a label... or with a picture showing a man beating his wife and children.

      paul.c.wadsworth - 2012-08-16 10:00

      Well said Sir! Gov has enough to worry about.

      salee.sithwell - 2012-08-17 08:38

      john.loveland.9 - The first part of your argument is exactly what the Aussie court deal with - appropriately, I might add.

      john.loveland.9 - 2012-08-17 09:17

      @Salee But i do not live in Australia or under their constitution and have no desire to. And because that is what their courts decided doesn't mean I agree with it. I also do not believe that the packaging will have any effect on the sale or consumption of cigarettes. Its easy to introduce legislation, but it needs to be effective in its purpose.

      salee.sithwell - 2012-08-17 09:25

      john.loveland.9 - BAT is a listed company. Go and see on its website where its biggest markets are: developing countries. Do you know why? Because countries like Australia know how to deal effectively with the smoking problem. Their citizens are more educated and they know what is good for them. In developing countries, people still think smoking is cool. And those are people that are yet to pick up their first cigarette. Those that have been smoking for some time know it's not cool, but they will never admit it. Not that it matters, seeing as we all know they are addicted anyway. Yes, the legislation will not cause current smokers to stop smoking, because they are driven by addiction. However, it will reduce marketing budgets (yes, there still is marketing in the industry), which will help save a few teens down at your local high school.

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-08-17 12:19

      I think that stupidity is a much bigger problem than smoking...

      salee.sithwell - 2012-08-17 13:27

      True - wesley.bischoff - and what could represent stupidity more than smoking does?

  • john.dough.5836711 - 2012-08-16 09:46

    Like this is going to stop us smokers, we will just buy nice holders to keep our smokes in. Why not fix SA Inc instead?

      salee.sithwell - 2012-08-17 08:40

      it won't stop you, alright, but it certainly will stop some forms of marketing and promotions - and in that way save the next peer pressure victim (which ALL smokers are), from picking up that ciggie.

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-08-17 12:20

      Yes, which will cost some people their jobs and livelihood. Well done on advocating a rise in unemployment.

      salee.sithwell - 2012-08-17 14:06

      Well, employment needs to be "gainful". There is nothing "gainful" about marketing a destructive and thoughtless habit. No, habit is the wrong word - addiction! i.e. Being mentally and physically dependent on a substance and being unable to stop without causing adverse effects. What is so smart about that? Tell me...

  • gaby.hide.3 - 2012-08-16 09:48

    Good. Cigarettes should never be associated with the status of a brand, rather keep it simple for idiots like me who are addicted.

      salee.sithwell - 2012-08-17 14:00

      Keep going, currimafia. You have beaten it! Keep going!

  • andrew.whale.39 - 2012-08-16 09:57

    I'm a smoker, well, you can classify me as a chimney. I have a preferred brand. But the cost is almost twice that of other brands. So I'd rather buy 2 packs of cheaper smokes because I get more "bang for my buck". Now I'm not going to say this is 'good' or 'bad', but it's an insight to a smoker. I'm not brand loyal, I'll light up whatever is cheaper for the most part. So for me, this isn't going to make a difference. Just something to think about.

      salee.sithwell - 2012-08-17 08:42

      It's not about existing smokers. It's about future/potential smokers.

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-08-17 12:22

      They said that when they banned cigarette advertisements, yet somehow people still had a mind of their own and CHOSE to start smoking. Wow, who'd have thunk it.

      salee.sithwell - 2012-08-17 13:52

      Well, then those "minds" need to be checked, seeing as they are prone to making stupid choices.

  • kaz.hse.7 - 2012-08-16 10:00

    As a smoker, I think this might be a good idea. It will not stop current smokers, but it might deter future smokers once they see the graphic images on the packets.

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-08-16 10:27

      Like the graphic images we were shown in school in sex ed, regarding STD's and abortions? Didn't seem to make an impact on society at large...

      salee.sithwell - 2012-08-17 14:03

      Abortions are not an addiction. Smoking is. And in case you did not know, addiction is a sickness. A disease. When you are off the denial, we will be here to give you some nicotine-free love. You were clean once. You can be again; and your teeth and skin (not to mention your 'satisfied' partner), will love you forever for it. You can do it. "My name is Wes; and I am an addict."

  • eyesears.handsfeet - 2012-08-16 10:05

    Say goodbye to your investments. Another case of something see, something do. Always coppy-cat. That's one of the reasons why the education system is in it's you know what!

