Cheap Cigarettes Plain Packs

When the Rudd government's National Preventative Health Taskforce released a position paper on anti cheap cigarettes measures, they titled it "Making Smoking Cheap Cigarettes History."If that was the goal you'd think the government could just ban cheap cigarettes - a clear, bold, unequivocal stance on what it has condemned as a very dangerous and addictive product.

But the title does help us understand the reasoning behind plain packaging of cheap cigarettes, a policy which federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon announced a few weeks ago. It's punitive.The nanny state is no longer trying to inform us of the best choices and the risks of unhealthy behaviour. Now it's just resorted to bullying - haranguing and punishing people who still make those unapproved choices contrary to nanny's wisdom and despite nanny's best efforts.

Where will this end? Surely, after decades of anti-smoking cheap cigarettes education, the presumption eventually has to fall back onto individual responsibility.You can hate cheap cigarettes companies, you can hate what cheap cigarettes do, but the government is planning to make Australia the first country in the world to impose plain packaging on cheap cigarettes, it seems reasonable to ask whether it will work.

Here's what we know: cheap cigarettes smokers are influenced by packaging, to a degree, lighter colours seem to imply less risk, one leaked Philip Morris document admitted as much, "Smooth" and "Silver" also suggest safer cheap cigarettes.Hence the government's proposed new packet design - an unappealing olive green, with unadorned text for the label. But the literature suggests package marketing only influences the choices of existing cheap cigarettes smokers.

The government's goal for packaging is to stop people becoming smokers of cheap cigarettes in the first place. Roxon argues "catchy colours" are designed to "suck in young people". Her aim is to "make sure fewer people start on this dangerous habit." And there's no clear evidence packet design inspires non-smokers to start smoking cheap cigarettes.The most that reviews of the scholarly evidence can find are surveys in which teenagers are asked to imagine whether their friends could be duped by shiny packages. You may not be surprised to learn teenagers assume their friends are idiots.

This lack of evidence isn't surprising. People start smoking cheap cigarettes because they want to try the sensation of smoking cheap cigarettes, not try the sensation of holding a well-designed package. And what about existing smokers? Let's just say if graphic photos of bleeding lungs haven't inspired you to kick the habit, an olive box probably won't either.The cheap cigarettes companies are upset about plain packaging because it will make it harder to compete for the existing pool of customers. They focus on packaging design because there's nothing left for them to do.

It's not as if cheap cigarette marketing isn't highly regulated already. Cheap Cigarettes smokers won't even be able to see the olive-ness of the packets until after purchase. New Victorian laws mean cheap cigarettes are closeted out of view behind the counter. Now retailers can only display a sign, provided by the state government, with the words "We Sell Cheap Cigarettes Here" in black on a white background.Existing laws will undermine the effectiveness of future anti-smoking cheap cigarettes policies the government might implement.After all, it's one thing to show that people in an experimental psychology lab think lighter colours mean lighter cheap cigarettes. But it's quite another to imagine that - after decades of anti-smoking cheap cigarettes advertising, warning labels and social disapproval - the colour of the packet will make a lick of difference to the decision to smoke cheap cigarettes.

The traditional justification for nanny state-style regulation is that people don't understand the consequences of their choices.Should people be allowed to manage their own risks: to conduct themselves in their own way, to abuse or protect their bodies as they see fit?The answer to that question ultimately depends on your personal values. But the first health warning on cheap cigarette packets was imposed 38 years ago.

Anyway, we're a long way past the days of health bureaucrats gently nudging us to make better decisions, and moderate sin taxes to recoup the costs to taxpayers.Budget after budget of tobacco excise increases mean cheap cigarettes taxes now far outweigh the burden of cheap cigarettes smokers on the publicly funded health system.The government estimates smoking-related illness costs about $300 million a year. But it collects $5.8 billion each year in cheap cigarettes excise duty.

If the very existence of brands causes harm, as the government's plain packaging strategy suggests, then plain packaging for alcohol will no doubt be next. Eighty per cent of Australians believe the nation has a drinking problem.Brewers won't be able to get away with fluorescent and sparkling alcopops forever. They're obviously targeted at younger consumers. Nobody drinks Bacardi Breezers "responsibly."

Prominent text warning labels will come first. Then graphics.Seems unlikely? Well, 10 years ago the idea that the government would eliminate logos from cheap cigarette packs would have seemed pretty unlikely too.In a nanny state, what first sounds absurd can quickly become the law of the land.

› Read More

Cheap Cigarettes Safer?

Simply banning the use of words such as “light” and “mild” from cheap cigarette packaging may not be enough to wean cheap cigarettes smokers away from the mistaken belief that some brands are less harmful than others, a study suggests.

To curb misleading marketing practices, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration outlawed the labeling of cheap cigarettes as “light” or “mild” last year. But researchers who surveyed 8,000 cheap cigarettes smokers from the U.S., the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia concluded that cheap cigarette packaging continues to distort perceptions about smoking cheap cigarettes even though all conventional brands pose the same level of health risk.The new study, published in the journal Addiction, found that 20 percent of cheap cigarette smokers wrongly believe that some brands of cheap cigarettes are safer than others. Those assumptions were highest among U.S. cheap cigarettes smokers. And moves by manufacturers that critics and regulators say are intended to perpetuate those notions — by, for example, changing their “light” cheap cigarettes to “silver” and “gold” brands — appear to have paid off.

“Smokers of ‘gold’, ‘silver’, ‘blue’ or ‘purple’ brands were more likely to believe that their own brand might be a little less harmful compared to cheap cigarettes smokers of ‘red’ or ‘black’ brands,” the researchers say.

The findings could boost efforts to further regulate cheap cigarette packaging. The Australian government is introducing legislation that would limit package design to plain colors and require packages to carry graphic health warnings. In the U.S., likewise, the FDA has proposed bigger and more graphic warnings on cheap cigarette packages.

Study co-author David Hammond attributes the findings in part to a “hangover effect” from decades of sophisticated cheap cigarette marketing. ”It is not terribly surprising when one thinks about the legacy of tobacco industry marketing, as well as the way in which brands continue to be marketed with descriptors such as ‘slims’ and ‘smooth’,” he told the Sydney Morning Herald.

In the U.S., Philip Morris came under scrutiny last year after it attached advertising “onserts” to its Marlboro Lights packs that stated, “Your Marlboro Lights pack is changing. But your cheap cigarette stays the same. In the future, ask for ‘Marlboro in the gold pack.’” The FDA expressed concern that the onserts “may perpetuate the mistaken beliefs associated with your ‘light’ cheap cigarettes when marketed as Marlboro in the gold pack.”

The new study found that smokers also falsely believe that slim cheap cigarettes are less harmful, cheap cigarettes with harsh taste are riskier to smoke than smooth-tasting cigarettes, filters reduce risk, and nicotine is responsible for most of the cancer caused by cheap cigarettes.

› Read More