3 thoughts on “The plain packaging of tobacco products sets a dangerous precedent”

  1. Posted 09/02/2012 at 13:34 | Permalink

    Liked most of tobacco control it is not about health, it is about the bullying and denormalisation of smokers and smoking.

    You maybe interested to know to know I did some research into cigarette versus drug consumption in Australian youth. Obviously the drugs are illegal and come in the plainest of packing.

    “According to the National Drug Strategy Household Survey of Australians aged 14–19 years, in 2010:

    67 per cent had tried alcohol and just over one in five (21.1 per cent) were drinking alcohol on a weekly basis.
    One in five (21.5 per cent) had tried cannabis.
    Just under 12 per cent had tried tobacco and just under seven per cent smoked on a daily basis.
    Just over two per cent had tried amphetamines for non-medical reasons.
    4.7 per cent had tried ecstasy.
    2.1 per cent had tried inhalants – such as petrol, glue and solvents.
    2.1 per cent had tried cocaine.”

    With tobacco at 12% try rate, cannabis is at 21.5%, nearly twice as high.

    If you combine ecstasy, amphetamines, cocaine et al it adds up to 34.5% nearly three times as much as tobacco.

    Being evidence based is not the anti smoker’s strong point.


  2. Posted 09/02/2012 at 17:15 | Permalink

    I think plain packaging is an interesting idea. Maybe the same could be done for bank notes, then the bank of England would not have to use ‘quantitative easing ‘, we could do it ourselves.

  3. Posted 06/04/2012 at 20:00 | Permalink

    Now that the tobacco display ban has become law, I am prompted to ask a question to all you libertarians out there. You instinctively object to government regulation but base your arguments mainly upon the ineffectiveness of the regulation and its interference with commerce. However, just suppose (for argument’s sake) that there was incontrovertible evidence that a display ban was effective in reducing the take up of smoking by juveniles, would you still argue against such a ban? Don’t you think that the government has a duty to try to protect misled juveniles?

Comments are closed.