It is hardly surprising that a free market think-tank has produced a report arguing against regulation ("Think-tank hits out at smoking proposal", The Herald, February 20).
What we should be surprised by is their claim that there is no evidence that putting tobacco products into plain packaging will deter young people from taking up smoking.
The exact opposite is true, with a large, and growing, body of evidence suggesting that plain packaging would be effective. In a range of different studies researchers have consistently found that plain packaging makes tobacco products less appealing to both children and adults.
The tobacco industry response to any moves to regulate their activity is to cry out that other products will be next. But tobacco isn't like other products. It is the only freely-available legal product which is lethal to its consumers when used exactly as the manufacturer intended, and it kills one in two of its long-term users.
Why do we allow tobacco to be packaged up like sweets when studies repeatedly indicate that the packaging makes this addictive and lethal product more attractive to young people?
Interestingly, while tobacco industry lobbyists claim that plain packaging will make no difference, they also claim exactly the opposite, that plain packaging will ruin local retailers. There are no grounds to believe either position.
The deterrent effect of plain packaging means that tobacco sales should decline gradually, but not immediately, with the main effect being to reduce the number of young people becoming new smokers.
Free market think tanks are, of course, entitled to their opinions about plain packaging. But they should not misrepresent the facts.
Sheila Duffy,
Chief Executive,
ASH Scotland,
8 Frederick Street,
Edinburgh.
"Two boxers in punch-up". Is this not tautology ?
Allan Roderick Morrison,
52 Croftend Avenue,
Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article