5 ms·

Why cigarette packs matter

79 points by baha_man 16y ago

lachyg 16y ago
Australia is great in regards to cigarettes. On all packets, it shows gruesome images of what happens to you if you smoke, all labels are black with a standardised white text, so no brand recognition. They're all behind a blacked out cabinet too. See: http://www.google.com.au/images?q=australian+cigarette+packages&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1440&bih=722 http://www.google.com.au/images?q=australian+cigarette+packa...
- mootothemax 16y ago
  On all packets, it shows gruesome images of what happens to you if you smoke Which I believe does more harm than good. I know plenty of smokers who get through a pack a day; do you think this is more likely to inform smokers about health risks that they're not already aware of, or is it more likely to desensitise them to these risks? I'm also curious to know who behind this plan doesn't remember being a 10-year-old and being fascinated by everything disgusting.
  - bpyne 16y ago
    The entry point for new smokers is a little older than 10. I think it's more like the early teen years. At that point, I think the "gruesome is cool" phase has abated a bit. Besides, the attraction towards gruesome has to war with young people's preference for sweet tastes. There is nothing sweet about the smell of cigarette smoke. It's incredibly bitter and acrid smelling. The smell was one major reason I never tried tobacco despite both my parents being smokers. To catch young people in their market, I think tobacco companies focus more on teens' need for social belonging and defining their identity.
    - duncanj 16y ago
      As someone who used to smoke "Black Death" cigarettes, I'm inclined to disagree. Perhaps they should put Goatse on each pack, and then people wouldn't be inclined to carry the packs around.
      - bpyne 16y ago
        I'm curious. Did the imagery influence your decision to start or your decision on which brand or both?
- defroost 16y ago
  Man, you would think that almost ghoulish imagery in the URL you posted would keep people from buying cigarettes, but I imagine people still buy them in droves nonetheless. I like that at least the Australian government doesn't cave to the Tobacco companies.
  - ugh 16y ago
    Addiction’s a bitch. I don’t smoke but I tend to eat too much with predictable consequences I know full well about. It is possible for me to keep my eating in control (I have for nearly six months now and am very proud of that) but that demands tons of strong, strong, strong willpower. It’s exhausting and I will have to keep that will strong for the rest of my life.
    - Misha_B 16y ago
      A bit offtopic but overeating depends a lot on types of food you consume. Removing hunger inflicting components from your diet may make not overeating a matter of habit rather than of willpower. May have a look here: http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/ http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/ Has been helpful for me.
      - ugh 16y ago
        Changing my diet helps a bit. (It keeps my weight more or less constant if I’m really strict about it. At the moment I still want to lose weight, though.) But since I do actually love eating pasta changing my diet in such a way also requires a lot of constant willpower. I don’t see a lot of difference to plain old calorie counting. I try to do both, though – eat healthier and different things (with the occasional pasta day to keep me happy) and count calories. Counting calories and constant monitoring (for rewards) are the two cornerstones of my current weight loss (and it works) but I very much try to sneak a better diet in and I also really should start doing more sports.
  - cameronh90 16y ago
    I don't smoke, but I don't think that imagery would stop me buying cigarettes if I did. I know how horrific the potential consequences of riding a motorcycle or driving a car look, but I still do that. The insides of even a relatively healthy old person won't look particularly pleasant either. The fact is, people will be aware that not everyone who smokes ends up looking like those images, which will help them ignore them; "It'll never happen to me", regardless of how likely it actually is.
JonnieCache 16y ago
Nice to see ben goldacre's writings up on here. He is a clinical epistemologist by training but he has rapidly moved into the world of science journalism (or perhaps meta-journalism) due to his popularity as a writer and speaker.
- shrikant 16y ago
  He also has a secondary blog where he posts "things that are too long to post on twitter and not clever enough to post on his main blog": http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/ http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/
- rmc 16y ago
  Yeah, Ben Goldacre is a great read. If you are interested in bad science from a medical angle (as opposed to 'creationists are being silly' kind), then check out his book Bad Science or the rest of his website
- gjm11 16y ago
  A clinical epistemologist? (He's a psychiatrist.)
splat 16y ago
The thing I find interesting is the FDA's blatant hostility towards electronic cigarettes despite their demonstrated health benefits over ordinary cigarettes (light or otherwise). [1] [2] Electronic cigarettes simply vaporize nicotine and deliver the nicotine straight to the user with at most trace amounts of tar and carcinogens. A number of studies and at least one meta-study [3] have all found that electronic cigarettes are much safer (for real humans, not smoking machines), and that smokers can quit more easily using electronic cigarettes than with nicotine patches or gum. Why this agency, which is entrusted with protecting the public health, is hell-bent on keeping smokers on regular cigarettes rather than their safer alternative is beyond me. [1] http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/10/science/la-sci-e-cigs-20100910 http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/10/science/la-sci-e-cig... [2] www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf [3] http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/36/abstract http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/36/abstract
