|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Tobacco shooting itself in the foot
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Japan Tobacco International have released this ad. It depicts a printout of an email from someone at the Department of Health (UK) the relevant part of which says quote:
…the UK Government is considering the introduction of plain packaging of tobacco products.
As I'm sure you are aware, one of the difficulties regarding this is that nobody has done this and therefore, there isn't any hard evidence to show that it works. [JTI's emphasis!]
The email goes on to ask whether the Australian Government has done any impact assessment of cost analysis of the proposal.
The Advertising Standards Authority has banned two other adverts by JTI as misleading.
Given the amount the tobacco industry seems willing to spend in opposing the measure, do we need more evidence that 'plain packaging' might be worth a try to reduce the level of uptake by more impressionable consumers? (Although some research evidence is available, contrary to the impression given by the industry.) I wonder what evidence would come out if the tobacco industry was required to make such disclosures?
I find it hard to feel much sympathy for the tobacco industry. Do others feel that any real liberty is lost if they are prohibited from glamourising their products?
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
As someone who smokes occasionally I'm not too bothered by it though I do think that there is a possibility that by making the whole smoking thing too taboo, so to speak, it might actually draw some young people into smoking. We all know teenagers have this rebellious streak. There is one thing that vexes me though and that is where I live small packets are no longer available. If I go out and what a few cigarettes I have to buy a packet of 20 instead of 10, which means I smoke 20 instead of 10.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I find it hard to feel much sympathy for the tobacco industry. Do others feel that any real liberty is lost if they are prohibited from glamourising their products?
Quite the reverse. There's no doubt that if we had discovered tobacco yesterday, there's no way it would ever become a legal drug. It's only because of its historical legality that it hasn't been banned altogether. Nicotine is addictive - that is, it causes an actual physical dependency - and the substances that co-exist with it in tobacco cause a huge range of diseases, including lung cancer, which is still, I think, the commonest cancer in the UK. And when I say "cause", I don't mean there is a statistical correlation: I mean tobacco smoking causes lung cancer. The causal link is well established.
To argue that we're infringing the liberty of tobacco companies or of smokers by discouraging the trade is outrageous. You go to any person with end-stage lung cancer, fighting for every breath they take, and decide for yourself who it was that infringed their liberty.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arch Anglo Catholic
Shipmate
# 15181
|
Posted
Private Eye, that august media organ, has in this week's edition spotted just the same inconsistency of approach and pointed out that if the plain paper cover makes so little difference, why spend so much money on an advert opposing it! Methinks they doth protest too much!
Posts: 144 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It was indeed fascinatingly bizarre, here in Australia, to see the tobacco industry fighting tooth and nail against measures that it insisted would make no difference whatsoever.
They're not the only people to tie themselves into this kind of impossible logical knot, created because they dare not admit to the efficacy of what they oppose, but they're certainly one of the most prominent and well-financed groups.
EDIT: And I'm pretty sure plain packaging wasn't the first time. It certainly wasn't the first measure aimed at reducing smoking rates, and I'm reasonably sure that the tobacco industry fought against every other measure in the same way, squealing about how it wouldn't work while Australian smoking rates continued to decline.
[ 18. April 2013, 14:40: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It's probably worth mentioning that the tobacco industry strategies against the Australian laws now extend to manufacturing World Trade Organization disputes, where we are being complained about by the Ukraine and Honduras - countries that do not in fact export any tobacco products to Australia. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It's fair to say that eyes all over the world are on what's been happening here. Nicola Roxon is regarded internationally as a hero by anti-smoking groups. Conversely, the tobacco industry probably has a large supply of Nicola Roxon voodoo dolls. She has announced she's not standing at this year's election, but I wouldn't be surprised if she finds some way to be involved in this issue on the global stage.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Given the amount the tobacco industry seems willing to spend in opposing the measure, do we need more evidence that 'plain packaging' might be worth a try to reduce the level of uptake by more impressionable consumers? (Although some research evidence is available, contrary to the impression given by the industry.) I wonder what evidence would come out if the tobacco industry was required to make such disclosures?
I find it hard to feel much sympathy for the tobacco industry. Do others feel that any real liberty is lost if they are prohibited from glamourising their products?
