Cigarette packets: kicking up a stink
Article tools
- Print article
- Increase or Decrease text size
- Share:
- Show 10 comments
It is the UK’s biggest killer, accounting for the deaths of six million Britons over the last 50 years. An estimated 35 people die from it every day in Scotland alone. The average addict reduces his or her life expectancy by a full ten years, and 68 per cent now want to give up altogether. A responsible government, one might imagine, would have no choice but to discourage the use of tobacco wherever possible.
How dully unproductive, then, was the furore over this month’s introduction of images on cigarette packs to illustrate the effects of smoking, a tactic which has been used with some success in countries including Canada, Brazil and Australia. The photographs are graphic enough to send a shiver up the spine of the most clean-living citizen, with images including rotten teeth, blackened lungs, and a reddened, bizarrely distended throat that defies explanation.
Simon Clark, director of pro-smoking lobby group Forest, led the protests against the move. The pictures, he complained, “are unnecessarily intrusive, gratuitously offensive, and yet another example of smokers being singled out for special attention. The government seems determined to humiliate smokers until they behave in a state-approved way. Far from giving up, most smokers are likely to say enough is enough and reach for their fags in defiance.”
Mr Clark’s ostensibly noble stance is undermined, of course, by his implicit admission of the childishness of his cause. If the militant smokers of Forest genuinely have no better reason for their bellyaching than a petulant wish to defy the state, their energies would surely be better invested elsewhere. For in truth, their central premise—that smokers should not be singled out for special attention—is false.
All government policy should be closely scrutinised to ensure that—except in the most exceptional circumstances—the essential liberties of citizens are not compromised. The rights to education, good health, personal safety and freedom from discrimination fall within this bracket, as they have a profound positive impact on quality of life. By any standards, tobacco use—with its disastrous effect on the health of consumers and their families and friends alike—cannot be ranked alongside these basic entitlements as a fundamental human right.
Forest, with an extensive income from multinational tobacco firms, has no right to speak for Britain’s 13 million smokers. This is not a question of a minority being victimised into giving up something they love – after all, more than two thirds of smokers long to be able to quit, and many more are fully in favour of the steps taken to discourage youngsters from taking up the habit.
Smoking has been firmly ingrained into our culture, and a significant shift away from tobacco will prove painful to many. But the government clearly has the right idea: there is simply no justification for failing to take action against a phenomenon that has such damaging effects across every section of society.
After the deaths of thousands from passive smoking, the move to ban smoking in enclosed public spaces was eminently sensible. Yet a glamour still clings to the habit, particularly among the young. To confront smokers so candidly with such grossly unpleasant reminders of what lies in store for them can only serve to blunt this enticingly sexy image. The Department of Health has acted responsibly and in the long-term interests of the country as a whole. Forest, the entirely self-appointed “voice and friend of the smoker”, should grow up and do the same.
It's about Freedom2Choose-smoke or not smoke, simple as that. It is utter crap that 70% of smokers want to quite-100% of the smokers I know have never mentioned quitting-it is their pleasure! For some it is a great stress reliever and it does no harm to others-passive smoking does not kill. The graphic images are from impoverished 3rd world countries with little or no medical facilities and will make no difference to solid smokers. This is just another complete waste of tax payers money-and smokers tax money!
i would point out this program has failed abysmally in Canada, in fact Candian smoking rates are increasing as they are in Ireland according to the Irsh government that is.
Geneva and Germany are having to review their own laws and this is your idea of success?
Now you may have taxation on smoking or you can encourage the fundingof terrorism by forcing smokers to buy black market cigarettes, T he next Bomb that goes off in my country I will remind the world that this the price for interfereing in a legal activity, that the likes of ASH, HMG, and people who support them are all directly responsible.
Now the solution is simple, a six year could think of it! Allow Landlords to decide for themselves, allow smokers their own facilities staffed by smokers for smokers, and if a non- smoker chooses to visit then it is his or her choice and will be welcome.
AS for these pictures I see worse on the television every day in fact I have seen worse in real life, if youve cleaned after a natural disaster or air crash you will know exactly what I mean. So waste the taxpayers money I don't mind I can take pleasure in the fact that more non smokers pay tax than smokers, for myself I will continue to fund the NHS for you and Please don't thank me.
I have seen as many people descrribe these images as collectors' items as effective tools to dissuade them from smoking.
Forest only points out what is obvious and what we all know: being treated like children gives rise to defiant behaviour. Smoking prevalence was lowering until government circles took it up as a hobby horse and started bring its awfulness to everyone's attention. When communities with chronic hard drug problems are told that tobacco is more addictive than heroin, how can they expect to take the authorities seriously?
