Going Through The Motions?

All decided already, is it?

[A government spokesman said:] "We are working with the alcohol industry which has pledged to take one billion units out of the UK's alcohol intake and introduce a minimum unit price."

I must have missed the announcement.

Thoughts Of An Odd New Zealander

The case for plain packaging tobacco is beginning to be made in New Zealand and - as I've mentioned before - the same carbon copy bollocks is being trotted out down there.

Self-declared politician-hating blogger, Cameron Slater, has made a few noises against the idea but generously allowed one of his commenters to put the other side. One can only assume he did this so we can all laugh at the writer's gullibility.

I mean, where does one start with this credulous nonsense?

In general I resist being told how to live by the nanny state – or anyone, especially my sister, and I find state interference in legitimate commercial transactions repugnant.

Sounds like the old "I'm a libertarian but only when I feel like it" line to me.

However I support the government’s proposed legislation to enforce plain packaging of tobacco, and I’ll explain why.

Yep, it is indeed.

Firstly, the legislation isn’t going to force anybody that chooses to smoke, to stop smoking. It isn’t going to prevent them from choosing the tobacco product and brand of their choice. It doesn’t infringe on the personal rights of any person to continue enjoying what they’ve been doing. Ask for 25 Holiday and that’s what you’ll get.

Buzz! Wrong.

Plain packaging is designed purposely to infringe on rights of the smoker. Curtailing the enjoyment of their chosen product is one of the selling points of it, as anti-smokers will willingly tell you.

Smokers display the branding every time they take out their pack to smoke. In doing so they are making a statement about how they want to be seen by others as they display and endorse the brand they have chosen.

In fact, denying smokers their enjoyment was a central plank of the Aussie campaign to ban logos and colours.

The study showed how cigarette brands and cigarette package designs gave meaning to personal characteristics, to social identity and to positions in hierarchies of status. (page 6)

Pack design doesn’t just communicate the ‘personality’ of a cigarette brand to the smoker... it also allows smokers to project these characteristics to others when they handle and display the package throughout their daily routines. Just as designer clothing, accessories and cars serve as social cues to style, status, values and character, so too can cigarette packs signify a range of attributes about users. As ‘badge products’, cigarettes can reinforce the characteristics conjured by brand image.(page 7)

So our faux libertarian is already on dodgy ground.

What else does his/her credulity stretch to?

Secondly, while selling tobacco and related products is a legal commercial transaction (subject to the laws around age, advertising, display etc), I challenge its legitimacy.

Err, shouldn't someone who claims to be resistant to the 'nanny state' naturally accept that individuals should be allowed to voluntarily purchase a product if it is legal? Apparently not.

Cigarettes contain a cocktail of more than 200 chemicals, mostly designed to physically addict you to smoking, ...

Really? You don't think that 21st century hyper-regulation might have banned such a practice if it were true? And if not, why is the tobacco control industry fannying around with plain packs when it could be getting the ingredients banned instead? Someone has been swallowing the anti-smoker soma a bit too often, methinks.

... as well as making sure they burn evenly and don’t go out while you’re not watching (makes you go through them quicker, and hopefully buy some more).

Boy! This guy/gal is such a conspiracy theorist they'll be babbling on about Freemasonry and lizards under the North Pole next. He (maybe I shouldn't assume it's a 'he') hasn't, one presumes, heard of fire safe cigarettes then.

If a corporation tried to introduce a new product called cigarettes today, assuming it had never been practiced, and knowing what we know about the contents of cigarettes and the effects of smoking them, they would never be allowed. The influence and financial clout of Big Tobacco around the world makes it unlikely that any government would ban the practice now, but I believe our government is morally and ethically obliged to do whatever it can to dissuade the public from taking up this toxic habit. I realise morals and ethics don’t always figure highly in government motives, but I live in hope.

If he (or she?) is pinning their hopes on plain packaging redeeming government morals, they'd be better advised backing 100/1 shots at Ascot Park. Even Aussie hector-in-chief Nicola Roxon has admitted that there is no evidence plain packaging will work.

