Here you go - it's on plain cigarette packaging:
If I could choose the perfect adjective to describe cigarettes, I’d go with “deadly”. Each cigarette is smoked with the knowledge of an unclear future; and with each one smoked, it becomes harder to stop. Its time we as a society combatted the social disease smoking really is; we need to scale back the attraction of smoking in favour of peoples lives.
As of 2012, Australia introduced a new method of anti-tobacco campaigning, one that is at the forefront of reducing the number of smokers in Australia - plain cigarette packaging. With both the UK and New Zealand showing interest in adopting this new form of combat, plain packaging could easily expand into other significant nations, and become a wide-spread, recognised form of anti-cigarette campaigning. We cannot remain complicit bystanders when a real resolution is in our hands. I’m here to convince you why this should occur, and why plain cigarette packaging could be the answer to further reducing the plague of tobacco smoking in the world.
Shockingly, the packaging of the past was bright, glossy, attractive - it showed nothing to hint at the danger lurking within. All in all, it added to the appeal in the eye’s of smokers, and to those considering starting this dangerous act. Plain cigarette packaging is the exact opposite; the bright, glossy colours are replaced by a dull, nondescript background and, most importantly, a large-scale, graphic image of any one of the many health complications brought on by smoking. Aided by these gruesome images, plain packaging mainly aims to deter potential smokers, such as teens, from ever choosing this path.
So why is it so important to take this no-nonsense approach to cigarette packaging? Well, According to Collins & Lapsley, in 2004 to 2005 smoking was behind 14 times as many deaths as alcohol, and 17 times more than the deaths due to illicit drug use. If it could beat the numbers resulting from an illegal source, then why is smoking often treated so lightly? Recent studies have shown that around 480,000 people die every year from smoke related diseases. It has the potential to cause not just harm, but fatal harm. People say the same about drink driving; you could crash, you could kill yourself. Well what about smoking then? You could smoke - and then, years later, you could wake up with lung cancer, or kidney failure, or emphysema, or any of the many smoke-related diseases.
To top that all off, passive smoking comes into play - and it clashes with the arguments sometimes raised that smoking is a “personal” and “private” decision. After all, it stops being both of those things when it develops the potential to harm innocent bystanders. Plain packaging uses these deadly consequences as a graphic wake-up call. With one glance at the box, any positive connotations are removed, and smoking is placed into a whole new context. With each cigarette, the repercussions are no longer a vague possibility, something that ‘could’ happen; instead, their own possible futures are staring them in the face.
Now you might have heard the false counter claims that plain packaging is having no impact on tobacco use. Indeed, a spokesperson of British American Tobacco Australia, or BATA, Scott McIntyre, has said that there has been “no initial impact”, and that plain packaging “is not working”. Now, I want to remind you that plain cigarette packaging has only been in use for a short amount of time - just a little over a year. Expecting a complete change would be like hoping for a miracle. The so called ‘experts’ that analyse and draw these conclusions should realise that any measures to reduce addiction are part of a gradual process of change. Numerous studies have shown that progression has been made in regards to plain packaging, and this plethora of evidence is something I will be touching on later. Groups like BATA have an agenda - they are prepared to gamble with peoples lives in order to drive up the profits of tobacco growers and cigarette companies. It is clearly apparent the only opposition to plain packaging seems to stem from pro tobacco lobbyists. When viewed in this light, doesn’t it seem like a desperate attempt to preserve what’s best for them? These people care only for material gain, and not for human lives.
Contrary to the unfounded opinion of pro-tobacco lobbyists like Scott McIntyre, continual emerging evidence has shown that plain packaging definitely deserves our applause. An early study published by BMJ Open found that cigarettes were viewed as being of “poorer quality” when in plain cigarette packaging, in comparison to the previous branded packages. This is wholly understandable, considering how gruesome and off-putting the images on the packaging can be; it can’t be enjoyable carrying such grotesque visuals around in pockets and purses. Emily Howard, an ex-smoker, has stated that, “one of the main reasons [I quit] was seeing those pictures”. And there’s more; since plain packaging was introduced, calls to Quitline jumped to 30% at around the same time. How can the Tobacco Lobbyists possibly say that plain packaging is making no difference when there is obvious evidence to support its existence? Perhaps these lack of results stem from their own delusional minds as they continue to see what they want to see, rather than what is the glaring truth. Plain packaging is something new, something that hasn't been tried before. No longer are we trying to force the outcome. We have the research, and common sense to know that increased taxes make cigarettes harder to obtain; and that anti-smoking advertisements come and go from time to time. These have powerful short term impact, but fall short of long term gain. Plain packaging, on the other hand, isn’t there to fool. The only images we see are there to inform smokers of exactly what will happen to them, and encourage them to make their own decisions. These are decisions that they will be happy with, and ones that will, most likely, prove to last.
Considering the vast difference plain packaging has already made on Australia’s tobacco consumption rates, imagine what it could do if it were to spread internationally. Yes, there are other forms of packaging - and yes, they too are effective. But why is it so wrong to add another kind into the mix - what could it possibly do? Reduce tobacco consumption rates? Lower death rates? Tobacco is not something to be joking around with - it is a killer. By adopting plain packaging, aren’t we only strengthening our chance of victory in the war against smoking? I doubt smoking can be completely eradicated, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t have ways of drastically reducing the severity of the problem. Earlier on, I gave you a statistic - 480,000 people that die each year from smoking. This statistic represents real, human lives - human lives like yours and mine. Is it fair to say that plain packaging isn’t doing enough, when it is clearly making a difference? Who has the right to decide how many lives need to be saved before plain packaging can be declared worthy? Help can never be considered too ‘small’ when it relates to the preservation of human life.
Now that you know the facts, make up your mind - will you allow yourself to be deluded by the nonsensical claims of pro Tobacco Lobbyists? Or will you make the right decision, and see plain packaging for what it really is - something that is moving us closer to being the victors in this tobacco-fuelled battle. Smoking is something that needs to be addressed immediately. It’s too late when you’re looking in the mirror, and this is what is staring back at you (point to plain packaging images on slide). We need to take a stand now, and plain packaging will help us do this.
Home
Help
Search
Login
