3 ms·

It doesn't. A packet cover (yes, they make cigarette packets covers) costs 2 Euros, and smokers don't seem to be concerned about the disgusting images they put

by oAlbe 9y ago

It doesn't. A packet cover (yes, they make cigarette packets covers) costs 2 Euros, and smokers don't seem to be concerned about the disgusting images they put on the packets. With all the added benefits that everybody at the table with a smoker gets to enjoy the view of a gangrenous foot with a missing finger or a black lung destroyed by tar and nicotine whenever the smoker pulls out the packet and places it on the table.

systoll 9y ago
Those that are sufficiently concerned tend to stop being, or avoid becoming smokers, so the unconcerned are what remain. Same goes for prices. I think we can both agree that taxation is the better ‘value’ policy [negative costs are hard to beat], but studies such as the described at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4396458/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4396458/ suggest that generic packaging has positive effects too.
fjsolwmv 9y ago
For a nonsmoker, the smoker himself is far more disgusting than the picture on the packet. It's a bit backtaking to be reminded that there are still backward places where smoking is legal in public.
jackvalentine 9y ago
It does. The plain packaging with disgusting imagery as used in Australia has been shown to be effective in reducing youth smoking. The less people try smoking when young, the less continue smoking when older. The tobacco industry's own studies show that their branding is an important part of getting people to start smoking initially.
hokus 9y ago
I thought it didn't work either but it works extremely well on [some] 13-14 year olds. The smokes are kept behind a counter here to prevent theft. I buy a pack from a 14ish year old supermarket employee/girl. She turned around to get it, gazed over the packaging looking for the one I ordered, then she looked away, her head sunk between the shoulders and she made a face as if she just saw someone eat a baby. Took her a good 4 seconds to get back her senses and face the wall of death for a second trial.

by oAlbe 9y ago

systoll 9y ago

Those that are sufficiently concerned tend to stop being, or avoid becoming smokers, so the unconcerned are what remain. Same goes for prices. I think we can both agree that taxation is the better ‘value’ policy [negative costs are hard to beat], but studies such as the described at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4396458/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4396458/ suggest that generic packaging has positive effects too.

fjsolwmv 9y ago

For a nonsmoker, the smoker himself is far more disgusting than the picture on the packet. It's a bit backtaking to be reminded that there are still backward places where smoking is legal in public.

jackvalentine 9y ago

It does. The plain packaging with disgusting imagery as used in Australia has been shown to be effective in reducing youth smoking. The less people try smoking when young, the less continue smoking when older. The tobacco industry's own studies show that their branding is an important part of getting people to start smoking initially.

hokus 9y ago

I thought it didn't work either but it works extremely well on [some] 13-14 year olds. The smokes are kept behind a counter here to prevent theft. I buy a pack from a 14ish year old supermarket employee/girl. She turned around to get it, gazed over the packaging looking for the one I ordered, then she looked away, her head sunk between the shoulders and she made a face as if she just saw someone eat a baby. Took her a good 4 seconds to get back her senses and face the wall of death for a second trial.