8 ms·

When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

19 points by samclemens 12y ago

fsxfreak 12y ago
This is good. Cigarettes seem way too addictive to most people to be used responsibly, so the only way we'll protect public health is by deterring the first purchase.
- logicallee 12y ago
  It's not just that. Obviously smoking is a lifestyle. (I don't smoke.) Everyone knows its pure utilitarian benefit is negative. Likewise, who would buy a Big Mac in a plain brown wrapper in an unbranded restaurant with a nondescript "McDonald's" written on it in generic typeface? People know it's bad. It's a lifestyle.
  - iamwithnail 12y ago
    I'd probably go even further than that - you can have, by all accounts, a reasonably healthy lifestyle while still eating mcdonalds, the same isn't true of cigarettes. There's still SOME utilitarian benefit of fast food, even if marginal. Cigarettes are basically the only consumer product that, if used as intended, cause you intrinsic harm. (That I can think of)
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
damian2000 12y ago
From what I remember of Australia's case, big tobacco put up a fight, threatened the government with law suits, but in the end backed down. When you're in another country you really notice the difference, for example in Vietnam, even small corner shops have these intricate displays of cigarette packets, often on pedestals, with bright spotlights.
- threeseed 12y ago
  There is a reason that many investors are still investing heavily into tobacco companies. They are killing it in the emerging countries in particular around South East Asia. I went through back streets of Phillipines and it's shocking how many cigarette billboards there are.
NicoJuicy 12y ago
Actually, i quitted cigarettes 9 days ago. Although it's irritating when going out (other people that smoke). I don't seem to have a problem just now and i actually smoked for 13 years (i'm 27). I quitted because it's too unhealthy and i wanted to get back in sports... Which probably helped a lot (running / swimming while quitting it). Because i also sleep more now (i'm really forcing myselve to sleep more then 4 hours / night), i'm probably less addicted to anything.
- nrinaudo 12y ago
  Good job on quitting, but a word of warning: you've not hit the hard patch yet. From what all of my friends who quit smoking experienced, 1 month is the real test. I've seen many people quit smoking cold turkey and do great for 1 month, and then get back to it with a vengeance. I'm not sure what the psychological / physical reason for that is, but thought I'd warn you to be extra vigilant in 3 weeks - don't feel that you're finally rid of cigarettes and have a last one to celebrate. I personally smoked about 2 packs a day from 18 to 33 (that's a lot of wasted money) and quit thanks to e-cigarettes. The trick was to become a proper e-cigarette geek: didn't buy pre-manufactured juice but manufactured my own just right, with some essence of pepper for that burning sensation at the back of the throat, some mint for breath-control, and a bit of peppermint because it tastes nice. The first week was hard (apparently - I felt it wasn't too bad, but my wife later told me I'd been a right pain in the arse), but I successfully swapped tobacco addiction to e-cigarette addiction. Since I manufactured my own e-juice, I was able to reduce the amount of nicotine with each new batch, and quickly got to entirely nicotine-free smoking. After a while (3 months, if memory serves), making my own juice became too much of a hassle and I just stopped. Since I'd gotten rid of the nicotine addiction by then, I didn't feel any withdrawal and haven't smoked (or wanted to smoke) a cigarette in more than 2 years now. The conclusion is that if you start craving a last cigarette, go for an electronic one. There's thousands of shops in Paris (that's where you're from, right?) and they've become surprisingly affordable - much more so than a sustained tobacco addition, at any rate.
  - lucian1900 12y ago
    I'm not a smoker, but I wonder: is there a downside to just continue using an e-cigarette? It's the smoke that kills you (and those around you) after all, not the nicotine.
lemming 12y ago
Here's another interesting tidbit about plain packaging: the Australian government has been sued by big tobacco over this, under the terms of a trade agreement similar to the TPPA that is currently being negotiated in secret. These agreements allow large multinationals to sue governments who are party to them if they feel that legislation enacted by that government unfairly prejudices their business. The tobacco companies couldn't sue under the terms of the US-Aus trade agreement so Phillip Morris rearranged their affairs so they appeared as a Hong Kong company and then sued under the terms of that agreement instead. I live in New Zealand, which will unfortunately almost certainly be party to the TPPA before long. This will affect our ability to introduce plain cigarette packaging, resist meddling in our copyright laws and to continue using generic drugs to lower the cost of healthcare for all New Zealanders. The only small glimmer of common sense in all this is that the Australian High Court ruled against the tobacco companies. But we'll inevitably end up spending a large amount of our tax dollars on expensive legal battles with companies whose revenue approaches our GDP if we implement legislation that favours our citizens over international big business. It's a travesty.
- kozhevnikov 12y ago
  Would you prefer it any other way? Instead of going to the High Court your government can just say "what we say goes, and if you happened to be in business X that we no longer like, you're out of luck", I'd rather see them fight in courts. A dying business fighting tooth and nail for their survival is understandable and expected whatever poison they happen to be selling.
  - lemming 12y ago
    Of course I'd prefer it another way. Whether you like it or not, businesses are subject to all sorts of regulations from governments. Maybe you're a believer in the free market; I'm not. I'd like businesses that make their living exploiting people to be regulated.
    - kozhevnikov 12y ago
      Of course, but those regulations come from somewhere, they come from court cases, from subject matter experts' testimonials, from balanced review of views and facts on both sides. We don't want a random politician with questionable morals and unknown contributors banning products or whole sectors of the market bypassing courts and due process.
benmmurphy 12y ago
