Cigarette package law to be voted on by MPs before election

[MKR&*42]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30926973


A law introducing plain cigarette packaging in England and Wales could come into force in 2016 after ministers said MPs would be asked to vote on the plan before May's general election. It follows a series of public consultations on the issue.

Public Health Minister Jane Ellison told MPs the move was likely to have a positive impact on public health, particularly for children.

Labour has already pledged to ban images on packets if it wins power and doctors say the move would save thousands of lives.

BBC health editor Hugh Pym said the changes could come into force as soon as 2016 if Parliament passes legislation before the end of March.

'Not complacent'
Ms Ellison said all the evidence pointed to the step having a positive impact - although she warned of a potential legal challenge from the cigarette industry which strongly opposes the move.

"We cannot be complacent. We all know the damage smoking does to health," she said. "This government is completely committed to protecting children from the harm that tobacco causes."

A review of the public health implications of standardised packaging last year by Sir Cyril Chantler concluded it was very likely their introduction would lead to a modest but important reduction in the uptake and prevalence of smoking.

MPs are now expected to be given a free vote on the issue before Parliament is dissolved ahead of the general election campaign, which begins in April.

--
Is it only me who feels it's very redundant to try and implement such a policy? I understand there's some credibility that it might reduce the number of current smokers and deter some people from taking it up, but I just don't see it as a necessary thing to introduce. I'd much rather the government focus on promoting e-cigarettes instead of wasting time forcing people to put on plain packaging.

Honestly we already have graphic images shown on a lot of cigarette packets and surely they're disgusting enough :P

[Alkaz]

If you smoke or want to smoke this won't make you stop, simple as. Just seems like a waste of time and money. I don't think the government want people to stop smoking either because of the tax revenue that is generated from smokers.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Here's my idea: why don't the government **** off out of everybody elses business, and focus on what they're supposed to be doing like foreign policy, schools, healthcare, trade but which they are doing a piss poor job at. They can't even keep the hospitals clean or teach children basic maths and english yet here they are wanting to regulate what colour smoke packets are and where shop owners can place them.

A few decades ago if you'd heard of this suggestion in the west you'd think it was a proposal in the Soviet Union where people and business had no choices they could make themselves without the state either deciding it for them or exercising enormous control over that decision.

[scottish]

I don't get it, how would a plain package prevent people taking up/continuing to smoke when the current package states SMOKING KILLS etc?

[Kyle]

I don't get it, how would a plain package prevent people taking up/continuing to smoke when the current package states SMOKING KILLS etc?
Because of the power of branding. People will typically associate a brand's image with the taste of a cigarette and its general appeal and have been shown to allocate negative characteristics to both the cigarette itself and those that smoke it in numerous studies. Because we link a particular brand to a particular experience there's a worry that seeing that image can elicit the need to relive that experience which in this case would be the desire to buy and smoke a cigarette upon seeing its logo. The idea is a particularly interesting one when we consider how concerned younger people especially are with their image and why they choose to smoke.

Not sure how I feel about this at all. On one hand it could prevent a lot of people wanting to smoke but on the other we could have another marlboro friday on our hands and lack of clear distinctions within the market could cause cigarette prices to crash and, in turn, perhaps make them far more easily available and encourage even more smoking!

[Chippiewill]

I don't get it, how would a plain package prevent people taking up/continuing to smoke when the current package states SMOKING KILLS etc?

iirc studies on australia implementing this showed a significant reduction in the smoking rate (-15%). The average age of children starting to smoke increased from 14.2 to 15.9.

[scottish]

Why though lol that's what I don't get.

How is a plain packet going to deter more than "smoking kills". Not that that deters many people but how will a plain packet be more effective? Because they can't show their friends what brand they're smoking?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why though lol that's what I don't get.

How is a plain packet going to deter more than "smoking kills". Not that that deters many people but how will a plain packet be more effective? Because they can't show their friends what brand they're smoking?

There's probably an explanation like the smoking rate drops around that every year anyway, or that with blank packets it is easier to smuggle in on the black market or something or other. Not that whether it 'works' or not has anything to do with whether its right or wrong.

My family smoke and they don't buy based on the packet, they buy based on the cheapest brand and the taste of the brand.

[Chippiewill]

My family smoke and they don't buy based on the packet, they buy based on the cheapest brand and the taste of the brand.

Fun-fact, in double-blind taste tests between coke and pepsi, people could not tell the difference, even among those who claimed that they could. As it turns out, a significant part of what we perceive as taste are in reality triggered by the branding on the packaging. This (And many related reasons) are why Coca Cola still spends so much on marketing when they're the most widely recognised brand in the world.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Fun-fact, in double-blind taste tests between coke and pepsi, people could not tell the difference, even among those who claimed that they could. As it turns out, a significant part of what we perceive as taste are in reality triggered by the branding on the packaging. This (And many related reasons) are why Coca Cola still spends so much on marketing when they're the most widely recognised brand in the world.