Just from the facts above, any liberal thinker worth his salt would express doubts about plain packaging, but our author warms to their task - and displays some text book mouth-frothing - when attempting to debunk opposing arguments.

1. The “it won’t work, people will still smoke so don’t bother” argument. Well, the fact that they’re investing so much in trying to prevent this shows that it’s likely to be successful in dissuading new smokers from starting. If people are still going to smoke anyway, then this should be the best thing to ever happen to the industry. They can stop spending the 10s of millions they spend each year on marketing and promotion, and trying to find ways around the existing legislation, save millions on fancy packaging, and start making super profits.

Oh good grief. I hope this dolt never comes to London because - economically illiterate as they are - someone from the East End will probably sell them the Olympic Stadium or something.

Snowdon puts that wide-eyed idiocy to bed pretty succinctly here.

One of the main arguments made in favour of plain packaging—first in Australia and now in the UK—is that the tobacco industry strongly opposes it.

But this is a fallacy. It assumes that industry (any industry) depends on volume and turnover, when it actually depends on profit. The removal of branding is likely to have a negative effect on profit margins

And even Aussie super-prohibitionist Simon Chapman agrees.

"This explains a lot about why they fear plain packaging, because they will struggle to convince smokers that it's sensible to pay more for products that actually only look better because of their box."

Super profits? The entire point is to stop tobacco companies from making the profits they are currently making. Are you starting to sniff a bit of incompetence in this freedom lover's reasoning?

Next.

2. The “it’s not fair” argument. We created it (the huge marketing and branding juggernaut designed to feed new customers in to the market at a rate the same or faster than their dying customers are leaving it), so we should own it. Well boo-fucking-hoo, Big Tobacco. What you created was a machine designed to firstly lure, and then trap, new (young) customers into a lifetime of addiction, often followed by a slow lingering death. You have no rights to continue to profit from an instrument of death and disease, just because you built it. There are plenty of businesses around NZ that have had their business model turned on its head by the stroke of a politician’s pen, so suck it up.

I think we can discount the libertarian preamble now. This is nothing but psychotic anti-smoker rhetoric. If you can find any 'evidence' for plain packaging in that, then you're a better man that me, Gunga Din.

3. The “plain packs would make it easier to counterfeit” argument. Again, tough titties. You’re not worried about the health impacts to your gasping customers; you’re just worried that someone else will make the profits that you believe are rightfully yours.

'Gasping' hyperbole aside, I take it this blinkered dickhead has never heard of counterfeits being "up to thirty times more toxic than ordinary cigarettes". By arguing against a measure which will increase counterfeiting, tobacco companies are arguably acting - whether you love or loathe them - in the interests of those who smoke. By contrast, the author seems to care less about health dangers than he does about attacking tobacco companies.

4. The “infringing on people’s right to choose which brand to smoke” argument. Again, nothing more than a smokescreen. People will still be able to ask for, purchase and consume, all the brands that currently exist.

No they won't, moron. Plain packaging not only bans logos and colours, but also restricts packs - and the cigarettes in them - to a certain size and shape, which means many brands will cease to exist overnight. Go back and read the subject matter before commenting, it should be a prerequisite before putting your ignorance on record.

5. The “we have invested in our brands over many years and have a responsibility to our shareholders to do everything we can to defend our rights to use them” argument. Yes, now we’re getting closer to it aren’t we, vultures? This argument and the ones above are all about the profit you’re worried you might lose because fewer people may be inclined to start using your noxious addictive products, and you might not make so much money.

The same baseless argument as in 1) above, but with more spittle being ejaculated on the keyboard, and equally deluded.

6. The final canard: the “this is the thin end of the wedge – just think what products will be forced to use plain packaging if this succeeds” argument. A total red herring [...] Alcohol (as a legalised drug) is the product most often quoted as next cab off the rank if the nanny state has its way. It will never happen, and nor should it.

