Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

#41

Post by DanBC »

ekianjo wrote: post #40
barrkel wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

actually selling products that people want Selling products a minority of people want, products that the vast majority do not want their children consuming or seeing as glamourous in any way. The fact that some people want a product does not create a moral right to that product, and does not mean it is wrong for a government to enforce laws restricting and prohibiting those products.

> The fact that some people want a product does not create a moral right to that product, Where is the moral right coming from ? That's purely philosophical and I certainly do not want the government (which is no more no less than the dictature of the majority) to tell me what's right or wrong when it comes to what I consume. And if you don't want your children to buy cigarettes, don't give them money, or better, edu…

> And if you don't want your children to buy cigarettes, don't give them money, or better, educate them. It works quite well, but I guess in your reasoning you expect the education to come from the government instead of the parents?

No, it doesn't work at all well.

Tobacco companies target cigarettes at children. Strict laws, with expensive enforcement, are needed to stop people selling cigarettes to children.

Re: When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

#42

Post by sqrt17 »

ekianjo wrote: post #25
loup-vaillant wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, having the government having the power to dismantle the kind of businesses they don't like is actually a neat idea. I know our representative governments aren't democratic (despite elections and stuff). But big capitalist corporations are even worse. So, before we get rid of governments and their ludicrously concentrated power, why don't we look at the elephant in the room first: corporations and their even…

> So, before we get rid of governments and their ludicrously concentrated power, why don't we look at the elephant in the room first: corporations and their even more ludicrously concentrated power? Hey, Marx is back ! Instead of looking at the wrong elephant, i.e. the one actually selling products that people want, I'd say you better attack the one that's 1) taxing you to death for subpar services 2) force-feeding t…

the top 1% of larger corporations (i.e. VP level and CxO level) is more selective (i.e. not composed of normal people like you and me) than governments.

For both country governments and the governments of corporations, having some amount of both democratic control (through elections, or through laws that say what corporations can and cannot do - we don't want corporations to poison our kids any more than governments) as well as some economic responsibility (which is difficult - both for CEOs and for government officials it is frighteningly easy to disguise bad performance as "properties of the global economy").

taxing you to death for subpar services? Hello, Comcast and AT&T!

brainwashing your kids? Disney or Activision would never do that!

violent action? Corporations only do that in places with weak governments, which is a good thing. Never mind that the US health care system means that firing people also means taking their health care away.

can put you into deadly situations? Well, corporations would never do that. No one died in Dow Chemical's (now Monsanto) huge chemical spill in Bhopal. Also, both corporations and governments get rather bad PR when they kill people.

Re: When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

#43

Post by Shivetya »

shamney wrote: post #27

science reporting at its worst. contrary to the claim in the title, there is no evidence that plain packs CAUSED a decline in smoking.

I would be just happy if the article would load properly.

If they want to reduce smoking then tie government benefits to not smoking. Ban it within the military; that they could do under the UCMJ. The for the rest, restrict where it can be sold and increase the taxation.

The cost has to become very high as even one hundred dollar monthly premiums on employee provided insurance do not stop people.

Re: When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

#44

Post by chris_wot »

benmmurphy wrote: post #11

I would be careful using Australian packaging laws as evidence that plain packaging has an effect on rates of smoking. There has been a lot of controversy about whether it has had an effect or not. There has been a secular decline in smoking in Australia so a continued decrease in smoking is not necessarily evidence of an effective policy. Here are some alternative points of view: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati…

I'm confused - The Australian article cites the very 0.3% outlier that the Washington Post article is talking about. It's not reliable.

You say you should be suspicious, but you seem to show no suspicion of an article that starts with the sentence "LABOR’S nanny state push to kill off the country’s addiction to cigarettes with plain packaging has backfired, with new sales figures showing tobacco consumption growing during the first full year of the new laws."

Does your bias radar not kick in at this point? Or perhaps the anecdotal evidence from two smokers in Brisbane who said their friends haven't quit, and one convenience store worker in Sydney who agreed with British American Tobacco's spokesperson? Do you really consider this article to be... reliable? Did you wonder where they found these people? Are you not slightly suspicious who was feeding the info to the journalist?

It's well known that the Australian article you cite is an editorial, and an inaccurate editorial at that, by a former staffer in the Liberal Howard government. The article was highly criticized as being wrong on almost every count, most damningly by Media Watch (see here: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4026465.htm )

But here are a few counter articles from less biased, non-News Corp sources:

* http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/06/06/oz-exclusive-big-tobacco...

* http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/06/labor-rejects-t...

* http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/increased-tobacco-s...

The data itself was "leaked" to the Australian and is from InfoView, who supplies this info to cigarette companies. And, surprise, surprise, the full report and data it analyses was never released publicly.

Funny that.