I would be careful using Australian packaging laws as evidence that plain packaging has an effect on rates of smoking. There has been a lot of controversy about whether it has had an effect or not. There has been a secular decline in smoking in Australia so a continued decrease in smoking is not necessarily evidence of an effective policy. Here are some alternative points of view: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/health/labors-plain-packaging-fails-as-cigarette-sales-rise/story-fn59nokw-1226945123085 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/health/labo... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10718244/Australia-tobacco-sales-increase-despite-plain-packaging.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepac...
- jsankey 12y ago
  I would be more careful trusting The Australian on anything to do with smoking (and a few other issues) given their writers' links to the tobacco-funded IPA. Media Watch put it a lot better than I could, with sources: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4026465.htm http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4026465.htm
  - benmmurphy 12y ago
    Media watch has some interesting quoting. "Do the figures mean more people are smoking? Well, no ... the industry admits , the number of smokers fell in 2013 by 1.4%. " and they link to: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1420_bata.pdf http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1420_bata.pdf “From 2008 to 2012 smoking incidence, or the number of people smoking, was declining at an average rate of -3.3 per cent a year. Since plain packaging was introduced, that decline rate slowed to -1.4 per cent,” Mr McIntyre said. “Over the five years in the lead-up to the introduction of plain packaging, total tobacco industry volumes were declining at an average rate of -4.1 per cent. So the source material appears to support the case that plain packaging has not been an effective policy and may have slowed the decline in smoking. The plain packaging policy looks a lot like rainmaking. Propose a policy that sounds like it might bring a decrease in smoking in an environment where smoking is already decreasing and then when smoking continues to decrease claim that it was a success.
kostja_gee 12y ago
My uncle from Russia told me, that they sell cigarettes in natural brown packages. When you want to purchase a package in a supermarket you get list of all the brands they offer. But there are no logos anywhere in the market. It is also forbidden to smoke in any public place. I currently live in Germany. It is strange to see how the government tries to stop people from smoking by only raising a higher tax on tobacco. Non of my friends quiet because of that. But some friends quieted when it was forbidden to smoke at restaurants and bars.
- drinchev 12y ago
  I live in Berlin and it's not that uncommon to smoke inside bars, actually I'm not sure how legislation is, but there are more than a couple of clubs that you can actually smoke inside. I'm a smoker and I agree that it might be a little better if they change the cigarette box to something else.
- DanBC 12y ago
  The reasons to ban smoking are i) to prevent harm to the smoker ii) to prevent harm to people around the smoker Banning smoking in all public places may push smokers to smoke more at home or in the car, where their children are. Since children are already severely affected by smoking we need to be careful to avoid anything that increases the amount of smoke around them.
  - glomph 12y ago
    There is no need to speculate. Smoking in public is banned in many countries and it hasn't caused that. It has caused people to give up smoking.
flat6 12y ago
Astonishingly, here in Ireland, we're being lobbied by our friends in Virginia - http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/us-governor-urges-government-not-to-use-plain-tobacco-packaging-1.1941863 http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/us-governor-urges-go...
jjgreen 12y ago
Usually so libertarian here, so where did that go?
- junto 12y ago
  You are still free to buy them, but you're no longer able to make these things attractive to young impressionable teenagers, who once hooked cannot stop. I personally feel that it is a fair balance.
- minikites 12y ago
  It's tough to stay with an ideology when faced with mounting evidence of how harmful it is.
shamney 12y ago
science reporting at its worst. contrary to the claim in the title, there is no evidence that plain packs CAUSED a decline in smoking.
- Shivetya 12y ago
  I would be just happy if the article would load properly. If they want to reduce smoking then tie government benefits to not smoking. Ban it within the military; that they could do under the UCMJ. The for the rest, restrict where it can be sold and increase the taxation. The cost has to become very high as even one hundred dollar monthly premiums on employee provided insurance do not stop people.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Increased costs have some drawbacks. People spending money on tobacco are not spending that money on their children or paying their necessary household bills High cost tobacco encourages criminal gangs to produce and import counterfeit products or to smuggle regular product. Smoking is harmful, but smoking some of the counterfeit cigarettes smuggled into England is even worse. 2004: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4096911.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4096911.stm 2012: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4096911.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4096911.stm > One brand had eight times as much lead as normal cigarettes. > All contained higher levels of cadmium, which can severely damage the lungs and is linked with kidney disease. 2014: video http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28940681 http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28940681
- chris_wot 12y ago
  Which scientific study that was quoted do you consider problematic? * University of Stirling's study into plain packaging at http://phrc.lshtm.ac.uk/papers/PHRC_006_Final_Report.pdf http://phrc.lshtm.ac.uk/papers/PHRC_006_Final_Report.pdf, or * The British Medical Journal's review of Australian Plain Packaging laws, found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3710988/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3710988/ - or... * Perhaps it was the BMJ study into plain packaging, linked here? http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/17/6/416.full http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/17/6/416.full

