Questions, questions: ASH and a previous plain pack survey
Monday, April 16, 2012 at 12:40 There was some discussion on this blog at the weekend about the nature of the YouGov poll, commissioned by ASH, that found a significant majority of people in favour of plain packaging.
The Observer (part of the holier-than-thou Guardian Media Group), ran the story under the headline 'Public backs plans to remove branding from cigarette packets'.
The paper began its report with the statement that:
Almost two thirds of people support moves to sell cigarettes in plain packaging, suggesting tobacco companies will soon lose the battle to protect their brands' identities.
This morning, as we were walking out of the Daybreak studio (see previous post), ASH's Deborah Arnott turned to me in the lift and reiterated the message that a majority of people support plain packaging.
"I'd love to know what question was asked," I replied.
Unfortunately I can't pass on that information because I don't have it. Instead, let me share with you an earlier YouGov/ASH survey on plain packaging conducted in March 2011. Participants were asked:
If there was evidence that plain packs were likely to discourage children and young people from taking up smoking, how strongly, if at all, would you support or oppose making tobacco companies sell their cigarettes in standard plain packs?
If there was evidence that plain packs make health warnings more effective, how strongly, if at all, would you support or oppose making tobacco companies sell their cigarettes in standard plain packs?
It is now against the law to use terms like “light” and “mild” on cigarette packs because they give the misleading impression that these types of cigarettes are less harmful than full strength ones. However, colour coding can still be used to signal the strength of cigarettes, as in the image above. If there was evidence that plain packs were less likely to give the false impression that one type of cigarette is safer than another. How strongly, if at all, would you support or oppose making tobacco companies sell their cigarettes in standard plain packs?
If there was evidence that plain packs were less attractive to children and young people than branded packs, how strongly, if at all, would you support or oppose making tobacco companies sell their cigarettes in standard plain packs?
As you can see there are a lot of 'ifs' in those questions. In fact, if we were so inclined I'm sure we could make up questions that would get a very different response. For example:
Would you support plain packaging if there is evidence that it will encourage illicit trade, making it easier for children to have access to cheap cigarettes?
Would you support plain packaging of tobacco if there is evidence that it will lead to plain packaging of alcohol and fast food?
Would you support plain packaging if there is no good evidence that it will have any impact youth smoking rates?
Yes, anyone can play that game. I'm just surprised they didn't ask:
Would you support plain packaging if there is evidence that it will lead us to the Holy Grail and the promise of eternal life?
Update: I have re-written this post because Deborah rang to point out that the questions I was referring to were from an ASH/YouGov survey published in March 2011, not the poll published over the weekend. My mistake.
To clear up any confusion Deborah has offered to send me the details of the latest ASH poll. I have since been told that only one question was asked but I am still waiting to hear what it was. As soon as I find out I will update this post accordingly.
Watch this space!
Reader Comments (16)
The only surprising thing about this is that there genuinely was a survey and they didn't just make the whole thing up. Still, I managed to find a few benefits to the plain packaging for us smokers which I've detailed on my blog at http://itsallabitponyandtrap.blogspot.com/2011/03/watered-down-booze-and-plain-fag.html
Note all the questions mentioned qualified with "If there was evidence.
Have they found some, yet? I imagine it's difficult if nobody has established plain packaging. Still, this is Tobacco Control, ASH and Lansley we're talking about. They don't really 'do' evidence.
Very interesting. YouGov is a member of the British Polling Council. All members undertake to publish the exact wording of polls they are commissioned to carry out. YouGov does indeed have a big online archive of its polls. It does not include the poll carried out each year, since the smoking ban, for ASH UK, asking about support for the smoking ban. Kellner has written at least one article in support of the smoking ban.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/07/smoking.health
Try asking YouGov for the question. If they refuse, contact the BPC.
I have read every MSM readers forum that I have been able to find on this subject and I believe that public support is underwhelming even amongst those who read The Guardian. Arnott’s hypocrisy in making claims based on a survey from a company her organisation effectively owns whilst accusing everybody who opposes her of being in the pay of vested interests is typically sickening. The 2011 survey in itself demonstrates that ASH / YouGov are dishonest and manipulative so why should we listen to their junk statistics in 2012? Sadly the DH, Lansley and The Guardian don’t care how dishonest the data are provided the result is “on message”. What a dreadful country we live in when people like Arnott effectively dictate government policy.
What needs to happen to stop everyone talking about "plain packaging" and getting the point across that it actually means "even more grotesesque packaging"? It really is very misleading.
Call a spade a shovel - it's theft of legitimate trade marks by a parasitic anti-smoker industry that wants to ride for free on the back of the packaging of the host industry it attacks.
It will replace tobacco company logos and brands with its own ugly graphic logo brand and then when the host has been bled dry, the parasite will simply move on to the next - the food industry and the drink industry.
Ms Arnott admits it's how you word it:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmhealth/485/5112404.htm
You shared a lift with that witch on a broomstick - are you serious?