The justification for 'failing to take action' would be to divert resources to solving the 'real issues': then we might see smoking rates decline again.
The above article follows the style dictated in the anti-smoker ABC tactics book. State the supposed risks, claim even the people who use the product don't want to be using the product and then launch an attack on someone who proposes measure X.
It's garbage. There's not one shred of evidence to suggest graphic images on cigarette packets will curb smoking. That ALONE should be enough to stamp out the legislation. But oh no, the anti-smoking league have no concept of "a bridge too far" and will stamp on anyone who refuses to endorse their latest de-normalisation or scare tactic.
A liberal society must, at all times, strive to accommodate people's choices, even when those choices place them at greater levels of risk.
It's very simple, if you support government measures supposedly designed to cajole people into making the "right" choice then you are anti-freedom and in my opinion little better than pond scum.
The author of this article, whoever he/she is, can be very proud that they have very closely. followed the ASH Manual of; ‘Useful propaganda words and phrases’ . So closely in fact, that it looks like it is all just a collection of various cut n paste sentences from that well used text book roughly based on Orwell’s ‘1984’ and the ‘Goebbels definitive guide to propaganda’.
"The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it." Goebbels
The copious use of pejorative words and phrases to demonise the ‘average addict’ provides a clear insight into the author’s bias and allegiances. Ash and other anti-tobacco organisations are very skilled at these tactics. Look at these words used to describe and attempt to discredit ‘Forest’, the pro- smoking group; ‘ostensibly nobleâ€, “dully unproductiveâ€, “petulantâ€, “bellyachingâ€, and need to “grow up†– with the default anti-tobacco argument; ‘extensive income from Multinational Tobaccoâ€.
How very crass, and patronising yet ironic, when the author's comments appear to be no more than a company sales pitch for ‘multinational pharmaceutical’ that are probably the most corruptive influence in the World today – far more than ‘multinational tobacco’!
One sentence that the author uses I will agree with;
“There is simply no justification for failing to take action against a phenomenon that has such
damaging effects across every section of society.â€
The phenomenon I refer you to is not smoking but the rabid intolerance of the anti-smoking movement and writers such as this one who either maliciously or naively perpetuate the misinformation of anti-tobacco organisations.
there is simply no justification for failing to take action against a phenomenon that has such damaging effects across every section of society.
A phenomenon.....Yes thats exactly right! A figment of the governments imagination!
1..No proof passive smoking kills...
When asked to give hard facts/figures they run a mile...because they don't have an answer...
2.BANS STARTING TO FALL APART ABIT; FOR THE FARCE THAT IT IS!
....I KNOW WE'LL PUT SILLY PICTURES ON THE PACKS...WASTE SOME MORE OF TAX PAYERS HARD EARNED MONEY!
3...Have you noticed how HMG rabbit on about nil tolerance of rasism/discrimination....
THEN.. they openly dicriminate against smokers!..
By telling them they can't smoke...UNLESS ITS OUTSIDE....
Its laughable; as over half of mp's smoke....and do so in comfort in the Bars at the houses of parliment...OH..because...they are EXEMPT from the Law..
I say go on Smokers...have 10 more today...with any luck you WILL die quicker.....just so you don't ave to stay on this miserable BORING PLANET whilst NU Labour ROB you of your life...BY BANNING EVERYTHING!
More and more people realize that we are being presented with propaganda instead of facts. I have only disgust for the author of this abysmal article.
A true disciple of Cromwell.
You say "the deaths of thousands from passive smoking" but fail to offer any facts to back this claim up. Strangely NO ant-smokers are ever able to provide such evidence. To which we simply say "name three".
Go on!
How many people would be kicking and screaming, if they were forced to have nasty pictures on their cars, where they can come up with death and accident rates. The tree huggers would love it, wouldn't they, no more filthy fumes from exhausts, but would the drivers, hmm I think not. Have you been in an old peoples home lately, you are very welcome to your 10 years longer. Propaganda is NOT healthy for our children or Countries, I think you could find some real proof of that also.
We do not all want to live on antidepressants thank you, smoking rates may have gone down in some Countries, but the pill popping continues to rise. Very healthy I must say, good for the multi-national pharmaceutical companies though.
It brings great pleasure to see that 'The Journal' website has become an online meeting place for - or at least the target for a campaign by - the only group of drug addicts willing to defend their right to practice their lethal addiction. Our society has clearly come a long way! Just long enough to leave education lagging behind, by the look of things. Oh well, one out of two ain't bad.