19 points by samclemens 12y ago

This is good. Cigarettes seem way too addictive to most people to be used responsibly, so the only way we'll protect public health is by deterring the first purchase.

logicallee 12y ago
It's not just that. Obviously smoking is a lifestyle. (I don't smoke.) Everyone knows its pure utilitarian benefit is negative. Likewise, who would buy a Big Mac in a plain brown wrapper in an unbranded restaurant with a nondescript "McDonald's" written on it in generic typeface? People know it's bad. It's a lifestyle.
- iamwithnail 12y ago
  I'd probably go even further than that - you can have, by all accounts, a reasonably healthy lifestyle while still eating mcdonalds, the same isn't true of cigarettes. There's still SOME utilitarian benefit of fast food, even if marginal. Cigarettes are basically the only consumer product that, if used as intended, cause you intrinsic harm. (That I can think of)
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

damian2000 12y ago

From what I remember of Australia's case, big tobacco put up a fight, threatened the government with law suits, but in the end backed down. When you're in another country you really notice the difference, for example in Vietnam, even small corner shops have these intricate displays of cigarette packets, often on pedestals, with bright spotlights.

threeseed 12y ago
There is a reason that many investors are still investing heavily into tobacco companies. They are killing it in the emerging countries in particular around South East Asia. I went through back streets of Phillipines and it's shocking how many cigarette billboards there are.

NicoJuicy 12y ago

Actually, i quitted cigarettes 9 days ago. Although it's irritating when going out (other people that smoke). I don't seem to have a problem just now and i actually smoked for 13 years (i'm 27). I quitted because it's too unhealthy and i wanted to get back in sports... Which probably helped a lot (running / swimming while quitting it). Because i also sleep more now (i'm really forcing myselve to sleep more then 4 hours / night), i'm probably less addicted to anything.

