Yesterday the Government announced that it is launching an independent review of the public health evidence on standardised packaging for cigarettes.
As a Liberal I will always defend an individual’s right to smoke when they can do so without this having an impact on those around them, but I have made clear in the past my personal view that we should introduce standardised packaging.
This is a product, after all, which kills something in the region of 100,000 people a year. Is it really that unreasonable to argue that, given this death-rate, we should be able to restrict, in all ways, the promotion and marketing of that product?
The announcement today is in very large part thanks to the continued pressure that Liberal Democrat Peers and MPs have maintained on this issue.
The review will report in March 2014, and in the meantime we will be tabling a Government Amendment to the Children and Families Bill, asking Parliament to give us legal powers to introduce regulations on standardised tobacco packaging so that we could see it delivered during this Parliament. The Government has committed to introducing regulations if this is justified by the conclusions of the review, and by the evidence on public health benefits.
Tobacco use continues to be one of the most significant public health challenges we face as a country, and a key cause of premature death – and I am determined that we should do everything that we can to reduce this death toll. The review will be able to draw on the significant body of evidence from the public consultation that we held in 2012, and other evidence – including from Australia. I am confident myself that the evidence will justify proceeding to introduce standardised tobacco packaging.
Back in May, I spoke out and urged fellow ministers to lead the way in Europe – establishing a key public health legacy for this Government. At that point the Government had not yet made a final decision on this issue, as we were continuing to assess the emerging impact of the policy in Australia. I hope that with the evidence-based review that has been announced, Britain can now lead the way in combating preventable deaths from tobacco use.
* Norman Lamb is MP for North Norfolk and was Liberal Democrat Minister of State at the Department of Health until May 2015. He now chairs the Science and Technology Select Committee
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Mystery at Witchend is Went the Day Well? and Seven White Gates is A Matter of Life and Death
The long role of the Jewish community in Liverpool
Labour's post-election (non-)honeymoon: The Week in Polls
September now
Farron photos
Joe Bourke
Peter Martin
Mick Taylor
Michael BG
Jennie
35 Comments
Norman, in 2008 did you not say that a a ban on displaying tobacco products was an example of “the nanny state going too far”? Interested in this change of heart. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7771210.stm
It is actually possible that the review will conclude
> that there is not enough evidence on which to base a conclusion, or …
> that the Australian horror packs attract people, or …
> that plain packaging has no effect, or has an encouraging effect
As a matter of interest, because I am old and forget, why do Liberals believe that people have a right to self-harm? As a father, don’t I have a right to stop my children doing that? As a citizen, don’t I have a right (even a duty?) to improve the social environment by intervening to save other people from foolish decisions?
To be consistent, will we also be demanding plain packaging for cars, fast food and alcohol?
I agree with Norman!
I agree with Maximilian. Indeed, as most products can be harmful, shouldn’t we therefore be demanding that everything be standardised?
“This is a product, after all, which kills something in the region of 100,000 people a year.”
I’m not sure that that really is the problem, I suspect that the real problem is that many of these deaths occur after much consumption of NHS resources that could perhaps have been put to better use.
The issue is preventing a new generation of smokers arising. This however is going to be problematic because as we have seen over the decades, inspite of the available evidence, many young people will quite happily take street drugs of totally unknown provenance and content. An unlabelled plastic bag of white powder is probably an extreme example of standardised and plain packaging (and not available in the shops), yet it is a big business…
@ Michael Bird – The difference seems to be that now its Norman Lamb who has control over the levers of the state so it is ok for him to play dominance and submission games with us.
@Richard Dean. If your kids are adults then you absolutely don’t have that right.
@Maximillian. Not cars – they will be fitted with speed limiters fairly soon as buses and lorries already are, but alcohol and fast food are pretty high up the hit list.
I personally don’t smoke, but I drink and also play poker and I work with Americans and Arabs who are prevented from doing these things in the countries or counties where they are from. It seems to me that everyone who likes to drink, or smoke, gamble, “read” page 3 and its online equivalents, eat what they want or generally stay up past their bedtime, as well as people who do none of those things but believe in free choice should unite to protect each others pastimes and freedom, even ones which don’t seem to make much sense when viewed from the outside. If we don’t stand up for each other, they will pick us off one by one.
@Richard S. You seem rather happy to play dominance and submission games with my rights. You assert, without rational argument. If that is what LibDems will be like in power, then let’s make sure they never get any.
Standardised packaging is one of those political initiatives that flows from this logic: “Something must be done. This is something. Therefore it must be done.”
There is no evidence that standardised packaging will reduce smoking, any more than has been achieved by covering cigarette packets in horrific images or hiding them in cupboards behind shop counters.
