back
68 comments
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.

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.
Actually, having the government having the power to dismantle the kind of businesses they don't like is actually a neat idea.

I know our representative governments aren't democratic (despite elections and stuff). But big capitalist corporations are even worse. So, before we get rid of governments and their ludicrously concentrated power, why don't we look at the elephant in the room first: corporations and their even more ludicrously concentrated power?

> A dying business fighting tooth and nail for their survival is understandable and expected whatever poison they happen to be selling.

This analogy (fighting for survival) doesn't really hold: corporations aren't persons. We don't care about corporations, we care about the people affected by them (both inside and outside). A corporation fighting for survival doesn't have the same moral right as a person fighting for survival, despite most laws treating them as "moral persons". Human death is horrible. The end of a business, frankly, is no big deal. (What is a big deal is the subsequent unemployment —but that can be mitigated.)

> So, before we get rid of governments and their ludicrously concentrated power, why don't we look at the elephant in the room first: corporations and their even more ludicrously concentrated power?

Hey, Marx is back !

Instead of looking at the wrong elephant, i.e. the one actually selling products that people want, I'd say you better attack the one that's 1) taxing you to death for subpar services 2) force-feeding their education to your kids (brainwashing) 3) getting away with mismanagement of public resources (politician immunity) 4) able to resort to violent actions should you not respect them (take your possessions, imprison you, or worse). 5) can make you go to war and die. For free.

Yeah, sure, Corporations are SUPER Evil. Except that they are actually composed of normal people like you and me, while the people in power in Governments are certainly from a far more selected class that you can never hope to reach. But believe what you want.

the top 1% of larger corporations (i.e. VP level and CxO level) is more selective (i.e. not composed of normal people like you and me) than governments.

For both country governments and the governments of corporations, having some amount of both democratic control (through elections, or through laws that say what corporations can and cannot do - we don't want corporations to poison our kids any more than governments) as well as some economic responsibility (which is difficult - both for CEOs and for government officials it is frighteningly easy to disguise bad performance as "properties of the global economy").

taxing you to death for subpar services? Hello, Comcast and AT&T!

brainwashing your kids? Disney or Activision would never do that!

violent action? Corporations only do that in places with weak governments, which is a good thing. Never mind that the US health care system means that firing people also means taking their health care away.

can put you into deadly situations? Well, corporations would never do that. No one died in Dow Chemical's (now Monsanto) huge chemical spill in Bhopal. Also, both corporations and governments get rather bad PR when they kill people.

actually selling products that people want

Selling products a minority of people want, products that the vast majority do not want their children consuming or seeing as glamourous in any way.

The fact that some people want a product does not create a moral right to that product, and does not mean it is wrong for a government to enforce laws restricting and prohibiting those products.

Yes. I would like the laws I live under to be debated and enacted under a transparent democratic process, not a process that makes major changes to the society I live in via a series of secret negotiations and deals made by faceless and unaccountable men and women who weren't democratically elected.

Does that answer your question?

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.
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.
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.
Anecdotally, many smokers also support continued regulations on tobacco products. Tobacco companies have very little sympathy in the zeitgeist.
Court cases are ultimately decided based on the law which, as you know, is created and enacted on via a parliament or congress of elected politicians. Yes, even case law. Unless you think that a court can rule outside the law?
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.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepac...

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

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

“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.

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.
I'm confused - The Australian article cites the very 0.3% outlier that the Washington Post article is talking about. It's not reliable.

You say you should be suspicious, but you seem to show no suspicion of an article that starts with the sentence "LABOR’S nanny state push to kill off the country’s addiction to cigarettes with plain packaging has backfired, with new sales figures showing tobacco consumption growing during the first full year of the new laws."

Does your bias radar not kick in at this point? Or perhaps the anecdotal evidence from two smokers in Brisbane who said their friends haven't quit, and one convenience store worker in Sydney who agreed with British American Tobacco's spokesperson? Do you really consider this article to be... reliable? Did you wonder where they found these people? Are you not slightly suspicious who was feeding the info to the journalist?

