Do the right thing, Dave, just say no!
Friday, May 23, 2014 at 15:05 
Meet Dave, star of Forest's latest initiative against plain packaging to be unveiled at the ConservativeHome conference in London tomorrow.
Dave is an ex-smoker and like many former smokers he's distanced himself from the habit, doing nothing to stop the denormalisation of smokers and demonstrating little empathy for those who still light up, as he once did.
Dave was famously absent in 2006 when colleagues voted in favour of a comprehensive smoking ban, denying pubs and clubs the obvious and more reasonable option of separate smoking rooms. He also went missing when colleagues voted to ban smoking in cars with children, having previously expressed reservations about legislation.
In opposition Dave's party opposed a ban on the display of tobacco in shops. In power they enforced it. No surprise then that having rejected plain packaging following a public consultation in 2012, Dave did another U-turn. In November 2013 he announced a new review on plain packaging and appointed a leading paediatrician, Sir Cyril Chantler, to conduct it.
Sir Cyril's report was published in April and to no-one's surprise this pillar of the medical establishment recommended the introduction of standardised packs. Read the report with an open mind, however, and the decision is as baffling as it is predictable.
For example, the Review:
• states it only considered the public health aspects of standardised packaging. It took no account of the effects on the UK economy, consumers or illicit trade.
• says it is not possible to prove that standardised packaging would reduce smoking and that, if it was introduced, it would be almost impossible to measure any effect.
• states it is too early to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of plain packaging in Australia, that data is only just becoming available, and that any impacts may take time to materialise.
• accepts the findings of past studies of standardised packaging where known flaws and limitations are excused as “necessary constraints on study design”. However studies commissioned by the tobacco industry from respected independent bodies like KPMG are dismissed altogether.
• says that branded goods inevitably have a “spillover” effect on children. If this argument is accepted it signals a slippery slope for other products such as alcohol, food and sugary drinks.
• describes cigarettes as a “badge product which is conspicuously consumed while making a statement about the smoker’s image and identity”. In fact, there are relatively few places where smoking is allowed in public, fewer people are smoking, and those that do are increasingly demonised.
• confuses “packaging design” with “product design” and “advertising and marketing” – arguing that they work in similar ways. Experts in these fields disagree, knowing that these are specialised areas that work in very different ways.
• confuses previous research and studies for its own aims. An experiment where children said that carrots in McDonalds packaging tasted better than those in plain packaging is held up as “proof that branding affects consumption”. This statement is incorrect because the experiment didn’t test for any increased desire amongst the children to consume carrots, whether in branded packaging or not.
• declares that more than 600,000 responses were received during the original 2012 consultation. It failed to mention that the overwhelming majority were against standardised packaging.
The Review is also full of phrases like “probable”, “likely”, “balance of evidence” and “intuitive plausibility”. These describe speculation and guesswork. They do not describe evidence and measurement.
Yet despite these serious flaws Dave's government immediately announced that it was "minded" to introduce legislation after a "final short consultation".
To cut a long story short, this entire charade is the result of Dave’s biggest weakness. He appears to have no strong opinion, no guiding compass, on this and many other issues.
Yes, there was political pressure from Labour. But instead of standing firm – opponents can smell weakness and indecision a mile off – Dave dug himself the largest hole he could and stood on the edge, inviting his opponents to push him in.
They didn't have to push too hard. Teetering on the precipice it took only a few words from Sir Cyril and Dave was diving headlong into another fine mess of own making.
Reports suggest that Dave is lukewarm about plain packaging and unconvinced by the argument it will stop children smoking. In which case, why proceed with a policy that divides Conservative MPs and public opinion? (Almost two-thirds of the 645,000 responses to the 2012 consultation opposed plain packaging.)
Forest has booked a stand at the ConHome conference in London tomorrow where we will unveil the latest phase of our long running campaign against plain packaging.
In particular we will explain to delegates what they – and you – can do to persuade Dave that plain packs make no sense, politically or in terms of public health.
We'll trot out the usual arguments – won't work, nanny state, slippery slope etc etc. But we'll also make the point that if Dave wants to win next year's General Election he has to give people like me, a lifelong Conservative voter until yesterday, a positive reason to keep his party in power.
One way to do that is to stand up to nannying tyrants like Labour, the British Medical Association and unrepresentative, publicly funded lobbyists like ASH, Smokefree South West and the rest.
Earlier this year Dave announced plans to reduce the burden of regulation on UK businesses.
“This is going to be the first government in modern history that at the end of its parliamentary term has less regulation in place than there was at the beginning,” he said.
“We have identified 3,000 regulations we are going to scrap and we’ve already got rid of 800 of them.”
Why, then, is the government creating regulations on plain packaging that current evidence suggests will have no negative impact on tobacco consumption but will inconvenience and possibly damage thousands of businesses, including retailers and packaging companies, if they are enforced?
Our message to Dave? Do the right thing. Say no to plain packaging. It's never too late!
Reader Comments (4)
What the professional smokerphobics really mean is that they want to ban smoking in cars - Full Stop - (and homes which they want to devalue with invented Third Hand Smoke because they hate smokers) but they must use other people's children as the excuse to force upon a tolerant public their own brand of vile fascism.
As Jake Rees Mogg said : "Few people smoke in cars with children present these days and of those who do, they open a window."
Why can't Dave listen to his own and people like me - lifelong Labour voters - who stopped voting Labour on this issue in 2008. We've been looking ever since for a reason to change and vote Tory for the first time ever but Dave doesn't even want our vote. No surprise we have no choice but to switch from Labour to UKIP - and for that we're branded racist.
#WeSmokeWeVote I think Cameron really does want to lose the election in 2015.
Totally agree Pat. Dave, like most politicians these days, are career politicians. Say no more. They are not concerned about what is right and wrong for their people; they just follow the funding.
He is afraid. What of I am not sure but we do live in a society in which even associating with someone who once had something to do with a tobacco company is seized upon by the amoral tribal Westminster mob and used as a political weapon. A society in which uncomfortably mumbling "nigger" as part of an outdated nursery rhyme on a TV show take that was never broadcast leads to a media led witch hunt and a public apology.
It takes courage to stand up to people who hide behind faux sentiment and manufactured outrage and very dodgy statistics in order to score political points and I don't think that Dave has enough of that. In addition, lets face it, he is not all that bright and has shown signs of actually believing some of the more outrageous rubbish the activists claim.
Nothing will change until THE LAW recognises that "Natural Law" overrides statute law. For example, a person has a right to be self-sufficient. It that right involves taking risks, a person has the absolute right to take such risks. It is his prerogative and cannot be denied. Thus, if a person wishes to throw himself off a cliff in the belief that, by flapping his arms he can fly like a bird, the State has no right to stop him. The fact that the State will have to collect his bones and bury him cannot be a justification to stop him. That is because the State can just leave his bones where they are. The State has no such duty.
That is an extreme example, but it illustrates the fact that the State does not always have a duty. Thus, the four people who set off in a boat to cross the ocean do not have a right to demand that the State spends millions of pounds searching for them if they disappear. They threw themselves off the edge of an active volcano into the fiery abyss below, flapping their arms. That was their decision.
I am not saying that efforts should not be made to find them, any more than a person who gets out of his depth in the sea should not be rescued, What I am talking about is DEMANDS. The State is not required to give in to DEMANDS. That principle applies also to the DEMANDS of tobacco control. In fact, one could easily justify the statement that the State must be especially careful about giving in to the demands of tobacco control.