  • jc.smit - 2012-08-16 10:08

    So the governments probably thinking: "We can' stop people from killing each other, so lets try to stop people from killing themselves." There is more pressing issues than "smokers" in this country...

  • bobese.manyani - 2012-08-16 10:08

    one thing I hate about this is the fact that we always follow what other countries do especially Australia, USA and Europians. When are we going to be independent Mr Minister. Cant we think on our own?

      mofstok - 2012-08-16 10:16

      Thank you for saying this! Our economical and social demographics aren't comparable to those countries, why must we copy and paste everything they do? Maybe that's the reason our education system is moertoe.

      salee.sithwell - 2012-08-17 08:43

      Oh now that this doesn't suit you, you no longer want to be er "first world"?

  • phumi.ntlabati - 2012-08-16 10:11

    "... We will do it, definitely," Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi was quoted as telling The Times newspaper. "Rest assured, I am extremely excited." How I wish the Hon. Minister would addopt the same attitude in sorting out Charlotte Maxeke that is heading to a beyond repair state!

      stephen.reeves.908 - 2012-08-16 11:08

      When was the last time you where there? I was there twice in the last month. Seemed pretty decent to me?

      barker.ruing - 2012-08-16 14:26

      Agreed. Same as road from Delmas to Bronkhorstspruit. Every 5kms you see a sign "Potholes - NEXT 5KM".

  • erica.pola - 2012-08-16 10:11

    How ludicrous! What about alcohol? That kills and ruins far more people? What kill to. Yes, let's kill the tobacco industry and advertising...let's make more people unemployed! Bunch of self-righteous idioits. BTW. I am a non-smoker and non-drinker

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-08-16 11:00

      Thank you for having a reasonable mindset :)

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-08-17 12:25

      Thumbs down for a reasonable mindset?? Hmmm must be trolls.

      salee.sithwell - 2012-08-17 14:09

      Alcohol can be enjoyed without being addicted to it. Cars can be driven without being addicted to them. When was the last time you saw a car addict, other than our ministers, who are BMW addicts. The very act of smoking is a response to an addiction. Drinking? Not quite. *sips favourite chardonnay* Very simple. But then, if you are itching for your next puff, you won't get that. We all know that the brain shuts down if the addiction is not fed. That's what addiction is about. "Faculty shutdown, until addiction fed"

  • lenox.ntlantsana - 2012-08-16 10:15

    Its been a long way coming! Kent is almost there! Go on SA

  • obadia.segwape - 2012-08-16 10:15

    all saw movies didnt scare me so wats this gona do

  • frank.abercrombie.77 - 2012-08-16 10:15

    This is beyond me. A thirld world country (South Africa) is copying a first world country (Australia) in a few matters such as advertising on cigarette packages, financial advisory services etc. South Africa's priorities are completely different to Australia's: education, health, infrastructure, public safety... the list goes on. Australia is maintaining what we are prioritising. Therefore they can afford to focus their efforts on issues that shouldn't even be a priority for us, such as branding on cigarette packages. Ask an unemployed, previously disadvantaged person whether it makes a difference to him/her if there is advertising on a cigarette box. You will receive a blank stare.

      barker.ruing - 2012-08-16 14:30

      Your unemployed pdp only smokes loose or OPS. He will never know what is on the pack of smokes.

      dimitripappas - 2012-08-16 23:17

      Sorry @FrankAbercrombie but your logic is flawed. Just because we're 3rd world doesn't mean we can't use/adapt something GOOD/advanced from a first-world country, for us. An idiot giving you a blank stare if you asked them if it made a difference, proves nothing. If it's going to increase overall health for the population and result in LESS of a burden, then it's worthwhile implementing anyway. Sure we have other priorities, but when the work is done for us, what's the harm - why not? Oh - because it's "Beyond you"? right, okay... how about justifying why you say that, then?

  • walter.lebza - 2012-08-16 10:15

    They should reduce the number of ciggarets produced. That will the reduce the number of deaths caused by smoking.

      barker.ruing - 2012-08-16 14:32

      They should reduce the number of births. ThAT will reduce the number of deaths caused by living.

      dimitripappas - 2012-08-16 23:20

      barker.ruining, I take it you're in favour of death as much as you are of life?

