Can plain packaging prevent people from taking up smoking?

Can plain packaging prevent people from taking up smoking?

Today I saw a new billboard campaigning for plain cigarette packaging in the UK. If you are interested, here is the website: http://www.plainpacksprotects.co.uk/default.aspx

Copied from my essay for school about cigarette:

One possible solution to tackle the smoking crisis is plain logo-free cigarette packaging. Andrew Lansley, the health secretary of the United Kingdom, said, “The evidence is clear that packaging helps to recruit smokers, so it makes sense to consider having less attractive packaging. It's wrong that children are being attracted to smoke by glitzy designs on packets. We would prefer it if people did not smoke and adults will still be able to buy cigarettes, but children should be protected from the start” (qtd in “Make cigarette packaging plain, government urges”). Brand advertising on the packet should be replaced by a standardized logo-free plain drab dark brown packaging with the brand name and variety of the cigarette printed in small white typeface. To further deter smokers, over half of the packet should be covered with large prominent health warnings with grotesque pictures illustrating that particular warning. For example, the warning “Cigarettes cause lung cancer” can be accompanied by a picture of a human lung detailing the cancerous growth. However, such measures could incite backlashes from the cigarette industry and smokers. Australia, which has proposed a legislature to introduce plain, brand less cigarette packaging, is threatened by a multimillion-dollar lawsuit by Philip Morris International, the world's largest tobacco company. Philip Morris Asia representative Anne Edwards said, “… we aim to go ahead with a compensation claim for the loss to our business in Australia that would result from plain packaging” (qtd in “Philip Morris battles Australia on cigarette packaging”). Ms Edwards went on further to state, “We estimate [the lawsuit] may be in the billions (of dollars) but ultimately it will be up to this panel to decide” (qtd in “Philip Morris battles Australia on cigarette packaging”). In addition to Philip Morgan, the rest of the tobacco industry, trying to save their own skins rather than care about the health of the people, is fighting tooth and claw against the proposed changes in Australia, which is to be implemented from January 2012. The tobacco industry has been running TV propagandas stating that the proposed plain cigarette packaging laws are turning Australia into a “nanny state.” Cathie Keogh of Imperial Tobacco Australia told Australian broadcaster ABC, “Introducing plain packaging just takes away the ability of a consumer to identify our brand from another brand and that's of value to us” (qtd in “Australia plans plain-packaging rule for cigarettes”). British American Tobacco agrees that the government's plans will infringe upon international trademark and intellectual property laws. In summary, implementation of a law mandating standardized logo-less plain cigarette packaging, although it can deter people from starting smoking, can be costly as greedy and selfish tobacco companies try to seek lawsuits against governments trying to apply the laws.

To eradicate the world of the smoking habit, governments must remove all logos and mandate tobacco products be packed in plain boxes, ban smoking in public places, and offering stop smoking support for smokers that want to give up smoking.

Works cited

“Australia plans plain-packaging rule for cigarettes.” BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation, 29 April 2010. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
Casey, Linda. “Philip Morris threatens to sue Australia over plain packaging plan.” Packaging digest. UBM Canon, 28 July 2011. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
“Fact Sheet - Tobacco-Related Mortality - Smoking & Tobacco Use.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 21 March 2011. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
“Guide to Quitting Smoking.” American Cancer Society, Inc. American Cancer Society, Inc, 27 July 2011. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
Head, Tom. “Should Cigarettes Be Illegal?” About.com: Civil liberties. The New York Times Company, n.d. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
“Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 21 March 2011. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
James I (King of England), First. A Counterblaste to Tobacco. Harvard University, 1604. 27. Print.
“List of smoking bans.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 10 Oct. 2011. Web. 13 Oct. 2011.
Macnair, Trisha. “How does smoking affect health?” BBC News Health. British Broadcasting Corporation, May 2011. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
“Make cigarette packaging plain, government urges.” BBC News Health. British Broadcasting Corporation, 21 November 2010. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
Newman, Tony. “Should We Ban Tobacco?” AlterNet. N.p., 2 August 2009. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
“Passive smoking.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 8 Oct. 2011. Web. 13 Oct. 2011.
“Philip Morris battles Australia on cigarette packaging.” BBC News Business. British Broadcasting Corporation, 27 June 2011. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
Thompson, Jeremy. “Cigarette rethink: Logos out, death and disease in.” ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 07 April 2011. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
“Tobacco Free Initiative (TFI).” World Health Organization. World Health Organization, n.d. Web. 13 Oct 2011.
United Kingdom. National Health Service. Statistics on NHS Stop Smoking Services: England, April 2010 – March 2011. The Health and Social Care Information Centre, 2011. Web.
Yap, Abbey Grace. “Harmful Effects of Smoking.” Stop Smoking Advice. SmokingAdvice.info, n.d. Web. 13 Oct 2011.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Frankly, I just don't support the nonsense of posting photos of diseased lungs on the package face and calling it "plain packaging" or "generic packaging" or whatever other name the government chooses to call it that is anything other than what it truly is.

