8 thoughts on “Ireland, plain packaging and cognitive dissonance”

  1. Posted 29/05/2013 at 08:11 | Permalink

    I think the reason for the cognitive dissonance is that no cognition is going on at all. Tobacco Control is now (or was it always?) a religious crusade, an effort towards moral purification in which it’s insufficient to Paraquat the crops, but it’s apparently required to burn the barns and shoot the dogs.

  2. Posted 29/05/2013 at 15:18 | Permalink

    The logic in this article is flawed, insofar as nobody knows how much the smoking rate may have increased since the time of the smoking ban, were it not for the ban.

    The reasoning for plain cigarette packaging having a dissuasive effect is presumably based on how would-be consumers behave when a product is packaged in a drab or disturbing way. In particular children are put off from engaging with products that don’t come in colourful packaging.

  3. Posted 29/05/2013 at 16:31 | Permalink

    @Ian Downey

    I think that given a steady downward trend over more than a decade, one could safely assume that in 2007, in the absence of a ban, that trend would have continued. That there would be a sudden, unaccountable rise in smoking prevalence in 2007 is so unlikely as to be not a significant consideration. So based on past trends, the logic is not flawed at all. Something changed the trend, and that something was the pogrom that was launched against smokers and smoking.

  4. Posted 29/05/2013 at 16:32 | Permalink

    Wrong Mr Downey. The article referred not only the smoking ban but also tax-hikes and funding of patches and stuff. This combined assault on people who enjoy tobacco has failed, and failed miserably. To be seen as successful, the effect of the campaign would have been required to exceed the previously observed trend.

  5. Posted 30/05/2013 at 06:55 | Permalink

    In relation to nisakiman’s piece, even if we accept that the increase in smoking in 2007 could be due to rage
    against the ban, it’s not unreasonable to suppose that the likely long term effect of the ban will be a further reduction in smoking. It’s far too early to expect significant results.

  6. Posted 31/05/2013 at 16:26 | Permalink

    Various measures by the anti smoking brigade will, over time, reduce smoking to about 20% of the population. The remaining smokers are the hard core ones. If you want to further reduce smoking, why not look to the only country that has achieved that. Yes I am talking about Sweden. The answer lies in Snus and E cigarettes. Simples.

  7. Posted 31/05/2013 at 18:18 | Permalink

    And stop persecuting adults who enjoy tobacco and let people open bars, cafes and other places where smokers can meet in comfort.

  8. Posted 04/06/2013 at 12:56 | Permalink

    Some of the discussion around this article seems to be based on the assumption that smoking bans are principally a way of reducing smoking. That’s not necessarily the case. Ireland’s ban that started, in its full extent, in April 2004 was for the purpose of creating smoke-free workplaces, on the basis that workers (including pub and restaurant staff), ought not to be unwillingly exposed to cigarette smoke throughout each and every working day. In this regard the ban in that country has already overwhelmingly achieved its purpose, even although smokers are smoking almost as much as before.

    The idea of plain cigarette packs is rather different, since it’s targeting smokers or would-be smokers. Some of the discussion around this article is applicable here.

Comments are closed.