iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Simon Chapman

GET UPDATES FROM Simon Chapman
 

Plain Tobacco Packs Awaken a Sleeping Tobacco Industry

Posted: 09/05/2012 00:00

In the past 20 months, Australian news audiences have been exposed to some exotic, thought-to-be-extinct species on their screens and radios. After more than 15 years, the tobacco industry dodo is back and walking among us, attempting to fly. Australia's pioneering plain packaging legislation has brought them out into public, in a desperate effort to prevent the fall of a domino that promises to cascade globally, ending the industry's centre-piece of tobacco promotion: the lure of the pack.

The University of California's Stan Glantz once remarked that those who lead the tobacco industry are like cockroaches: "They love the dark and they spread disease." Ever since the magnesium glare unleashed by the public release of its internal private tobacco industry documents via the 1998 US Master Settlement Agreement, the industry has kept well out of public view, working behind the scenes to shore up its ebbing credibility.

The court of public opinion told them they were regarded as the most untrustworthy of all industries. Media appearances had become progressively humiliating as their spin was rejected. But the truth serum contained in the millions of now public pages of court-ordered internal documents sealed their public fate. The industry always knew tobacco killed, but had lied about it for decades. Their marketing divisions had underlined the vital importance of recruiting youth, and their chemists had been busy working overtime to enhance the addictiveness of nicotine.

Australia's historic plain cigarette packaging legislation is weapons-grade public health policy that is causing apoplexy in the international industry. It is likely to have little effect on heavily dependent smokers who tend to be brand loyal and less image conscious, but without branding, future generations will grow up never having seen category A carcinogens packaged in attractive packs. Today's Australian 20-year-olds have never seen local tobacco advertising and youth smoking rates are at an all time low. Plain packs will turbocharge this trend, making smoking history.

Tobacco is a dying market in nations like Australia which lead the world in comprehensive tobacco control. National data released in July show only 15.1% are now smoking daily - the lowest ever recorded.

From the time that machine-manufactured cigarettes were first marketed at the beginning of the 20th century, the advertising and packaging industries did all they could to portray cigarettes as a means of signaling personal identity to the young as they took up smoking. A callow youth who wouldn't be seen dead with a menthol Alpine felt assured by the promise of masculinity in pulling out a packet of Marlboros. Those not wanting the social opprobrium that can come with being showy had the iconic ordinariness of Winfield to clutch as their totem. Those wanting to affect retro stylishness have Peter Stuyvesant or Lucky Strike, and wannabes, any number of haute couture named brands- designer carcinogens. But from 1 Dec 2012, all cigarettes will look the same, distinguished only by the brand and variant name in standard font.

The industry's re-entry into policy debate has produced some high comedy. In advising government that plain packs will "not work", it sought a role as a wise public health authority, when of course its fiduciary duty to its shareholders demands that it support policies which maximise use. It has commissioned reports that purport to show that one in six cigarettes being smoked now are illicit, when the latest national survey reports that a mere 1.5% of smokers use illegal tobacco more than half the time. Most of all though, its blank cheque advertising campaigns, imploring the government to desist, say to anyone with half a brain that the industry knows plain packs will "kill their business", as the cover story of a tobacco trade magazine put it in 2008. That's precisely the plan.

Tobacco kills one in two of its long-term users. The tobacco industry's current undisguised panic shows that plain packs will hit them very hard. If she were to do nothing else, Health Minister Nicola Roxon (now Attorney General) has marked her tenure with this historic legislation. It will stand in public health history as a major chapter of how governments put the health of the population before the corporate interests of a pariah industry.

Just one disease caused by smoking - lung cancer - was rare before 1930. Over the next 50 years, it rose to become the world's leading cause of cancer death. In countries like Australia it is now on the wane. Plain packaging will accelerate its eventual demise as a major cause of death.

