Friday
Jan272012
Head-to-head on plain packaging
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 10:02 Apologies for the lack of posts this week.
Extremely busy on a new project. Here's a clue. More details (including how you can get involved) next week.
In the meantime The Times has today published in their public sector pages a head-to-head article about plain packaging. It features the views of Maura Gillespie, head of policy and advocacy at the British Heart Foundation, and me (representing Forest and our new campaign).
The article is online but you need a subscription. Or (radical thought) you could buy a copy of the paper from your local newsagent.
Reader Comments (13)
I think that it's immaterial that tobacco can't be sold to under 18s. The thrust of TC's argument is that a childhood of merely seeing 'glitzy' packets encourages youngsters to take up smoking. And if it's pointed out that, with smokers turfed onto the streets, children are exposed more to the sight of people smoking, TC hopes that the perception will be of pathetic, huddled addicts whom youngsters wouldn't want to emulate. Hence the comprehensive ban and disgusting shelter requirements. Next step, of course, will be to get smoking in any outdoor place eradicated.
I am hoping to do some more research over the weekend but the anti smoker's argument is falling apart piece by piece.
Firstly Chapman in his Guardian article concedes "But plain packaging will not instantly cut smoking rates, he cautions. "We're not expecting plain packaging to have much impact on existing smokers." He then goes on to say ".. Australia are at their lowest ever, just 2.5% of 14- to 17-year olds smoke. The figure in England is 17%." (1) So 17% of teenagers smoke cigarettes. So how many teenagers are involved in drug taking? This is from the NHS "Statistics on Drug Misuse: England, 2007." (2)This is the extent of drug taking in the UK, "For younger adults aged 16 to 24, drug use in the last year fell between 1998 and 2005/06, from 31.8% to 25.2%.." and "In 2006, 17% of pupils reported taking drugs in the last year, a fall from 19% in 2005. Again this has fluctuated since 2001 when it was 20%." and Similar to previous years, drug use increases with age; among 11 year olds 3% reporting taking drugs in the last month compared with 17% of 15 year olds. For 15 year olds, 29% reported taking drugs in the last year and 8% said they used drugs at least once a month."
So it appears that cannabis, ecstasy, heroin and cocaine which come in the plainest of bags are consumed just as much as cigarettes. In fact one could strongly argue the demonisation of smokers and smoking may increase the amount of illegal drug taking in this country. On Simon Chapman's head be it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/24/simon-chapman-plain-cigarette-packaging-activist
http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/drugmisuse07/Drugs%20misuse-England%202007%20with%20links%20and%20buttons.pdf
Chapman was crowing about 2.5% of teenagers smoking tobacco. Well that definitely make up for it on cannabis and alcohol.
"The figures on cannabis use are equally disturbing, with one in seven secondary school students using the drug within the past 12 months."
So nearly 6 times more likely to smoke dope. Alcohol looks iffy too.
"Overall among 12- to 17-year-olds, one in 10 (168,000) report binge-drinking (defined as seven or more standard drinks in a day for a male and five or more standard drinks for a female), in any given week. For 16-year-olds, the figure is one in five (54,116), the same as for 17-year-olds (59,176). For young indigenous Australians, 27 per cent use alcohol and 12 per cent drink to excess.
"Of particular concern is the finding that approximately 13 per cent of young drinkers report drink-driving and 16 per cent report going to work or school under the influence of alcohol," the report finds."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/teenage-drink-and-drug-abuse-rife/story-e6frg6nf-1111115636973
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/teenage-drink-and-drug-abuse-rife/story-e6frg6nf-1111115636973
If cigarette manufacturers were aiming their marketing at children, then surely they would have come up with some new designs by now?
As far as I know, the cigarette packages we see today, are the same designs that have been in existence for as long as I can remember - nice traditional designs, which to me scream out that this is a product for adults, not kiddies.
If I were to design a package that would be attractive to children, I think I would show glitzy computerised pictures of pop stars - models - action heroes - speeding cars, that sort of thing - definitely not some plain lettering proclaiming "Silk Cut" on a plain background.
Maura Gillespie must know some very strange kids!
"Our survey also showed that one in six young people would consider the pack design when deciding which cigarettes to buy ..." (Gillespie)
Ah, so they've already decided to buy cigarettes in the first place....