- Groxx 16y ago
  There's definite unfounded, likely highly-funded, hostility towards them. There is a single legitimate cause for concern that I've heard them occasionally mention, however: there haven't been any / many health studies on inhaling nicotine, and what it does to your lungs. Only smoking things which contain it. It's essentially an unknown, so there's definite reason for pause before they approve it... but yes, phenomenally excessive.
  - Lost_BiomedE 16y ago
    There has been a lot of studies confirming the safety of snus, and they are just as hostile to it as anything. I don't think they would change their tune even if there were plenty of studies.
- xiaoma 16y ago
  The article didn't mention either the FDA or electronic cigarettes.
  - abalashov 16y ago
subwindow 16y ago
Somehow I doubt that the packaging really influences what someone smokes and how much they smoke of it. People make decisions based on taste, strength and habit more than they do on marketing and especially pack design. If someone's smoking, they've already made the decision to do it, health consequences be damned. I doubt that warning labels, gross pictures or any other kind of package manipulation has a significant effect.
- Zak 16y ago
  It probably has more of an effect on starting and quitting than brand selection by current smokers.
- dedward 16y ago
  Yes, smokers smoke despite knowing full well how bad it is for them, more or less. Gross pictures won't make them stop for the most part. It might make a kid think twice - IIRC it mostly made poeple want to collect them all. Plenty of people bought certain brands just because of how the pack looks - it's branding and packaging like anything else. The primary goal in anti-smoking campaigns is to stop young people from starting in the first place - over time that's the best money spent. Take a look at the British Columbia anti-smoking campaigns - lowest rate of new smokers in north america (IIRC). Tobacco can't sponsor events. No more Benson & Hedges symphony of fire fireworks competition in Vancouver - now it's sponsored by a bank or something. Stores that sell cigarettes (grocery stores, corner stores, 7-11, etc) can't have them visible to the customers in any way, and can't advertise the fact that they sell them. Basically their marketing was nipped in the bud. They can sell them, but no advertising of any kind) And you know what? it works. Then you reach a critical mass where there are enough people NOT smoking that it's just not cool to smoke.... that was after no smoking in bars, restaurants, any indoor public places, within X feet of the door of any store, etc......
  - mitcheme 16y ago
    "Stores that sell cigarettes (grocery stores, corner stores, 7-11, etc) can't have them visible to the customers in any way, and can't advertise the fact that they sell them." I was curious about this, because I live in BC and realized that I hadn't seen cigarettes in a store for a long time. I'm a non-smoker, but growing up gas stations and pharmacies always had the big glass case behind the counter full of cigarettes, and it recently its seemed odd that they weren't there anymore. So I looked it up, and they're only allowed a small, plain sign with no brands or graphics, just kinds of tobacco and prices. In hindsight, I remember seeing those in one or two places, but I'd assumed it was just store policy. It does seem to work. I think I've run across a handful of smokers at my university in three years, and many of them I only knew were smokers because they stank so much. Definitely not cool to smoke around these parts. Right now the university has just restricted the allowed smoking areas even further, and unlike when the government smoking restrictions came in, nobody really cares. This is a student body that half consists of people who hold protests over every political concern, and half 'apolitical' people who complain at length about every new fee or university restriction, so when nobody cares about a change that really says something.
handelaar 16y ago
So use of lighter colours and white packaging a la Marlboro 'Lights', as they were known here until recently, is taken objectively to be a Bad Thing. Why isn't anybody asking, then, on what grounds we think that replacing all cigarette packaging with plain white boxes wouldn't make things worse ?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
araneae 16y ago
Oh come on. You can't translate these studies into real world results at all. If you hand people two cigarette packs and say "which one looks healthier," sure, they're going to pick one. They might even pick one over the other pretty consistently. This does not necessarily translate into real world consequences at all. You have to prove that.
pokjhnboi 16y ago
I assume the same thing is going to happen to the other social drug of choice? All those enticing pictures of Chateaus are going to be replaced by a plain white bottle and a picture of a car crash caused by drunk driver?
JulianMorrison 16y ago
I propose: that by law every one in a thousand cigarettes sold should have something that tastes and smells really spit-and-gag foul (but isn't poisonous) inserted at a random point (not just at the tip, or the end, but unpredictably). Light, mild, silver, one brand or another - there is no difference. You have a chance of running into the disincentive whichever you choose.