 

Follow Simon Chapman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/simonchapman6

FOLLOW HEALTH NEWS
In the past 20 months, Australian news audiences have been exposed to some exotic, thought-to-be-extinct species on their screens and radios. After more than 15 years, the tobacco industry dodo is bac...
In the past 20 months, Australian news audiences have been exposed to some exotic, thought-to-be-extinct species on their screens and radios. After more than 15 years, the tobacco industry dodo is bac...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 42
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
07:15 AM on 05/22/2012
I found the following interesting:

===
A callow youth who wouldn't be seen dead with a menthol Alpine felt assured by the promise of masculinity in pulling out a packet of Marlboros. Those not wanting the social opprobrium that can come with being showy had the iconic ordinariness of Winfield to clutch as their totem. Those wanting to affect retro stylishness have Peter Stuyvesant or Lucky Strike, and wannabes, any number of haute couture named brands- designer carcinogens. But from 1 Dec 2012, all cigarettes will look the same, distinguished only by the brand and variant name in standard font.
===

The idea seems to be that if they look the same, then people will smoke less. Perhaps if the government mandated that all clothing be mud brown or puke green then people would dress less? Maybe we're about to see a big push coming on from the Skyclad Contingent?

- MJM
12:58 PM on 05/17/2012
I was telling Simon on this very forum that his pet plain packaging plan of attacking the bigger players to try to starve them off will not do a thing to curb smoking because they won't sit back and watch their market shrink, they'll just lower their prices. This discussion isn't even totally dry yet and look what's happening right in his own country :

BAT launches budget Tobacco brand in Australia row

''"It's a simple issue of supply and demand. Our customers have been down-trading to cheaper products or to illegal cigarettes, so we've been forced to compete."

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/13711566/bat-launches-budget-tobacco-brand-in-australia-row/?

Nice going Simon! But thank goodness the healthists have their favorite emotional weapon - the children - to fall back on and accuse BAT of doing it to target teenagers with more affordable cigarettes. Good grief, how much more affordable than contraband can it get, yet none of the anti-tobacco industry lobbyists care in the least that taxes and rabid tobacco regulations have caused contraband to flourish and to sell to the kids at a fraction of the price no questions asked! And from what I was led to understand earlier in this discussion, Simon doesn't even care what goes into contraband tobacco (including rat droppings, floor sweepings, and bugs) since tobacco is harmful anyway !
11:16 AM on 05/14/2012
Iro Cyr - Like it or now, tobacco is going to remain a legal product for obvious reasons. In India, most of the people realize about hazards of smoking after landing in a hospital.

Two of my smoking friends died of cancer. My father developed heart ailment, which doctors linked to his heavy smoking, though for next ten years till he was alive, he never lighted another cigarette. Another friend of mine contracted cancer in his mouth , chewing Gutkha and is still undergoing Chemo.The point I wanted to drive is - once the habit is picked , it's very difficult to kick, till something terrible happens. Teens and young adults are to be stopped from picking the habit. I don't want my son to pick the habit, and I am sure no else wants it.

It is in this context, bringing in awareness, regulations, restrictions and plain packaging (if implemented), may aid teens and young adults to never pick the habit.

Tobacco certainly provides livelihood to many - but at a great cost. Once a smoker contracts a deadly disease, it inflicts a lot of pain to the victim as well as to his family members. The least we guys can do, is to bring in awareness among people, especially young ones. Thereafter, its an individual's choice to smoke or quit.

Mr. Simon, Ms.Nicola and others are doing a great job, and the results are showing in Australia for the world to emulate.
11:10 AM on 05/15/2012
Oh will you stop exploiting the children as emotional weapons to attain your ends! If we were to apply the same principle to every choice and decision we make as a society just ''to save the children'', we would have to reinvent our lives from scratch.

Stop transferring to the state what is YOUR responsibility and duty and raising your children to the best of your ability and educating them against temptation is a big part of it and this as long as there are legal things in society that are not suitable for children, including of course tobacco. Unless you want the state to take over raising them in sterilized state camps and let them loose when they're adults totally unarmed to cope with life and its many challenges, stop using them as weapons of choice to accommodate your agenda.

