The smaller quantities you sell cigarettes the more tempting it is for people to experiment/try it out. The logic is pretty straight forward.

"And let's not forget, the only reason anyone posts dumb shit on this forum is because they are addicted to ridicule. You should get some treatment for that Rainbow. "

I take back all the bad shit I ever said or will say about you, Oscar. For this moment in time, Oscar Bueller, you're my hero.

I don't think that's true at all. I think most people start smoking as teens by trying a cigarette offered to them by a friend who already smokes. I think you'll find that very few people *purchase* the first ever cigarette they taste.

Had you never tasted coffee before you first bought a cup?

( ^ That was to Putin ^ )

@Putin33
Well-argued, I agree with you it's a step forward. That doesn't however take away my concerns for the efficiency with which the EU operates.

There have been plenty of beer brands that I would have never bought had I not been given samples of them by the store first, or bought a single of first. Smaller quantities allow for more exploration of different flavors without spending so much money. I don't see what's so hard about this.

I'm going out shortly and will conduct a brief straw poll of my smoking friends, asking them where their first tab came from. Expect a report back later.

"Had you never tasted coffee before you first bought a cup?"

I'm loathe to try new coffee brands because I have to pay $8 for a bag or a tin. The keurig revolution has eased this problem, but I don't have a keurig because I don't want to pay $150 for a coffee machine.

Putin, surely the point of those store samples is to persuade you to buy one brand of beer instead of your usual choice, NOT to make you decide to take up beer drinking for the first time, having never touched a drop before.

What's hard is that your argument is based on an assumption that most smokers *purchase* the first cigarettes they ever try. I think you're mistaken about that.

Try my coffee question again. Did you *purchase* the FIRST coffee you ever tasted, or not? Not your first taste of a "new brand" but your first coffee PERIOD.

I don't even remember. My first coffee was probably in undergrad at the student cafeteria. So yes I did purchase it, if that's true.

But many people try beer after sipping stuff other people buy and don't like it, but then when they find a type they like they start drinking it regularly. I imagine similar things go on with cigarettes, as most of the brands my smoking colleagues like taste awful. If the only access to something is the brands other people give you, the chance of liking said brands is low.

I guess the question is when is it that you think new smokers start buying their own cigarettes, and are they already at the level where they need to smoke a pack a day when they do so? I really don't get your point.

I will admit Putin's argument has some merit to things that might deteriorate or for people whose budget simply won't allow them to store the product.

A good example would be when I started smoking cigars and pipes, my budget was such that I would buy a tin (1.7 ounces/50 grams) or 1.5 ounces bulk of pipe tobacco or 2 or 3 cigars at a time. If I was forced to buy by the pound, case or tins, or an entire box of cigars, I never would have smoked or would have dropped them. But now I have a 500 count humidor that easily holds 10 unopened boxes of cigars and keep jars of pipe tobacco (my personal blend) as well as buy variety "sampler" packs of my favorite tin tobacco because I can afford to and I enjoy the collecting almost as much as the smoking.

So, yes, banning singles or small packs may well stop the young smoker from starting and might get the casual smoker to quit altogether (or go in with their casual smoking friends to buy the entire carton and split the cost :-) ).

" But I'm sure as hell not going to blow 7 bucks on a 20-pack."

@Putin - PM me a post office box or means of getting product to you and I'll have you hooked on cigars where singles cost twice that. :-) Seriously, the cheapest thing in my humidor is about $7 if not bought by the box (saves about 10-15% over the single price depending on the store/site from whom I buy).

"Well good thing policy is not based on what Octavious sees and is instead based on marketing data"

Not really, as what Octavious sees and the marketing data would have achieved the same results, albeit for different reasons. In all seriousness I take your point, although when marketing data flat out contradicts a substantial amount of experience it is healthy to question the data. Especially when one has neither seen the data nor examined how it was obtained.

Market data on undesirable habits is always questionable. some people, even when told something is anonymous, will alter their answer versus reality. All market data can reliably tell you is rough age ranges of product purchases, not years of use (beyond the obvious like a 21 year old hasn't been smoking for 20 years).

Putin's bulk buy argument had more merit back in the day that school kids could buy a pack of fags underage in countless shops or pub vending machines. These days it is rather difficult to buy fags if you're under 18, and the route most kids go down when starting is nicking them from their parents, having them bought for them by an older cousin, or buying singles from the schoolyard black market. The situation could well differ in other parts of the EU, but in the UK I can't see this having much of an impact.