It seems to me that it should be up to government to show that the burden of a particular a law or regulation on a private party has some logical nexus to the public good that the law is trying to promote. Here, there is a burden on the tobacco companies, as they will have to re-design packaging and marketing campaigns- not an inexpensive task. It may not be a huge burden, but if, in fact, that burden does nothing to serve the public good, then the law would be arbitrary, and the burden on the tobacco companies is not justified. Making an inference from the opposition of the tobacco companies that the law must do what it seeks to accomplish isn't good enough- in order to justify a new regulation, you have to show that the regulation might actually accomplish its goal.
There was an article in the Economist this week about tobacco taxes. Common wisdom suggests that raising taxes will reduce smoking. Unfortunately, there are diminishing returns. If everyone smoked for pleasure, you might be able to battle it with higher taxes. 40% of young women who smoke actually do so because it is an appetite suppressant, and would be likely to continue to pay what they have to for cigarettes. I mention this because I cannot see this group being dissuaded from smoking because the packaging changed. You can't just pass laws to punish the tobacco companies- you have to justify the law with an actual public good.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Here, there is a burden on the tobacco companies, as they will have to re-design packaging and marketing campaigns- not an inexpensive task.
They won't have to re-design packaging. It will be designed for them. That's the whole freaking point.
As for marketing, we got rid of most forms of tobacco advertising decades ago.
[ 18. April 2013, 16:22: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
At the very least, they will lose money on packaging and labels that they already have and cannot use. Is the government going to compensate them for that loss?
The point is that "you are opposed to this law" does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the law will accomplish what it is set out to do, and you should not use a logical fallacy to justify a new regulation. If you can think of some other burden that the law will place on the tobacco companies other than loss of sales, then you better have evidence that that burden is justified by a public good.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
But isn't smoking price inelastic simply because it is addictive?
I've not seen much in the way of statistics for why people smoke. This Canadian source doesn't cite weight control as a major factor, nor this Australian source which is focussed on effective ways of communicating and anti-smoking message.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Well there is some evidence, as I mentioned in the OP. In the nature of things it will be quite hard to produce 'hard' evidence for the effectiveness of a strategy which hasn't yet been tried. That said, a reduction in smoking related deaths and illness would be generally beneficial to the wider community, and not just to those who die or become ill. So I think there is a prima facie case that there will be a wider public good.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
But isn't smoking price inelastic simply because it is addictive?
You can always quit if it gets too expensive. It apparently sucks quitting- I never started so I wouldn't know. But at least that seems to be the justification for the higher taxes here in the States. Mayor Bloomberg is well known for saying that he dreams of a day that the New York revenue department collects exactly $0 in tobacco taxes, because everyone has quit. So it isn't about revenue in NYC, at least officially.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
That said, a reduction in smoking related deaths and illness would be generally beneficial to the wider community, and not just to those who die or become ill.
BUT would this law actually accomplish a reduction in the number of smokers?
The fact that no one has tried it before does make it harder to prove that the law might work. Another article from the Economist cites a WHO study that suggests that you could curb smoking by 7% with a blanket advertizing and branding ban. So that might be enough to justify the law. But the simple fact that the tobacco companies are opposed to the law cannot be enough to justify the law.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
But the simple fact that the tobacco companies are opposed to the law cannot be enough to justify the law.
Yes, I agree with that.
I just find it hard to believe that their expenditure in advertising does not reflect an underlying belief that the proposed law will reduce their sales, and in particular have an impact on people starting to smoke in the first place. I would love for them to be subject to the same Freedom of Information disclosure rules about what research they have done on this question, and what it shows.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I suppose one possibility is that they believe plain packaging would lead to an increase in the number of people buying by mistake a different brand of cigarettes from the one they intended to get. Presumably part of the point of packaging is for visual recognition, not just to make the goods more appealing.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I expect part of the desire of tobacco companies is to distinguish themselves from their competition. Genuinely unmarked cigarettes would turn them unto unbranded commodities, no more charging higher prices for suppose premium branding.
No more correlating this brand with liberated women and that brand with rough tough men, etc. Why take up smoking if it won't prove you liberated or tough or whatever?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I suppose one possibility is that they believe plain packaging would lead to an increase in the number of people buying by mistake a different brand of cigarettes from the one they intended to get. Presumably part of the point of packaging is for visual recognition, not just to make the goods more appealing.