  • pieterjohan.westhuizen - 2012-08-16 10:19

    Now we can also buy Dagga in a no name packet. Lekker

  • theo.joubert.37 - 2012-08-16 10:20

    This is rediculous!! They are concerened about peolple getting killed from smoking, but do not give a damn about the victims of crime people that gets killed every day. I can decide for myself to smoke or not to smoke, but I cannot decide for myself to be a murder victim or not. government should stop wasting time with issues such as this and start concentrating on more pressing issues such as our crime rate. Once these are dealt with efficiantly they can move on to thing such as smoking.

  • vanessa.govender.73 - 2012-08-16 10:26

    very unlikely to influence people's smoking habits. wonder if there are figures to back up stats to this effect though!

  • kevin.moreland2 - 2012-08-16 10:28

    it will then be much easier to counterfeit the cigarettes then government should do us a favor and legalize marijuana

  • burl.samuel - 2012-08-16 10:31

    Taxes from smoking is huge , if everybody stops or less smoke.Where will the revenue be generated from,will government officials cut down on corrupt activites

  • mogau.kganki - 2012-08-16 10:32

    why r this people alway copyin everythng OZ does,last tym they wanted 2 reduce speed limit cause OZ hv done it n worked for them bt they forgetin dat de population ther is around 7 million compare to ur 50 million!!!

      mofstok - 2012-08-16 10:33

      Yup. I cannot stand us copying Oz either.

      syd.harling - 2012-08-16 11:57

      You are right, SA should try and think of something original for a change instead of copying the first world. There are strict laws in the UK against smoking and they cost 3 times what they cost here but when I was there 2 months ago I saw stacks more people smoking than you see here.

  • fabian.houten - 2012-08-16 10:33

    Why? What is the use of doing that? Am I missing something?

  • alu.ntsandeni - 2012-08-16 10:37

    They should just ban smoking all together and do a favour to all this people who clearly don't understand the dangers associated with it # it's for your own good

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-08-16 11:03

      When did you become the moral policeman of this country? All adults have their own minds, and can choose to put whatever they want into their bodies. Society doesn't need self-righteous nanny's like you.

      syd.harling - 2012-08-16 12:01

      Listen guardian angel I have an incurable, terminal, genetic kidney disease which will kill me long before smoking will so why must I deny myself some pleasure if I can afford it? Huh? Tell me why.

      erica.pola - 2012-08-16 12:05

      It is everyone's basic right to smoke if they wish. Do you drink? Maybe stop that as well, it kills - more than tobacco. So does fast food. So do guns, knives, medicines....and a lot more things...ban them all..! No matter how you look at it, it is not up to the Government to dictate, rather focus on more important problems in this country. I suspect that the minister is just trawling for a new backhander from the Tobacco companies.

      ou.pel.9 - 2012-08-16 14:15

      like circumcise the stupid ones?

      barker.ruing - 2012-08-16 14:35

      And insist that you wear an ANC T-Shirt every Friday. If you don't - go directly to jail, do not pass begin, do not collect MR200

  • sifiso.msimango - 2012-08-16 10:41

    our government is like blind child, they follow all stupid things that will benefit no one instead of focusing on collapsing education, health, skyrocketting crime, corruption etc.

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-08-16 11:09

      True story

  • denise.herbst.5 - 2012-08-16 10:42

    Mr Motsoaledi - if you read this I would very much like to hear about some exciting initiatives to improve the state of our health care in SA. As Health Minister I am sure that you must understand your responsibility to the people of SA does not begin and end with packaging that dedicated smokers will just ignore anyway.

  • merle.long.18 - 2012-08-16 10:44

    instead of worrying about us smokers, why not concentrate on lets se now so many to mention. Illegal drivers, crime. rape, murder,and so the list goes on.Why must our country always do what others do? Do we not have a brain of our own???Leave us smokers alone. We are doing no one any harm,but ourselves. Is this law also going to imply to the members of parlament who also smoke??