That's because that's not what is being asked for.

If it makes it easier on you, for "plain packaging" read "unbranded packaging". Because that's exactly what everyone is talking about. When they talk about "plain", they're talking about being minus logos, colour schemes, slogans and the rest.

As for alcohol, yep, no doubt at all that alcohol does harm. It's not even slightly as addictive as tobacco, but definitely is marketed to appeal to young people. It is a problem, and there is a good discussion to be had about implementing similar measures. But that doesn't let you weasel out of this discussion.

Nicotine addiction is a different kind of problem to alcohol, and requires different solutions. Alcohol-related problems cover such a wide range, from personal injuries, to domestic abuse, to public disorder, to driving accidents, that no simple label will cover it.

When the government takes on the full cost of making, shipping, marketing and so on, they can do whatever they like on the packaging of the product they produce and sell. Asking others to take on the costs, then sabotage attempts to sell----. Look, do it right. Ban it. Maybe the ban won't work, but at least it IS an honest attempt to fix the problem. Do they grow tobacco in Australia? I ask because I don't know on that one. If they're depending on getting cigarettes from America, a ban in Australia should work. It's no easy task to cross that much ocean, it either requires smuggling on cargo ships-- it should be possible to check-- or on airliners. Small boats might make the "last mile", but it still requires a sizable vessel to ship a meaningful amount of tobacco into the country.

Of course, that may start people to growing it in country, somewhere in all that land there must be a place you can grow tobacco. Still, a ban may be worth looking into.

Prohibition didn't work well here, of course. Alcohol is not hard to make, and besides it was legal just over the border in Canada. A lot of legally made hooch made it illegally across the border late at night, and with such a long border it can be seen that smuggling isn't much of a challenge. A five or six thousand mile ocean crossing might have made a difference, especially if it couldn't be made here for some reason.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Asking others to take on the costs, then sabotage attempts to sell----. Look, do it right. Ban it.

According to this logic, alcohol and gambling should be also banned. I don't mention drugs because they are already banned. What will happen if alcohol is banned was shown by US in 30's.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Maybe the ban won't work

That's main reason why nobody talks about banning of smoking.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

When the government takes on the full cost of making, shipping, marketing and so on, they can do whatever they like on the packaging of the product they produce and sell. Asking others to take on the costs, then sabotage attempts to sell----. Look, do it right. Ban it. Maybe the ban won't work, but at least it IS an honest attempt to fix the problem.

No. Don't tell me what to do, I'm a free man and don't need no nanny state telling me what to-- wait, sorry, what's going on now? I got confused.

I think it's a little unfair to brand an attempt to fix the problem 'dishonest' just because you have preconceptions about what you think they want to do. Like it or not, there's only a tiny fringe minority that want to ban anything.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

...people think that the problems associated with smoking won't happen to them. ... In the early days of AIDS paranoia, many people were putting themselves at risk because the health authorities had got information out too well - people knew so much about who was at risk that they didn't consider themselves to be at risk.

Please let them die of their willful ignorance. Please. They think it won't happen to them? That's just fine and dandy. It would be a really good thing if everyone like that were allowed to risk themselves. It is bad if they are forbidden. Bad socially, bad morally, bad genetically. Bad, bad bad.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Like it or not, there's only a tiny fringe minority that want to ban anything.

Uh, well if that were true then you are one of those fringe minorities. You have argued bans to the point of absurdity. Remember?
Most people want to ban things. If you want to be pedantic about it, everyone wants to ban something. But if you say "ban things which are arguably good" well then... yes, there are still lots and lots of people who want to ban "it".

Honestly, what you said there is just plain silly.