79 points by baha_man 16y ago

Australia is great in regards to cigarettes. On all packets, it shows gruesome images of what happens to you if you smoke, all labels are black with a standardised white text, so no brand recognition. They're all behind a blacked out cabinet too. See: http://www.google.com.au/images?q=australian+cigarette+packages&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1440&bih=722 http://www.google.com.au/images?q=australian+cigarette+packa...

mootothemax 16y ago
On all packets, it shows gruesome images of what happens to you if you smoke Which I believe does more harm than good. I know plenty of smokers who get through a pack a day; do you think this is more likely to inform smokers about health risks that they're not already aware of, or is it more likely to desensitise them to these risks? I'm also curious to know who behind this plan doesn't remember being a 10-year-old and being fascinated by everything disgusting.
- bpyne 16y ago
  The entry point for new smokers is a little older than 10. I think it's more like the early teen years. At that point, I think the "gruesome is cool" phase has abated a bit. Besides, the attraction towards gruesome has to war with young people's preference for sweet tastes. There is nothing sweet about the smell of cigarette smoke. It's incredibly bitter and acrid smelling. The smell was one major reason I never tried tobacco despite both my parents being smokers. To catch young people in their market, I think tobacco companies focus more on teens' need for social belonging and defining their identity.
  - duncanj 16y ago
    As someone who used to smoke "Black Death" cigarettes, I'm inclined to disagree. Perhaps they should put Goatse on each pack, and then people wouldn't be inclined to carry the packs around.
    - bpyne 16y ago
      I'm curious. Did the imagery influence your decision to start or your decision on which brand or both?
defroost 16y ago
Man, you would think that almost ghoulish imagery in the URL you posted would keep people from buying cigarettes, but I imagine people still buy them in droves nonetheless. I like that at least the Australian government doesn't cave to the Tobacco companies.
- ugh 16y ago
  Addiction’s a bitch. I don’t smoke but I tend to eat too much with predictable consequences I know full well about. It is possible for me to keep my eating in control (I have for nearly six months now and am very proud of that) but that demands tons of strong, strong, strong willpower. It’s exhausting and I will have to keep that will strong for the rest of my life.
  - Misha_B 16y ago
    A bit offtopic but overeating depends a lot on types of food you consume. Removing hunger inflicting components from your diet may make not overeating a matter of habit rather than of willpower. May have a look here: http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/ http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/ Has been helpful for me.
    - ugh 16y ago
      Changing my diet helps a bit. (It keeps my weight more or less constant if I’m really strict about it. At the moment I still want to lose weight, though.) But since I do actually love eating pasta changing my diet in such a way also requires a lot of constant willpower. I don’t see a lot of difference to plain old calorie counting. I try to do both, though – eat healthier and different things (with the occasional pasta day to keep me happy) and count calories. Counting calories and constant monitoring (for rewards) are the two cornerstones of my current weight loss (and it works) but I very much try to sneak a better diet in and I also really should start doing more sports.
- cameronh90 16y ago
  I don't smoke, but I don't think that imagery would stop me buying cigarettes if I did. I know how horrific the potential consequences of riding a motorcycle or driving a car look, but I still do that. The insides of even a relatively healthy old person won't look particularly pleasant either. The fact is, people will be aware that not everyone who smokes ends up looking like those images, which will help them ignore them; "It'll never happen to me", regardless of how likely it actually is.

JonnieCache 16y ago

Nice to see ben goldacre's writings up on here. He is a clinical epistemologist by training but he has rapidly moved into the world of science journalism (or perhaps meta-journalism) due to his popularity as a writer and speaker.

shrikant 16y ago
He also has a secondary blog where he posts "things that are too long to post on twitter and not clever enough to post on his main blog": http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/ http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/
rmc 16y ago
Yeah, Ben Goldacre is a great read. If you are interested in bad science from a medical angle (as opposed to 'creationists are being silly' kind), then check out his book Bad Science or the rest of his website
gjm11 16y ago
A clinical epistemologist? (He's a psychiatrist.)

splat 16y ago

The thing I find interesting is the FDA's blatant hostility towards electronic cigarettes despite their demonstrated health benefits over ordinary cigarettes (light or otherwise). [1] [2] Electronic cigarettes simply vaporize nicotine and deliver the nicotine straight to the user with at most trace amounts of tar and carcinogens. A number of studies and at least one meta-study [3] have all found that electronic cigarettes are much safer (for real humans, not smoking machines), and that smokers can quit more easily using electronic cigarettes than with nicotine patches or gum. Why this agency, which is entrusted with protecting the public health, is hell-bent on keeping smokers on regular cigarettes rather than their safer alternative is beyond me. [1] http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/10/science/la-sci-e-cigs-20100910 http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/10/science/la-sci-e-cig... [2] www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf [3] http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/36/abstract http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/36/abstract

