I've never bought a packet of cigarettes or smoked, so I have no idea if plain packaging will make a difference to an existing or new smoker. I dont think tobacco companies should be able to advertise, but I dont think packaging makes much difference to that.
The tobacco industry ads I think miss the mark from a marketing point of view. I'm thinking particularly of the "Prisoner" one, with the unattractive lady saying "just do as your told"... it comes across as being desperate. I think using an argument like the Olly did above about "what industry could they stop next" would probably be more effective, from a marketing point of view.
As a general principle, I think people should take responsibility for their own behaviour, whether its smoking, over-eating, drinking too much etc. We all have vices, and we all suffer their consequences. I dont think govt should "interfere" here. they can educate, encourage etc... but not actually stop our civil liberties.
Sometimes, our actions also impact on other people, and that is where govt should look to possibly step in, eg stopping drink driving, not smoking in public places, healthier food in school canteens etc.
Where I have the biggest "gripe" is people saying that because you've smoked you dont 'deserve" healthcare services, because you've brought it upon yourself. This is a very real attitude, particularly in Australia.
As someone who has lung cancer, I can tell you that the first question EVERYONE asks me is 'did you smoke". When I say no, the general feeling is that its somehow unjustified, or terribly unfair that I have cancer. But the flip side of that is that people who have smoked are treated like having cancer is their own fault. The same attitude isnt displayed to people with other cancers (the sympathy is, but not the blame). Recent research showed that Australians had the least sympathy of any of the nations surveyed towards people with lung cancer, because they felt it was the sufferers own fault.
OK... now I'm going to start preaching!
The funding for lung cancer research is lower than all the other major cancers, despite it killing more people than breast, prostate and cervical combined. More women die from lung cancer than breast cancer. Some statistics say that up to 60% of people who are newly diagnosed are either never smokers or quit smoking decades ago. The survival rate for lung cancer is 15%, and has not changed for over 20 years. (as a comparison, breast cancer has gone from around 40%- 80%, I think in the past 15 years or so.). There is no early detection methods, like there are with breast and colon cancer. (In fact, there has recently been a breakthrough in this, with research showing survival rates could be doubled if smokers had a yearly CT scan...... and one of Australia's leading lung cancer doctors said it was a waste of money and we should be focusing on quit smoking campaigns...... can you imagine a similar approach being taken for breast cancer!!!!!!!!
)
I have no problem at all with Quit smoking programs... they are essential. But smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer (and other cancers), not a direct cause. Lots of people who smoke never get lung cancer. and there are rapidly increasing numbers of people who never smoke who are getting lung cancer. Because of our attitudes of "smokers deserve to get lung cancer", we have neglected to fund research into early detection, treatment and cures.
All of us make lifestyle choices which are probably not the best for our health. We shouldnt stigmatise smokers, or punish them for their actions. By not taking lung cancer seriously, as a disease that anyone can get and no one deserves, we are doing just that.
OK, rant over!! you can go back to your packet of ciggies, your carton of beer or your block of chocolate now