Originally posted by aefields:

Please let them die of their willful ignorance. Please. They think it won't happen to them? That's just fine and dandy. It would be a really good thing if everyone like that were allowed to risk themselves. It is bad if they are forbidden. Bad socially, bad morally, bad genetically. Bad, bad bad.

Sorry, not in the business of eugenics. Not only that, I'm not in the business of letting kids die because they're not as wise as you or I.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Sorry, not in the business of eugenics.

So, do you admit to being in the business of dysgenics?

Originally posted by aefields:

So, do you admit to being in the business of dysgenics?

Nope, but then I don't think that responding to branding and advertising is an inherently genetic (or moral) trait.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by aefields:

So, do you admit to being in the business of dysgenics?

Nope, but then I don't think that responding to branding and advertising is an inherently genetic (or moral) trait.

That was an annoying attempt to sidestep a question.

But you did say "no". But you appended something to that "no" which does not relate to that "no". Should be separate paragraph rather than a "but then".

You brought up the subject of eugenics. From what you wrote, it seems that you think that eugenics is basically bad. Also, what you wrote seems to support dysgenics. If this is not correct, please clarify.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by aefields:

Please let them die of their willful ignorance. Please. They think it won't happen to them? That's just fine and dandy. It would be a really good thing if everyone like that were allowed to risk themselves. It is bad if they are forbidden. Bad socially, bad morally, bad genetically. Bad, bad bad.

...kids die because they're not as wise as you or I.

Two questions: What age do you mean when you say "kids" here? And what about adults?

Originally posted by aefields:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by aefields:

So, do you admit to being in the business of dysgenics?

Nope, but then I don't think that responding to branding and advertising is an inherently genetic (or moral) trait.

That was an annoying attempt to sidestep a question.

But you did say "no". But you appended something to that "no" which does not relate to that "no". Should be separate paragraph rather than a "but then".

No, they connect directly. I don't support dysgenics, because I don't think the activities we're talking about have any genetic basis.

There is no sidestep, any more than I would sidestep the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

You brought up the subject of eugenics. From what you wrote, it seems that you think that eugenics is basically bad. Also, what you wrote seems to support dysgenics. If this is not correct, please clarify.

No. You brought up the subject of eugenics, although you didn't use the word.

Bad socially, bad morally, bad genetically. Bad, bad bad.

Originally posted by aefields:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

...kids die because they're not as wise as you or I.

Two questions: What age do you mean when you say "kids" here? And what about adults?

Whatever age you want is fine by me. Under 18? Between 12 and 18 is the time where kids are most vulnerable to peer pressure and trying new things, I would guess that most people above the age of 25 are unlikely to start smoking out of nowhere.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by aefields:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

...kids die because they're not as wise as you or I.

Two questions: What age do you mean when you say "kids" here? And what about adults?

Whatever age you want is fine by me. Under 18? Between 12 and 18 is the time where kids are most vulnerable to peer pressure and trying new things, I would guess that most people above the age of 25 are unlikely to start smoking out of nowhere.

12 - 18? Where are these kid's parents at?

Around here, the legal age is 18 to buy cigarettes, 21 to buy alcohol. That doesn't seem to slow youngsters down much, somehow they get cigarettes and alcohol.

Now you want to put cool packaging on it so the kids will buy/beg/borrow/steal more cigs. This is going to be interesting to watch.

(Note: If you REALLY want to stop kids from smoking, you have to find a way to make it "Not cool". This "plain packaging" stunt ain't it.)

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

(Note: If you REALLY want to stop kids from smoking, you have to find a way to make it "Not cool". This "plain packaging" stunt ain't it.)

So what do YOU suggest? Putting "this is not cool" posters?

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Around here, the legal age is 18 to buy cigarettes, 21 to buy alcohol. That doesn't seem to slow youngsters down much, somehow they get cigarettes and alcohol.

Yes. That should be telling you something.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Now you want to put cool packaging on it so the kids will buy/beg/borrow/steal more cigs. This is going to be interesting to watch.

That certainly an... um... interesting interpretation of things. We already know that the marketing appeals to kids. It's been explicitly designed to appeal. Now that's being taken away. Your argument is along the lines of saying that if you take their boxes of colourful sugary cereal, paint them grey and fill them with muesli, they'll like it more.

