Monday, 20 February 2012

Argumental

I've done a number of interviews today re: the Adam Smith Institute plain packaging report. Here's two of them...

Firstly, versus Deborah Arnott of ASH on the Today programme.

Secondly, versus a woman from CRUK on Victoria Derbyshire's Five Live show (from 1 hour 10 minutes in).

11 comments:

JJ said...

If I listen to your interview with Deborah Arnott will it wind me up Chris?

I can't bear to hear her scoring any points.

Anonymous said...

I like the way that woman from CRUK said that the packaging "distracted users from the health warning". Just imagine someone saying this even 10 years ago...

Dick Puddlecote said...

Did you remind the fragrant Vic of, or did she perhaps even remember, this?

Anonymous said...

Article 13

16. Plain packaging.

"The effect of advertising or promotion on packaging can be eliminated by requiring plain packaging: black and white or two contrasting colours, as prescribed by national authorities: nothing other than a brand name and/or manufacturer's name, contact details and the quantity of the product in the packaging, without any logos or other features apart from health warnings, tax stamps and other government mandated information or markings: prescribed font style and size: and standardized shape, size and materials.
There should be no advertising or promotion inside or attached to the package or on individual cigarettes or other tobacco products"
http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_13.pdf

No, I don't see any mention of children.

Klaus K said...

It is horrible that the anti-smoking forces constantly get away with saying that "one of two smokers will die beacuse of smoking".

This is really quite amazing, especially considering the fact that no doctor or "expert" in the world can determine whether a dead smoker died from his smoking or from the dozens of other risk factors for the disease that caused his death.

Health workers should fight diseases, not risk factors. Instead they are denormalising smokers and their product of choice - making smokers sick and pushing them in the arms of the pharmaceuticals.

George Speller said...

Well played, Chris.

Ivan D said...

I find the CRUK lady especially sad. When challenged about CRUK diverting funds from well meaning donors to ASH she cannot contemplate the possibility that all donors are not utterly brainwashed evangelists like her. She reels of stats like an automaton without thought or understanding in a manner that reminds me of diehard religious fanatics. It is tragic that such a well-loved charity wastes money on such things. People donate to CRUK because they think they are funding research. I like to believe that the majority are normal, kind considerate souls and I hope that most would be appalled to find that their donations had been used by CRUK to fund the deceit, dishonesty and intimidation that are the hallmarks of tobacco control industry campaigns.

If CRUK donors wanted to support ASH they could of course donate directly. They don't.

Rex Mundi, Smoker Extraordinaire said...

'It is horrible that the anti-smoking forces constantly get away with saying that "one of two smokers will die beacuse of smoking".'


Everyone dies, be it from smoking or some other unhealthy habit, say living. No life was ever 'saved'.

dearieme said...

"whether a dead smoker died from ... other risk factors": don't fall for the fakery of "risk factors". They are just positive correlates - statistical abstractions. If anyone had proved that something was a cause by doing a proper trial, they'd call it a cause, not bleat about "risk factor". Old joke: a big risk factor for breast cancer is wearing a bra.

livescore said...

Gorgeous dress and lovely fabric choice! Don't be sad about sbo moving to London, think of all the lovely vintage social events you ผลบอลสด can go to. Also London has great fabric shops!

Karl Fasbracke said...

It just occurred to be that cannabis and other drugs have been sold in plain packs for years.