Plain packaging, terrorism and flawed logic
Every time I see the ad, I have a chuckle. You know the one, where small businesses owners talk about the futility of plain packaging on cigarettes. The campaign is being funded by big tobacco, not retailers and their arguments against plain packaging would make any crooked politician blush.
First up, illicit trade. Phillip Morris & co claim that plain packaging will fund terrorist groups and organised crime. The argument here seems to be that plain packaging will be easier to counterfeit, leading to illicit importation of ciggies, the proceeds of which will go to criminal or terrorist groups. Ignoring for a moment the sheer absurdity of this rubbish, the claim is built on the premise that current colourful packets are harder to counterfeit than plain ones. Well, simply put a hologram or other anti-counterfeit device on the plain packet and the problem is solved. It doesn't have to stop counterfeiting (remember, Big Tobacco isn't saying that current ciggies are not counterfeited), it just has to be harder to counterfeit than current packaging and the problem is solved. Next, they claim that plain packaging violates their right to use trademarks. This is their strongest argument but it is still terribly weak. Trademark law does not provide a right to plaster your branding anywhere you want. We already have plenty of restrictions on commercial communication - think advertising in sports, schools and other places. Plain packaging does not stop them from using trademarks on their products, just on the outside packages. If Big Tobacco is so concerned about using their trademarks, the are still able to put a logo on every individual cigarette and inside the packet. Problem solved. My favourite claim however, is that there is no evidence it will work. This is an exemplar self defeating argument. If there is no evidence that plain packaging will reduce cigarette sales, why is Phillip Morris spending so much money fighting it? The very fact that they are fighting this law is because they believe it will hurt their bottom line. Not due to increased costs, but due to reduced sales and consumption. I'm not saying that plain packaging will work - there doesn't seem to be much evidence either way. But a law that doesn't cost taxpayers anything, that could have a strong positive effect on community health (and therefore lower the taxes we pay), and seems to frighten the pants off Big Tobacco, is one that I am happy to support.