Just as a reminder, the boxes already have the scary death warnings on them. These have already had an effect. That's not what is changing.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Just as a reminder, the boxes already have the scary death warnings on them. These have already had an effect. That's not what is changing.

that didn't stop me from smoking. and i have the heart of a kid. What makes you think a kid, how is stressed from bullies at school or home, is going to have someone around them smoke and feel better? And not pick one up and try it?

Originally posted by Virusboy:

that didn't stop me from smoking. and i have the heart of a kid. What makes you think a kid, how is stressed from bullies at school or home, is going to have someone around them smoke and feel better? And not pick one up and try it?

Nothing. Nothing makes me think that's not going to happen. Although that sounds more like the reason adults smoke than kids, but never mind.

Nobody's living the the cloud cuckoo land of thinking that changing one small things is going completely eradicate a form of behaviour. The aim is to make the smallest change that will have the largest effect. Cost/benefit ratio.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

That certainly an... um... interesting interpretation of things. We already know that the marketing appeals to kids. It's been explicitly designed to appeal. Now that's being taken away. Your argument is along the lines of saying that if you take their boxes of colourful sugary cereal, paint them grey and fill them with muesli, they'll like it more.

I do — and, actually, did. Dunno about the gray part, but those colorful cereals were way too sugary and I imagine they still are.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

(Note: If you REALLY want to stop kids from smoking, you have to find a way to make it "Not cool". This "plain packaging" stunt ain't it.)

So what do YOU suggest? Putting "this is not cool" posters?

Nobody else has to have the solution you are looking for. That still qualifies me to say what you suggest won't work. It doesn't address the reason anyone starts smoking. It's that simple. whatever lab results you think proves otherwise are fabricated to appear to be a solution. Of course kids didn't pick the ugly box in a lab. Now prove that stops them from taking the first puff. It don't? then fail. There are more alternative solutions than you can shake a stick at. Modifications to existing techniques is where I'd start. Make contributing to a minor a more serious charge. Do more education in schools. They only teach younger children here and like sex education they don't do it enough or with people really qualified to teach it. There are also vaporizers that are much more healthy and completely remove all secondhand concerns, for older people that may be worth trying to get them to swap to so they are not as bad an influence.

The problem is (not) plain packages have the potential to cause harm too. There is absolutely no proof that it will even work and the legislation that makes it possible can be adapted to serve less noble causes.

edit: And again, where are these kids' parents at? That's who's to blame, not tobacco companies. If my son came home with a pack it would be my fault... Only, despite being a smoker I have always told him it's bad and more parents than not have luck keeping their kids' from it... So what's the other parents not doing? There is no excuse for lazy parenting. Your kids will have the values you want them to have if you take the time to teach them and correct them when necessary. As they approach 18 they will wanna trying things and 'rebel' to a certain extent but that's natural and you should let them to a point. It won't be much longer after that they'll be making their own life choices and you don't want them to go wild either because you sheltered them. There is no simple answer with kids. If you want one result and try and force it, they will not follow forever. You have to make them understand why not to so they believe it's their choice.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Nothing. Nothing makes me think that's not going to happen. Although that sounds more like the reason adults smoke than kids, but never mind.

Nobody's living the the cloud cuckoo land of thinking that changing one small things is going completely eradicate a form of behaviour. The aim is to make the smallest change that will have the largest effect. Cost/benefit ratio.

if anything, plain packaging is going to encourage smoking.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

It doesn't address the reason anyone starts smoking. It's that simple. whatever lab results you think proves otherwise are fabricated to appear to be a solution.

Sez you. As far as I can tell, it addresses the reason people start smoking, not the reason they think they start smoking. No offence, but dismissing it out of hand is every bit as fabricated as any lab results could be.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

There are more alternative solutions than you can shake a stick at. Modifications to existing techniques is where I'd start. Make contributing to a minor a more serious charge. Do more education in schools. They only teach younger children here and like sex education they don't do it enough or with people really qualified to teach it.

I can't speak for other countries, but over here the anti-smoking message is pretty consistent through school and into adulthood. There's no doubt that's been effective, but not as much as anyone would like. Of course, do it too much and you get the usual calls of government persecution, and the witch-hunt against smoker's rights...

Originally posted by ensbb3:

There are also vaporizers that are much more healthy and completely remove all secondhand concerns, for older people that may be worth trying to get them to swap to so they are not as bad an influence.