Oh I see! No wonder this plank is so woefully incoherent, they've been living in the black hole of Calcutta for the past few years. It explains why they know so little about plain packaging proposals and also why they've not heard of plain packaging for alcohol in the UK, Australia, and elsewhere. Along with other precedents being spotted for fast food in, yes, New Zealand, and the whole caboodle on a global level.

Oh yeah, and since they claim to be a regular reader of the blog, had they missed the talk of plain packaging for formula milk - a big New Zealand product - being a distinct possibility too?

How many dominoes in other product areas are required before this weapons grade lunatic begins to see the threat?

Alcohol – while not minimising the harm that irresponsible and excessive use can and does cause – performs an important role as a social lubricant and has a number of recognised health benefits, when taken in moderation. Tobacco has NO recognised health benefits and is harmful taken in any quantity.

Only 'cos you believe whatever you're told sunshine. That will change once the current drive to make you think the same of alcohol (or even salty snacks in the future) sways your incredibly dull mind the same way.

He/she leaves the best till last though.

I’ve given a lot of thought to reconciling my general principles described above with the undoubted benefits to society of fewer new smokers taking up this vile and toxic habit.

No you haven't. You've done no research whatsoever and just let your ill-informed knee jerk.

I’m a firm believer in freedom of choice ...

Hahahahaha!

Cigarettes are purely a nicotine delivery system and nicotine as a drug is almost as chemically addicting as the varieties of meth and heroin out there.

Facepalm.

We should do everything we can to help young people avoid becoming addicted to smoking.

Indeed we should. It's just a shame that plain packs - as admitted by the most vocal proponents of the idea - won't have any effect whatsoever because kids aren't even aware of them.

Credit where it's due, mind. I can at least admire the writer's stubbornness. Despite being taken to task in the comments, he/she continues to valiantly defend the vacant-headed poppycock to the last.

Official: Graphic Health Warnings Are Useless And The US Is More Free Than The UK

Following on from my previous post about democracy being an identifiable obstacle to freedom, I've got oldish news for you. The US - by way of a constitution which is marginally more robust against vested interests than anything we have over here - has proven that you are less free than your transatlantic cousins.

When the UK government implemented graphic health warnings for tobacco in 2008, they were promoted - as anti-tobacco measures always are - as a huge advance for public health. Once they were installed on packets, smokers would instantly see the light (because they had never understood that smoking is dangerous before) and quit tobacco in droves.

It never happened, of course, and it is now quite obvious that smokers simply haven't given up as a result of seeing Latvians with throat growths, or stylised syringes made to look like you're injecting a cigarette into your veins, as was promised.

By every possible measure, graphic warnings have had no impact whatsoever on smoking prevalence, nor will they ever. Sadly for US tobacco control tax-spongers, this incontrovertible fact has been noticed.

Tobacco companies won't have to put nine new graphic warning labels from the Food and Drug Administration on cigarette packs this year after all, an appeals court ruled Friday.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington announced it upheld a decision barring the federal government from requiring tobacco companies to put large graphic health warnings on cigarette packages to show that smoking can disfigure and even kill people.

Jaded anti-smoker Michael Siegel explains the judgement extremely well.

The Court writes: "FDA has not provided a shred of evidence - much less the 'substantial evidence' required by the APA - showing that the graphic warnings will 'directly advance' its interest in reducing the number of Americans who smoke. FDA makes much of the 'international consensus' surrounding the effectiveness of large graphic warnings, but offers no evidence showing that such warnings have directly caused a material decrease in smoking rates in any of the countries that now require them. ... FDA's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) essentially concedes the agency lacks any evidence showing that the graphic warnings are likely to reduce smoking rates. ... The Rule thus cannot pass muster under Central Hudson."

What it means is that the anti-smoking movement's use of shoddy science has finally caught up to it. While the lack of rigor in its recent use of science to support its policy positions may be good enough to convince policy makers, it is not good enough to convince the courts.

The Court did not fall for the argument that studies have demonstrated an effect of graphic warning labels on smokers' attitudes about quitting. The Court wanted to see studies showing that these labels actually led to smokers quitting, but such evidence was not forthcoming. The Court essentially laid bare the lack of scientific evidence behind the "international consensus" that graphic warning labels are effective.

