Plain packets ‘won’t stub out cigarette sales’
Plain packaging wouldn't lessen the appeal of cigarettes. Picture: PA
There is no evidence that UK government proposals to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes will lessen their appeal, a right-wing think-tank claims.
An Adam Smith Institute report argues that the plans will do nothing for public health and are “profoundly illiberal”.
The UK government is to launch a public consultation – which will include Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – on putting cigarettes in plain packaging so that all tobacco products look alike. The Scottish Government said it would await a decision by its UK counterparts before considering action north of the Border.
But the Adam Smith Institute, which describes itself as the UK’s leading libertarian think-tank, warned the policy would set a dangerous precedent as plain packaging could then be extended to other products, such as alcohol and fatty foods.
It said there was no evidence that plain packaging would have any effect on existing smokers or the smoking rate, or that it would prevent non-smokers from taking up the habit as it claimed there is no evidence that colour and logos on a packet are influencing factors on people choosing to take up the habit.
Christopher Snowdon, author of the report, entitled Plain Packaging: Commercial expression, anti-smoking extremism and the risks of hyper-regulation, claimed: “Plain packaging is the most absurd, patronising and counterproductive policy yet advanced under the disingenuous pretext of ‘public health’.
The report also argued that, in order to introduce plain packaging, the government would have to breach international trade rules and confiscate tobacco companies’ intellectual property.
The think-tank said that plain packaging would encourage the illicit trade of counterfeit cigarettes, with one in nine cigarettes around the world already fake.
Counterfeit cigarettes often have two to three times the level of heavy metals found in legitimate brands, it argued, and the policy would be likely to boost the black market in the UK by offering cheaper cigarettes more likely to lure young and new customers.
Deborah Arnott, chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), said: “The Adam Smith Institute, by publishing this report, is acting as the mouthpiece for the tobacco industry, as it has done on many previous occasions.”
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “We have already brought forward legislation to end tobacco displays in shops and ban sales from vending machines.
“We are committed to doing all we can to improve the nation’s health and banning the display of tobacco products in shops will help discourage a future generation of smokers. We will follow the outcome of the UK government’s proposed consultation on plain packaging with interest before establishing if action needs to be taken.”
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond’s pledge to sign up 1m voters
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Sunday 27 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 18 comments to this article
Page 1 of 2
Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head
Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 09:41 AMHector: I agree totally with regard to counterfeit products. I have accidentally bought couterfeit cigarettes before, assuming that they would be the genuine article---from the chippy, Cafe Piccante at the top of Broughton Street for everyone's information. They tasted absolutely vile and on closer inspection, it was obvious from the packaging that these were not the genuine article. On numerous occasions after that I was offered them by itinerant traders who call into pubs. Being able to instantly identify their wares as fakes by the packaging, I was able to inform the whole pub accordingly. I've never seen a little Chinese man run so fast! It is vitally important that tobacco continues to be sold in good quality, detailed, trademarked packaging. ..................... In any case, one of the laws that counterfeiters break at present is the very act of attempting to copy a trademark. That can play an important part in bringing these people to justice. If we move to plain, grotesque packaging, then the counterfeiters will no longer be breaking that law........................Regarding Australia, The remark made by Mark Webber Comes to mind. The one he made in response to Lewis Hamilton getting hauled over the coals for having a little play with a supercar in a car park a couple of years ago. "Bloody nanny state mate!". We should certainly not be following suit.