Re: When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

#45

Post by nrinaudo »

NicoJuicy wrote: post #28
lucian1900 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a smoker, but I wonder: is there a downside to just continue using an e-cigarette? It's the smoke that kills you (and those around you) after all, not the nicotine.

It's supposed to do less harm, which actually means nothing as manufacturers are making it addictive.

I don't understand the correlation you seem to be making.

Let's take the fact that manufacturers are making e-cigarettes addictive as a given. I'm not entirely sure how that works and suspect you're talking about the juice rather than the actual device, but the distinction is not terribly relevant in that conversation.

So, ok, let's assume e-cigarettes are becoming more addictive. How does that correlate to more harmful? there are plenty of things that are highly addictive and not bad for your health in themselves - sex, say, or running for some people, or programming.

Your point about addictivity is interesting, but I don't think it tells us anything about the dangers of e-cigarettes, real or imagined.

Re: When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

#46

Post by DanBC »

Shivetya wrote: post #43
shamney wrote: post #27

science reporting at its worst. contrary to the claim in the title, there is no evidence that plain packs CAUSED a decline in smoking.

I would be just happy if the article would load properly. If they want to reduce smoking then tie government benefits to not smoking. Ban it within the military; that they could do under the UCMJ. The for the rest, restrict where it can be sold and increase the taxation. The cost has to become very high as even one hundred dollar monthly premiums on employee provided insurance do not stop people.

Increased costs have some drawbacks.

People spending money on tobacco are not spending that money on their children or paying their necessary household bills

High cost tobacco encourages criminal gangs to produce and import counterfeit products or to smuggle regular product. Smoking is harmful, but smoking some of the counterfeit cigarettes smuggled into England is even worse.

2004: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4096911.stm

2012: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4096911.stm

> One brand had eight times as much lead as normal cigarettes.

> All contained higher levels of cadmium, which can severely damage the lungs and is linked with kidney disease.

2014: video http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28940681

Re: When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

#47

Post by chris_wot »

benmmurphy wrote: post #18
jsankey wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be more careful trusting The Australian on anything to do with smoking (and a few other issues) given their writers' links to the tobacco-funded IPA. Media Watch put it a lot better than I could, with sources: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4026465.htm

Media watch has some interesting quoting. "Do the figures mean more people are smoking? Well, no ... the industry admits , the number of smokers fell in 2013 by 1.4%. " and they link to: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1420_bata.pdf “From 2008 to 2012 smoking incidence, or the number of people smoking, was declining at an average rate of -3.3 per cent a year. Since plain packaging was introduced, that de…

Care to provide a link to the direct report the Australian quoted from? I'd like to be able to read the report and its data in its entirety. And, no, a quote from Scott McIntyre, the spokesman from British American Tobacco, is not good enough for me. Data please.

Re: When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

#48

Post by lucian1900 »

nrinaudo wrote: post #34
lucian1900 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a smoker, but I wonder: is there a downside to just continue using an e-cigarette? It's the smoke that kills you (and those around you) after all, not the nicotine.

I don't believe there are known health reasons not to use an e-cigarette. It's a relatively new phenomenon though and hasn't been around long enough for us to study all possible long term effects. There are, however, plenty of social reasons, depending on the local culture. Not everybody necessarily realises that e-cigarettes are harmless to them and get upset when you use one around them, for example. Or people have…

At least in the UK, I haven't noticed any negative social reactions. I think this problem may fix itself over time, where it exists.

I'm quite delighted that some of my coworkers use e-cigarettes, since I can spend time around them without having to stand the horrific smell.

Re: When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

#49

Post by chris_wot »

shamney wrote: post #27

science reporting at its worst. contrary to the claim in the title, there is no evidence that plain packs CAUSED a decline in smoking.

Which scientific study that was quoted do you consider problematic?

* University of Stirling's study into plain packaging at http://phrc.lshtm.ac.uk/papers/PHRC_006_Final_Report.pdf, or

* The British Medical Journal's review of Australian Plain Packaging laws, found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3710988/ - or...

* Perhaps it was the BMJ study into plain packaging, linked here? http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/17/6/416.full

Re: When All Cigarette Packages Look the Same, Fewer People Buy Them

#50

Post by shamney »

chris_wot wrote: post #49
shamney wrote: post #27

science reporting at its worst. contrary to the claim in the title, there is no evidence that plain packs CAUSED a decline in smoking.

Which scientific study that was quoted do you consider problematic? * University of Stirling's study into plain packaging at http://phrc.lshtm.ac.uk/papers/PHRC_006_Final_Report.pdf , or * The British Medical Journal's review of Australian Plain Packaging laws, found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3710988/ - or... * Perhaps it was the BMJ study into plain packaging, linked here? http://tobaccocontr…

they are articles surveying people's opinions about plain packaging. they don't provide direct evidence for plain packaging > a decline in smoking rates.
Post reply on HN