The Issue: Should we introduce plain cigarette packaging before the General Election?

Dr Mark Porter, British Medical Association 

ALARMING figures show that every day around 70 children smoke their first cigarette, with the majority of smokers picking up the habit by the age of 18.

As doctors we see first-hand the devastating effects of tobacco addiction, and have long called for the introduction of standardised packaging.

We know only too well that children and young people in Oxfordshire and across the UK who recognise brand images including packaging, are far more likely to start smoking and become part of the tragic statistics of tobacco harm.

Generic packaging will help to eradicate the marketing power of tobacco companies, increase the impact of health warnings, and reduce the level of tobacco harm.

We see more than 80,000 deaths from smokers aged 35 and over in the UK each year. There’s no time to lose on standardised packaging.

One in five adults still smoke. It continues to be a leading cause of preventable death, disease and hospital admissions causing huge problems for the health service and our whole society. But the cost bears most heavily on individual smokers, often recruited to smoking while children, with shortened lives and lost retirements.

Evidence from Australia shows standardised packaging is associated with lower smoking appeal and more urgency to quit among adult smokers.

I call on the government to move these proposals forward as soon as possible, and on ministers across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to follow in the same direction.

By pushing this move across the UK we are ensuring children, young people and adults can escape the power of brand and marketing, the level of tobacco harm will be reduced, and we’ll move ever closer to a smoke-free society.

No

Ian MacDonald, Ukip prospective parliamentary candidate for East Oxford

SPEAKING as a non-smoker, I acknowledge and can sympathise with the government’s intentions to try to reduce a habit that many smokers themselves will admit is bad for their health.

However, I do not feel that introducing plain packaging will have the positive impact they desire.

If we look at the situation in Australia, where a similar bill was introduced, evidence suggests a number of unexpected consequences of plain packaging occurred.

The first was that while plain packaging made expensive premium branded cigarettes lose their appeal, overall sales of cigarettes increased due to people opting for cheaper, more affordable brands. 

According to the South Australian government, last year smoking rates increased from 16.7 per to 19.4 per cent.

The second consequence, which is potentially even more serious, is that plain packaging actually made it much easier for criminals to counterfeit branded cigarettes. 

Since introducing plain packaging, illegal tobacco now makes up 14.3 per cent of the market and costs the government $1.2 billion in lost revenues.

If we look closer to home, this is already becoming a growing concern in the EU, with 65 per cent of seized tobacco being counterfeit. 

It’s often found that counterfeit cigarettes contain dangerous ingredients that are deemed far more damaging to health than manufactured cigarettes.

This evidence combined suggests that government intervention actually does more harm than good.

In my opinion, if the government wants to reduce the number of smokers, they should do so through education, so that consumers are provided with the facts and not by infringing consumers’ rights.

Our top stories

• Do you want alerts delivered straight to your phone via our WhatsApp service? Text NEWS or SPORT or NEWS AND SPORT, depending on which services you want, and your full name to 07767 417704. Save our number into your phone’s contacts as Oxford Mail WhatsApp and ensure you have WhatsApp installed.