Young Smokers Believe Cigarettes In 'Glitzy' Packets Are Less Harmful

First Posted: 29/12/2011 07:06 Updated: 29/12/2011 10:34   PA

More than a quarter of young smokers believe cigarettes in "glitzy" packaging are less harmful than other brands, a health charity has warned.

A report by the British Heart Foundation (BHF) found that just over 25% of regular smokers aged 16 to 25 thought a branded cigarette pack was less harmful than another based on the packet design alone.

More than three quarters of smokers and non-smokers of the same age group thought selling cigarettes in plain packs, with no colourful branding or logos and larger health warnings, would make it easier for people to smoke less or quit.

More than 2,700 young people were surveyed for the report and 415 of the group were considered to be regular smokers.
Betty McBride, director of policy and communications at the BHF, said: "As informed adults we know that smoking is a deadly addiction that kills half of all smokers.

"But young people are not always fully aware of the risks, and the power of branding holds more sway.
"Tobacco advertising is rightly banned in the UK. Yet current glitzy packaging clearly still advertises tobacco on the cigarette box.

BLOG: How Children and Young People Are Hoodwinked by Cigarette Packaging

"It's an absurd loophole the tobacco industry takes full advantage of to lure in new young smokers. We must close it if we really want to protect younger generations from taking up this fatal habit."

Almost 90% of those questioned said they thought plain packets were less attractive than branded ones.

One in six said they would consider the pack design when deciding which cigarettes to buy, while one in eight said they would choose a brand because it was considered "cool".

The BHF is urging the government to introduce a tobacco plain packaging Bill into Parliament and for ministers to seek amendments to the EU Tobacco Products Directive.

The charity is sending copies of its report to all MPs inside a plain cigarette packet, like those used in Australia, with a short film showing young people's reactions to different types of packaging.

The government is due to launch a public consultation by spring 2012 on the issue.
The lobby group Forest, Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco, argued that the introduction of plain packs would have little impact on the number of young people who start smoking.

Simon Clark, director, said: "There is no evidence that plain packs will make any difference to youth smoking rates. The vast majority of young people are influenced not by packaging but by peer pressure and the fact that members of their family are smokers.

"Tens of millions of people have been exposed to branded cigarette packaging for decades and have never been encouraged to start smoking. To suggest that people are so easily influenced by the sight of a coloured pack is not only patronising, it's downright offensive.

"Plain packaging has nothing to do with youth smoking rates. It is just another step towards the denormalisation and eventual prohibition of a legal consumer product that is enjoyed by millions of adults and generates billions of pounds each year for the government."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK

Filed by Stephen Hull  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 38
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kritikos
Intelligence is not a science
03:01 on 30/12/2011
"glitzy" packaging or not, they're still cancer sticks.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:59 on 30/12/2011
I bet you the opposite, in the sense that there are less harmful additives and pesticides in the local brand cigarettes than in the popular ones.
photo
Huntergp02
Insert witty statement here
21:55 on 29/12/2011
I've always associated the cheaper brands with being more harmful, but that is probably just as misinformed.
21:47 on 29/12/2011
All smokers molest children
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
21:11 on 29/12/2011
This definitely sounds right. I've always associated the 'rougher', cheaper brands with those which do more damage.

It's an entirely natural and reasonable assumption, and it's good that there's continued progress to discourage smoking.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mirola
Read between the lines
20:00 on 29/12/2011
'Fashion' has now hit smoking too?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
majesticjkr
Always look on the bright side of life
18:21 on 29/12/2011
young fools, my 17yr old thinks smoking keeps him warm when he's out in the cold, i told him to wear a jumper hat, gloves, scalf and to wear a proper jacket, got no responce.
18:04 on 29/12/2011
They should try smoking the glitzy packaging and throw away the cigarettes.
17:01 on 29/12/2011
If all the anti-smoking brigade and self righteous ex-smokers directed their efforts towards the banning and control of heavy-duty toxic drugs in use within in this country then we might finally be getting somewhere. But instead they pick an easy target with which to incessantly ponticate and lecture us all on. It is becoming repetitive and boring in the extreme. We all have choices in life and to each his/her own personal decision. All you smug do-gooders can jog your way to Heaven but you are still going to die of one thing or another in the final analysis.

Sailor Pedro
15:56 on 29/12/2011
I suppose packaging is the same reason too many voters vote for the parties they do. Believe anything they are told when they really know that politicians only ever tell lies and will never do anything that any member of the general public want. Bright packaging is the reason many voters, mainly ladies, nowadays vote for PMs who are younger, have big grins, lots of hair and play at inane publicity games. No longer are potential PMs ever voted for based upon actual ability. If they were Tony B and Dave C (let alone a party leader like Nick Nobody) would not have been elected. Tories, Labour and the other forgetmenots all realised that years ago.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
iLdoRight
Encouraging The Rightest Rightness
15:53 on 29/12/2011
Consider the cost of cigarettes for a year, 10 years 30 years, add in the cost of burning holes in your clothing, the value of missed work due the added health problems, the costs of remedies to yourself and any loved ones who are altered by your second hand smoke and the cost of the cigarettes of a son or daughter you may start on the habit, add in the value of someone you may like but who can't stand the smell, add the costs of the stuff to cover the smell and extra dry cleaning, add the cost of damage to your teeth, the pain and costs of cancer, the cost of the damage to your car and the increase on insurance, and any fines because you had an accident when you pulled off the burning tobacco trying to take it out of your mouth while driving and got distracted and perhaps killed yourself or someone you loved, or even a nice stranger who would have found a cure for something real bad. Now think of something nice you could do with all that money. I quit by not lighting the same cigarette for 6 months, I just went through the motions with it, deep drag of air through it, holding it in the full lungs for a few moments, letting it out slow. Slowly the frequency, durations and intensity of the urges went away.
15:52 on 29/12/2011
When i started smoking there was no packaging because we bought them as singles over the counter. We smoked through peer pressure alone, we wanted to be somebody, to be cool. I was in my 30's before i managed to give it up. Did the lack of motorsport advertising reduce smoking numbers? As nobody has said then it didn't, changing the packaging won't either. Change the mindset and you have a chance, but lets not forget the tax revenue to the government. Is government really prepared to give up some of the £11 billion of tax given that the NHS smoking related costs are only £1.7 billion? I suppose they have to be seen to be making an effort.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FullFrontal
15:08 on 29/12/2011
oh yes, the pretty packaging makes it all better. i'm all for doing what you want to your body but KNOW what you are doing to it pls......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Victor Saymong
Canuck up Toronto way
14:59 on 29/12/2011
Oh, for the love of Pete. Why am I not surprised anymore?
14:53 on 29/12/2011
Anyone who smokes is daft.
15:56 on 29/12/2011
Anyone who drinks alchol is too
17:27 on 29/12/2011
Anyone who breathes is daft, anyone who believes politicians and church leaders is daft; anyone who exists and believes in peace is daft. Hence there are no sane people on the planet - but I bet smokers are happier.