Groxx 16y ago
There's definite unfounded, likely highly-funded, hostility towards them. There is a single legitimate cause for concern that I've heard them occasionally mention, however: there haven't been any / many health studies on inhaling nicotine, and what it does to your lungs. Only smoking things which contain it. It's essentially an unknown, so there's definite reason for pause before they approve it... but yes, phenomenally excessive.
- Lost_BiomedE 16y ago
  There has been a lot of studies confirming the safety of snus, and they are just as hostile to it as anything. I don't think they would change their tune even if there were plenty of studies.
xiaoma 16y ago
The article didn't mention either the FDA or electronic cigarettes.
- abalashov 16y ago

subwindow 16y ago

Somehow I doubt that the packaging really influences what someone smokes and how much they smoke of it. People make decisions based on taste, strength and habit more than they do on marketing and especially pack design. If someone's smoking, they've already made the decision to do it, health consequences be damned. I doubt that warning labels, gross pictures or any other kind of package manipulation has a significant effect.

Zak 16y ago
It probably has more of an effect on starting and quitting than brand selection by current smokers.
dedward 16y ago
Yes, smokers smoke despite knowing full well how bad it is for them, more or less. Gross pictures won't make them stop for the most part. It might make a kid think twice - IIRC it mostly made poeple want to collect them all. Plenty of people bought certain brands just because of how the pack looks - it's branding and packaging like anything else. The primary goal in anti-smoking campaigns is to stop young people from starting in the first place - over time that's the best money spent. Take a look at the British Columbia anti-smoking campaigns - lowest rate of new smokers in north america (IIRC). Tobacco can't sponsor events. No more Benson & Hedges symphony of fire fireworks competition in Vancouver - now it's sponsored by a bank or something. Stores that sell cigarettes (grocery stores, corner stores, 7-11, etc) can't have them visible to the customers in any way, and can't advertise the fact that they sell them. Basically their marketing was nipped in the bud. They can sell them, but no advertising of any kind) And you know what? it works. Then you reach a critical mass where there are enough people NOT smoking that it's just not cool to smoke.... that was after no smoking in bars, restaurants, any indoor public places, within X feet of the door of any store, etc......
- mitcheme 16y ago
  "Stores that sell cigarettes (grocery stores, corner stores, 7-11, etc) can't have them visible to the customers in any way, and can't advertise the fact that they sell them." I was curious about this, because I live in BC and realized that I hadn't seen cigarettes in a store for a long time. I'm a non-smoker, but growing up gas stations and pharmacies always had the big glass case behind the counter full of cigarettes, and it recently its seemed odd that they weren't there anymore. So I looked it up, and they're only allowed a small, plain sign with no brands or graphics, just kinds of tobacco and prices. In hindsight, I remember seeing those in one or two places, but I'd assumed it was just store policy. It does seem to work. I think I've run across a handful of smokers at my university in three years, and many of them I only knew were smokers because they stank so much. Definitely not cool to smoke around these parts. Right now the university has just restricted the allowed smoking areas even further, and unlike when the government smoking restrictions came in, nobody really cares. This is a student body that half consists of people who hold protests over every political concern, and half 'apolitical' people who complain at length about every new fee or university restriction, so when nobody cares about a change that really says something.

handelaar 16y ago

So use of lighter colours and white packaging a la Marlboro 'Lights', as they were known here until recently, is taken objectively to be a Bad Thing. Why isn't anybody asking, then, on what grounds we think that replacing all cigarette packaging with plain white boxes wouldn't make things worse ?

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

araneae 16y ago

Oh come on. You can't translate these studies into real world results at all. If you hand people two cigarette packs and say "which one looks healthier," sure, they're going to pick one. They might even pick one over the other pretty consistently. This does not necessarily translate into real world consequences at all. You have to prove that.

pokjhnboi 16y ago

I assume the same thing is going to happen to the other social drug of choice? All those enticing pictures of Chateaus are going to be replaced by a plain white bottle and a picture of a car crash caused by drunk driver?

JulianMorrison 16y ago

I propose: that by law every one in a thousand cigarettes sold should have something that tastes and smells really spit-and-gag foul (but isn't poisonous) inserted at a random point (not just at the tip, or the end, but unpredictably). Light, mild, silver, one brand or another - there is no difference. You have a chance of running into the disincentive whichever you choose.