Robbing legitimate companies of their property rights whether it is their colours or trademarks will not do a thing for children if their parents are inadequate, so let's invest the funds wasted on useless campaigns and junk studies, towards giving a better quality of life and education to the children of incompetent parents.
01:17 AM on 05/10/2012
So,Mr Chapman, if lung cancer was rare before 1930,that means that cigarettes in general is not the issue,rather the type of cigarettes manufactured.That in turn raises the question,if Tobacco Control knew something like that, why it didn't request from the industry to manufacture cigarettes as they were before 1930, and why it let one out of two cigarette smokers to die as you said ? Why it doesn't embrace the harm reduction approach instead of the manichaean approach used?
03:49 AM on 05/10/2012
One other relevant question exposing how these rabid anti-smokers could care less about the health of the people. Why is the anti-tobacco lobby nixing smokeless tobacco, snus, e-cigarettes, which are all forms of tobacco that are far less hazardous than combustible tobacco? If they think that they will one day succeed in totally eradicating tobacco with their ''quit tobacco in any form or get punished and taxed to death'' philosophy, they are either naive dreamers, they are totally ignorant of human nature and psychology, or all they care about is the government and pharmaceutical grants they make off demonizing smoking and smokers and the h... with harm reduction. Just listen to Chapman asking me in a previous post what is wrong with getting the occasional rat dropping in my tobacco! I wonder how he would like to get some rat droppings in his martini! Shame on them, every one of those with that type of mindset. I am afraid that the anti-smoker movement in general was taken over by extremists and extremists have always been bad news for societies.
05:31 AM on 05/10/2012
Dimi, the reason that lung cancer was rare before 1930 is that massive uptake of smoking took place with mechanisation of production that really kicked in in the first decade of the 20th century, and that lung cancer is rarely an acute disease that manifests itself within a couple of years - it typically takes 30-40 years. So it first started appearing clinically in the the early 20s and thereafter with each year started growing rapidly to the point that it became (easily) the leading cause of cancer death.
08:28 AM on 05/10/2012
There maybe confounding or possibly additional factors in the rise of LC. The more dubious theory is the rise of nuclear explosions from 1945 onwards, exposure to industrial and car pollution to exposure to asbestos and radon. The main reason for LC is genetic mutations. In active smokers it is the ingestion of benzo(a)pyrene (BAP) a 5 ring benzene molecule. We have four bases to our DNA, guanine, thymine, cytosine and adenine. Guanine normally pairs with cytosine and adenine with thymine. The effect of BAP is to change the pairings of guanine to thymine and hence a genetic mutation called a g to t transversion. The effect is to neutralise the p53 gene which suppresses cancer cell growth. Smokers with LC have this mutation littered on the upper lobes of their lungs.

However this mutation is very rare in non smokers. This strongly suggests that passive smoking does not cause LC. Also BAP is found in car exhausts by a factor of up to 10 times than that of second hand smoke (SHS). It is quite possible to theorise that few if anyone has contracted LC from SHS.

Alas there is real epidemiological and scientific evidence that active smoking causes LC.

Part 2
08:50 AM on 05/10/2012
What I find most galling is the 'quit or die' attitudes from the anti smokers. There have been at least two attempts by tobacco companies to some up with 'safer' cigarettes, especially towards the end of the 1970s. While smoking tobacco will never be risk free (what is) Dr. Gio Gori working independently of tobacco companies to produce safer smoking only to be rejected by the Puritans like Everett Koop the Surgeon General who said in 1984 he wanted to make America smoke free by 2000. Koop is now 95 I wonder what he thinks about that comment.

The failure of the anti smoker lobby to embrace and encourage harm reduction like e-cigarettes and snus is a complete disgrace. I would estimate that smoking rates would be similar to Swedish men of 15% if that happened.