It is noticeable that the Tobacco Control brigade read from the same robotic scripts on the issue of plain packaging for cigarettes. "Glitzy" is a word used all the time in their arguments about the attractiveness of the packaging to young people. If that was the case, the tobacco manufacturers should have sacked their marketing packaging people years ago. They are contrained already by the need to show health warnings and grotesque images on packaging.
What I find absolutely astounding is that our politicians are wasting their time and, ultimately, our money on this latest initiative. If only they would apply a modicum of intelligence to this issue and conclude that the packaging is not "glitzy" and will have no long term impact on smoker prevalence. What about saving UK plc and making sure most of us are still in employment this time next year. Now that is a worthy cause!
I sincerely hope that tobacco manufactures will sue the living daylights out of this miserable bunch of nose-prodders. But they really should have rattled their sabres a long time ago.
I must confess – I have little sympathy with what happens now to BT, when did they ever support us in our fight?
I am going to make a supportive comment re the tobacco industry. As this is not an anti smoking forum, I do not need to say that I am speaking purely as a layperson with no financial or chummy connection with the tobacco industry, just a consumer.
The tobacco industry made some mistakes, although they were purely business motives, and were only mistakes because they became the enemy. What I am saying is that their business methods were no different to any other large enterprise. They did however have their confidentiality exposed by the 'end smoking by 2000' brigade who became an official body.
The only reason the tobacco industry still exists is because of the massive revenue their product produces. There are however two reasons why they 'do nothing'.
Firstly, they are not taken seriously. Anything they say is ridiculed and labelled as evil.
Secondly, it is extremely difficult for them to make any case in opposition to tobacco control. However just their argument, even the highest court of law is biased against them because of their rather unwise actions in the past. The two most glaring examples of their unwise actions, was to say that smoking does not cause lung cancer and that smoking is not addictive.
I am NOT intending to do any research at the weekend..
It is clear already...
CASE 1
Gillespie from the British Heart Foundation says..
"Our survey also showed that one in six young people would consider the pack design when deciding which cigarettes to buy ..."
Yep.. BHF say it themselves....Pack design is about WHICH cigarettes people buy..not WHETHER to buy them.
CASE 2
Gillespie from BHF says
"plain packaging isn't aimed at your 20-a-day smoker who has been smoking much of their life. This is aimed at those children and young people that are yet to become smokers"
Hmmm.... Heroin, crack cocaine, ecstasy and various other drugs are not sold in branded packs....so explain why kids take those up....
Unintended consequenses... oh boy. You bet.
I don't think they have any choice but to continue with these pointless annoyances. I just wish that they'd stop pretending and come out publicly with the full list of what they will be forced to implement after the previous government signed away our sovereignty on this matter.
A Framework Convention on Alcohol Control - 2007
"One of WHO's greatest achievements, the FCTC aims to counter the increase in tobacco consumption by making it a legal requirement for countries to introduce certain tobacco-control strategies."
http://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2807%2961486-X/fulltext
I understand your argument that plain packs will do nothing to protect children, but what are the arguments for keeping pack design? Surely plain packs are going to make smoking cheaper, something, as a consumer lobby, Forest ought to be in favour of? In reality there is hardly any difference in product (as opposed to brand perception) between expensive and cheap brands now. This would take away the last vestige of 'image' from particular brands and stop tobacco companies from ripping people off for selling the same thing at a higher price. Why are you putting together a campaign for them to be allowed to continue to do that? Are you not on the side of the consumer?
simon(nsc). Those of us who smoke because we like it, and have done for a number of years, know every next move, we are one step ahead of the phobic anti tobacco fanatics. Do you honestly think that tobacco will be cheaper? Whatever tobacco is supplied in, even if it was a body bag, the price will be commanded by the tobacco control lobby, via the treasury.
simon (nsc), much as we would like to see the price of cigarettes reduced to combat the threat of counterfeit cigarettes, it's a little naive to think that tobacco control lobbyists or government will allow that to happen. What will probably happen is that government will increase tobacco taxation to maintain the higher retail price. On behalf of the consumer (especially the elderly and the low paid) we will argue against this but in my experience anti-smoking activists don't give a hoot for such disadvantaged groups.