  • lorraine.smit.14 - 2012-08-16 10:45

    give me a break! whats there to be excited about you douchbag!? yes, people die of cancer and smoking related illnesses, but at the end of the day its self inflicted, i make that decision every time i light my cigarette, to possibly contract cancer and die a slow painful death, as i do when i get into a car and possibly die at the hands of a drunk driver, taxi, bus, pedestrian illegally crossing the road (which is much more out of my hands than the choice to smoke) get a life, and get excited about more important things like the death toll on our roads, the impoverished and jobless people in our country, people that steal rape murder, crime, etc. its nice to see we have priorities in this freaking country, well done! i hope you sleep better at night knowing the person that raped your daughter and killed your wife was smoking n drab non branded packet of cigarettes

  • debby.timm - 2012-08-16 10:50

    As always, we are being entertained by our government - it's laughable! What will follow next? No branding on sweets & chocolates because they can cause obesity or sugar diabetes. No branding on alcohol because people drink, then drive and cause accidents or have sex in an alcoholic haze which may result in unwanted preganancies or go home and beat partners or children. No branding on cigarettes will just result in a new market for cigarette holders - maybe that is the government's plan for creating jobs.

      erica.pola - 2012-08-16 12:09

      Well said. I can't agree strongly enough.

  • neil.kroese - 2012-08-16 10:51

    Well although uneducated, at least those killed and murdered in SA will be healthy...

  • victoria.kennedy.3532 - 2012-08-16 10:52

    Seriously? I mean we are a third world country, shouldn't we be dealing with things that are of greater importance? When are we going to realise that we should focus on third world country issues like housing, food and electricity and not focus on first world issues like freaking cigarette packaging? This is such a trivial issue compared to our recent hijacking statistics.

      dimitripappas - 2012-08-16 23:35

      You'd be surprised at how much the 'trivial' stuff that you THINK is of little significance, actually comprises the very South African culture that many of us are angry with. Take our traffic robots for example - 50% of them are never working. Not exactly "Crime", but half way there if you think about it. A first world country is first-world because the things it does works. If the cigarette repackaging scheme worked there, it's likely to make a positive impact here, REGARDLESS of by what percentage

  • marcel.degraaf.125 - 2012-08-16 10:54

    So now I am going to pay R30 for a packet of smokes that fell of the back of a truck. This opens opportunities for illegal importing of cigarettes and selling them as a legitimate product if you ask me.

  • carolyn.dewrance - 2012-08-16 10:59

    Great, then cigarettes made with dagga, will be freely available, and no one will know just what your packet of smokes contain. One way of legalizing Dagga. Go for it.

  • customdesign - 2012-08-16 10:59

    What a bitch

  • stewart.j.macdonald - 2012-08-16 11:27

    Can someone explain something to me. How is removing the branding going to stop people from smoking. If it dont have a brand you dont know if its A or B. So you could be paying for more expensive brand but getting the cheap. I dont think its going to stop anyone from smoking or do i have this wrong.

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-08-16 11:44

      True hey, people still buy no-name brands from Pick n Pay, Checkers, Chinatown... not having a brand on the package isn't going to make a difference.

      salee.sithwell - 2012-08-17 08:54

      It will not stop people from smoking. It will however reduce marketing budgets (because it will be senseless to promote something that you cannot brand). No one will market "smoking" for the sake of doing it. It is brands that get marketed. With that said, there should be less teens succumbing to peer pressure and picking up a cigarette for the first time, seeing as the cool-sounding "can I have a Rothmans blue", or whatever it is we hear across our service stations every morning will no longer be heard. People will now say "can I have some cigarettes", at which point we will look at them as though they are buying condoms at six of the clock in the morning! :-)

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-08-17 12:33

      Yes lovely, cause the marketing people to lose their jobs. Nice, it's good to see how concerned you are about our unemployment rate. Also, not everyone is so weak-willed so as to succumb to peer pressure. I didn't start because someone coerced me. I chose to. Not everyone is a sheep like you... there are people that have minds of their own and can make decisions for themselves.

      salee.sithwell - 2012-08-17 13:37

      The jobs argument does not fly in the face of all the bad things that come with smoking. Just because people will lose their jobs does not mean that the "right thing" should not be done. Let them lose their jobs. It might prompt them to find something a little more worthwhile to market. Funny how smokers are forever on a "smoke break" and then you want to talk about job losses? How can you ever talk about a mind and smoking in one sentence, when smoking is an addiction. You make it sound like puffing is a calculated decision, which cannot be further from the truth. Sure, you chose to start smoking. No one is denying that. What matters is why you started. You certainly did not start because you thought smoking was gonna change the world or make you look ten times younger. You chose to start because you thought you were cool, you thought it was fun, you thought you would be accepted etc. You need at least a week before you become really addicted. During your first week of smoking, what were you thinking - that you were reversing your aging process? It's not as if you were enjoying coughing like crazy all the time. Who is cool now? Cold in a corner outside the restaurant is more like it!