It's well known that the Australian article you cite is an editorial, and an inaccurate editorial at that, by a former staffer in the Liberal Howard government. The article was highly criticized as being wrong on almost every count, most damningly by Media Watch (see here: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4026465.htm )

But here are a few counter articles from less biased, non-News Corp sources:

* http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/06/06/oz-exclusive-big-tobacco...

* http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/06/labor-rejects-t...

* http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/increased-tobacco-s...

The data itself was "leaked" to the Australian and is from InfoView, who supplies this info to cigarette companies. And, surprise, surprise, the full report and data it analyses was never released publicly.

Funny that.

Immensely wealthy tobacco companies pay people to spread misinformation.

Do you have links to reputable sources?

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.
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.

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.
I live in Berlin and it's not that uncommon to smoke inside bars, actually I'm not sure how legislation is, but there are more than a couple of clubs that you can actually smoke inside. I'm a smoker and I agree that it might be a little better if they change the cigarette box to something else.
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.

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.

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.
I don't believe there are known health reasons not to use an e-cigarette. It's a relatively new phenomenon though and hasn't been around long enough for us to study all possible long term effects.

There are, however, plenty of social reasons, depending on the local culture.

Not everybody necessarily realises that e-cigarettes are harmless to them and get upset when you use one around them, for example. Or people have had unpleasant experiences with aggressive e-cigarette consumers using them in public places like a restaurant or a train and getting uppity when asked to stop.

Another social stigma is that e-cigarette users tend to wax lyrical about them and, and I say that as an ex-user, not be very pleasant conversationalists, at least in the first few weeks after the discovery. I have seen people in social occasions actively avoid e-cigarette users (me!) for fear of being dragged into yet another lecture about vaping.

At least in the UK, I haven't noticed any negative social reactions. I think this problem may fix itself over time, where it exists.

I'm quite delighted that some of my coworkers use e-cigarettes, since I can spend time around them without having to stand the horrific smell.

Nicotine isn't a good idea for people at risk of blood clots; or people having surgery.
It's supposed to do less harm, which actually means nothing as manufacturers are making it addictive.
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.

Wait, nicotine is already addictive. And there is a strong psychological addiction.

How can they make it more addictive?

But i suppose the physical aspect of quitting smoking is the worst after 2-3 days. The mental aspect is always there, because other people smoke (or you used to smoke in the car or when you had any stress).

It doesn't seem logical to me that it's harder after 3 weeks then after 2-3 days, because i went from a pack a day to 0 cigarettes a day (instead of slowly reducing nicotine)

Sidenote: I'm actually from Belgium ;-)

Astonishingly, here in Ireland, we're being lobbied by our friends in Virginia - http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/us-governor-urges-go...
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.

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.
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.
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.

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)
Usually so libertarian here, so where did that go?
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.

It's tough to stay with an ideology when faced with mounting evidence of how harmful it is.
science reporting at its worst. contrary to the claim in the title, there is no evidence that plain packs CAUSED a decline in smoking.
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, or

* The British Medical Journal's review of Australian Plain Packaging laws, found here: 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

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.
You obviously haven't read the studies linked to then!
I would be just happy if the article would load properly.

If they want to reduce smoking then tie government benefits to not smoking. Ban it within the military; that they could do under the UCMJ. The for the rest, restrict where it can be sold and increase the taxation.

The cost has to become very high as even one hundred dollar monthly premiums on employee provided insurance do not stop people.

Increased costs have some drawbacks.

People spending money on tobacco are not spending that money on their children or paying their necessary household bills

High cost tobacco encourages criminal gangs to produce and import counterfeit products or to smuggle regular product. Smoking is harmful, but smoking some of the counterfeit cigarettes smuggled into England is even worse.

2004: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4096911.stm

2012: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4096911.stm

> One brand had eight times as much lead as normal cigarettes.

> All contained higher levels of cadmium, which can severely damage the lungs and is linked with kidney disease.

2014: video http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28940681