What they said: Plain packaging edition

Over the past two decades, more than 24 different studies have backed plain packaging, and now it will finally become a reality.

Nicola Roxon and Tanya Plibersek.

… there is virtually no peer reviewed research on exactly how pack design influences the actual sensory experience of smoking.

David Hammond, Marvin Goldberg, Sarah Durkin, and Prof Simon Chapman in the application for this research grant (emphasis original).

What a grant assessor said:

Grant assessor

This entry was posted in Take Nanny down. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to What they said: Plain packaging edition

  1. Notafan

    I dunno, maybe packaging influenced brand choice, I used to mostly buy Benson and Hedges a long, long time ago but after that initial purchase it was just a smoke? But we smoked Winfield, Malboros, whatever. Do smokers of OPs care about brand? Does one take every drag contemplating the packaging?
    And after all these years everyone knows the health deal and makes as an informed choice about smoking as they do about other life choices. Roxon and Plibiseck are wankers.

  2. Bruce of Newcastle

    Over the past two decades, more than 24 different studies have backed plain packaging, and now it will finally become a reality.

    That is the statement of our times. If a plurality of idiots can be assembled to opine on something it therefore must be true, no matter what the data says. Climate change, tobacco, education spending, hospitals, whatever. If a herd of sheep say it true it must be true.

    I can understand Albert’s frustration:

    Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough,

  3. Red ruby

    Most smokers I know (including me) buy smokes and transfer them to a cigarette case, mine belonged to my great grandmother- it works for me. The ultimate recycler!

  4. Dave Wane

    To state the bleeding obvious: Why have any taxpayer-funded studies into the packaging of a legal product in the first place?

    Do we use taxpayer’s funds to determine the best “consumer message” on cars, or televisions, or beer, or vacuum cleaners, and so-on?

  5. rebel with cause

    Do we use taxpayer’s funds to determine the best “consumer message” on cars, or televisions, or beer, or vacuum cleaners, and so-on?

    Don’t give them any ideas. Next we will be hearing that a great way to reduce carbon emissions and make people drive less is to only allow car manufacturers to sell models that look like olive-gray Trabants.

  6. Token

    To state the bleeding obvious: Why have any taxpayer-funded studies into the packaging of a legal product in the first place?

    Flip a coin, heads the taxeater win, tails taxpayers lose.

  7. Turtle of WA

    ‘… choose the packaging that smokers dislike the most’.

    Yes. why don’t they just write ‘You’re a stupid, smelly loser’ on the pack’.

    Fascists.

  8. Nato

    The biggest effect I’ve noticed is that the social smokers who bum a random fag after a few drinks on a Friday accept Winfield Reds instead of seeing the pack, backing off from the request and seeking a milder alternative.

    Losing the brand at the base of the white paper, above the filter was a bigger hit to the branding of cigarette manufacturers than the drab olive green. They were distinctive and a greater mark of pride than the pack.

    The inferior brands I’ve seen OPs opine over taste like they’ve got twigs in them. They are absolutely not worth it. But by increasing prices and removing these identifying marks, the government has created the market for these cheap & nasty options that wouldn’t exist if the shame factor were still present.

    I’m pretty sure I’ve said it before, but if the goal were to really to get smokers to quit then the government’s message wouldn’t be “For your own good,” it’d be “We’re milking the filthy addicts for all they’re worth. Thanks, morons!”

  9. evcricket

    Could you be any more transparent? This constant whining about plain packaging and whether or not it works makes it obvious; it clearly works and you guys are shit-scared.

  10. Infidel Tiger

    Why are we scared? The ever encroaching nanny state and the lefts fascist tactics to enforce their Puritan sensibilities? Actually you’re probably right.

Comments are closed.