Sure, but those inhalers are themselves addictive, and people actually switch to cigarettes because they're cheaper.
As far using them to stop smoking, unfortunately the evidence seems to be that they are no more effective than willpower alone in the long term:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/01/nicotine-letdown/

There are lots of methods than have been proposed, and almost all of them have been tried. Very few of them have been effective, and the ones that have been are probably as effective as they're going to get.

Better to try something new than something known to be ineffective.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by ensbb3:

It doesn't address the reason anyone starts smoking. It's that simple. whatever lab results you think proves otherwise are fabricated to appear to be a solution.

Sez you. As far as I can tell, it addresses the reason people start smoking, not the reason they think they start smoking. No offence, but dismissing it out of hand is every bit as fabricated as any lab results could be.

No offence to you sir, but reading a few articles hardly makes you an expert either. It doesn't address why people start at all. People who smoke are qualified to tell you why they started. It's not based on what I think or how far I see, you're confused. You are giving an opinion, someone telling you what got them started smoking isn't the same thing at all. It's called experience, you dismiss it too often.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

There are also vaporizers that are much more healthy and completely remove all secondhand concerns, for older people that may be worth trying to get them to swap to so they are not as bad an influence.

Sure, but those inhalers are themselves addictive, and people actually switch to cigarettes because they're cheaper.
As far using them to stop smoking, unfortunately the evidence seems to be that they are no more effective than willpower alone in the long term:
[/quote]

I'm not advocating any "stop smoking" plan, I still say you teach the dangers but the final decision isn't yours to make. Id offer healthier choices while phasing out the old. Eventually prices will change. My cigarettes keep getting more and more taxes and the cost difference isn't as much as you think. After the initial $20ish for the fancy contraption the packets are actually cheaper than a pack of cigs and say they are actually a equivalent amount. I haven't ever tried so how far I see doesn't seem to matter. You'd have to ask someone who has and can compare based on their habit.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

No offence to you sir, but reading a few articles hardly makes you an expert either. It doesn't address why people start at all. People who smoke are qualified to tell you why they started. It's not based on what I think or how far I see, you're confused. You are giving an opinion, someone telling you what got them started smoking isn't the same thing at all. It's called experience, you dismiss it too often.

Not in the slightest. I am not affirming or dismissing the opinions of those that did the research. I merely object to you doing the dismissing without reasonable justification. Experience is the only thing that matters in these cases, and obtaining it empirically through the least biased methods possible is of paramount importance. No point is dismissing it because you think it shouldn't be done, or because you can't see how it could possible work. It's perfectly valid to point out flaws in the research and call for more work to be done before implementing expensive measures.

If I am mad enough to smoke, would you give any weight to my answers to a survey?

Originally posted by tt92:

If I am mad enough to smoke, would you give any weight to my answers to a survey?

only if your give your pork to the meat gods.

News. Russia plans to use ugly pics on cig packs starting from next year:

http://ria.ru/economy/20120512/647497751.html

This article mentions that in Thailand tobacco usage was reduced by 20% during 3 years after ugly pics were placed on packs. Very impressive result.

If anybody has more info about results of Thailand experience - please share a link. This is direct answer to question of the thread.

Found this article:

Originally posted by Herald Sun:

ALL cigarette packs will be packaged olive green in a bid to reduce smoking rates in Australia.
All logos will be removed from cigarette packs and brand names displayed in a specific font under new laws to be proposed in federal parliament.

Health Minister Nicola Roxon said the logos would be replaced with health warnings and graphic pictures depicting the dangers of smoking.

What do you think about ugly cigarette packaging? Vote in our poll or comment below.

The warnings would cover more than 90 per cent of space on the front of the packs, and 75 per cent of the back.

"We've done a lot of research to ensure that we make the cigarette packs as unattractive as possible," Ms Roxon told ABC's Lateline program last night.

"This is about taking away the last opportunity that tobacco companies have in Australia, to try to market their products by making them look luxurious, or pretending that they might be light and better for your health," Mr Roxon said.

She hoped the change would also deter new people from smoking.

Quit Victoria welcomed the push.

"As other forms of tobacco advertising have been banned, cigarette packaging has become the key avenue the industry has to recruit new smokers," Quit Executive Director Fiona Sharkie said.

"Cigarettes kill half of all long-term smokers. They’re not normal consumer products, so we shouldn’t allow them to be packaged as such."

