The issue of plain packaging for tobacco has come to the forefront, with Scotland following Australia’s legislation to enforce plain packaging on all tobacco products, for which studies conducted by the British Medical Journal has shown to be effective in discouraging smoking. Ria Patel reports for TopNews:
Scotland to introduce standardised packaging of cigarettes in 2014-15
After Australia, Scotland is going to be the second country that is introducing plain packaging for cigarettes. The Scottish Government has announced that the regulation will be active in 2014-15.
Scottish Public Health Minister Michael Matheson said he wants to see Scotland in the forefront when it comes to reducing the harms caused by tobacco.
Matheson informed that the tobacco industry has challenged them. But Matheson affirmed they will remain determined to introduce plain packaging.
“To build a generation free from tobacco it is necessary to restrict the imagery and design that tobacco companies use to pull in another generation to use these addictive and lethal products”, affirmed Matheson.
He talked about the initial results that Australia has received by introducing plan packaging of cigarettes. By seeing the findings, countries do get encouraged to follow its footsteps.
In fact, a research has also unveiled that plain packaging of cigarettes encourage smokers to quit smoking. Not only for health, but quitting smoking is good on pocket as well.
Matheson affirmed that they will continue to monitor Australia in order to gather evidence with regard to effects of plain packaging of cigarettes. This will help them to initiate a consultation procedure in Scotland.
12 Nov 2013
This has provoked furious responses from conservative viewpoints. Ben Lazarus reports for the Telegraph:
In yet another skirmish in the war against smokers, Scotland has announced that it will be introducing Soviet-style plain packaging for cigarettes in 2014/2015.
They will be the second country to do so, following Australia, who enacted plain-packaging in December 2012.
Michael Matheson, Scotland’s public health minister, was keen to acknowledge Australia’s influence on his decision-making. He said: “I am very encouraged by the early findings coming out of Australia following [the] implementation of plain packaging there”, adding “we will, of course, continue to take account of any new evidence emerging from Australia as we move toward a consultation on the next steps in Scotland in the New Year.”
However, Mr Matheson is conveniently ignoring the latest facts on plain packaging to emerge from Australia. The accountancy firm KPMG LLP released a report on 4 November, which highlighted how the Australian government has lost 1 billion Australian dollars in the 12 months ended in June, as a result of the vast jump in black market sales of cigarettes.
In Australia, illicit sales of cigarettes have increased from 1.5 per cent to 13.3 per cent of total shipments, while – perhaps unsurprisingly, given the pseudoscience and speculation that have been used to justify plain packaging – cigarette consumption has not dropped.
According to KPMG, there was a rise of 154 per cent in sales of manufactured “illicit whites”, as counterfeit cigarettes or fake brands are known. One of these is called Manchester. It has a 1.4 per cent market share, which, when one considers that it is illegal, is an impressive feat.
Such evidence shows that plain packaging as a measure is not only ineffective at its intended purpose of reducing smoking, but that it has a negative impact on government revenue, and, perhaps more importantly, it violates consumer choice, and destroys brand recognition.
So, why has Mr Matheson not acknowledged this report in his claims today? After all, he has claimed that he will “continue to take account of any new evidence emerging from Australia”.
However, when one observes the whole picture, it soon becomes apparent. Currently, the Scottish government are orchestrating a campaign to stop tobacco being consumed by 2034, and they see plain packaging as a key aspect needed to kick-start this project.
This objective is no secret. It is laid out in the Government’s Tobacco Control Strategy, Creating a Tobacco-Free Generation, which states: “In setting out our aspirations for a tobacco-free Scotland, we have decided – for the first time – to set a target date by which we expect to realise this ambition. This date is 2034. In setting this target, we have defined ‘tobacco-free’ as a smoking prevalence among the adult population of 5 per cent or lower”. The document goes on: “Our overriding aim in setting this target is to create a generation of Scots who do not want to smoke. A child born in 2013 will celebrate their 21st birthday in 2034. Creating a Scotland for that young adult, largely devoid of tobacco use – with all the health, social and economic benefits that entails – would be an achievement of which we could all be proud.”
Mr Matheson has acknowledged the role that plain packaging will have in realising this objective, stating: “introducing plain packaging will make an important contribution to our efforts to reduce smoking prevalence and achieve our target of a tobacco-free Scotland by 2034.”
Therefore, for him and his fellow antismoking activists, it is not of their concern whether plain packaging reduces cigarette consumption in the near future or not. Rather, it is another piece of legislation which will further stigmatise and punish smokers for their vice, and will thus – they wrongly believe – aid their efforts to create a generation of children who view tobacco with the same horror that others might view heroin.