Since now you're on such friendly terms with Debs, perhaps she can confirm how many smokers on the panel were asked to take the survey.
Her response also confirms that she reads your blog.
Has anyone filled in the consultation yet as a member of the public. This is the first one I've seen asking the general public for its opinion.
http://consultations.dh.gov.uk/tobacco/standardised-packaging-of-tobacco-products/consult_view
Why don't the HTML links work?
Dr. Michael Siegel is a physician with 21 years of experience in tobacco control who recently became disillusioned by the direction in which the anti-smoking movement is going. He recently founded an organisation called "The Center for Public Accountability in Tobacco Control."
His reason for this..."the anti-smoking movement is increasingly becoming more extreme, getting out of control, going too far in its agenda, and losing its solid public health basis. The tactics being used by many anti-smoking organizations have become questionable, including DECEIVING AND MISLEADING THE PUBLIC, improperly attacking individuals, and improperly using kids to promote a political agenda. The agenda itself has become less and less public health-based; it now include efforts to deny employment to smokers, treat smoking parents as child abusers, and ignore basic issues of individual privacy and autonomy to coerce smokers into adopting healthier behavior."
and this comes from one of their own!!
I am myself a young smoker and I can say that from my own personal experience when i started smoking it was not due to a fancy packet it was because of peer pressure unless you can eliminate peer pressure you will not stop young people from smoking. Furthermore I have asked many of my non smoking friends whether the plain packaging would stop them from smoking if they wanted to and guess what they said? NO!
Simon,
There was a recent survey for The Times-on-Line (March 2012). Here is the URL:
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/tojh8h1oek/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-results-02-040212.pdf
But it was conducted by YouGov, and is therefore suspect. Here are the questions asked and the results (basic):
Below are some changes to the laws on selling or smoking tobacco. In each case, please say whether you would support or oppose the change.
Making tobacco manufacturers sell all cigarettes in blank packaging, without bright colours or logos:
Support 57% Oppose 26% Don’t know 18%.
Banning shops from displaying cigarettes behind the counter and making stores keep them out of sight:
Support 59% Oppose 29% Don’t know 12%.
Banning people from smoking in cars if they are carrying passengers:
Support 60% Oppose 32% Don’t know 8%.
Banning people from smoking in all private cars:
Support 37% Oppose 52% Don’t know 12%.
Banning people from smoking in public parks:
Support 44% Oppose 46% Don’t know 10%.
The detail of the survey includes voting intentions, age, social class and locations.
I found it by examining the YouGov archive.
Chas - I can't get your link to work
As an aside there's a Niquitin advert where one chap is asked outside for a ciggy break - he refuses and sits at his desk enjoying an imaginary popgroup ------ Are they promoting hallucinating drugs!!!!!!
chrisb. Sorry about that. Try this
How you word it
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmhealth//485/5112404.htm.htm
I’m new to this and may repeat some points that have been made previously, but here goes. Reading pros and cons in the smoking debate my attention was caught more by the hypocrisy than the complaints. Factors supporting a case are published whilst those that do not are omitted. Are campaigners even aware that of the 43 ‘potential’ carcinogens in tobacco smoke, only one (NNK) is unique to tobacco and the others are ingested from a variety of sources? Do they intend to ban them all? Trace metals in smoke originate in soil and must also be present in fruit and veg. “Experts” speak of CO bonding with haemoglobin knowing full well that CO concentration in a town/city street is massively greater than in tobacco smoke. A committed campaigner will of course refrain from driving motor vehicles, which emit gasses and particulates of killer toxicity and huge quantity - recommended for suicide (typically 1600cc several thousand times per minute).
I recall phoning ASHE who at the time based their campaign on tar/nicotine and pointing out the reduction of tar by 66% and nicotine by thirty something since filters became universal. The response was that this was of no consequence. What would they have said to 100%? Within 2 yrs they dropped it and began the passive smoking campaign, which needed no proof if they could scare people. This they did at huge taxpayer expense (we still have 18 signs on a single deck bus). I think that’s enough to establish hypocrisy.
Regarding plain packaging, which campaigners would buy anything without knowing what it is? How would quality and price be distinguished and can the government legally charge excise/Vat on unidentified contents? Would they know Virginia from manure?
I’ve found no one opposed to separate smoke rooms, particularly in pubs. If we must have regulation then filtration and extraction is a simple matter. If any of the major parties had opted for that they would have walked the last election. As a closing remark, must we slavishly follow the US in everything? Smoking is said to curb appetite and the US lead the world in gluttony, obesity and diabetes. Like lemmings, we seem intent on the same path.
Bsheil (ex smoker).
I have answered the questions in the the consultation-on-plain-packaging questionnaire. I found it by following this link, which Don Foster MP (Bath) kindly gave me:
http://consultations.dh.gov.uk
More info available from
www.dh.gov.uk<http://www.dh.gov.uk (enter 'tobacco control plan' in the search bar and follow links.