Why are you not promoting these products SImon?
11:06 PM on 05/09/2012
A non-smoker would have to spend 5 hours in a small room with 165,000 continuous smokers to ingest as much arsenic as you'd find in a large glass of water.
Answer me this please Mr Chapman...If arsenic is such a "killer" in second hand smoke, then why is a glass of water perfectly harmless?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Independentsecularhuman
The name says it all
06:37 PM on 05/09/2012
The Labour Government did all of us a great big favor by banning smoking in Public places, in the work place and most importantly in Pubs. Just the savings alone from the NHS justify the move ,but all those now healthy lungs breathing fresh air are a testimony to really good decision. Thanks Labour.
10:19 PM on 05/09/2012
If you go to Action on Smoking and Health's (ASH) 2008 accounts on page 8 they quote the figure of £2.7 billion. Her Majesty's Customs and Revenue (HMRC) document £10.3 billion in tobacco receipts if you include VAT. Plus you have to factor in 80,000 people are dependent on the tobacco industry for their jobs. As we die 7 years earlier than non smokers we save £1 billion a year in old age pensions, and are not a burden in very expensive care homes wearing incontinence pads and dribbling down our bibs.

Most economists agree that we are worth 3p to 5p in reduced income tax, which means someone earning £30,000 saves about £400 a year. One smoker pays for the average person's holiday.
10:37 PM on 05/09/2012
It's a noble & patriotic thing you and other smokers do, Dave: doing your best to lay down your lives early for the good of the economy. And the tobacco industry should be applauded, not vilified. I now see the error of my ways. So let's hear no more of this harm reduction nonsense. You go and tell them this: the industry should be working hard to perfect products timed to maximise the killing just as people leave the workforce. 60-65 is the go. No economy wants old people shuffling around, drawing pensions, visiting drs for their arthritis, helping to look after grand kids. You're brilliant mate! And you're right about those jobs too. Maybe you should spread your wisdom to those road safety fools? Road crashes create lots of jobs in panel beating, surgery, long stay orthopedic care.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ms Chopsy
Don't let reality ruin your day!
05:22 PM on 05/09/2012
I'm sure it's already been said but it's worth repeating. Cannabis use is on the rise yet it has never been advertised or sold in fancy packets. If people continue to spout this idiocy about changing packaging and increasing the price being the way to combat an addiction, nothing will change.

I'm convinced that they don't actually care if people stop smoking or not. Smokers are just one of the few groups left that it's still ok to be prejudiced against these days.
11:57 AM on 05/17/2012
Cannabis has to some extent, and within the confines of illegality, been branded over the years. A type of cannabis is purchased according to the kind of high one wishes to achieve for a start. Once upon a time, before the G.M. varieties of weed, one would purchase red seal, gold seal, green seal varieties of resin, and if your dealer was particularly good would inform you of the region and even the producer of the resin as they would have put their stamp on the better quality bars of resin i.e. branding.

