ASH in denial about "public support"
Friday, August 10, 2012 at 7:27 ASH has issued a press release today headlined 'Public support plain standardised packaging of cigarettes'.
Here's a taste:
On the closing day of the Government’s consultation on tobacco packaging figures show that more than 200,000 members of the public have responded to the Plain Packs Protect campaign, demonstrating support for plain, standardised packaging of all tobacco products.
This is backed up by research carried out by YouGov for ASH which found that 62% of adults in England support tobacco being sold in plain packaging while only 11% oppose the measure. For this poll, respondents were shown an example of a standardised pack.
The public’s support for standardised packaging is in marked contrast to the petitions and publicity campaigns of the tobacco industry which rely on retailers and those allied to the industry for support.
So, let's get this right. Plain Packs Protect, funded by almost half a million pounds of public money, has attracted over 200,000 signatures in support of plain packaging. (Many of these will be state sector workers and some will be employed directly by the tobacco control industry but let's not quibble.)
The Hands Off Our Packs campaign, run by Forest and supported by the tobacco companies, has conducted a campaign against plain packaging (but without the benefit of state funding) and has amassed 235,000 signatures - not from retailers or the tobacco industry but from the general public. (Remember them?)
Add to this 30,000 shop workers and other petitions from the likes of the trade union Unite and the final total opposed to plain packaging is certain to be higher.
Ignoring this inconvenient truth, ASH claim that the 'Public support plain standardised packaging of cigarettes'.
It's as if Labour, having lost the General Election with x million votes, was to argue that the 'Public support a Labour government' even though the Conservative party got more votes!
Yes, there is some public support for plain packaging but there is also huge opposition to the measure, as we have demonstrated.
ASH don't get it, do they? No-one twisted 235,000 people's arms to sign our petition. People can, and do, think for themselves.
ASH's press release reminds me of a very small child who, to avoid hearing something unpleasant, sticks his fingers in his ears and dances around singing "La, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la".
Nurse!
PS. I wrote about the ASH/YouGov poll here: That ASH/YouGov survey – so that's how they did it!
Note that in order to get the response they wanted researchers showed a pictorial example of a plain pack with a baby in a hospital incubator and the warning 'Smoking when pregnant harms your baby'. They then asked:
The image above is an example of a 'plain standardised pack' based on Australian legislation passed last year (source: ASH, 2012). Thinking about the packaging above, to what extent would you support or oppose the following? Requiring tobacco to be sold in plain standardised packaging with the product name in standard lettering.
Reader Comments (19)
The BBC have, as predicted, failed to mention the level of support for the HOOPs campaign. They have mentioned the consultation today but it is essentially another plug talking about junk science in Oz whilst failing to mention the opposition from the public and professional bodies. You do get a one line quote though Simon. I suppose that we should be thankful that they opted for neutrality of sorts considering their abysmal track record.
YouGov president Peter Kellner is also ASH trustee. This is why we cannot trust YouGov surveys on smoking.
Unfortunately, I don't think it will matter. They will be discounted under 5.3 FCTC as Tob. Ind. stooges. We're all 'addicts'. Our opinions cannot be taken into account.
Whenever they take a survey like this they should have three categories:
1. For
2. Against
3. Couldn't care less
I think the vast majority of the general public would be utterly ambivalent about the whole thing.
Is there another word for barefaced liar? Why yes there is, ASH.
By revealing the number of people prepared to sign a petition against plain packaging you have simply given the anti tobacco "movement" a target number. They will lie, cheat, prevaricate and obfuscate. If you had not given them a target to aim for they might have been forced to actually submit the real number of supporting signatures they received. Bad move.
I just don't understand why the tobacco companies aren't fighting this in the court. Okay, so they will attract bad publicity, but why does that matter? They could keep it in court for years. They have nothing to lose.
May I suggest an amendment to Paul's third category?
"Don't know, don't care"
Chris,
The TobComs are fighting plain packaging in court in Australia. They are also fighting a case very similar to the McTear Case in Canada. (If you want to know something about the McTear Case, you could google Bolton Smokers Club and read a summary and analysis of that case).
What has never ceased to amaze me is the question of why Philip Morris (or was it JTI?) suddenly withdrew their demand to see the sources of Stirling Uni's study about youth smoking. The ombudsman had instructed the Uni that it must comply with FoI regulations and reveal the data, but the TobCom suddenly withdrew its FoI. Beats me.
Chris, I cannot be bothered at silly o'clock to find the link, but JTI have already said that if this legislation goes through, they will take HM Government to court.
While I am no expert in these matters, products like wacky backy, coke and so on also come in plain packaging, yet there appears to be no reduction in demand for them. So what makes the folks at ASH think it's going to work for cigarettes?
Thanks guys, I'll have a look.
Couple of Questions. So we can "get it right".
How much did the tobacco companies put into the campaign?
Is there any evidence that "Many" of the 200,000 Ash signatures were from people employed in the state sector or tobacco control industry employees?
I don't wish to "quibble" but I if there is evidence that public sector workers, nurses, doctors, bin men and the like, have been covertly joining up with health charity workers and purporting to be "members of the public" I'll be writing to my MP.
What does it matter? The fags are kept hidden now. what does branding matter if possible customers cant see them?
If plain packaging goes through - and it will because the whole consultation exercise was a scam for the gullible public because the Govt's mind is made up - we should do two things : 1) Demand a public inquiry to find out exactly how the Govt tweaked the results in ASH's et el's favour using OUR money and 2) we need to start now raising the funds to sue the Govt when it announces it is going ahead with this rubbish on behalf of independent consumers who are being treated less equally than others.
We should have the same rights to brand recognition and price comparison as other consumers of any other legal goods and it cannot be right to strip those from us.
I agree with you entirely Pat, however this current Government and the previous one both believe that the debate is over.
Our politicians however, are now career politicians chasing the filthy lucre available from global propaganda.
I'm sorry to say, but the majority of them are totally brainwashed as far as their citizens are concerned.
PS... If I hear another reference to the economy and that being the current Government's priority, I will be very annoyed. I spend £225 a week less in this country as a result of the smoking ban..... just multiply that by the millions and look at the community and social venues that have closed.
I could go on forever with the health effects that the closure of these community/social venues have caused, but that's another story.
Was a press release issued highlighting the number of signatories to the HOOPS campaign?
Misty – yes. See www.handsoffourpacks.com, www.forestonline.org and my post last Wed (8th August).
I hope you enjoy my latest article in The Commentator, ''Tobacco Control Wins the Gold Medal for Dishonesty.''
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1518/tobacco_control_wins_the_gold_medal_for_dishonesty_on_plain_packaging