Ben Goldacre on cigarette packaging. In his article, Ben argues that packaging is selling a lie. The lie being that brands that are sold as “light” or “mild” are no less dangerous than the normal brands. Well, yes, didn’t we already know this? I certainly did, which answers his rhetorical question. As a non smoker who is not affected by branding – or in my youth, advertising – I have always been aware that this is a marketing gimmick. Ultimately, though, I don’t care what the packets look like or what myth they may be selling – doesn’t all branding or advertising do this to an extent? In respect of tobacco, we have known for long enough that it is harmful to health – probably not helped when it is mixed with chemicals designed to keep it burning. People smoke because they like it. They have preferred brands because, presumably, they prefer the taste. Before switching to rolling tobacco, Mrs L liked Marlboro – occasionally lights if she couldn’t get the normal ones. Clearly there is a difference because she had a preference. Neither of us was under any illusion that one was safer than the other. Nor am I convinced that she was subject to suggestion as Goldacre claims.
The question, though, is would making all the packets plain have any effect? Apart from making it more difficult to determine the genuine object, probably not. People will still seek out their preferred product and more of them will do so in places where they can buy them openly, so white van man will be increasing his trade. Those of us who travel on a regular basis will stock up while abroad, thereby denying hmg of the revenue with which to persecute – and incidentally pass on to the puritans at ASH.
If you don’t care about this evidence, or you think jobs are more important than people killed by cigarettes, or you think libertarian principles are more important than both, then that’s a different matter. But if you say the evidence doesn’t show evidence of harm from branded packaging, you are simply wrong.
Actually, the libertarian argument is the only one that matters. People get to make their own choices and it’s no business of government or the prodnoses at ASH what they do. As for being wrong regarding packaging, sorry, but as all tobacco products are potentially harmful to health, that some people might think a gold coloured packet is less harmful than a red coloured one does not itself cause more harm. The amount of harm caused – or not – is the same.
I’m pretty sure they outlawed the words “light” and “mild” on cigarette packaging ages ago, as I’ve never seen them on any cigarettes in Britain, and I came here in 2005. This is why people are forced to ask for things like Marlboro Reds and Camel Blues in the shops.
So what is Ben Goldacre wibbling about? In what world do the manufacturer names and logos on cigarette packaging suggest that cigarettes aren’t harmful? Or perhaps he means the colours indicating the different levels of tar and nicotine in the different products are somehow subliminally indicating different levels of safety? If that were really true, the manufacturers would have cottoned on by now themselves, and all tobacco would come in peaceful green packages and be given names of equivalence to distinguish the different products, e.g.: Marlboro Bunny Rabbit, Marlboro Puppy Dog, Marlboro Piglet. Geez.
Yeah, Goldacre does mention the matter of “light” and “mild” being verboten. I dispute his assertion that packaging causes harm – even if he is correct about the subliminal effect.
How about Benson and Hedges Pussy Cat? Or Gitanes Fluffy Kitten?
If I owned a fag shop would I be “allowed” (what a wonderful country) to put price tickets on the packets?
Saying , for example, “Marlborough £ 6.95” or whatever.
Problem solved.
I’ve no time for Goldacre. A relentless champion for good science, and fearless scourge of the bad – except where it contradicts right-on ‘progressive’ bullshit. For example the preposterous children’s crusade against tobacco…