nrinaudo 12y ago
Good job on quitting, but a word of warning: you've not hit the hard patch yet. From what all of my friends who quit smoking experienced, 1 month is the real test. I've seen many people quit smoking cold turkey and do great for 1 month, and then get back to it with a vengeance. I'm not sure what the psychological / physical reason for that is, but thought I'd warn you to be extra vigilant in 3 weeks - don't feel that you're finally rid of cigarettes and have a last one to celebrate. I personally smoked about 2 packs a day from 18 to 33 (that's a lot of wasted money) and quit thanks to e-cigarettes. The trick was to become a proper e-cigarette geek: didn't buy pre-manufactured juice but manufactured my own just right, with some essence of pepper for that burning sensation at the back of the throat, some mint for breath-control, and a bit of peppermint because it tastes nice. The first week was hard (apparently - I felt it wasn't too bad, but my wife later told me I'd been a right pain in the arse), but I successfully swapped tobacco addiction to e-cigarette addiction. Since I manufactured my own e-juice, I was able to reduce the amount of nicotine with each new batch, and quickly got to entirely nicotine-free smoking. After a while (3 months, if memory serves), making my own juice became too much of a hassle and I just stopped. Since I'd gotten rid of the nicotine addiction by then, I didn't feel any withdrawal and haven't smoked (or wanted to smoke) a cigarette in more than 2 years now. The conclusion is that if you start craving a last cigarette, go for an electronic one. There's thousands of shops in Paris (that's where you're from, right?) and they've become surprisingly affordable - much more so than a sustained tobacco addition, at any rate.
- lucian1900 12y ago
  I'm not a smoker, but I wonder: is there a downside to just continue using an e-cigarette? It's the smoke that kills you (and those around you) after all, not the nicotine.

lemming 12y ago

Here's another interesting tidbit about plain packaging: the Australian government has been sued by big tobacco over this, under the terms of a trade agreement similar to the TPPA that is currently being negotiated in secret. These agreements allow large multinationals to sue governments who are party to them if they feel that legislation enacted by that government unfairly prejudices their business. The tobacco companies couldn't sue under the terms of the US-Aus trade agreement so Phillip Morris rearranged their affairs so they appeared as a Hong Kong company and then sued under the terms of that agreement instead. I live in New Zealand, which will unfortunately almost certainly be party to the TPPA before long. This will affect our ability to introduce plain cigarette packaging, resist meddling in our copyright laws and to continue using generic drugs to lower the cost of healthcare for all New Zealanders. The only small glimmer of common sense in all this is that the Australian High Court ruled against the tobacco companies. But we'll inevitably end up spending a large amount of our tax dollars on expensive legal battles with companies whose revenue approaches our GDP if we implement legislation that favours our citizens over international big business. It's a travesty.

kozhevnikov 12y ago
Would you prefer it any other way? Instead of going to the High Court your government can just say "what we say goes, and if you happened to be in business X that we no longer like, you're out of luck", I'd rather see them fight in courts. A dying business fighting tooth and nail for their survival is understandable and expected whatever poison they happen to be selling.
- lemming 12y ago
  Of course I'd prefer it another way. Whether you like it or not, businesses are subject to all sorts of regulations from governments. Maybe you're a believer in the free market; I'm not. I'd like businesses that make their living exploiting people to be regulated.
  - kozhevnikov 12y ago
    Of course, but those regulations come from somewhere, they come from court cases, from subject matter experts' testimonials, from balanced review of views and facts on both sides. We don't want a random politician with questionable morals and unknown contributors banning products or whole sectors of the market bypassing courts and due process.

benmmurphy 12y ago

I would be careful using Australian packaging laws as evidence that plain packaging has an effect on rates of smoking. There has been a lot of controversy about whether it has had an effect or not. There has been a secular decline in smoking in Australia so a continued decrease in smoking is not necessarily evidence of an effective policy. Here are some alternative points of view: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/health/labors-plain-packaging-fails-as-cigarette-sales-rise/story-fn59nokw-1226945123085 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/health/labo... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10718244/Australia-tobacco-sales-increase-despite-plain-packaging.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepac...