Yet what Mr Matheson and bellicose campaigners fail to understand is that the generations they wish to protect from those nasty big tobacco companies will smoke, just as countless generations have done so before them. Indeed, it has always been the case that children smoke to appear mildly rebellious. Even George Orwell, arriving at Eton as a shy and young Eric Blair, took up the habit immediately on learning that it was strictly forbidden. Plastering packets with nasty imagery will do little to change this. And there is no scientific evidence to suggest otherwise.
That an elected official believes it is his right to foster his tastes and his preference onto the whole of Scottish society is sinister, ominous, and insulting, not only to smokers, but to all individuals in Scotland who have the ability to think for themselves. That Mr Matheson has done so in the face of such overwhelming evidence against plain packaging, is, quite frankly, sheer stupidity.
11 Nov 2013
When Mr Lazarus cites the KPMG report on the rise of illicit cigarettes and the unreduced consumption of cigarettes occurring in the same frame of time as the introduction of plain packaging legislation in Australia, and then goes on to say, “Such evidence shows that plain packaging as a measure is not only ineffective at its intended purpose of reducing smoking…”, he is using the same thought process that children use for learning: making simple causal links between two before-and-after phenomena. Adults, however, are able to distinguish, with reason-informed judgment, whether the phenomena occurs causally or merely simultaneously. In the case of the introduction of enforced plain packaging in Australia, the survey conducted by KPMG merely highlights, may it be repeated, the rise of illicit cigarettes and the unreduced consumption of cigarettes occurring in the same frame of time as the introduction of plain packaging. The only mentions of the plain packaging legislation in the KPMG report is, fittingly, passing mentions of the introduction of the legislation itself only.
(Interestingly, Mr Lazarus’s report, published in a newspaper of stature, did not even link to the actual KPMG report. Readers clicking on his KPMG link will find, not the actual report, but a blog post written by an anti-interventionist. Mr Lazarus seems to have found it easier to digest the most important item on his report via a blog post rather than reading the actual report itself, which is, admittedly, rather dry.)
Illicit cigarettes are found on the market not because legislation imposes restrictions on tobacco products, but because they are supplied onto the market through the joint efforts of syndicates and tobacco firms. Tobacco firms actively participate in smuggling by supplying both genuine products as well as high quality tobacco for production of illicit brands to smuggling syndicates, and they are actually able to admit to such dealings without fear that serious enforcement would be dealt against them. The KPMG report is thus useless not simply as a matter of its commissioning or methodology, but that its commissioning by tobacco firms means that it would not investigate the details of the illicit cigarettes market itself, such as the amounts supplied, the marketing strategies, the chain of supply, etc. It shields readers from obvious possible factors that leads to the increased market share of illicit cigarettes, such as an increase in supply of illicit cigarettes, corresponding decreases in the cost of illicit cigarettes, or even, as the abovementioned blogger suggests in his post, the bold tactic of deliberately marketing an illicit brand (‘Manchester’) that elevates prestige of illicit cigarettes compared to plain packaging of tax-paid cigarettes. It allows writers such as Mr Lazarus to write reports turning insignificant findings into ‘evidence’ supporting anti-legislation claims that mislead readers.
Still, the most dangerous part in Mr Lazarus’s article is its ending. Mr Lazarus writes,
the generations they wish to protect from those nasty big tobacco companies will smoke, just as countless generations have done so before them. Indeed, it has always been the case that children smoke to appear mildly rebellious. Even George Orwell, arriving at Eton as a shy and young Eric Blair, took up the habit immediately on learning that it was strictly forbidden. Plastering packets with nasty imagery will do little to change this.”
Mr Lazarus tries to turn a social illness into a sociological ‘cold, hard fact’ that he wants his readers to be forced to accept. To resign, on the younger generation’s behalf, their fate to ‘rebellious’ smoking and the subsequent addiction is quite silly, not least because it is through our beliefs and abilities in our agency for change that enable us as humans. In any case, there is a big difference between discouraging youths from taking up smoking using economic, psychological and educational strategies, and a nanny-style restriction imposed from positions of authority. To borrow a few words from Mr Lazarus, his report is rather ‘insulting to all individuals who have the ability to think for themselves'; that Mr Lazarus has actually had his report published is, ‘quite frankly, sheer stupidity’. His mention of Mr Orwell’s name and youth for supporting such a report would probably have him rise from his grave in distress.