If you hang on a bit longer i can look up some public health studies on the effect of cigarette branding and marketing if you want?
I’d quite like to read that, colonel wax.
It reminded me of this:
Australia already has some of the toughest anti-smoking measures in the world, with grotesque pictures of cancer tumours and gangrenous limbs printed on every packet, and cigarettes hidden in cabinets out of sight of consumers in shops.
But the plain packaging legislation would arm the Australian authorities with the toughest anti-smoking measures in the world.
Needless to say, Big Tobacco is determined to prevent the measures from taking effect, fearing the consequences in other, more lucrative, markets around the world. Britain, Canada and New Zealand are considering similarly stringent laws.
Tobacco companies could also be hit especially hard in emerging markets – where branding is a vital marketing tool in luring smokers from cheap cigarettes to more expensive ones – if governments there followed Australia’s lead.
Big tobacco fighting for their right to save branded packaging. Despite manufacturing a product that is actually addictive, they’re still desperate to cling on to their packaging, knowing that losing their brand image entirely will damage their profits.
Thanks for bringing that up, CW.
Personally, since the very beginning I’ve not really thought much further evidence was actually needed beyond the eyes in the front of our faces being pointed in the general direction of pretty much everything and anything we’ve ever known.
But if that was insufficient, as it appears it was, then you’ve certainly given the thread what it needs. Either that, or minds have been made up and facts won’t be allowed to confuse anything.
Still, I’m sure you somehow fail to understand. Quite what, I don’t know. But you no doubt, inexplicably, fail to understand.
