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
« Creeping prohibition | Main | UK's largest vape retailer targets a smoker free future »
Wednesday
May132020

Public divided on menthol cigarette ban

If politicians think the ban on menthol cigarettes will cut the number of smokers, the public doesn't share their confidence.

A poll of 2,019 adults, commissioned by Forest and conducted by Populus last week, found that only 16 per cent think the ban on menthol cigarettes will reduce smoking rates.

None of the findings were particularly startling but given that 82 per cent of respondents were non-smokers (51 per cent had never smoked, and 31 per cent used to smoke but had now given up) it was interesting to note that all respondents were divided equally on whether the ban on menthol cigarettes was a reasonable or an unreasonable restriction on adult consumer choice.

For example:

  • 35 per cent of all respondents said it was a reasonable restriction, while 38 per cent said it was unreasonable (and the rest said 'Don't know')

Public opinion was similarly split on whether anti-tobacco regulations have gone ‘far enough’.

  • 36 per cent of the public agreed that anti-tobacco regulations had gone ‘far enough’, 36 per cent disagreed, and 28 per cent neither agreed nor disagreed

Our headline finding concerned the number of smokers who were unaware of the ban.

According to the Populus survey, 39 per cent of the smokers polled didn't know about the ban which starts next week. This suggests 2.8 million smokers have no idea menthol cigarettes are about to be prohibited.

There’s a large market for menthol and capsule cigarettes in the UK (they account for one in four cigarettes sold) so there could be a lot of confusion when consumers visit their local store and find their favourites menthol brands are no longer on sale.

To add to the uncertainty, which affects staff as much as consumers, the word ‘green’ will still appear on a variety of non-menthol brands that have only recently been launched.

The aim, clearly, is to encourage brand loyalty because the consensus is that most menthol smokers, far from quitting or switching to e-cigarettes or heated tobacco, will simply switch to non-menthol combustibles.

Other alternatives include flavour cards that infuse non-flavoured cigarettes with a menthol flavour and menthol cigarillos, but the reality is that most smokers enjoy the act of smoking and flavour is not the defining factor.

Anyway, you can read the results of the survey, plus a quote from me, here.

See also: Almost three million smokers unaware of menthol ban (Talking Retail)

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (3)

The menthol ban is unnecessary persecution of smokers. It won't cut smoking rates in any meaningful way as most method smokers will just switch to non-menthol brands. Beyond that, this is another example of tobacco control overreach. Tobacco control has gone too far—actually it went to far when it used its ;confidence trick' to force smoking bans. Its now time to curtal tobacco control.

Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 0:26 | Unregistered CommenterVinny Gracchus

Another alternative is menthol cigarette tubes and a tubing machine.

Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 10:15 | Unregistered CommenterSmofunking

Non smokers nor ex smokers should be asked to take part in the surveys on behalf of issues that only affect smokers otherwise there is a risk the smokerphobics and vaping wannabes will move in to corrupt the results.

Ask only smokers about issues affecting only smokers and you will get a different result. Frankly, what people choose to put in their own body has got bugger all to do with anyone who does not smoke or who has switched or quit.

Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 13:02 | Unregistered CommenterPat Nurse

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>