they provide some support for some potential links between plain packaging and reduced smoking. But, on their own, they don't provide support the introduction o

they provide some support for some potential links between plain packaging and reduced smoking. But, on their own, they don't provide support the introduction of plain packaging causing a decline in smoking rates. This is because there are 1) other potential effects of plain packaging on smoking (for example: lower prices -> greater consumption) and 2) there is no necessary link between surveyed perceptions of plain packs and actual consumption behaviour. My original point still stands: the linked article, with its bold headline and claim of "success" for plain packs in Australia, is irresponsible shitty journalism.