

Why cigarette packs matter - baha_man
http://www.badscience.net/2011/03/why-cigarette-packs-matter/

======
splat
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-
cig...](http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/10/science/la-sci-e-
cigs-20100910)

[2] www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-
development/files/article.jphp.pdf

[3] <http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/36/abstract>

~~~
Groxx
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
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.

------
lachyg
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+packa...](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)

~~~
defroost
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
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
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/>

Has been helpful for me.

~~~
ugh
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.

------
subwindow
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.

~~~
dedward
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
"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.

~~~
dedward
Yeah - I dont' live there anymore but on one trip back I noticed (I don't
smoke either) that every place that had over-counter cigarettes now had it
covered over.

It's been a wildly successful effort with long term benefits for the province.

------
JonnieCache
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
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/>

------
JulianMorrison
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.

------
handelaar
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_ ?

------
araneae
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
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?