If branding makes no difference then why do tobacco companies, along with any other company, spend millions branding their products?
03:53 AM on 05/18/2012
Branding makes a difference for companies to compete with each other for the market. If all beer looked the same would you stop drinking beer or would you pick up the first bottle you see on the shelf? But if you didn't like beer, I doubt you'd buy one just because you like the color of the label.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the idea of plain packaging and its aims to take the glamour out of smoking, I just don't think it will work & violating intellectual property rights that can (& will) set a precedent for anything & everything that governments deem unacceptable, is a very slippery slope and too much power in the hands of governments that have forgotten that they're there to serve the public and not the other way around. But even if it did work a couple of decades down the line, the ends do not justify the means and if we're going to trample on the rights of legal companies one at a time at the whim of lobbyists and corrupt/ignorant politicians, we might as well make tobacco illegal. After all, if we were to believe the anti-tobacco industry, it's the most harmful substance on the planet and even a few whiffs can send you to your grave. If they truly believe it, they are criminal in not pushing to make it illegal. Not that it will ever be eradicated, but it would at least make them more credible .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ms Chopsy
Don't let reality ruin your day!
05:28 AM on 05/19/2012
I don't smoke it myself but I know for a fact that my friends basically just buy whatever their dealer can get.
Craigzz
God must like pinball
01:47 PM on 05/09/2012
The cold hard reality of tobacco, goes much further than simply 'image' or 'coolness' and even Nicotine. Chewing gum was, in its heyday, ultra cool, yet millions are not frantically chewing gum from the moment they wake up.
Packaging has about zero effect on the sale of anything. People buy brand equal to quality as a measure of there own social standing, it is cost versus there own belief in there image. Addiction is completely different altogether, a man who smokes the finest branded cigarettes on offer, will, if locked in a room long enough with only an ashtray full of dirty cigarette butts and a lighter, will smoke each and every last one.
Nicotine is not the sole addict causing chemical in tobacco, there exists others, which although less well understood, act in a synergistic way with nicotine. There is known MAOI activity, and it is for these reasons, hardened smokers simply cannot stop, they are provided with only one element of something much more complex, there is a rebound psychological effect, not explained by nicotine alone, but which one such chemical may now explain. One would think, given the vast amount of study into tobacco, this causal factor would have been established by science and chemists, but similar to cannabis and the cannabinoid's, it seems data does not flow to Joe public, possibly because such information may undermine government policy, who can say, but in my book that's dictatorship, not democracy.
10:16 AM on 05/09/2012
Professor Chapman writes: "..latest national survey reports that a mere 1.5% of smokers use illegal tobacco.." Firstly it would be good for provenance to post an URL.

The Deloittes report published in the Australian press said "Counterfeit items totalled 407,000kg last year, up from 116,000kg, while contraband also rose to 430,000kg, up from 134,000kg."

My understanding is tobacco companies in Australia do most of the research/enforcement into smuggled/counterfeit tobacco by test purchasing in shops. They probably do know the extent of smuggling most and have a vested interest in keeping it down.

The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service in its 2008-9 annual report stated: "...saw us prevent some 169 tonnes of tobacco leaf and 50 million cigarette sticks from entering Australia illegally through the sea cargo stream. In addition, some 12 tonnes of smuggled molasses tobacco was detected at the border. The potential revenue evaded from these illicit importations was approximately $70.5 million." I cigarette weighs 1.3 grams, hence 65 tonnes, totalling 246 tonnes.

Estimates of heroin and cocaine interceptions suggest that between 10%-20% is stopped before reaching the streets. So even at 1/5th about 1,000 tonnes reaches the street. Deloitte's report is either very accurate or underestimating the problem.

Professor Chapman I think you are misleading us.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/cigarette-smugglers-beat-plain-packaging-laws/story-e6freuzr-1226345221092

http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/minisites/annualreport0809/pages/page117.html
08:45 AM on 05/09/2012
Also in the UK in the age group 11-15 more teenagers use plain packaged illegal drugs than tobacco. One hypothesis is that smokers and smoking have become so demonised and leperised that it has broken down the barriers to being a gateway to something far more harmful.

“In 2010, the key survey estimates for 11 to 15 year olds in England included the following:

5% of pupils were regular smokers, equivalent to around 150,000 young people (CI=130,000-170,000)

12% had taken drugs (including volatile substances) in the last year, equivalent to around 380,000 young people (CI=350,000-410,000)

7% had taken drugs in the last month, equivalent to around 200,000 young people (CI=180,000-230,000)

http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/003_Health_Lifestyles/Smoking%20drinking%20drug%20use%202010/Smoking_drinking_and_drug_use_among_young_people_in_England_2010_Full_report.pdf

Page 184
08:41 AM on 05/09/2012
The question I would like to ask Professor Chapman is why in Australia more 14-19 year olds indulge in plain packaged dangerous drugs than tobacco? Here are the details supplied by the Australian Government.

Just under 12 per cent had tried tobacco and just under seven per cent smoked on a daily basis.

One in five (21.5 per cent) had tried cannabis.

Just over two per cent had tried amphetamines for non-medical reasons.

4.7 per cent had tried ecstasy.

