60 ms·

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

by shamney 12y ago

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
- shamney 12y ago
  they are articles surveying people's opinions about plain packaging. they don't provide direct evidence for plain packaging <<causing>> a decline in smoking rates.
  - chris_wot 12y ago
    You obviously haven't read the studies linked to then!
    - shamney 12y ago
      eh? "Cross-sectional survey during the roll-out phase of the law, analysed by timing of survey." "How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers’ perceptions about brand image?"
      - chris_wot 12y ago
        If you read the articles, you would see that it was about it affected their perceptions, and not necessarily their opinions. And there are three surveys there.
        shamney 12y ago
        an unimportant distinction as it doesn't change the basic point -- none of those papers can be used to support a casual link between the introduction of plain packs and a decline in smoking.
        chris_wot 12y ago
        Well, no it is important. The first review from the University of Stirling is a review of the literature showing that plain packaging helps makes warnings more clear, packs were less appealing, and expose the reality of smoking - all causal factors to reduce smoking rates - especially amongst younger people. The BMJ study, "Introduction effects of the Australian plain packaging policy on adult smokers: a cross-sectional study", found that plain packaging helped increase the urgency for smokers to quit. That's a causal link to reduced smoking levels. The BMJ study "How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers’ perceptions about brand image? An experimental study" found that plain packaging helped reduce brand interest, helping reduce uptake by younger people. Again, a causal link to reducing the rates of smoking.

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

by 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

shamney 12y ago
they are articles surveying people's opinions about plain packaging. they don't provide direct evidence for plain packaging <<causing>> a decline in smoking rates.
- chris_wot 12y ago
  You obviously haven't read the studies linked to then!
  - shamney 12y ago
    eh? "Cross-sectional survey during the roll-out phase of the law, analysed by timing of survey." "How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers’ perceptions about brand image?"
    - chris_wot 12y ago
      If you read the articles, you would see that it was about it affected their perceptions, and not necessarily their opinions. And there are three surveys there.
      - shamney 12y ago
        an unimportant distinction as it doesn't change the basic point -- none of those papers can be used to support a casual link between the introduction of plain packs and a decline in smoking.
        chris_wot 12y ago
        Well, no it is important. The first review from the University of Stirling is a review of the literature showing that plain packaging helps makes warnings more clear, packs were less appealing, and expose the reality of smoking - all causal factors to reduce smoking rates - especially amongst younger people. The BMJ study, "Introduction effects of the Australian plain packaging policy on adult smokers: a cross-sectional study", found that plain packaging helped increase the urgency for smokers to quit. That's a causal link to reduced smoking levels. The BMJ study "How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers’ perceptions about brand image? An experimental study" found that plain packaging helped reduce brand interest, helping reduce uptake by younger people. Again, a causal link to reducing the rates of smoking.