Hector the Lessor
Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 06:54 AMAs a long term smoker, mind you hand rolled rather than tailor made, I rely on the packaging that comes with my tobacco to convince me I am getting the genuine article. You put everything into the one package then you are playing into the hands of the counterfeiters, I also believe that children should not be encouraged to start smoking , however given the choice of seeing my grandchildren smoking or popping pills, injecting into their veins or smoking everything and anything that alters their mind, I would rather see them smoking tobacco. What you die from eventually could be everything from inherited liabilities, chronic pollution from traffic, bad habits (including smoking, drinking too much, going with wild women or partying until you drop) it is a personal choice where you stay, and what you do. ___________________________________________________ Australia has indeed decided to go for plain packaging in cigarettes. They are also contemplating spending billions on new education methods, to add to the billions spent in the past. Unfortunately the recent statistics have shown that the average Asian student, from countries with considerably less investment in their education programs, show their students are at least two years ahead of their Australian counterparts in Science, Mathematics and Engineering. If you add on the National Broadband Network rollout, the house insulation program, the grants for solar panels, the free desktop boxes for pensioners to allow them to convert to digital tv. (that is a good one, well looking up in the Aussi internet papers). Plus Workfair legislation that converted a workable system into a Union dream. Of course you can add the asylum seekers. The current legislation actually encourages them to make the dangerous trip and jump the queue. It would make more sense to increase the processing of them offshore before they even made the trip, evidently a too difficult decision to make now a days. So there you have it, before you quote the improvements already established in Australia, read the newspapers. The Australian ones that is.
Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 05:20 PM#14: And where do you sit, John? Pro smoking? Non smoking? Not bothered about smoking? Or anti-smoking? The first three are perfectly acceptable and are generally a result of following freedom of choice. The forth option is fine as well provided you keep it to yourself. The problem comes when you try to impose it on others---which is my main point below.
Charles11
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 05:06 PM#14. You are wrong, but then I am pro choice.
ScottishJohn
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 04:53 PMI'm wondering if any of the pro-smoking contributors to these comment threads would like to distance themselves from Mr (or Mrs?) Fuel Head's contribution? I'm assuming you wouldn't want readers to assume that you all share these views and attitudes. But correct me if I'm wrong.
Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 04:24 PM#4: In other words, you are one of "the enemy". I carre not a jot about your so-called qualifications. I am more cnocerned about individual freedom of choice. 30 years or more ago when the government was giving genuine advice about smoking, I would have been fully supportive. These days the anti-smoking crusade has turned into a nasty, objectionable affair run by extremists. The measures taken are way out of proportion to the risks involved and those who drive them forward are, I suspect, bordering on the insane...................Unfortunately, you seem to have got sucked into all this maelstrom, probably as one of the "figures of authority" that I referred to earlier. I therefore strongly advise you to back off and disassociate yourself from organisation who seek only to victimise, marginalise and habitually lie in order to get their way.
Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 04:17 PM"The Adam Smith Institute, by publishing this report, is acting as the mouthpiece for the tobacco industry, as it has done on many previous occasions.” So in other words, anyone who dares speak out against the vile, objectionable hatred that your organisation foists upon us is "a mouthpiece for the tobacco industry" are they? ...............Let me tell you this, woman, I take every opportunity to speak out against the bigoted fascist bile that you and your organisation vomit all over people's freedom of choice. I am NOT associated with tobacco companies. I have never been associated with tobacco companies. I am never likely to be associated with tobacco companies and I am certainly never going to speak for them.......................In your despicable attempts to prevent people chosing for themselves, you are behaving exactly like those who were members of a certain political movement in Germany in the late 1930s. Your techniques are well known. Absolute intollerance. Spreading the word that people indulging in an activity harms those who do not (which is a downright lie). Associating your cause with authoritative figures and then using this to ridicule anyone who disagrees. Associating people who disagree with you with people and organisations who have in the past got things wrong and thereby belittling them by association, without the need to directly respond to their arguments..............On the other hand, what I am doing is to stand up for the freedom to choose. The freedom for people who wish to do so to enjoy tobacco. To encourage people to show tolerance as opposed to following the example of the bigots who actually invent their "offence" in respect of tobacco related matters and amplify for effect...............Smoking to excess can harm