Simon Jenkins exposed the government’s faulty reasoning in an excellent article in today’s Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/28/cigarette-packets-props-horror-movie-cameron).
This appears to be another of those initiatives whose real aim is to enable the government to appear to be tackling a problem when really it has no idea.
Maximillian & Graham, most products can be harmful, few products are addictive and few products are always harmful. Cigarettes are both addictive and always harmful. This is why cigarettes and other tobacco products are subject to exceptional rules regarding their sale and use.
@g. Should we not simply ban tobacco products? Let’s be the first country to be smoke-free!
@Richard Dean
You have the right to do what you want with your own life. You don’t have the right to live as a second-hander through the choices you force upon others. Yes that’s an assertion because for some people like me its axiomatic.
I am not a member of the party anymore because it is clear to me that the above is not what a large number of Liberal Democrats believe in, nor what they are doing now they have power. I would rather support candidates on an individual basis.
@Richard S
Thank you for your response, which still seems unreasoned since “axiomatic” is simply “totalitarian” in a different form. The truth is that everyone’s choices have affects on others. If someone chooses to self-harm through smoking, even in private, other people will end up paying some of the costs of the extra medical care that that person will eventually need. If my 40-year old son was to choose to self-harm, that choice hurts me too.
I agree with all arguments against this on the basis that we don’t attack alcohol packaging in the same way. At least somebody smoking cigarettes isn’t more likely to attack you or one of your friends on a night out or knock someone dead in a car.
I’d also be pretty against packaging controls anyway. Warnings are fine and don’t need to be graphic pictures of cancer either.
We don’t put pictures of smashed skulls on alcohol bottles or dead cows on Big Macs. The anti tobacco lobby is out of control. I think warnings and facts on the packages are important though.
@Richard Dean,
Arguments can always be traced back to the axioms upon which they rest (i.e. that value X is important).
@Richard S. The “value” your argument seems to trace back to is the “value” of selfishness. Anyway, I cannot get into an argument tonight. Selfishly, I have more promising avenues to explore.
I think plain packaging is playing gesture politics. Make the ant-smoking lobby think you’re doing something, when you know it makes no difference.
Tobacco consumption is already falling, and the ban on smoking in public places may have helped that, but this will make little difference. Counterfeit tobacco is an increasing problem now, and such products contain many more toxins in uncontrolled mixes. Going for plain wrapping will make life so much easier for the counterfeiters, no fancy coloured logos to copy anymore! Much more difficult for the authorities to detect. I speak as an ex Customs Officer, and I cannot understand why nobody id listening to those who are trying to prevent the poison of counterfeit tobacco being brought into the EU by the container load!
We expect this sort of ill-thought out nonsense from Labour (and the Tories) but not from Liberals.
Since this is the policy in Australia and since there is research being done into whether the policy works there or not, then surely the decision will be made based on the evidence? It is a bit pointless saying there is no evidence to support this policy when the evidence is now being sought. Who knows, maybe the evidence will suggest don’t go ahead? On the other hand if the policy works then it should go ahead. Simple as that really isn’t it?
I should add the obvious point that given the investment made by the tobacco industry to promote there products through their packaging, then they must think it makes a difference!
Has anybody assessed one of the most obvious drawbacks to this plan i. e. that it will make life so much easier for counterfeiters?
When branding is taken out of the picture, many users will become much less discriminating about which variant of poison they consume, and will more actively seek out the cheapest sources however dubious.
I would have thought that further restricting place of use would have more effect, for example banning smoking at open air events (arena concerts, football matches etc) except in a special smoking area away from the main action. It’s one thing to walk through someone’s smoke for a few seconds when exiting a shopping mall or passing on the street (and that’s unpleasant enough) but quite another to be stuck in a crowd in close proximity to a group of smokers for hours on end.
Local communities could designate smoke free streets the way they do with alcohol already. Employers could be encouraged not to build new smoking shelters and to restrict the use of existing ones to existing employees only.
I wouldn’t want to affect people’s rights in their own private space but would like more done to protect those who would prefer never to encounter smoke in public. Not just because of the health risks but because it’s a vile and intrusive habit that those who indulge cannot help but inflict on others.
Eddie, we don’t put pictures of smashed skulls on alcohol packaging, etc, because we already have enough law to deal with the effects of over-indulgence on others e.g. drink drive laws, laws about violent behaviour. The other consequences of drinking too much are down to individual choice (without wanting to get into arguments about NHS resources etc as that’s not the point here).
Smoking is different because if you do it around others, you cannot do anything to mitigate the harm it’s doing. Whilst you can choose not to break someone’s nose after downing a bottle of whisky, there’s nothing you can do to prevent other people suffering the vile smell and inhaling your poison when smoking.
