Why cigarette packs matter • Hacker News Board

Re: Why cigarette packs matter

#21

Post by dedward » Sat, Mar 12, 2011, 5:30 PM UTC

subwindow wrote: post #17

Somehow I doubt that the packaging really influences what someone smokes and how much they smoke of it. People make decisions based on taste, strength and habit more than they do on marketing and especially pack design. If someone's smoking, they've already made the decision to do it, health consequences be damned. I doubt that warning labels, gross pictures or any other kind of package manipulation has a significant…

Yes, smokers smoke despite knowing full well how bad it is for them, more or less. Gross pictures won't make them stop for the most part. It might make a kid think twice - IIRC it mostly made poeple want to collect them all. Plenty of people bought certain brands just because of how the pack looks - it's branding and packaging like anything else.

The primary goal in anti-smoking campaigns is to stop young people from starting in the first place - over time that's the best money spent.

Take a look at the British Columbia anti-smoking campaigns - lowest rate of new smokers in north america (IIRC).

Tobacco can't sponsor events. No more Benson & Hedges symphony of fire fireworks competition in Vancouver - now it's sponsored by a bank or something.

Stores that sell cigarettes (grocery stores, corner stores, 7-11, etc) can't have them visible to the customers in any way, and can't advertise the fact that they sell them. Basically their marketing was nipped in the bud. They can sell them, but no advertising of any kind)

And you know what? it works.

Then you reach a critical mass where there are enough people NOT smoking that it's just not cool to smoke....

that was after no smoking in bars, restaurants, any indoor public places, within X feet of the door of any store, etc......

Re: Why cigarette packs matter

#22

Post by mitcheme » Sat, Mar 12, 2011, 7:14 PM UTC

dedward wrote: post #21

subwindow wrote: post #17

Somehow I doubt that the packaging really influences what someone smokes and how much they smoke of it. People make decisions based on taste, strength and habit more than they do on marketing and especially pack design. If someone's smoking, they've already made the decision to do it, health consequences be damned. I doubt that warning labels, gross pictures or any other kind of package manipulation has a significant…

Yes, smokers smoke despite knowing full well how bad it is for them, more or less. Gross pictures won't make them stop for the most part. It might make a kid think twice - IIRC it mostly made poeple want to collect them all. Plenty of people bought certain brands just because of how the pack looks - it's branding and packaging like anything else. The primary goal in anti-smoking campaigns is to stop young people from…

"Stores that sell cigarettes (grocery stores, corner stores, 7-11, etc) can't have them visible to the customers in any way, and can't advertise the fact that they sell them."

I was curious about this, because I live in BC and realized that I hadn't seen cigarettes in a store for a long time. I'm a non-smoker, but growing up gas stations and pharmacies always had the big glass case behind the counter full of cigarettes, and it recently its seemed odd that they weren't there anymore. So I looked it up, and they're only allowed a small, plain sign with no brands or graphics, just kinds of tobacco and prices. In hindsight, I remember seeing those in one or two places, but I'd assumed it was just store policy.

It does seem to work. I think I've run across a handful of smokers at my university in three years, and many of them I only knew were smokers because they stank so much. Definitely not cool to smoke around these parts. Right now the university has just restricted the allowed smoking areas even further, and unlike when the government smoking restrictions came in, nobody really cares. This is a student body that half consists of people who hold protests over every political concern, and half 'apolitical' people who complain at length about every new fee or university restriction, so when nobody cares about a change that really says something.

Re: Why cigarette packs matter

#23

Post by handelaar » Sat, Mar 12, 2011, 7:33 PM UTC

So use of lighter colours and white packaging a la Marlboro 'Lights', as they were known here until recently, is taken objectively to be a Bad Thing.

Why isn't anybody asking, then, on what grounds we think that replacing all cigarette packaging with plain white boxes wouldn't make things worse ?

Re: Why cigarette packs matter

#24

Post by warfangle » Sat, Mar 12, 2011, 7:39 PM UTC

yeahsure wrote: post #12

cameronh90 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't smoke, but I don't think that imagery would stop me buying cigarettes if I did. I know how horrific the potential consequences of riding a motorcycle or driving a car look, but I still do that. The insides of even a relatively healthy old person won't look particularly pleasant either. The fact is, people will be aware that not everyone who smokes ends up looking like those images, which will help them ignore…

I smoke and know a lot of people who does as well, and I can confirm that these imagery has little to no impact on smokers. I believe it might affect young people who are about to become smokers, but I seriously doubt it. It's an addiction after all, and I doubt if you wrapped any other drug (cocaine, meth, etc.) in a bag with these images drug-addicts would stop buying. Most likely, the anxiety of seeing something s…

Young people about to become smokers are not likely to wake up one morning and say, "hey, I'm going to start smoking today. That display is nice, I'll get that kind." The ghoulish advertisement probably makes them think twice about starting, but that action happens far away from where the advertisement actually is.

I'm convinced it's much more complicated than simple advertising. There's "peer pressure" effects, to be certain. Not the kind of peer pressure that D.A.R.E. warns you about ("hey, smoke this, everybody's doing it. you want to be cool, right?").

If you're a teenager (or college student - I started in college), it's probably more of a network effect. Hang out with people who smoke, and you're more likely to smoke yourself. After a few beers (or other inebriant of their choice), maybe it won't be so bad. Have a cigarette. Huh, nice buzz. Don't worry, I'll only smoke when I'm drinking. Before you know it (I know this isn't everyone - some people can stay social smokers just fine), you're buying a pack in anticipation of a night out. School starts stressing you out, maybe cigarettes will help. And they do, for a short period of time: a few minutes outside clearing your head with a pleasant buzz.

