Hacker News Reader

Comment by shamney | Hacker News Reader

they are articles surveying people's opinions about plain packaging. they don't provide direct evidence for plain packaging <<causing>> a decline in smoking rates.

View on HN

You obviously haven't read the studies linked to then!

eh?

"Cross-sectional survey during the roll-out phase of the law, analysed by timing of survey."

"How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers’ perceptions about brand image?"

If you read the articles, you would see that it was about it affected their perceptions, and not necessarily their opinions. And there are three surveys there.

an unimportant distinction as it doesn't change the basic point -- none of those papers can be used to support a casual link between the introduction of plain packs and a decline in smoking.

Well, no it is important. The first review from the University of Stirling is a review of the literature showing that plain packaging helps makes warnings more clear, packs were less appealing, and expose the reality of smoking - all causal factors to reduce smoking rates - especially amongst younger people.

The BMJ study, "Introduction effects of the Australian plain packaging policy on adult smokers: a cross-sectional study", found that plain packaging helped increase the urgency for smokers to quit. That's a causal link to reduced smoking levels.

The BMJ study "How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers’ perceptions about brand image? An experimental study" found that plain packaging helped reduce brand interest, helping reduce uptake by younger people. Again, a causal link to reducing the rates of smoking.

they provide some support for some potential links between plain packaging and reduced smoking. But, on their own, they don't provide support the introduction of plain packaging causing a decline in smoking rates. This is because there are 1) other potential effects of plain packaging on smoking (for example: lower prices -> greater consumption) and 2) there is no necessary link between surveyed perceptions of plain packs and actual consumption behaviour. My original point still stands: the linked article, with its bold headline and claim of "success" for plain packs in Australia, is irresponsible shitty journalism.

So now they provide some support, whereas before they provided no support.

The surveys do provide plenty of evidence that plain packaging changes smoking behaviour. The price of cigarettes in Australia has risen due to taxation . A packet of cigarettes cost $16 in 2013, in 2014 it is now $20.

Edit: I was needlessly aggressive. Sorry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com