  • syd.harling - 2012-08-16 11:52

    andrew.hendrikse how can you blame the tobacco companies exclusively? If people didn't buy their products they wouldn't have a market now would they? Imagine if someone said there could be no brand names on cars because they kill people. One could take this to ridiculous extremes. There are many products which can kill people one way or another so let's be logical here. One can die from eating McDonald's burgers if one eats too many. One can die from taking too many patent medicines and the list goes on. If want to smoke, it is my choice and has f-all to do with anyone else. Besides, no one has yet proven beyond any doubt that tobacco does what they claim. I know lots of people who smoke and they are still healthy but I also knew lots of people who never smoked but died of cancer or emphysema. A doctor once told me it is largely genetic and furthermore, why is no one investigating air pollution from industry, motor vehicles etc.? Many more people smoked prior to world war two but diseases like cancer were not as prevalent as now. So what has changed? A proliferation of internal combustion engines and industries. Maybe its that. If there are no brand names on cigarettes how the hell will I know what I am buying? Let's get real and stop nannying people. God gave us free choice so who in hell do governments think they are trying to take away my God-given right to make my own decisions regarding what I do or don't do to my own body.

      erica.pola - 2012-08-16 12:12

      Absolutely correct. I agree with you totally. As I posted before I am a non-smoker, but have lots of smoking friends. IT IS CALLED 'CHOICE'

  • stephen.j.dickson.3 - 2012-08-16 12:22

    This is a goverment of morons for the morons................bottom line.

  • derekneilmaclachlan - 2012-08-16 13:01

    Who actually cares if the pack says Rothmans or tosser or whatever....smokers will still smoke no matter what!!!!

  • alec.stafford - 2012-08-16 13:02

    Wow, talk about applying thumbscrews. If South Africa goes ahead with this I can see some serious legal battles. Quite frankly I don't smoke so it doesn't concern me, but still, a drastic measure.

  • komorison - 2012-08-16 13:59

    Can't understand this lot, they, government make a lot of money with sin tax, booze and tobacco. Killing the goose .....

  • ou.pel.9 - 2012-08-16 14:12

    a blind man is great-full when somebody assist him to give another step forward......he does not see the gaping hole..

  • pwcrook - 2012-08-16 14:14

    Another chance for government tenders maybe? Someone has to do supply the new government approved packaging...

  • Hugh - 2012-08-16 20:12

    I wonder how many that write here are involved or employed in some business that polluting the Planet in a big way. I wonder how many are the same consumers that have caused or contributing to the problem of climate change. The same self righteous who graciously advocate others loosing their jobs for whatever reason when they alone are more of a danger to the planet and its inhabitants than cigarette manufactures. Consider your industry may be the next targeted by the Hypocritical righteous.

  • pamela.leste - 2012-08-16 20:16

    follow the leader!

  • rikus.swart - 2012-08-16 21:11

    If You take the branding of cigarette packaging , how will we know what brand is what ?????????

  • Thami.Ndlalane - 2012-08-17 00:35

    This does not make sense. If it is really that bad why not ban cigarettes then? If chocolate is bad for some people are you going to ban branding? Why leave liquor alone? Is it not bad for one health and a major contributor to our social ills? Does this not going to make it easy infiltration of 'fake' Chinese brands? Hospitals are collapsing and the ministers is getting excited smaller issues. BTW, I dont smoke and hate smoking.

  • Wolflock - 2012-08-17 04:04

    Brilliant! Ban my smoking when I have already submitted to having to move to some desolate, dark hole to go smoke there to keep all safe. After that, ban ALL fast food. No Wait, first make them all eat in really horrible areas first so us thin people dont need to look at their fat. THEN ban the fast food as obese people build more gas with all that junk food (We all know Methane is destroying the ozone layer) and their packaging, is causing WAY more land pollution than... well pretty much anything else. Not to mention that some of the chemicals used might give others cancer. PLEASE! Are we REALLY THAT pathetic that we are more concerned about smokers and brands than say... RAPE, MURDER, ROBBERY, ETC.

  • steveroodt - 2012-08-17 08:00

    Pick and Pay will be happy another item to add to their No Name Brands

  • pages:
  • 1
  • 2