It's importsnt to note that the US court specifically stated that there is "not a shred" of evidence that graphic warnings work to encourage smokers to quit. This is, also, the second time the US judiciary has held such a position.

I'll say that again. Not. A. Shred.

You see, they have seen the evidence from daft countries like ours, who leapt before we looked, and noticed that it was all fake studies and anti-smoker bullshit.

The US court decision - delivered two weeks ago - has since been validated by yet another study coming to the same conclusion. A fellow jewel robber reports that a study by Maastricht University created plenty column inches in the Belgian press recently.

In conclusion, warning labels on packs of cigarettes seem ill-advised. They may in fact increase smoking among smokers who derive self-esteem from their identity as a smoker. More health benefits would be achieved if the areas currently reserved for warning labels would be used for a message to enhance efficacy or influence other determinants that have been found to play a role in ceasing smoking (such as subjective norm; note that attitude, the construct encompassing perceived threat, has been found to have only a weak influence; Topa & Moriano, 2010). Given the minimal, or even negative, effects we can expect from threatening communication, the potential of evidence- and theory-based communications on cigarette pack labels is promising.

The evidence - as tobacco controllers like to say - is overwhelming. The debate is over. Graphic warnings don't work except in the minds of those who derive income from promoting them.

Sadly, we are not protected from such policy ricks. However, importantly for the US, they have a bit of a problem with free speech - which product marketing is classified as under their Constitution - being destroyed unless there is a fucking good reason for it. Graphic warnings didn't only come up wanting, but the pleading from US bansturbators seemed to exclusively consist of saying "they did it, so we want to as well" ... swiftly followed by "Waaaah! Not fair!" when they didn't get their own way.

Considering our countries are all so keen to follow each other, we should logically see the UK government holding their hands up, removing the images and admitting that they were conned by a runaway health lobby with little grasp of reality. However, logic and common sense are routinely left at the security scanners in Westminster so don't hold your breath. The ratchet only goes one way with the easily-gulled pawns we are doomed to be governed by.

UK democracy strikes again, and everyone is worse off as a result. Next up is plain packaging - one of the apparent plusses being that it will make ineffectual warnings larger, as if that helps - which will not only have an inconsequential effect like graphic warnings, but also carries the threat of being seriously dangerous to our way of life.

Will politicians listen? Probably not. In a democracy, they only have to look after the loudest minority and their pathetic existence is assured for another term.

Link Tank 08/09

Back by popular apathy.

The British state is about to launch the War on Dr Pepper

The true cost of minimum pricing

The history and anatomy of a silly drug ban

Testing beer in case of nuclear apocalypse

Jimmy Carter adviser says Obama's war on Marijuana is "totally insane"

Saving the children? Another child poverty report misses the bigger picture

Turkey to ban Twitter and Facebook

Fast food thrives in Baghdad

Introducing the condom you can unwrap with one hand

Men and women really do see things differently

Colour-coding crabs

Be Off With You, Bartlett!

Via the excellent AboutMyArea/MK11, here's some interesting news to toast at gin o'clock this evening.

June Payne has won the by-election held yesterday, 6th September, in Stony Stratford, and will now represent the South-West Ward on the Town Council.

June won by a clear margin, receiving 260 votes, while her closest rival received just 41.

Her not-so-close rival being?

Results in full;

- June Payne: 260
- Paul Bartlett: 41
- Pete Thornburgh: 32
- Dick Bailey: 17

Quite a surprising result, eh? Who thought he'd get as many as 41 votes!

And so it would seem the final curtain has now come down on the bizarre car crash that was Councillor Herr Bartlett in Stony Stratford. You can read highlights of the saga at the Stony tag.

In some respects, I'll quite miss writing about the daft coot. Comedy like his doesn't usually write itself so readily.

The Petrol Elephant

What does it take to be a good British citizen these days?

