Results 1 to 1 of 1
  1. #1
    Sik
    Sik is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    melbtarctica
    Posts
    1,671

    Why Tobacco Plain Packaging is just an exercise in Political Posturing

    Being ex smokers, most of you might ask why you should care that Tobacco Plain Packaging is just an exercise in Political Posturing and an extension of the failed policy to mandate warning labels on tobacco packaging.

    It comes down to the fact that despite making claims about "For Public Health" and to "Help Smokers Quit. Our Current Government and specifically the Health Minister are simply trying to score political points with the bleeding hearts and public "health" groups, by appearing to be tough on tobacco and introducing plain packaging.

    Its a no-brainer, the goverment can posture that its trying to save lives while pissing yours' and my hard earned dollars down the drain and all the while they get to call big tobacco evil predators. The only losers are the taxpayers. It's not going to impact big tobacco's sales, it's not going to benefit anyones health, it's not going to do anything other than fatten a lot of lawyers wallets.

    Most of the research from around the world suggests that whether your smokes come in a packet embossed in gold leafed AAA grade cardboard slathered with pictures of cancer, heart disease and pregnant women or without makes Zero difference to whether you will pick up the pack. This would lead to an indication that if they are in a non descript pooh brown box, it will still make absolutely no difference to people's behavioural smoking habits.

    In public statement's about the topic Ms Roxon proclaims to be "World leading" in preventative health, pushing an un-proven, fairly likely to fall flat on its face no impact, no risk policy.

    By their own logic, Plain packaging is unproven to have any tangible health benefits, therefore access to non descript packages should be restricted until proper research is carried out.

    I would suggest to our "World leading" health departments that if instead of screaming the same "Its not proven" line from the rooftops they spent one hundredth of the time and effort into actually looking at and evaluating the "un-proven" nicotine delivery system that is the e-cig the benefits would directly translate to public health benefits.

    Sad state of affairs really.

    References:

    Smokers were more likely to report that the warnings messages made them think
    about their smoking behaviour and thought about quitting smoking after the pictures warnings were
    introduced. However, as yet, these ‘emotional’ responses have not been translated into behavioural
    change.
    http://www.york.ac.uk/phrc/PHRC%20A6...ort_9.8.10.pdf

    Doctor Siegel's take http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/...f-graphic.html

    UBS Sites research that forced implentation of warning labels did pretty much nothing to the volume of cigarette sales.

    we show five major countries that have mandated US FDA equivalent
    (or harsher) health warning requirements on cigarette packages. The data shows
    that in some instances, tobacco consumption actually increased after the date of the
    change in warning labels. For instance, in Brazil, the graphic health warning went
    into effect in 2004. Between 2004 and 2006 consumption increased.
    http://www.mentalshavings.com/storag...elsDecoded.pdf
    Last edited by Sik; 23-08-11 at 01:57 PM. Reason: made it make s bit more sense
    Current Vape: Variable Wattage mod, EPM Boge tanks, Something Fruity

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 04:24 PM.