Poll: UK Standardized Smoking Packages Law in Final Stages

[elvor0]

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31839859

So as some of you may have heard, the new law to pass in the UK is to enforce standardized packaging on tobacco products, much like in Australia and really I was curious as to peoples views on the matter. It's in it's final stages and merely has one more vote to go through before it goes into effect.

Personally I have no idea why. I don't know about any of you lot, I for one, did not start smoking because of the pretty colours on the packaging, I started smoking pot, which then after prolonged use, led to me smoking regular cigarettes. Smoking's not something people just randomly decide to get into one day. On the flip side, the decision to not smoke comes from either not wanting to incur the health risks, parent or peer pressure (in some circles) or just not liking it. If you're going to smoke, I don't think the packaging being olive green is going to put you off either.

Now, the idea that standardized packaging putting people off smoking is one that keeps getting spouted, and I honestly do not know where they get this idea from. Okay, it may stop 1 or 2 people but I don't see that being a massive victory, or worth campaigning for. If you really have umbrage with smoking, campaign to ban it, not just change the colour of the box, because that helps noone. The UK is also in an awkward place in that the money generated in taxes, considerably outweighs the cost of treating smoking based illnesses at the NHS, so we're actually paying for ourselves and then some. This means that a ban is essentially out of the question in the UK because it's proping the economy up.

Now, this isn't about whether or not you like smoking or smokers. It's just about the research, and as an ammendment, it's not about the gross images (although I think that's rather inneffective too. At least in the UK it's a running joke just to get the one that reduces pregnancy rates or errections when you're the opposite sex), it's branding on the package.

This article from The Guardian(with sauce) seems to dispute a lot of the claims that standardized packaging is better. The amusing one was the idea it drive down sales because it would take longer to find the cigarettes apparently causing people to storm out in a fit of rage having to wait 30 seconds longer, (presumably to just buy their cigarettes elsewhere) and thus not buy any cigarettes(?). What actually happened was it was quicker.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2013/mar/07/plain-packaging-cigarettes-current-evidence

Strangely, the industry has also decided that they will file lawsuits, should the bill pass on the grounds of Intellectual copyright infringement and the idea that it would increase couterfitting and smuggling, which is quite likely.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/03/11/uk-britain-cigarettes-packaging-idUKKBN0M70OY20150311

 

[tippy2k2]

Good God that is stupid.

I'm not a smoker. I've never been a smoker and I will never be a smoker but is there anyone, smoker or not, who thinks that smoking is good for you?

I don't know why but "Government mandated marketing" tactics like this always irk the hell out of me. We don't have pictures of a fat-clogged artery on soda. We don't have pictures of a mangled car wreck on alcohol bottles. We don't have pictures of a single brain cell with a gun to it's head on DVD copies of "Keeping up with the Kardashian's".

So why are smokers the ones stuck putting up with this kind of bullshit?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I think it's less about stopping people from smoking and more about homogenizing the product. If all the packages look the same then people won't be able to identify them as readily, if people can't identify them as readily then advertising is going to be less effective at selling cigarettes (people will still smoke but won't care as much about what particular brand they're smoking), and therefore there will be less advertisements for smoking which might discourage people from smoking a little bit.

At least I believe that's the logic behind it.

Either way I think it's stupid. Smokers are adults they should have the right to put whatever the fuck they want into their own bodies and not be harassed for it. If they want to slowly kill themselves with cancer sticks they have the right to do so as long as they're not egregiously bothering others.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

I have been living in country with little tobacco tax with no warning sign on package when I was in middle school, which is generally the age when teenagers starts smoking.

It seemed dumb to smoke back then, it still is dumb now. (now I live in the place where 75% of the package is warning sign, as well as tax on cigarettes)

Oh, and only cigarette sales loss that caused by "difficulty of finding cigarettes" is total BS.
I worked in the convenience store before. People ask EMPLOYEE what kind of cigarettes they want, and experienced convenience store worker know location of the cigarette brands by heart.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

I personally figured it seemed rather stupid at first, but the research on whether or not it works isn't exactly clear cut. It might work, it might not. Either way, it doesn't really seem all that much of a big deal. There are plenty of other restrictions on how companies are allow to market products.

Either way I think it's stupid. Smokers are adults they should have the right to put whatever the fuck they want into their own bodies and not be harassed for it. If they want to slowly kill themselves with cancer sticks they have the right to do so as long as they're not egregiously bothering others.

Cigarettes have not been banned ...

I don't see where harassment comes into this. They still have the right to buy as many cigarettes as they want.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I personally figured it seemed rather stupid at first, but the research on whether or not it works isn't exactly clear cut. It might work, it might not. Either way, it doesn't really seem all that much of a big deal. There are plenty of other restrictions on how companies are allow to market products.