The Economist article I linked to above suggest that this is one of the tobacco companies arguments, although the author of that article thinks this might protect the big names from smaller competition. You will be less likely to try something new if it has no way of sticking out, so you will just stick to your old brand.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
In a thousand years we might be here on guns in the US.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
The real poroblen with plain packaging is it locks in the current brands. Takes away competition. So the peopel who now sell most cigarrttes will just carry on raking in the money. If their would-be competors can;t advertise they won't need to either.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The real poroblen with plain packaging is it locks in the current brands. Takes away competition. So the peopel who now sell most cigarrttes will just carry on raking in the money. If their would-be competors can;t advertise they won't need to either.
As far as I am concerned i don't want to see more companies getting into this awful business. They are other ways (even more regulation, even higher taxes) to inhibit the current perpetrators from raking in more money.
(The only thing I would oppose is outright prohibition, since U.S.'s experiment with alcohol prohibition and its current failed "war on drugs" prove that this sort of thing doesn't work.)
[ 19. April 2013, 00:09: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The real poroblen with plain packaging is it locks in the current brands. Takes away competition. So the peopel who now sell most cigarrttes will just carry on raking in the money. If their would-be competors can;t advertise they won't need to either.
Given the gigantic size and profit of the existing companies, any new would-be competitor would be run into the ground by other means anyway!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I would have thought it was blindingly obvious that plain packaging would have an effect on sales.
The alternative proposition is that the corporate world is wasting billions upon billions of dollars on the development of brands.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I would have thought it was blindingly obvious that plain packaging would have an effect on sales.
The alternative proposition is that the corporate world is wasting billions upon billions of dollars on the development of brands.
Stranger things have happened, but advertising and branding can be rational ways of spending money without necessarily causing increased health problems, if all tobacco companies are fighting for a bigger slice of a pie of fixed (or highly inelastic) size.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I would have thought it was blindingly obvious that plain packaging would have an effect on sales.
The alternative proposition is that the corporate world is wasting billions upon billions of dollars on the development of brands.
Stranger things have happened, but advertising and branding can be rational ways of spending money without necessarily causing increased health problems, if all tobacco companies are fighting for a bigger slice of a pie of fixed (or highly inelastic) size.
I discount the argument that tobacco advertising is/was about the different brands fighting for market share among a relatively stable or declining market.
Why? Because that argument has only ever been put forward by big players like Phillip Morris, BAT etc (or those acting for them like the "Alliance of Australian Retailers") who already have the lion's share of the market. If it were really true, there would be some acknowledgement of its legitimacy from other sources whose independence from the industry could be audited.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I would have thought it was blindingly obvious that plain packaging would have an effect on sales.
The alternative proposition is that the corporate world is wasting billions upon billions of dollars on the development of brands.
Stranger things have happened, but advertising and branding can be rational ways of spending money without necessarily causing increased health problems, if all tobacco companies are fighting for a bigger slice of a pie of fixed (or highly inelastic) size.
I discount the argument that tobacco advertising is/was about the different brands fighting for market share among a relatively stable or declining market.
Why? Because that argument has only ever been put forward by big players like Phillip Morris, BAT etc (or those acting for them like the "Alliance of Australian Retailers") who already have the lion's share of the market. If it were really true, there would be some acknowledgement of its legitimacy from other sources whose independence from the industry could be audited.
Argumentum ad hominem? I think you can do better.
To be clear, I don't think advertising is purely aimed towards increasing share of a fixed market, but that's clearly one of the aims, and almost certainly the primary goal, with a secondary aim of holding onto existing addicts. That secondary goal may be worth fighting, but I remain to be convinced that there's a substantial number of people who would give up if only their fags didn't come in such a pretty box.
AFAICS, the sort of campaign that might conceivably cause a non-trivial increase in the total number of smokers was banned long ago, or is about covert direct marketing rather than clear and regulated advertising.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I remain to be convinced that there's a substantial number of people who would give up if only their fags didn't come in such a pretty box
I think this is true. Once hooked, it takes a lot to persuade people to give up, and a plain box won't be likely to achieve that. Removing any impression of 'cool' from any particular brand of cigarettes might help as part of a larger package of measures though.
OTOH, such evidence as there is about branding and packaging (one example is linked to in the OP) seems to suggest that plain packaging may have a significant impact on initial take-up of cigarettes. My hunch is that Big Tobacco knows and/or fears this, and hence the willingness to spend largely to try to prevent plain packaging laws from being implemented.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I think cigarette cases will become the cool thing to store your fags in - buy the olive green box, transfer to a fabulous case which matches the one on your smart phone.