2.1 per cent had tried inhalants – such as petrol, glue and solvents.

2.1 per cent had tried cocaine.

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/drugs_teenagers?open
08:54 AM on 05/09/2012
It is great that Australian kids have the commonsense not to get hooked on a highly addictive drug which has a 50% chance of killing them.

Most of them will grow out of cannabis and party drugs, but tobacco is far more addictive. I know I had withdrawal systems and cravings for over a year after I eventually gave up.
09:38 AM on 05/09/2012
So underage mainlining heroin and smoking crack cocaine is better than smoking tobacco? I am so glad to hear that with these drugs people just "will grow out of." We can equally brush over it is illegal too no doubt and drug dealers are pillars of the establishment.

Smoking tobacco shortens your life on average 7 years. Let me point out that daily consumption of heroin and crack cocaine after 20 years leaves 66% of users suffering from either/or heart failure, cancer or major organ failure.

On the 7th April 2011 I was invited to speak at the British Medical Journal’s debate on whether smoking is a disease (addiction) or a habit.

I begged to differ. One of the papers I cited was from err..yes your eyes do not deceive you Professor Simon Chapman. Published in the Public Library of Science on the 9th February 2010 is "The Global Research Neglect of Unassisted Smoking Cessation: Causes and Consequences." In the summary Professor Chapman writes:

"Research shows that two-thirds to three-quarters of ex-smokers stop unaided."

Are you still going to say tobacco is more addictive than heroin or cocaine? Frankly I do not want to be rude but your comments are ignorant.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000216#pmed.1000216-American1
09:29 AM on 05/09/2012
Dave Atherton is a pro-smoking dinosaur troll who runs a tiny group of like-minded tragics who specialise in jamming blogs (note to moderator) Iro Cyr is another one. They get very excited when anyone engages with them and post their incontinent pedantry for days. So a quick reply Dave, and then if you don't mind, I'll get on with other things & not waste time indulging you. The simplistic pretext to your question is that packaging is the only variable of relevance to explaining differences in drug use. I think you know how silly that is, but hey, why not just run the argument anyway? There are many explanations of the differences, even before we get to issues of "ever tried" vs daily use. I presume a corollary of your logic is that if cannabis was sold in attractive packs from every 2nd shop, that it wouldn't have even higher appeal than it has now.
05:59 AM on 05/09/2012
I really don't think the plain packaging will work. Especially not in Australia, given that currently you can't even show cigarettes on sale - they are ALL hidden behind cabinets. So, if you're a current smoker, you already know what brand you smoke, and if you're a non-smoker you probably have no idea what any of them look like (or care). If this is aimed at preventing kids from taking up smoking I think it's a moot point as they probably can't afford the pack in the first place.

Has there been a study pointing to a decline that is absolutely linked to the current warnings and graphic picture on cigarette packs? If not, then I can't see this being any different.
03:14 AM on 05/09/2012
Part 2 (continued from part 1)

All it would accomplish is to make premium brands more affordable since the bigger players won't sit back and watch their market shrink, they will simply lower their prices to compete with the budget brands.

All a legislation on plain packaging would be accomplishing is to rob the bigger players of profits without doing a thing for public health and possibly making smoking more prevalent because of more competitive prices. Strip the bigger players of their gravy and you're bound to see quality decrease, research for a safer product come to a total halt, tax revenues take a big hit & criminal activity rising. If it's a vendetta against Big Tobacco that Chapman and al are after, his plan on plain packaging might be greatly successful but as for public health, not even close. Maybe people who smoke should be thanking Chapman for contributing to making premium brands more affordable. In all price wars it is always the consumer that gets the most benefits.