Either way I think it's stupid. Smokers are adults they should have the right to put whatever the fuck they want into their own bodies and not be harassed for it. If they want to slowly kill themselves with cancer sticks they have the right to do so as long as they're not egregiously bothering others.

Cigarettes have not been banned ...

I don't see where harassment comes into this. They still have the right to buy as many cigarettes as they want.

It is harassment. Every day they wake up to people telling them nonstop "you're going to die, you're killing yourself, you're an idiot for smoking" etc. How is that not harassment?

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

How is it harassment? I mean I drink alcohol, even though I know it's bad for me. People tell you all the time how bad it is for you, but "health warnings" isn't harassment.

Anyway I don't see how people can smoke, the cost alone is insane.

I don't know about you, but some people - even smokers - rather not look at pale and blacken and mucous-y lung or mouth infested with white malignant tumor-thing(which incidentally looks like marshmallows)

I guess that could count as harassment, considering that it is restricting what smokers want to do.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

How is it harassment? I mean I drink alcohol, even though I know it's bad for me. People tell you all the time how bad it is for you, but "health warnings" isn't harassment.

Anyway I don't see how people can smoke, the cost alone is insane.

I don't know about you, but some people - even smokers - rather not look at pale and blacken and mucous-y lung or mouth infested with white malignant tumor-thing(which incidentally looks like marshmallows)

I guess that could count as harassment, considering that it is restricting what smokers want to do.

No that wouldn't count as harassment at all.

Harass: to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.

I think the definition fits.

 

[Zhukov]

I'm from Australia, where we already have laws like the ones you're describing. (In my home state there's actually been talk of outlawing sales of tobacco to anyone born after 2000, but I doubt it will happen.)

I'm not a smoker, and never have been. I have worked in places that sell cigarettes though, so I'm familiar with the packaging.

All cigarettes and tobacco are sold in plain, two-tone drab coloured packages with a large printed health warning. Something like, "Smoking while pregnant can harm your child", or, "Smoking causes throat cancer." Along with that there is a picture of the kind of damage smoking can cause. Some of them are very graphic, like a gangrenous foot, or a dissected lung showing the decayed tissue, or a mouth full of blackened teeth with cancerous growths on the gums and lips. Others are less graphic, like a child with a breathing mask.

I don't really have much comment on the matter, although I am rather surprised that the tobacco industry is able to continue despite such measures. Really highlights how strong addiction is. Or how much people just don't give a shit.

I mean, would the chocolate industry survive if every block had to print a picture of a naked, morbidly obese person eating some chocalate with the words, "Too much chocolate will make you look like this", written on it?

 

[Drathnoxis]

Smoking's not something people just randomly decide to get into one day.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. My 25 year old cousin started smoking one summer when he was on break from nursing school, the reason he gave was "he was bored."

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Without wishing to sound like a old fuddy duddy, I never started smoking. I've had a few cigars and cigarettes, usually on holidays or at parties. But I never looked at a camel light and said "This is something I need in my life!"
It just always seemed too silly to me, that anyone could get addicted to them. Yes, they're bad for me. So is that doughnut I ate, and the beer I drank. I accept that, and still wish to consume. But I hold no sympathy for anyone who goes overboard.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I don't really know. I'm in australia, so we already have these, but I have no idea what it looks like, because I don't smoke, don't know anyone who does, and in shops they are hidden away in drawers.

I know once upon a time things were different. I even bought packs of marlboros for my mum from the local takeaway when I was 8 or something.

I know she started smoking at 11. And that's peer pressure, pure and simple, Her friend smoked, so so did she.

I really can't say I have any idea what these packaging laws accomplish, but who cares either way?

It's just a package.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I don't really know. I'm in australia, so we already have these, but I have no idea what it looks like, because I don't smoke, don't know anyone who does, and in shops they are hidden away in drawers.

I know once upon a time things were different. I even bought packs of marlboros for my mum from the local takeaway when I was 8 or something.

I know she started smoking at 11. And that's peer pressure, pure and simple, Her friend smoked, so so did she.

I really can't say I have any idea what these packaging laws accomplish, but who cares either way?

It's just a package.

Considerable time and tax money is being spent to pass these laws, this is time and money that could be better served elsewhere. That's why people care, because this is a stupid waste of resources which isn't going to ultimately accomplish anything.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I don't really know. I'm in australia, so we already have these, but I have no idea what it looks like, because I don't smoke, don't know anyone who does, and in shops they are hidden away in drawers.

I know once upon a time things were different. I even bought packs of marlboros for my mum from the local takeaway when I was 8 or something.

I know she started smoking at 11. And that's peer pressure, pure and simple, Her friend smoked, so so did she.

