

When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them - samclemens
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/29/when-all-cigarette-packages-look-the-same-fewer-people-buy-them/

======
lemming
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
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
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
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.

~~~
seren
To be fair, restrictions on tobacco products are well supported by the
majority of, at the very least non-smokers, voters in most Western countries.
You don't see massive demonstrations or petitions to reinstate the right to
smoke in office, restaurant, public place, etc. In some case, it might be more
dubious, but for tobacco consumption I think the trend is pretty clear.

~~~
hammerdr
Anecdotally, many smokers also support continued regulations on tobacco
products. Tobacco companies have very little sympathy in the zeitgeist.

------
benmmurphy
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/labo...](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-
affairs/health/labors-plain-packaging-fails-as-cigarette-sales-rise/story-
fn59nokw-1226945123085)

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepac...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10718244/Australia-
tobacco-sales-increase-despite-plain-packaging.html)

~~~
jsankey
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
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.

~~~
chris_wot
Care to provide a link to the direct report the Australian quoted from? I'd
like to be able to read the report and its data in its entirety. And, no, a
quote from Scott McIntyre, the spokesman from British American Tobacco, is not
good enough for me. Data please.

------
kostja_gee
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.

~~~
DanBC
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
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.

------
NicoJuicy
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
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
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.

~~~
NicoJuicy
It's supposed to do less harm, which actually means nothing as manufacturers
are making it addictive.

~~~
nrinaudo
I don't understand the correlation you seem to be making.

Let's take the fact that manufacturers are making e-cigarettes addictive as a
given. I'm not entirely sure how that works and suspect you're talking about
the juice rather than the actual device, but the distinction is not terribly
relevant in that conversation.

So, ok, let's assume e-cigarettes are becoming more addictive. How does that
correlate to more harmful? there are plenty of things that are highly
addictive and not bad for your health in themselves - sex, say, or running for
some people, or programming.

Your point about addictivity is interesting, but I don't think it tells us
anything about the dangers of e-cigarettes, real or imagined.

~~~
DanBC
Addictive sex or addictive running or addictive programming are all strongly
tied to ill-health -- sexually transimited disease or unwanted pregnancy;
cardio vascular problems and joint problems; and social isolation and back
problems.

~~~
shamney
running doesn't cause cardiovascular problems.

~~~
DanBC
Excessive running causes cardio vascular problems.

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538475/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538475/)

> A routine of regular exercise is highly effective for prevention and
> treatment of many common chronic diseases and improves cardiovascular (CV)
> health and longevity. However, long-term excessive endurance exercise may
> induce pathologic structural remodeling of the heart and large arteries.

> Emerging data suggest that chronic training for and competing in extreme
> endurance events such as marathons, ultramarathons, ironman distance
> triathlons, and very long distance bicycle races, can cause transient acute
> volume overload of the atria and right ventricle, with transient reductions
> in right ventricular ejection fraction and elevations of cardiac biomarkers,
> all of which return to normal within 1 week. Over months to years of
> repetitive injury, this process, in some individuals, may lead to patchy
> myocardial fibrosis, particularly in the atria, interventricular septum, and
> right ventricle, creating a substrate for atrial and ventricular
> arrhythmias.

> Additionally, long-term excessive sustained exercise may be associated with
> coronary artery calcification, diastolic dysfunction, and large-artery wall
> stiffening. However, this concept is still hypothetical and there is some
> inconsistency in the reported findings. Furthermore, lifelong vigorous
> exercisers generally have low mortality rates and excellent functional
> capacity. Notwithstanding, the hypothesis that long-term excessive endurance
> exercise may induce adverse CV remodeling warrants further investigation to
> identify at-risk individuals and formulate physical fitness regimens for
> conferring optimal CV health and longevity.

------
flat6
Astonishingly, here in Ireland, we're being lobbied by our friends in Virginia
- [http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/us-governor-urges-
go...](http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/us-governor-urges-government-
not-to-use-plain-tobacco-packaging-1.1941863)

------
damian2000
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
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.

------
fsxfreak
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
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
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)

------
jjgreen
Usually so libertarian here, so where did that go?

~~~
junto
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.

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

~~~
chris_wot
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
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
You obviously haven't read the studies linked to then!

~~~
shamney
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
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
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
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.

~~~
shamney
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.

~~~
chris_wot
So now they provide some support, whereas before they provided no support.

The surveys do provide plenty of evidence that plain packaging changes smoking
behaviour. The price of cigarettes in Australia has risen due to taxation . A
packet of cigarettes cost $16 in 2013, in 2014 it is now $20.

Edit: I was needlessly aggressive. Sorry.

