Great piece of detective work by my colleague Angela Harbutt.
This morning Professor Simon Chapman, Australia's leading tobacco control campaigner, tweeted excitedly that plain packaging is "working".
His evidence? The lead sentence in a newspaper article about revisions to Western Australia's state alcohol laws. It read:
Corner stores want to sell liquor to make up for money lost because of plain cigarette packaging
Dig a little deeper however, as Angela did, and there was not a shred of evidence to suggest that plain packaging is "working", apart from making life more difficult for small shops in terms of staff training and the time it takes to serve customers.
Responding to Angela's enquiry, the Association of Convenience Stores wrote:
In summary, plain packaging has adversely affected retailers in terms of costs (staff training, layouts, lost productivity), time to serve customers as well as receive stock as examples, but sales over the past six months remain unaffected.
Some anti tobacco campaigners will use any quotes to their advantage without understanding their true meaning or context and I need to ensure that I am as clear as possible in my communications, but rest assured retailers have been far more inconvenienced than smokers with the change, although smokers have been frustrated with slower service and incorrect products being given to them.
So, absolutely no justification for Simon Chapman's triumphant tweet.
Either he couldn't be bothered checking the facts or he has redefined the meaning of "working".
Neither would surprise me. That's tobacco control all over.
See: Plain packaging isn't working - Tobacco sales unaffected say Aussie convenience stores (Hands Off Our Packs)