Say No To Nanny

Smokefree Ideology


Nicotine Wars

 

40 Years of Hurt

Prejudice and Prohibition

Road To Ruin?

Search This Site
The Pleasure of Smoking

Forest Polling Report

Outdoor Smoking Bans

Share This Page
Powered by Squarespace
« Lynton Crosby, the PM and me | Main | Sickness at the heart of the Department of Health »
Tuesday
Jul232013

Better late than never, BBC publishes Forest response to plain pack report

Well, that was weird.

At 14.05 yesterday BBC News published a report entitled Plain cigarette packs 'encourage smokers to quit'.

It 'revealed' that:

Selling cigarettes in unbranded packs seems to make tobacco less appealing and encourages smokers to quit, suggests a study ...

The findings come days after ministers were criticised for putting on hold a plan to impose plain packs in England.

There were quotes from Cancer Research UK and the British Heart Foundation but nothing from 'our' side.

An hour or two later, in response to a tweet by BBC News linking to its own report, Forest tweeted:

@BBC News Another biased, one-sided report. Where's the evidence that youth smoking rates or even consumption have fallen?

It appears that someone at the BBC read it because this morning I was invited to submit a comment. I wrote:

"The study offers no credible evidence to suggest that plain packaging will reduce youth smoking rates or have any impact on adult consumption.

"The research, which was carried out in November 2012, before plain packaging was introduced, is based on highly subjective responses to questions about the perceived quality of cigarettes and the satisfaction consumers derive from smoking cigarettes sold in standard packs.

"There is no evidence that the sale or consumption of cigarettes has fallen in Australia since plain packs were introduced in December.

"So far the policy has made no difference to sales and no amount of spin or bluster can disguise that fact."

You can read the report ("Last updated at 14:05" yesterday) here.

Update: Chris Snowdon has this to say, That plain packaging study.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (9)

So Ireland's Minister for Health, Dr James Reilly says “This study provides further evidence that plain pack cigarettes are the next step forward in tackling this addiction"

Oh dear, Doctor Reilly sounds more like Old Mother Reilly than a real life doctor.

Firstly, if plain packaging really works, how come it doesn't with hard drugs? I mean, we don't see heroin sold in brightly coloured packaging do we, yet that seems to be doing quite well, as the overtly rich drug barons will testify.

Secondly, who say that smoking tobacco is an addiction? I for one am certainly not addicted to smoking, any more than I am addicted to eating lobster or steak - I do all three things simply because I like them and often refrain from smoking or eating these things for weeks at a time - hardly what could be described as an addiction.

If someone is going to call themself a doctor, they should at least have some knowledge of the subject they are supposed to be specialising in.

Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 17:25 | Unregistered CommenterPeter Thurgood

The anti-smoking lobby spin, and the way the BBC and other media swallow it wholesale — lazy, cut-and-paste press release journalism with no story-checking — is beyond contempt. And when is public health minister Anna Soubry going to be sacked for unconstitutional behaviour in office, something the 'media' seems to have missed completely, probably because it's concentrating on a woman having a baby; now, that's news!

Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 18:21 | Unregistered CommenterNeilMac

Peter – Your comment 'often refrain from smoking or eating these things for weeks at a time' precisely describes my experience.

I put my pipe down almost 5 months ago quite simply out of boredom, but I shall take it up again over Christmas when the urge takes me.

So what addiction do the antis talk about?

In my view there is no such thing as addiction, it depends upon how someone interacts with something i.e. to a small degree, a larger degree, or where your behaviour becomes compulsive. But the object of your desire is not addictive per se; it is how you interact with it at any given time.

You yourself have the ultimate control over your own behaviour and how intense you allow it to become.

Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 21:10 | Unregistered CommenterJeff

Does anyone know who Kate Alley is? I am wondering why the BBC think that her press release deserved to be brought to the attention of the population at large. Does Alley really represent a majority opinion at CRUK or do they still employ people who have an understanding of science and some sense of shame? Even by the extremely low standards of the plain packs campaign, Ms Alley's effort is pitiful, which of course speaks volumes about editorial standards at he BBC. Nice of them to include your comment Simon but why promote such low quality "research" in the first place.

Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 23:29 | Unregistered CommenterIvan D

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the FDA declared smoking as an "addiction" back in the early 80s. I believe there was criticism at the time that it had condemned ordinary consumers but the FDA knew that people couldn't be forced to quit if they believed smoking was a choice. Neither could legitimate consumers begin to be denormalised until they were first branded as drug addicts akin to heroin users.

Don't forget that before any major definitive study on smoking and health and especially "passive" smoking and health was done, the American Cancer Society decided in 1970 that it wanted a smoke free world by the year 2000.

That silly woman Cecelia Farron was infected with the idea when she went to the USA. She admitted on TV she began smoking because she was jealous of a pretty girl who smoked. She quit because she wanted to kiss a good looking non smoking boy. Health was never her motivation by her own admission. As a drug addict, she appeared to find it easy to quit - millions more have too without too much difficulty.

It was said in my childhood and it is true today. Those who want to quit will do so easily. Those who don't but have to will struggle.

Wednesday, July 24, 2013 at 13:30 | Unregistered CommenterPat Nurse

Re addiction, quite so, Pat. But the claim was not backed up by any decent evidence. They had to change the definition of 'addiction' to make it fit, since their no significant physical effects of stopping smoking. The black hole of despond maybe, and some grumpiness perhaps, but no fits, no shivering, no nose-bleeds, no desperate stealing.

Wednesday, July 24, 2013 at 15:35 | Unregistered CommenterJunican

People who want to quit don't even get the grumpiness. They quit and feel proud it was so easy - and it was easy because they simply didn't want to smoke any more.

Wednesday, July 24, 2013 at 16:30 | Unregistered CommenterPat Nurse

Not direct but related. I wish to pick up on a couple of comments. First, Anna Soubry. If her crime had been related to practically anything else, she would be being totally rubbished, front page headlines, radio and tv. It was not however about practically anything else, it was about tobacco, so they turn a blind eye, in fact, they are not even bothered.
Cancer Research UK is my second comment. Their tv adverts are annoying, but not as annoying as their latest.
It says that all their money comes from the public, that is lie no.1.
It says that they are doing research. Investing in lobbying for putting cigarettes in standard packs somehow does not ring true as cancer research for me.
Lie no.3 is that it says that they will cure cancer. You cannot cure cancer totally, ever. If heart failure does not get you first, cancer will. OK, many people get cancer before old age, whatever that may be. Yes, early cancer can be treated and in many cases eradicated. To say, however, that with the public's money and all smokers stopping they will cure cancer is a lie.

Thursday, July 25, 2013 at 1:27 | Unregistered Commentertimbone

James Reilly would be better placed auditioning for the staring role in a Werewolf movie because he's a natural and wouldnt have to spend any time at all in makeup as he has all the facial hair required for the part, except maybe two plastic fangs over his incisors.

Thursday, July 25, 2013 at 9:38 | Unregistered Commenterann

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>