One cigarette vendor, Balu Sadam, said he believed customers would be put off by the new packaging.

"People look for the logos and they like the ones with the pictures so it might affect their choice (at the counter)," he said.

He said people were put off packets with anti-smoking images, with some customers even asking for another pack if the image unsettled them.

Tobacconist Vince Harris said the packaging would create confusion for vendors and customers.

"We don’t like it. It will make identifying the brand difficult and there will be more time delay and errors [in service]," Mr Harris said.

"Health issues aside it’s going to be a problem. It will be confusing because some brands have more than seven varieties."

He said the packaging could also be a “counterfeiters' dream”. Many imitation brands were already on the market, he said.

"It will allow the criminal element to move in, which will just cost the government billions," he said.

Draft legislation and a mock-up of the proposed packaging will be released later today.

Also noticed this thread but it is not as active as this one:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=0fc434f9cfe23b7e8086d3d70dbbc1e6&t=613387&page=2

Tell me this wouldn't stop you smoking or at least make you think twice before you puff:



Taken from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1065854/Graphic-images-appear-cigarette-packets-shock-smokers-quitting.html

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Tell me this wouldn't stop you smoking or at least make you think twice before you puff:

nope

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by aefields:

You brought up the subject of eugenics. From what you wrote, it seems that you think that eugenics is basically bad. Also, what you wrote seems to support dysgenics. If this is not correct, please clarify.

No. You brought up the subject of eugenics,

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by aefields:

....

Sorry, not in the business of eugenics....

That was you.
It is an interesting subject, eugenics (and its antithesis dysgenics). Branch from this discussion thread or new thread?

Originally posted by aefields:

That was you.It is an interesting subject, eugenics (and its antithesis dysgenics). Branch from this discussion thread or new thread?

No, I named the word, you brought up the subject. You said you were happy for unrepentant smokers to die young, and to try and get in the way of that that would be genetically harmful. That is eugenics.

Definitely new thread though - harmful behaviours go far beyond just smoke.

Ah. I see. As I suspected, you call "eugenics" things which are not that.

Originally posted by aefields:

Ah. I see. As I suspected, you call "eugenics" things which are not that.

Originally posted by http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/glossary=eugenics:

Applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population. Usually refers to human populations.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by ensbb3:

No offence to you sir, but reading a few articles hardly makes you an expert either. It doesn't address why people start at all. People who smoke are qualified to tell you why they started. It's not based on what I think or how far I see, you're confused. You are giving an opinion, someone telling you what got them started smoking isn't the same thing at all. It's called experience, you dismiss it too often.

Not in the slightest. I am not affirming or dismissing the opinions of those that did the research. I merely object to you doing the dismissing without reasonable justification. Experience is the only thing that matters in these cases, and obtaining it empirically through the least biased methods possible is of paramount importance. No point is dismissing it because you think it shouldn't be done, or because you can't see how it could possible work. It's perfectly valid to point out flaws in the research and call for more work to be done before implementing expensive measures.

I'll agree there's nothing wrong with researching. There's no better reason than I don't think it will work to question the findings tho. Thats where more research can be done by more than supporters of the flawed results. I don't doubt people (kids) won't pick ugly packs in a controlled situation where why you are picking is removed. Add wanting a pack for whatever reason and it's looks don't matter anymore... Enter real world situation.

I can't help thinking the new packs will become collectibles. Weird how things sometimes work that way.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I can't help thinking the new packs will become collectibles. Weird how things sometimes work that way.

That's entirely possible. In fifty years. After the contents have long disappeared.

If that happens it could be a win for all parties. They could be like baseball cards were when I was a kid. An unopened pack would be worth more. So tobacco companies would sale product and ppl wouldn't smoke them so as to keep the value up.

lol.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

That's entirely possible. In fifty years. After the contents have long disappeared.

Joe Camel is already a big collected item.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Joe Camel is already a big collected item.

Yes. That is kind of my point. The packets are a collectable item now, they weren't when they were manufactured. Nobody buys cigarettes as an investment.

I am posting the following link with limited comment. That comment is to suggest that you should read the comments at the bottom of the article. Most instructive.

Tax on smokes

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I am posting the following link with limited comment. That comment is to suggest that you should read the comments at the bottom of the article. Most instructive.

Tax on smokes

now i'm willing to start smoking just to help the less fortunate.