your health. Of that there is little doubt. However smoking does not harm health in anything like the measure that it is made out to do by propagandists like you and your organisation. Adn as for the notion that people who do not smoke can be harmed by smokers is absolutely ludicrous and implausible. Basic physics and chemistry tells us that. Passive smoking does not exist, never has existed and never will exist.....................On the subject of packaging, it is unfair, unethical and unjust to force a manufacturer to put obscene pictures and meaningless, over-the-top propaganda in their products. It is even more outrageous to force people who buy that product to display and peddle such filth. ....................... Regardless of what tobacco companies might think, the individual has the RIGHT to be able to purchase tobacco in attractive, pleasant packaging, free of gruesome images or ugly propaganda messages. The government health warning that was introduced in the 1970s (Warning by HM Government: Smoking can damage your health) was more than adequate, when printed on the side of the packet in a normal font. There is no need for anything more............ The introduction of plain packaging (no doubt adorned with more objectionable filth) will not affect the take up of smoking one bit. In that respect the Adam Smith Institute are 100% correct. What it will do is infringe trade marks. What it will do is to further intrude on the lives of smokers and what it will do is to increase the sales of tobacco pouches and cigarette cases----some of them branded with the full tobacco-related packaging, devoid of any propaganda. ...................For the amount of public support your despicable organisation enjoys, it gets a disproportionate amoutn of attention from the government. So far over £1 million is being wasted proping up your objectionable activities per year. In addition to this, you have the ear of senior government officials and ministers. For an extremist pressure group to be in that situation is beyond belief................ Your funding should be withdrawn immediately and your access to ministers curtailed. Let's see how well you do standing outside Tesco shaking a tin on saturday mornings and writing letters to your MSP----as other proper (and more worthwhile) charities haev to do.
Charles11
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 12:03 PMThe main reason for plain packets is to stop youngsters starting smoking, but youngsters get their first cigarettes from their friends and not from shops.
Charles11
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 12:02 PMThe main reason for plain packets is to stop youngsters starting smoking, but youngsters get their first cigarettes from their friends and not from shops.
Tintock Pete
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 11:58 AMStupidity doesn't need fancy wrapping yet it's everywhere.
samcoldstream
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 11:50 AMThis coming December, despite tobacco companies spending tens of millions of dollars on appeal after appeal, cigarettes will be sold in olive green cartons with with graphic images warning of the consequences of smoking. Tobacco companies have threatened to make further appeals but in typical Aussie style a spokesman on behalf of the Attorney-General's Office stated: "Bring it on." The Australian Federal Government will not be deterred by multi-billion tobacco companies in becoming the first country in the world to introduce such legislation. (Source: The Australian)
Willie Boy
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 11:26 AMPackaging, or the lack thereof, has not stopped the relentless increase in cannabis use, so why will plain packaging of fags help?
moosef
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 10:20 AMPlain packaging is the easiest way for "criminals" and dodgy shop owners to punt those so-called toxic ciggarettes we hear about. Fakes and counterfiets everywhere and HMRC losing its share of the revenue
WJohn
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 09:43 AMThat will be why sales of "A" and "B" class drugs are diving. Aye, right.
alanrodger
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 09:22 AMIt is one thing for a "think tank" thinker to make a statement about the potential effectiveness (or otherwise) of plain packaging of tobacco products or of the legality of it, but another to do so with the conviction of proof. That proof will be forth coming in the not too distant future when Australia is able to enforce its recent legislation to introduce plain packaging - and even the legality question will be tested in the Australian courts because, as we have seen here in Scotland, the tobacco industry never allows any legislation to restrict the use of or access to their tobacco products with out protracted court actions. Meantime, it is appropriate for the anti-tobacco lobby and public health bodies and governments to look closely at such proposed legislation and to weigh the comments of those prejudiced in favour of the unrestricted market accordingly. Statement of interest: I am a retired oncologist, registered medical practitioner, supporter of ASH Scotland and member of the Scottish Coalition on Tobacco (SCOT), and former member of the Executive Committee of Cancer Council Victoria in Australia. But I see no need to support this argument by waving children in the air or by pointing a knee-jerk accusatory finger at "big business": I do believe that the health evidence against tobacco is sufficient argument to justify further attempts to negate the undoubted influence of advertising that the tobacco industry see as financially effective and worth fighting over.
Page 1 of 2
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.