jsankey 12y ago
I would be more careful trusting The Australian on anything to do with smoking (and a few other issues) given their writers' links to the tobacco-funded IPA. Media Watch put it a lot better than I could, with sources: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4026465.htm http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4026465.htm
- benmmurphy 12y ago
  Media watch has some interesting quoting. "Do the figures mean more people are smoking? Well, no ... the industry admits , the number of smokers fell in 2013 by 1.4%. " and they link to: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1420_bata.pdf http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1420_bata.pdf “From 2008 to 2012 smoking incidence, or the number of people smoking, was declining at an average rate of -3.3 per cent a year. Since plain packaging was introduced, that decline rate slowed to -1.4 per cent,” Mr McIntyre said. “Over the five years in the lead-up to the introduction of plain packaging, total tobacco industry volumes were declining at an average rate of -4.1 per cent. So the source material appears to support the case that plain packaging has not been an effective policy and may have slowed the decline in smoking. The plain packaging policy looks a lot like rainmaking. Propose a policy that sounds like it might bring a decrease in smoking in an environment where smoking is already decreasing and then when smoking continues to decrease claim that it was a success.

kostja_gee 12y ago

My uncle from Russia told me, that they sell cigarettes in natural brown packages. When you want to purchase a package in a supermarket you get list of all the brands they offer. But there are no logos anywhere in the market. It is also forbidden to smoke in any public place. I currently live in Germany. It is strange to see how the government tries to stop people from smoking by only raising a higher tax on tobacco. Non of my friends quiet because of that. But some friends quieted when it was forbidden to smoke at restaurants and bars.

drinchev 12y ago
I live in Berlin and it's not that uncommon to smoke inside bars, actually I'm not sure how legislation is, but there are more than a couple of clubs that you can actually smoke inside. I'm a smoker and I agree that it might be a little better if they change the cigarette box to something else.
DanBC 12y ago
The reasons to ban smoking are i) to prevent harm to the smoker ii) to prevent harm to people around the smoker Banning smoking in all public places may push smokers to smoke more at home or in the car, where their children are. Since children are already severely affected by smoking we need to be careful to avoid anything that increases the amount of smoke around them.
- glomph 12y ago
  There is no need to speculate. Smoking in public is banned in many countries and it hasn't caused that. It has caused people to give up smoking.

flat6 12y ago

Astonishingly, here in Ireland, we're being lobbied by our friends in Virginia - http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/us-governor-urges-government-not-to-use-plain-tobacco-packaging-1.1941863 http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/us-governor-urges-go...

jjgreen 12y ago

Usually so libertarian here, so where did that go?

junto 12y ago
You are still free to buy them, but you're no longer able to make these things attractive to young impressionable teenagers, who once hooked cannot stop. I personally feel that it is a fair balance.
minikites 12y ago
It's tough to stay with an ideology when faced with mounting evidence of how harmful it is.

shamney 12y ago

science reporting at its worst. contrary to the claim in the title, there is no evidence that plain packs CAUSED a decline in smoking.

Shivetya 12y ago
I would be just happy if the article would load properly. If they want to reduce smoking then tie government benefits to not smoking. Ban it within the military; that they could do under the UCMJ. The for the rest, restrict where it can be sold and increase the taxation. The cost has to become very high as even one hundred dollar monthly premiums on employee provided insurance do not stop people.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Increased costs have some drawbacks. People spending money on tobacco are not spending that money on their children or paying their necessary household bills High cost tobacco encourages criminal gangs to produce and import counterfeit products or to smuggle regular product. Smoking is harmful, but smoking some of the counterfeit cigarettes smuggled into England is even worse. 2004: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4096911.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4096911.stm 2012: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4096911.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4096911.stm > One brand had eight times as much lead as normal cigarettes. > All contained higher levels of cadmium, which can severely damage the lungs and is linked with kidney disease. 2014: video http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28940681 http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28940681
chris_wot 12y ago
Which scientific study that was quoted do you consider problematic? * University of Stirling's study into plain packaging at http://phrc.lshtm.ac.uk/papers/PHRC_006_Final_Report.pdf http://phrc.lshtm.ac.uk/papers/PHRC_006_Final_Report.pdf, or * The British Medical Journal's review of Australian Plain Packaging laws, found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3710988/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3710988/ - or... * Perhaps it was the BMJ study into plain packaging, linked here? http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/17/6/416.full http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/17/6/416.full