Of course, eventually you don't get that buzz except for the first one of the day. And for heavy smokers, they don't even get that. But it's hell if you try to quit, even with patches, gum, chantix, whatever.

I've only smoked for five years, but I've tried to quit eight times. If people ask me for cigarettes, I don't give them out - I don't know if they're in the starting stages of the addiction or not. And I'm not about to help someone else get addicted to these damn things.

Re: Why cigarette packs matter

#25

Post by Groxx » Sat, Mar 12, 2011, 8:47 PM UTC

splat wrote: post #14

The thing I find interesting is the FDA's blatant hostility towards electronic cigarettes despite their demonstrated health benefits over ordinary cigarettes (light or otherwise). [1] [2] Electronic cigarettes simply vaporize nicotine and deliver the nicotine straight to the user with at most trace amounts of tar and carcinogens. A number of studies and at least one meta-study [3] have all found that electronic cigar…

There's definite unfounded, likely highly-funded, hostility towards them. There is a single legitimate cause for concern that I've heard them occasionally mention, however: there haven't been any / many health studies on inhaling nicotine, and what it does to your lungs. Only smoking things which contain it. It's essentially an unknown, so there's definite reason for pause before they approve it... but yes, phenomenally excessive.

Re: Why cigarette packs matter

#26

Post by ahlatimer » Sat, Mar 12, 2011, 9:26 PM UTC

warfangle wrote: post #24

yeahsure wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I smoke and know a lot of people who does as well, and I can confirm that these imagery has little to no impact on smokers. I believe it might affect young people who are about to become smokers, but I seriously doubt it. It's an addiction after all, and I doubt if you wrapped any other drug (cocaine, meth, etc.) in a bag with these images drug-addicts would stop buying. Most likely, the anxiety of seeing something s…

Young people about to become smokers are not likely to wake up one morning and say, "hey, I'm going to start smoking today. That display is nice, I'll get that kind." The ghoulish advertisement probably makes them think twice about starting, but that action happens far away from where the advertisement actually is. I'm convinced it's much more complicated than simple advertising. There's "peer pressure" effects, to b…

That's been my experience as well. I started because people around me started. I knew full well the potential health risks, the cost, etc., but figured I could stay a social smoker. I couldn't, and I smoked a pack a day for over three years now.

I haven't bought a pack in two weeks now, mainly due to switching to e-cigarettes. If you're interested in quitting, the e-cigarettes worked better for me than the gum and patch. Don't know how long this will last (hopefully won't buy another pack ever again), but it's not been nearly as excruciating as quitting any other way.

Re: Why cigarette packs matter

#27

Post by araneae » Sat, Mar 12, 2011, 9:31 PM UTC

Oh come on.

You can't translate these studies into real world results at all. If you hand people two cigarette packs and say "which one looks healthier," sure, they're going to pick one. They might even pick one over the other pretty consistently.

This does not necessarily translate into real world consequences at all. You have to prove that.

Re: Why cigarette packs matter

#28

Post by gjm11 » Sat, Mar 12, 2011, 10:19 PM UTC

JonnieCache wrote: post #3

Nice to see ben goldacre's writings up on here. He is a clinical epistemologist by training but he has rapidly moved into the world of science journalism (or perhaps meta-journalism) due to his popularity as a writer and speaker.

A clinical epistemologist?

(He's a psychiatrist.)

Re: Why cigarette packs matter

#29

Post by kristofferR » Sat, Mar 12, 2011, 10:34 PM UTC

subwindow wrote: post #17

Somehow I doubt that the packaging really influences what someone smokes and how much they smoke of it. People make decisions based on taste, strength and habit more than they do on marketing and especially pack design. If someone's smoking, they've already made the decision to do it, health consequences be damned. I doubt that warning labels, gross pictures or any other kind of package manipulation has a significant…

That's probably true in developed countries where everyone knows the dangers of smoking. However, people in a lot of undeveloped countries are actually still unaware of how dangerous it is to smoke.

On a related note, I found this black cigarette package, Death ™, quite cool. They're honest at least: http://www.sadanduseless.com/2009/08/black-death-cigarettes/

"DEATH™ is a responsible way to market a legally available consumer product which kills people when used exactly as intended"

Re: Why cigarette packs matter

#30

Post by dedward » Sat, Mar 12, 2011, 11:23 PM UTC

mitcheme wrote: post #22

dedward wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, smokers smoke despite knowing full well how bad it is for them, more or less. Gross pictures won't make them stop for the most part. It might make a kid think twice - IIRC it mostly made poeple want to collect them all. Plenty of people bought certain brands just because of how the pack looks - it's branding and packaging like anything else. The primary goal in anti-smoking campaigns is to stop young people from…

"Stores that sell cigarettes (grocery stores, corner stores, 7-11, etc) can't have them visible to the customers in any way, and can't advertise the fact that they sell them." I was curious about this, because I live in BC and realized that I hadn't seen cigarettes in a store for a long time. I'm a non-smoker, but growing up gas stations and pharmacies always had the big glass case behind the counter full of cigarett…

Yeah - I dont' live there anymore but on one trip back I noticed (I don't smoke either) that every place that had over-counter cigarettes now had it covered over.

It's been a wildly successful effort with long term benefits for the province.