Cigarette package law to be voted on by MPs before election

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

Quote:

---

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

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

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.