M Shed campaign launched for cigarettes to be sold in plain packets
CAMPAIGNERS are calling for glamorous packaging on cigarettes to be replaced by packets with bigger health warnings.
A new drive to encourage people to support proposals for tobacco to only be sold in “plain” packaging to reduce its appeal was launched in Bristol yesterday.
-
Kate Knight of Smokefree South West at the M Shed launch of the campaign for plain cigarette packaging.
Health experts from Australia and Scotland joined public health directors in the city for the event at the M shed to discuss tobacco packaging.
It is the first campaign of its kind and has been launched to gather responses ahead of the Government launching a consultation on tobacco packaging in March.
Dyson DC50i - Bagless upright vacuum cleaner - BALL Technology -...
View detailsThisi is Dyson's smallest upright vacuum cleaner with the performance of a full size upright machine. The DC50i has Dyson's most advanced cleaner head technology and 2 Tier RadialTM cyclones.
Terms: LIMITED STOCK OFFER. FREE delivery to most UK postcodes - Next working day dispatch.
Contact: 01664 491439
Valid until: Monday, May 27 2013
Among the examples of cigarette packets that were on show were those that looked more like cosmetics packaging due to their shape, colour and design.
They were displayed alongside mocked-up versions of the proposed plain packets, which would be standardised so that all brands would have the same type of packaging.
Kate Knight of Smokefree SouthWest – the organisation that aims to reduce smoking in the region – is leading the campaign.
“We feel the tobacco industry is using packaging as a way of marketing their product,” she said.
“They have no other way of marketing now and are using the most glamorous packaging possible.
“Using hologram effects and make-up style packaging targets young women.
“There is evidence that if tobacco is packaged in plain packets with standardised packaging new people don’t take up smoking. This is not about existing smokers but young people starting to smoke.”
She said the campaign was costing 9p per person in the South West on a one-off basis.
“That is opposed to £31 recurring every year that every single person pays to fund people in hospital with smoking-related illnesses,” she said.
Professor Simon Chapman from Sydney University was among the speakers, having been involved with the campaign for plain packets in Australia, where it is due to be brought in later this year.
“Internal tobacco industry documents were repeatedly talking about packaging as the last frontier of advertising and they are emphatic about it. They talk about how when you cannot advertise in any other way – in Australia as in Britain there is a total advertising ban – the pack becomes advertising.”
Prof Chapman said that in Australia plain packaging will mean packets are an olive-brown colour and the health warnings will be increased in size, but will still have the brand name on them.
Director of public health for the region, Gabriel Scally, said: “The tobacco industry wants to continue to sell its deadly product to attract people to buy it.
“We want to do everything we can to avoid people getting addicted to tobacco and to see it for something dangerous.”
A spokesman for Bristol-based Imperial Tobacco said: “We support tobacco regulation that is reasonable, proportionate and evidence based.
“There is, however, no credible evidence to support the notion that tobacco packaging encourages people to smoke.
“We also have concerns about the unintended consequences of badly thought-out tobacco legislation. Making all tobacco products available in the same, easy-to-copy plain packaging would lead to a significant increase in counterfeit products.
“We await the Government’s consultation in the spring and will be making our views clear as part of our response.”
Smokefree South West is encouraging people to share their views about tobacco packaging through a dedicated new website.
Views shared through www.plainpacksprotect.co.uk will be passed on for inclusion in the Government’s consultation.
Comments
by joning
Thursday, January 19 2012, 3:36PM
“Well it has been quantified. My figures are from the government's own statistics. You're right though, pumping larges amounts in only to pump them out again, all in the name of tabs. However, I smoke, I enjoy it and have no inclination to give up but I wouldn't inflict this on anyone. That said, I don't appreciate non-smokers preaching at me (that is not aimed at you Bristoldjsuk, but at the campaign in this story).
I wholeheartedly agree with bobob3 about these sort of campaigns led by bleeding hearts, 'Butt' out!!”
by Bristoldjsuk
Thursday, January 19 2012, 3:01PM
“But it's a decision by someone else which affects me? Obviously this is in theory, I'm not actually majorly fussed about the smoke, it's irritating when people smoke in doorways outside pubs but it's a lesser of two evils than them being inside. I just find the concept odd. Nearly everyone (there are a few nuts) acknowledges smoking is extremely bad for you, a large proportion say they would like to quit but can't and the government bangs on about the cost to society. Therefore isn't it logically just to reduce the supply to near zero (barring imports and pirated goods) and ban it? I am unsure if I want the government being so draconian either, but it's just an interesting thought process.”
by Maximus2012
Thursday, January 19 2012, 2:24PM
“Bristol DJsUK - "However I shouldn't ever have to walk through smoke outside a pub or anywhere because of someone else's desire to harm themselves, that is fundamentally wrong."
Really? come on, in England smoking is banned in all indoor work-places, including bars, clubs and restaurants and outdoors at railways stations and bus shelters, as well as some other places. Banning smoking in these places is understandable and is much preferrable to the majority of people, but it will never be banned completely outdoors. That would be fundamentally wrong. Maybe you could wear a protective face mask when walking past a smoker?”
by corncups
Thursday, January 19 2012, 2:22PM
“Protect children. Don't make them breathe your vehicle emissions.”
by Bristoldjsuk
Thursday, January 19 2012, 1:41PM
“And the variety of figures have shown to be highly different, I have seen estimates of over £5.7 billion coupled with the loss of an average of 20% deaths (circa 100,000) due to smoking, I can't see a profit to the tax payer (if that is true) justifying preventable deaths.”
by Bristoldjsuk
Thursday, January 19 2012, 1:38PM
“But the cost to the NHS can't really be quantified easily due to the fact that it's a contributory cause in soo many cases that don't get counted. I do agree about the marginalising point, but it all seems so circular, huge amount of money spent on smoking, then a huge amount on quitting smoking products. I don't believe a huge amount of people actually want to smoke in the long scheme of things. If they want to do it, in their own houses so be it. However I shouldn't ever have to walk through smoke outside a pub or anywhere because of someone else's desire to harm themselves, that is fundamentally wrong.”
by joning
Thursday, January 19 2012, 1:26PM
“Income from Tobacco Duties in 2010/11- £9.1bn. Cost to NHS from smoking for the same period- £2.7bn. Just saying.
Plus you can't really marginalise more than 8 million of population. This will lead to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side.”
by Bristoldjsuk
Thursday, January 19 2012, 12:56PM
“@tug
Utter nonsense as I HAVE looked at the figures. Smoking is a hideous cost to society. Most people who do smoke wish they could give up though I agree there are some people who do like to smoke and that is their choice. If you want to smoke, you should do it in your own house and that should be fine. Passive smoke is of no danger?! That's a strange comment, seeing as if you ask anyone that used to work in nightclubs etc back when there was no smoking ban, they will tell you differently, including me. CIgarettes are very highly taxed and for good reason, I just can't fathom why someone would want to put a burning stick in their month and suck in the contents unless they were addicted. If they are addicted and don't want to do it, then surely we should get everyone off smoking and ban it?”
by katachua
Thursday, January 19 2012, 12:52PM
“@Maximus2012
Not only that, but ALL non-smokers die eventually.”
by Maximus2012
Thursday, January 19 2012, 12:26PM
“Dear Kate Knight, to quote the great Bill HIcks "I have news for you, non-smokers die......every day".”