Well, it would seem from watching ITV news last night that it involves cheering on your local authority as it throws millions down the drain, being overwhelmed that your government spent £25bn of your taxes on two weeks of sports fun, but screaming blue murder if your local shop short-changes you by a quid.

How else can one explain the clip attached to this article?

After a long campaign the Office of Fair Trading has delighted some by asking for evidence to see if consumers are being ripped off by petrol companies. The main accusation, that when the wholesale price of oil falls, the drop is not fully passed on to punters at the pump.

We're being 'ripped off' apparently!

A cab driver adds "someone is making a lot of money" as Laura Kuenssberg declares that petrol has "nearly doubled" in recent years (hands up who can remember when fuel was 65p a litre).

Laura helpfully gives us this graphic (just ignore the mathematical fail for now).


Now, from that, who do you think is ripping us off? Petrol companies delaying passing on a few pence in reductions? Or do you reckon there's an entirely different entity causing it?

Our friendly cabbie is upset that fuel is cheaper all over the continent. Who does he think is responsible for the disparity? Companies which spend £billions in research, development, prospecting, distilling, and delivery of the product or - and this may be an off-the-wall view in our wibbly-wobbly modern bovine nation - could it be, perhaps, possibly, the 80 fucking pence on every single litre screwed from us by the government?

Complaining about oil companies fiddling with a few pence here and there is like being happy to be cracked over the head daily by a thug with lead piping, but running to the police because a market trader trod on your foot.

So the OFT is going to spend some of those tax resources on investigating petrol suppliers. Fantastic, I'll bet they're quivering in their cowboy boots; will quickly rush to knock a few pence off prices and the public sector will claim a wondrous success. Except that by the time the OFT reports back, Osborne will have already slapped another planned 3p on duty and harmed the country that little bit more.

Our findings suggest that a 2.5 pence reduction in fuel duty would result in the creation of 175 thousand jobs within a year and 180 thousand jobs within five years of such a reduction. Such a reduction, we estimate, would not result in any fiscal loss to the Government, while GDP would receive a boost of 0.32 per cent within a year and 0.34 per cent within five years.

The government screws motorists to the tune of £48bn per year yet ITV don't feel any of that merits a mention.

As elephants go, that's a mammoth of one running around garage forecourts that one of our major broadcasting companies didn't quite notice.

Good grief.

Not Learning The Lessons Of Prohibition

Still catching up with articles I've missed while messing around in a yellow inflatable ring with a cocktail, or careering down a water slide like a 12 year old, I've just read this by Snowdon at the ASI on the newly-revealed tobacco prohibition agenda.

It is doubtful that even a smoking rate of 0.01% would satisfy them. For the moral entrepreneur, the only tolerable rate of consumption is zero and surely nobody imagined that the stated goal of a “tobacco-free world” could be achieved by persuasion alone. The lurch towards prohibition should therefore not be surprising. And yet their squeamishness about using the P word, and the scramble to find a more friendly-sounding term, would not be necessary if these advocates believed that prohibition was a noble goal. They know they are naughty boys and girls, these crusaders, and they hope the public will be fooled if they coin new terms for their discredited ideology of suppression.

Do go read the whole piece if you haven't already but it's interesting that, in the same week, the Harm Reduction Journal produced a critique of Olympics anti-doping policies containing a quote which is extremely timely under the circumstances.

50 years of ‘war on drugs’ have had little effect on this prevalence but have had many negative consequences. As Room and Reuters note:

“The system’s emphasis on criminalisation of drug use has contributed to the spread of HIV, increased imprisonment for minor offences, encouraged nation states to adopt punitive policies (including executions, extra-judicial killings, imprisonment as a form of treatment, and widespread violations of UN-recognised human rights of drug users), and impaired the collection of data on the extent of use and harm of illicit drugs, all of which have caused harm to drug users and their families”.

Why, oh why, do advocates for tobacco prohibition think they have the silver bullet for avoiding the same overwhelmingly destructive outcomes when tobacco use is so massively larger than that of drugs?

These people are either extremely dangerous, or mind-bogglingly stupid. Or, more realistically, both.