Precedent? What Precedent?

Late on parade, busy day. Here's an interesting one for you, though.

Remember this bold assertion from Smokefree Action's briefing - first, of many to come, mentions here - on why everyone should be incredibly happy at their attempt to uglify Britain that little bit further with plain packaging for tobacco?

Myth #7: It may be tobacco today but other consumer products will follow

FACT: Tobacco is not like any other product, it is the only legal consumer product on the market which is lethal when used as intended. That is why the UK and over 170 other governments have signed up to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control which places legal obligations on governments to strictly regulate tobacco products. Plain packs for tobacco will not therefore set a precedent for other consumer products.

Yeah, well just to emphasise this unwillingness to encourage other vested interests to follow their lead, here is the current home page of the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies website (click to enlarge, natch).

On the pollution link, Professor John Britton - a conspiracy theorist anti-smoker - divorces the subject entirely from the 'unique' issue of tobacco.

"Essentially, pollution outdoors is probably doing much the same as tobacco smoke indoors,"

The Responsibility Deal link also makes it quite clear that tobacco control can never be accused of encouraging precedents.

"There's no evidence that voluntary approaches work." Using smoking as an example [Professor Anna Gilmore, an expert in public health at Bath University and the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies] said: "The internal records of the tobacco companies became available when they were sued. They show that companies pushed voluntary approaches specifically in order to avoid binding legislation."

Nope. No hint of precedents being fostered there. either.

Meanwhile, at the Facebook vodka link, co-architect of the smoking ban Vivienne Nathanson waxes lyrical about how alcohol should suffer the same treatment as tobacco ...

"This shows how the alcohol industry needs to be regulated in order to curb alcohol misuse," she stated.

... whilst anti-tobacco propagandist Linda Bauld says something vaguely familiar.

"Companies lie (sic) Diageo are wanting to recruit drinkers of a young age and using Facebook is a key way of getting to children."

Probably because it is.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said "The evidence is clear that packaging helps to recruit smokers, so it makes sense to consider having less attractive packaging. It's wrong that children are being attracted to smoke by glitzy designs on packets."

Conclusive evidence, then, that tobacco controllers are solely interested in tackling tobacco harm, and would abhor their methods being replicated towards 'other consumer products', so they would.

I mean, what a ridiculous myth that is, eh?