I really can't say I have any idea what these packaging laws accomplish, but who cares either way?

It's just a package.

Considerable time and tax money is being spent to pass these laws, this is time and money that could be better served elsewhere. That's why people care, because this is a stupid waste of resources which isn't going to ultimately accomplish anything.

Stupid waste of time and money is standard practice for most government decisions, even when the intentions are good.
If you feel stressed out by it every time it looks particularly dumb, you're going to waste a lot of your own time and energy on basically nothing.

And no matter how much this kind of thing might cost, it's pocket change for a typical government budget anyway.
Not worth the time to worry about

 

[dragonmith]

Throwing it out there, second hand smoke is a real thing, so smokers don't only hurt themselves (never mind the costs for gov spending money on smoker medical care, blablabla)

The use of plain packets is part of the general strategy of gently phasing smoking out. If you start with a straight ban there's almost a 100% chance of starting a massive black market, but if you go slowly changing hearts and minds: can't smoke here, no advertising here, then it starts becoming less popular to smoke.

Remember when people smoked all the time in movies? When it used to be "cool"?
(att. it might still be, I'm probably not a great judge)


Addendum, turns out 3rd hand smoke is a thing http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-third-hand-smoke/ I had no idea

 

[Colour Scientist]

The change was never really about stopping current smokers but more about deterring younger people from starting.

It's an attempt to stop them from identifying with brands that their peers or elders smoke. In a lot of cases, people will start with a brand because someone else was smoking it and then stick to it. It's the same kind of marketing banks do, if you get them as customers young, you probably have them for life. I've been smoking the same brand since I started and I started pretty young.

I don't know how effective it will be but when they were passing the legislation in Ireland, the tobacco industry was pretty desperate to stop it and one company threatened legal action. If it wasn't going to potentially have an impact, why would they be so against it?

Even if this is only marginally effective in curbing the numbers of young people taking up smoking, it has to be worth a shot because I don't really see any downside, apart from a loss of revenue for tobacco companies.

 

[Albino Boo]

The change was never really about stopping current smokers but more about deterring younger people from starting.

It's an attempt to stop them from identifying with brands that their peers or elders smoke. In a lot of cases, people will start with a brand because someone else was smoking it and then stick to it. It's the same kind of marketing banks do, if you get them as customers young, you probably have them for life. I've been smoking the same brand since I started and I started pretty young.

I don't know how effective it will be but when they were passing the legislation in Ireland, the tobacco industry was pretty desperate to stop it and one company threatened legal action. If it wasn't going to potentially have an impact, why would they be so against it?

Even if this is only marginally effective in curbing the numbers of young people taking up smoking, it has to be worth a shot because I don't really see any downside, apart from a loss of revenue for tobacco companies.

The downside is going be a long legal battle with cigarette companies for a start

The UK Government is ignoring serious legal issues under UK, European, and international law. Five countries are challenging the legality of plain packaging at the World Trade Organization, and 11 EU Member States have objected to the UK?s proposal at the European Commission ? recognising their duty under EU treaties to uphold EU law and free competition. At the same time, the EU Court of Justice is considering whether the UK and other Member States have the power to introduce pack standardisation measures beyond those already required by the EU.

While advocates of plain packaging may downplay these issues, the UK Government should be fully aware of the potential consequences of ignoring them, and of rushing to preempt the legal process.

The same legal battle is happening in Australia where this measure was already introduced and will likely take a decade to finish and even then the tobacco companies are likely to win. You cannot just take control of someone else copyrighted products without paying compensation under UK, EU and WTO rules. This is cheap grandstanding by politicians who know that more than likely when the bill becomes due that they will not be in power.

 

[Hazy992]

Good God that is stupid.

I'm not a smoker. I've never been a smoker and I will never be a smoker but is there anyone, smoker or not, who thinks that smoking is good for you?

I don't know why but "Government mandated marketing" tactics like this always irk the hell out of me. We don't have pictures of a fat-clogged artery on soda. We don't have pictures of a mangled car wreck on alcohol bottles. We don't have pictures of a single brain cell with a gun to it's head on DVD copies of "Keeping up with the Kardashian's".

So why are smokers the ones stuck putting up with this kind of bullshit?

Well for one thing it's possible to enjoy things like soda and alcohol in moderation. You can't really do that with cigarettes, just having one now and then can have adverse health effects.

Not only that but you also have the issue that smoking can have effects on another person's health with second hand smoke etc.

OT: I don't really have any issue with this. It doesn't outright ban cigarettes, (which I wouldn't be in favour of as you should be allowed to what you want with your body as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else) rather it's supposed to discourage new people, particularly younger people, from taking it up in the first place.