In other news... protitutes can no longer offer cheap hand-jobs, punters must pay for the whole the whole package, hand-job, blow-job and full intercourse. Problem resolved.

The level of statist sentiment on this site is deplorable. Yeah, smoking is unhealthy, but so is lots of stuff. Our good friend natural selection will take care of that within a handful of generations. And all without the use of the threats at gunpoint that necessarily enforce laws.

"Our good friend natural selection will take care of that within a handful of generations."

I don't think it will, not in a "handful of generations". The damage in the gene pool will take longer to fully restore to pre-civilization levels.

"In other news... protitutes can no longer offer cheap hand-jobs, punters must pay for the whole the whole package, hand-job, blow-job and full intercourse. Problem resolved."

http://static.gamespot.com/uploads/original/428/4283637/2425156-the+rock+clapping.gif

@ Putin: "I really don't get your point."

My point is, you asserted that people start smoking by purchasing cigarettes in order to "experiment", and then they get hooked. You claimed that on this basis, making 10-packs illegal would mean a lot of people would be discouraged from this experimentation and therefore would never start smoking in the first place.

My argument is that you're mistaken in the assumptions you're making here. I believe that most people start experimenting with smoking by borrowing cigarettes from friends who already smoke. Since they don't start out by purchasing them, I would argue that restricting the sale of smaller packs will not stop younger people from experimenting with cigarettes in the way that you suggest.

As Octavious put it, very well:

"These days it is rather difficult to buy fags if you're under 18, and the route most kids go down when starting is nicking them from their parents, having them bought for them by an older cousin, or buying singles from the schoolyard black market."

That's absolutely my understanding of the situation in the UK and I think Oct is bang on with this description.

As promised I did a straw poll at the pub last night. I asked 15 friends, who are smokers (both casual and regular) how they obtained their first few cigarettes. Results:

Purchased from a shop or vending machine: 3
Obtained from a smoking friend / sibling: 8
Stole from a parent or relative's supply: 2
Could not remember: 2

This reinforces my view that (especially since the age limit was raised from 16 to 18) most young smokers only start purchasing cigarettes *after* they have been through the "experimenting" phase and already developed a taste for cigarettes. I therefore remain of the view that banning 10-packs will not have the effect you think it will.

What it will do, on the other hand, is mean that casual, occasional smokers, who might currently last a week on a 10-pack, will be required to purchase 20-packs instead. I honestly think this misguided policy will risk turning light, casual smokers into regular, heavy smokers.

That is my point.

"Our good friend natural selection will take care of that within a handful of generations."

We have been smoking since the late 15th century. 500 years is about 20-25 generations and it hasn't happened yet.

"What it will do, on the other hand, is mean that casual, occasional smokers, who might currently last a week on a 10-pack, will be required to purchase 20-packs instead. I honestly think this misguided policy will risk turning light, casual smokers into regular, heavy smokers."

Or it could result in them giving up smoking altogether.

Now, I know cigars are different from cigarettes, but if I were forced to buy a box of cigars at a time every time I wanted to try a new boutique cigar, I'd never try anything knew and the boutique cigar industry would stop seeing new players join. Few people are going to spend $50, $100, $200, even $300 or more for some extreme examples (Opus X is $20 per cigar and doesn't discount by the box, so $500 per box of 25) just to try a new makers product. The casual cigar smoker who doesn't buy boxes and has a small humidor or no humidor would simply stop smoking. I can imagine many casual smokers would say "screw it, don't need 'em".

Cigarettes don't kill people, people kill people!

That said, please ban cigarettes and guns :)

@Steephie - go away now. People have a right to ingest whatever they choose provided they do so in a manner that doesn't affect innocent bystanders. I have no problem with banning smoking in public places. But banning it altogether is *not* within the purview of our government's rights and we all know how well that worked out with alcohol and how well it is working with the war on drugs. That is to say, it didn't and it isn't.

"This reinforces my view that (especially since the age limit was raised from 16 to 18) most young smokers only start purchasing cigarettes *after* they have been through the "experimenting" phase and already developed a taste for cigarettes"

Does it? So people get their 'taste for cigarettes' after a cigarette or two? How many cigarettes do you think new smokers are already smoking by the time they begin purchasing them themselves?

"People have a right to ingest whatever they choose provided they do so in a manner that doesn't affect innocent bystanders."

It always affects 'innocent bystanders' in the form of higher healthcare costs for us all.

So does alcohol and obesity and adult onset diabetes. You gonna' ban sugar and fat? Meals will suddenly be pretty damned boring.

That's the next step.