Fabulous news that plain cigarette packets are to be introduced soon. From the BBC -

 

 

The government is moving forward with plans to ban branding on cigarette packs, Public Health Minister Jane Ellison told MPs.

 

She said an independent report found it was "very likely to have a positive impact" on public health and stop children from starting to smoke.

 

Ms Ellison said she was publishing draft regulations for a final, "short consultation".

 

Labour accused Ms Ellison of kicking the issue "into the long grass".

 

The consultation will apply to England and Wales, while Northern Ireland has indicated it will follow suit and Scotland already has plans to introduce plain packaging, meaning the UK could become the first place in Europe to make this step.

 

Shadow health secretary Luciana Berger called for immediate legislation to ban branding, telling MPs: "There is an overwhelming body of evidence in favour of standardised packaging and there can be no excuse for a further delay."

'Vested interests'

 

She added: "How many more children are going to take up smoking before this government makes a decision?"

 

She accused the government of "caving in to vested interests" on the issue.

 

Labour claims the Conservative Party favours the tobacco lobby after a series of delays in a decision on whether to move ahead with a branding ban.

 

The tobacco industry argues standardised packaging would lead to a rise in illegally smuggled cigarettes in Britain and argues that evidence from Australia, which became the first country to bring in standardised packaging in 2011, shows little impact on smoking rates.

 

Ms Ellison told MPs the latest independent report, by paediatrician Sir Cyril Chantler, has found evidence that the Australian legislation has had a positive impact.

 

She said about 200,000 children aged between 11 and 15 start smoking in the UK every year - about 600 a day.

 

She told MPs: "If this rate of smoking by children was reduced even by 2%, for example, it would mean that 4,000 fewer children take up smoking each year.

 

Health Minister Jane Ellison: "We want our nation's children to grow up happy and healthy"

 

Obviously I'm greatly in favour of any measures that stops people from taking up smoking, or discourages people from continuing to smoke, but what do you think about the new regulations? Are they a sensible measure, or is it a case of the 'nanny state' going too far? If you're a smoker, do you think this will make you less likely to continue?

 

Lots to talk about here, so let's have a healthy discussion (pun unintentional).

It won't change much, if anything at all.

I've given up recently and I'm opposed to the total public smoking ban (I'd have had it so that it were still permitted in separate rooms in pubs other than the main serving and seating area, but everything else still banned as currently) but I'm all in favour of this. The evidence that it does actually change behaviour and reduce take-up/continuation is quite persuasive.

i think ultimately it isn't aimed at making people who currently smoke stop because simply put you don't continue your addiction on the basis of packaging.

 

will it discourage younger people from taking up the habit though? no is the answer, i really doubt it. you need to take away the very notion that has existed since the beginning of time that smoking looks cool. it's stupid but it does. in this day and age smoking rollies appears cool. i believe it does, many others do. do i wish it didn't? of course.

 

certain brands are popular for certain reasons. malboro golds for example (which still continue to be known by their old name malboro lights--again highlighting how attitudes to cigarette brands become entrenched) are just very easily smokable. the packaging has changed continually over time, is it more edgy than camels though versus B&H? i've honestly never paid any attention because i go on what tastes right for me. i don't think anyone has ever been in the tobacconists and thought "cor those chesterfields look glam, i must start smoking immediately". i see this as just another legislative measure to appear to be doing something where ultimately you have little room for maneuver other than ban the thing all together which won't happen.

 

was this particularly effective in australia when introduced does anybody knows because i see it making no difference here at all.

I don't smoke but as someone who works in retail I don't really see the point. They've already banned shops from displaying cigarettes, why standardise the packaging when customers aren't supposed to see them anyway?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for trying to reduce smoking. But this just seems pointless.

It won't change much, if anything at all.

If it will make so little difference then why are the tobacco companies (aka death providers) so fiercely opposed?

If it will make so little difference then why are the tobacco companies (aka death providers) so fiercely opposed?

It's the government's pockets being lined by the manufacturing/sale of cigarettes. If they really wanted to make a difference they'd ban cigarettes altogether (which would be completely ludicrous in itself), but god forbid David Cameron miss the opportunity to have a weekend in Cornwall for the sake of a healthy UK citizen.

People who smoke loads won't change their habits that they've held for a long time just because the health risks are displayed. Of course, it could help them start to quit. But it would be ignorant to suggest that they would just stop completely.

was this particularly effective in australia when introduced does anybody knows because i see it making no difference here at all.

That depends on who you ask. It has been agreed that it has had an effect but there is a disagreement over how much of an effect has been had. Some say it has actually been quite successful.

 

One of my friends smokes and the standardised packaging is actually quite a good idea when you physically see it in front of you. Bigger and more graphic warning labels, tiny text box with the brand name in a standard font and a nasty shade of green. Not the most appealing thing to be carrying about. It's not really had an effect on her but as you say she's not really the target.

 

The box is the only marketing tool the tobacco companies have these days and I think removing that last bullet from their arsenal is a good thing. At the end of the day it has no effect really on those who currently smoke but if it stops one person/1000 in the target area taking up the habit then it's done it's job. As a stand alone measure it's a bit shit but as part of a combination of measures then it's another handy tool in the mission to reduce the cost of smoking to the NHS and the economy.

 

 

Australia, like we now do north of the border, also has a display ban in full effect and a pretty graphic anti-smoking campaign on the go. They may not get many things right but this is one of the two things we really should take note of from Australia. (The other being their attitude towards sport and physical activity in school and in general)

I don't think it will have any impact on existing smokers, but it might discourage people from buying them. Even then, it would be small numbers we're taking about. Nothing groundbreaking.

Lets say that over the next 5 years, 2,000 people per year didn't take up smoking because of this measure. If we assume that they'd have gone through a 20pack a week for 40 years then the per person loss to the tax system would be:

 

Based on the pack of 20 costing £7.98 of which £6.17 is tax (source), giving a tax intake of £320.84/person/year. Times that by 40 for the 40 years gives a total tax contribution per person of £12,833.60.

 

Scaling up to the 10,000 people that have not taken up smoking that gives us a net loss to HMRC of £128m.

 

Given that one round of chemotherapy costs around £10,000 and initial chemo is at least 4 rounds that's a per person cost of £40,000 to the NHS for one round of chemo alone. Add in consultants, hospital visits etc and that's easily north of £50,000.

 

If 3,000 rounds of chemo (1,000-1,500 people) are required to treat cancer caused by smoking that would cost £150m. A figure far in excess of what 10,000 smokers raise in 40 years.

 

 

The money adds up. Smoking does not bring in enough in Tax per annum to cover the damage it does to the NHS and the economy. (It's something like £12bn in tax vs £14bn in costs)

Some of the Australian packages they have now are quite disturbing in all honesty: WARNING: QUITE UNPLEASANT. Definitely wouldn't be the best thing to carry around and may help in stopping people from starting in the first place (if only by a little bit)

 

It won't have a huge effect though, Starting Smoking, particularly in younger people, has always been a bit of a peer/social pressure thing, I can't see this having that much of an effect

That green is far more offensive in real life than in pictures. They are quite :puke:

It's the government's pockets being lined by the manufacturing/sale of cigarettes. If they really wanted to make a difference they'd ban cigarettes altogether (which would be completely ludicrous in itself), but god forbid David Cameron miss the opportunity to have a weekend in Cornwall for the sake of a healthy UK citizen.

That has nothing to do with what Suedehead said. If the government's actions on tobacco were being decided by their pockets 'being lined by the manufacturing/sale of cigarettes', they wouldn't be pushing for plain packaging.