I can for sure taste the difference between Coca Cola and Pepsi. :P

I do get what you are saying though as i've seen tests like that before, I guess it depends on your taste buds/own preferences.

[Kimmy]

I'm confused, and probably have misunderstood this.
But how is banning pictures on a cigarette package going to 'save lives'?

[Chippiewill]

I can for sure taste the difference between Coca Cola and Pepsi. :P
Which is what a lot of people in the study thought.


I'm confused, and probably have misunderstood this.
But how is banning pictures on a cigarette package going to 'save lives'?

They're not banning pictures. They're banning branding which is statistically proven to reduce smoking rates and raise the age at which people start smoking. I think people in this thread are seriously underestimating the power of branding to influence our decisions.

[-:Undertaker:-]

They're not banning pictures. They're banning branding which is statistically proven to reduce smoking rates and raise the age at which people start smoking. I think people in this thread are seriously underestimating the power of branding to influence our decisions.

So... we need protecting from ourselves by a benevolent state?

[Chippiewill]

So... we need protecting from ourselves by a benevolent state?

I know plenty of people who wish they'd never started smoking and cannot stop.

[scottish]

Which is what a lot of people in the study thought.



They're not banning pictures. They're banning branding which is statistically proven to reduce smoking rates and raise the age at which people start smoking. I think people in this thread are seriously underestimating the power of branding to influence our decisions.

I don't smoke so have no idea about the influence of a brand, but presumably people bought it because they liked that brand rather than to show off? like I know kids in school love to show off they're smoking etc, but surely a *** will do that rather than ohhhhh I have this brand? :P

like I wouldn't buy Cola to show it to a friend, I'd buy it because I enjoyed Cola over alternatives.

Clothes/fashion obviously completely different.

[Chippiewill]

like I wouldn't buy Cola to show it to a friend, I'd buy it because I enjoyed Cola over alternatives.
What everyone in this thread is failing to understand is that the enjoyment of all these things is due, at least in part, to the branding.

[A]

Since when did the current packets look attractive anyway, it's not about the design, it's peer pressure in schools that get most people going, if not that then stress. Packaging won't help or stop people smoking, if almost £8 a packet does not stop them, will a plain packet?

[MKR&*42]

When they say plain I don't think they literally mean just a white box. I couldn't find the article on it.... then realised it's the one I put in this thread... but it'd be something similar to this:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/80432000/jpg/_80432372_80431859.jpg

Bigger health warnings + the brand name is only allowed to be in a small text (like top right). Are we literally gonna go to all this effort just to make the health warning pictures bigger? :P

[Mark]

Surely this will make it easier for counterfeit packets to be smuggled in and sold in the UK?

[Yupt]

Surely the current "smoking will kill you" packaging is more intimidating than just plain packaging.

[Chippiewill]

Surely the current "smoking will kill you" packaging is more intimidating than just plain packaging.

It won't be just plain, it'll still have the "you're going to die" stuff all over it.

[Yupt]

It won't be just plain, it'll still have the "you're going to die" stuff all over it.

Oh I see, I see.

[Matt]

As I sell cigarettes as part of my job, I've noticed a huge drop in the amount of people that buy not only single packets but entire cartons of cigarettes over here in Australia. People have either quit completely - because the government keep putting the prices up at every available chance - or cut down the amount they smoke (or just gone to somewhere that sells them cheaper than us which is quite unlikely tbh). I don't think the plain packaging alone has done much, but that along with rising prices seems to mean smoking is simply too expensive for people.

I get people coming in every week and they don't allow me to serve them certain packets if it's got a certain picture on it (this is only like 5 people). It just makes it a pain for us lol (+ I'm too nice to say 'no take what you're given'). Having to learn where every cigarette was, was probably the biggest change for me. When they implemented it over here they switched all the brands around in our cabinet too so instead of opening each cabinet and being able to clearly see each brand, they all look the same. I've been there for like 3 years and I still get confused.

One lady only ever takes the image of the fingers and ashtray because the rest of them are pretty gross. If we don't have the fingers she takes the mouth :)

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2013/09/21/1226543/966526-121228-plain-packaging.jpg

And when we first got the new packaging, on January 1st (can't remember the year) people were coming in saying that the flavour and taste of certain brands had changed. We didn't know anything about it and told them to contact the suppliers or the brand of cigarette. We had so many people saying they didn't taste the same and in the end I think that also did affect the amount of people who were smoking. It wasn't just one person mentioning the change in taste, it was actually quite a lot of people!

So the change in packaging + being more expensive + a slight change in taste = less people smoking. All those changes were done subtly (apart from the switch of packaging which had to be done once we closed on NYE that year)