Business opportunity anyone?
☺
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I find it hard to feel much sympathy for the tobacco industry. Do others feel that any real liberty is lost if they are prohibited from glamourising their products?
There used to be a brand of cigarettes called 'Death', sold in a black packet with a skull and cross bones on it. Can't get more un-glamorised than that , they still sold apparently.
As an ex light-smoker I am in favour of de-cooling fags . We were highly influenced by the old black an white films when nearly everyone smoked . Getting smoking off snooker was a good , if not rather belated, move.
The best deterrent I've had against smoking wasn't talk of health risks, but living with two women, (at different stages of my life), who literally wouldn't stand for it ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 28. April 2013, 09:34: Message edited by: rolyn ]
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think cigarette cases will become the cool thing to store your fags in - buy the olive green box, transfer to a fabulous case which matches the one on your smart phone.
Business opportunity anyone?
☺
Already happening in Australia.
I believe I condemned it to hell at the time because they've tried to sell it as "my cigarettes, my choice of packaging", apparently hoping that smokers were sufficiently dumb to ignore the fact that they hadn't been choosing the packaging up until that point, the tobacco companies had.
And it seems smokers (and probably people generally) really ARE that dumb. Millions upon millions of us buy myriads of things in packaging that was selected by a giant company, but by golly, if the GOVERNMENT decides the packaging for 'our' products, look out!
[ 28. April 2013, 13:24: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And it seems smokers (and probably people generally) really ARE that dumb. Millions upon millions of us buy myriads of things in packaging that was selected by a giant company, but by golly, if the GOVERNMENT decides the packaging for 'our' products, look out!
I relinquished the belief that people made rational choices in their product selection after ~ the millionth unaware commercial recitation.
People identify with branding to a nearly insane degree.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I suppose one possibility is that they believe plain packaging would lead to an increase in the number of people buying by mistake a different brand of cigarettes from the one they intended to get. Presumably part of the point of packaging is for visual recognition, not just to make the goods more appealing.
Little likelihood here that a customer will pick up the wrong pack. Tobacco products may only be sold at one cash register at a time in a store, be that a supermarket, a service station, or your friendly local milk bar. They are kept behind blank, closed doors and the sales assistant has to take them out - you can't simply take one out yourself and proceed to a cashier. Then there are bans on cigarette advertising at sporting events and the like.
Much of the legislative scheme designed to reduce smoking has been upheld by the High Court as valid - for example see JT International SA v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 43 (5 October 2012), which deals with the plain packaging legislation.
Anti-smoking measures have been very effective. In 1945, over 70% of adult men smoked (the percentage of women smokers was much lower, but that number increased over the next 25 years). By 2010, the percentage of adults smoking had dropped to around 14%. Numbers continue to decline.
As to cost/benefit, raised by Og, King of Bashan. The latest figures I can get show a very rapid decline in smoking related deaths this century.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Anti-smoking measures have been very effective. In 1945, over 70% of adult men smoked (the percentage of women smokers was much lower, but that number increased over the next 25 years). By 2010, the percentage of adults smoking had dropped to around 14%. Numbers continue to decline.
Recent anti-smoking measures in the UK have been less effective it would seem than in Australia. Since we are still selling cigarettes in branded packaging then any impact plain packaging might have is unknown. However, since the smoking ban was introduced in England in 2007 only the North East showed a reduction (down to 21% in 2011 from 29% in 2005). Everywhere else has remained about the same, at 20-21%. According to Cancer Research Society, as at 2013 around 27% of under 16s have tried smoking at least once and about 5% of under 16s smoke regularly. In 1974, around 45% of people smoked in the UK.
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Anti-smoking measures have been very effective. In 1945, over 70% of adult men smoked (the percentage of women smokers was much lower, but that number increased over the next 25 years). By 2010, the percentage of adults smoking had dropped to around 14%. Numbers continue to decline.
Recent anti-smoking measures in the UK have been less effective it would seem than in Australia. Since we are still selling cigarettes in branded packaging then any impact plain packaging might have is unknown. However, since the smoking ban was introduced in England in 2007 only the North East showed a reduction (down to 21% in 2011 from 29% in 2005). Everywhere else has remained about the same, at 20-21%. According to Cancer Research Society, as at 2013 around 27% of under 16s have tried smoking at least once and about 5% of under 16s smoke regularly. In 1974, around 45% of people smoked in the UK.
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