Many kids in Canada smoke cheap contraband cigarettes (rat droppings, floor sweepings, and bugs have been found in them) and it's certainly not the packaging that they are attracted to since they come in clear plastic bags. As long as there is a demand there will always be a supply & the underground market will only be too happy to oblige... in any type of packaging.
09:38 AM on 05/09/2012
Iro, no one in public health could care less if one effect of plain packaging was to deflate the consumer con of some cigarettes being "worth" more than others. If the average price goes down, gvts can put the tax up. Plain packs are all about deglamourising smoking for the next generations of smokers, as my piece explained. And please, spare me about cigarette "quality". The "best" cigarettes that BAT, Philip Morris etc produce kill exactly the same proportions as their budget brands. Why are you worried about smoking the odd rat dropping but not basting your lungs at point blank range with 20 cigs a day, 12 puffs per cig, 365 days per year - a mixture of 40+ class A carcinogens?
10:42 AM on 05/09/2012
Christmas Eve 1926 in New York a man staggered into Bellevue Hospital and died of alcohol poisoning. Over the next two days another 23 people died. By the time Alcohol Prohibition had ended in 1933 over 10,000 Americans had died by the deliberate poisoning of industrial alcohol by the government.

Cocaine was never illegal in the UK until 1917, it was thought the Germans were about to flood the UK with poisonous variants. Arthur Conan-Doyle's fictional Sherlock Holmes was depicted as an occasional user. Cocaine was either purchased in your local pharmacy or greengrocer. Heroin too was available legally until Edwardian times. There seems very little evidence they were social problems.

Cannabis has morphed into skunk, cocaine into crack, opium into heroin and morphine. Illegal chemists have produced more potent and deadly variants of drugs, hitherto relatively safe.

With the increasingly denormalisation and marginalisation of smokers, which I believe the end game is the prohibition of tobacco.

Too damn right I am worried what goes into counterfeit tobacco.
02:29 PM on 05/09/2012
Simon (since we're on first name bases now), are you telling the readers that if kids (& adults alike) are going to smoke anyway you could care less what they smoke? Because yes, Simon, believe it or not, like it or not, some people will continue smoking & some kids will take up smoking. And the higher you want to raise the taxes the more they will resort to contraband. Are you telling the readers here that starving off the legitimate industry & risking to put tobacco in the hands of the underground market is good public health & social policy? If so, why aren't you advocating to make tobacco illegal? I bet you think that the war on drugs is also a tremendous success? In an era when societies are seriously debating to make some drugs legal in an effort to reduce harm you're advocating the opposite for tobacco?

Also, please stop resorting to ad homs and accusations such as that I am pro-tobacco. You believe in your work? Defend it honestly and cut out the bullying. Anti-tobacco is not used to being confronted, but in the internet era you can bet all your grant money that you will be asked the pointy questions whenever and wherever you make an appearance & you really should be ready to answer them without attacking your opponents or running scared hiding in some private forum. http://cagecanada.blogspot.ca/2011/09/you-can-run-but-you-cannot-hide.html
03:07 AM on 05/09/2012
From an article that appeared in the Guardian interviewing anti-tobacco lobbyist Simon Chapman.

Chapman as reported by the Guardian: ''Although blind taste tests show that consumers detect little difference between most brands of cigarettes, the successful marketing of some brands as cool, or macho, or feminine, or "lite" has helped sustain a hierarchy in which premium brands sell for a lot more than budget lines, despite costing much the same to produce. (...)'Replace those colourful packets with nothing but a plain colour, the manufacturer's name and a massive health warning, and many people will stop buying the premium brands, he argues.''

Let's repeat that last phrase again: ''and many people will stop buying the premium brands, he argues.'' So what does this tell us? That plain packaging doesn't really have anything to do with health since he even admits elsewhere in the interview that it will not immediately curb smoking but will slowly starve the industry off. Which industry? The bigger players in the tobacco industry or what he calls the premium brands. If anyone ever succeeds in ''starving them off'', one has to be a fool to think that tobacco will disappear. Many societies have tried eradicating it since its discovery and they all miserably failed.

Con'td on Part 2
12:53 AM on 05/09/2012
I am really inspired of what you have just discussed above. I'd love add more and more knowledge and keep browsing in future as well so i could learn more. http://ememusic.biz/