For that reason alone I think it’s a perfectly liberal position to act further to limit smoking. Health risks to the individual? Yes, they know. Of course they do. If they choose to indulge in a habit that’s going to finish them off early, that’s their choice, but there are too many other people directly suffering the consequences of that choice.
I wouldn’t have on pack messages saying this is what your lungs will look like, I’d have large text saying “selfish”, “stink”, “moron” etc. That might actually work…
Evidence free? Hardly. This report from the EPPI – http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=3327 – collects the evidence if anyone cares to read it.
Frankly, the howling of the Tobacco industry should tell you all you need to know about whether it will work.
Ann, I respect your opinion, but I don’t really agree. I appreciate I am probably in a minority here, but I don’t see how cigarettes are any worse than alcohol, just different.
Hi Eddie, I appreciate your point of view but to me cigarettes are clearly worse than alcohol for one main reason.
If you drink to excess you cannot give me liver cirrhosis. If you smoke one fag next to me you could give me lung cancer.
@ AnneKaye
One cigarette give you lung cancer? Hardly. Anyway this is an argument for separation into smoking and non-smoking areas, so each side can pursue its pleasure fully, not abolition. As to NHS costs, who pays the exorbitant tax? Puffing Billy.
Yes, passive smoke can give you lung cancer. There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
@Ann K “I think it’s a perfectly liberal position to act further to limit smoking.” & “If you smoke one fag next to me you could give me lung cancer.”
Whilst I understand your sentiments, as a lifetime non-smoker I do have problems with them. The last time I had to take a business suit to the cleaners explicitly because of tobacco smoke was in 2004, the week before they introduced the smoking ban in pubs. Which was followed a few years later over here. But even discounting that for several decades the number of times, I’ve actually been in and around smokers has been minimal and in the main through choice eg. joining the smokers outside whilst they have a cigarette and I a coffee so that we can continue a conversation. In fact I know I’ve probably done more damage to my health through work related stress than any other factor. So whilst yes there may be no safe level, there is a level at which your exposure leaves you at no greater risk than exposure to other toxins.
Personally, I’m happy with the current arrangements concerning smoking in public places, but accept that we need to do more to dissuade a new generation from taking up tobacco smoking.
Is there ANYONE who has taken up smoking on the grounds they’ve thought about it and liked the idea of the effect that it has on them, and so took it up for that effect? Or at least anyone who was not born in the 1960s or later, as I appreciate e.g. in WW2, troops were encouraged to take up smoking as a way of calming stress.
Surely the only reason anyone smokes now is because they took it up when they were kids to look “big”, and found it to be a habit they couldn’t get rid of? Is there any evidence that people who smoke are less stressed than people who don’t? Or is it simply that if you are an addict you get stressed when you don’t have what you’re addicted to, so feel less stressed when you get it? A bit like hitting yourself over the head with a hammer, so you can feel good when you stop.
Addiction is a difficult thing for liberals, since it challenges the idea that we have a single logical will. The addict trying to give up something but failing to do so is in the position of both wanting to do something and not wanting to do it. It’s for this reason that I can’t quite take the “pure liberal” approach to cigarettes.
Personally, I do find the array of funny little coloured boxes interesting, and enticing – if I didn’t know better it might be a factor encouraging me to try them out. The packing of the box does not effect the taste or anything else about the cigarette when you smoke it, does it? So why should it be considered a big restriction to take it away?
@Matthew Huntbach
“Surely the only reason anyone smokes now is because they took it up when they were kids to look “big”, and found it to be a habit they couldn’t get rid of?”
As LibDems, we believe in diversity and individuality, which means that we cannot assume that everyone else shares our own motivations. As it happens, peer pressure can produce stress, puberty can produce stress, leaving school can produce stress, work can produce stress, socializing can produce stress, even walking into a shop can produce stress. Smoking can be a way of reducing all that stress. It’s quite different from your motive of “looking big”.
Richard Dean
As LibDems, we believe in diversity and individuality, which means that we cannot assume that everyone else shares our own motivations.
Yes, that is why I am asking the questions. From what I remember of my schooldays, the kids who took up smoking were not the small shy ones who were most stressed, but the confident ones who wanted to look big. If my experience is unusual, let others say so, let others tell me why they took up smoking. If a few people who smoke can tell me that they took it up of their own free will knowing its effects, good and bad, and being willing to accept the bad effects for the benefit of the good, and they smoke now entirely of their own free will being willing now to do the same balancing, let them say so.
@Matthew Huntbach. Ain’t it fun walking around with your eyes closed? 🙂
Richard Dean
@Matthew Huntbach. Ain’t it fun walking around with your eyes closed?
I was asking an honest question.
From what I recall from my schooldays, the kids who took up smoking were almost always those who did it because they thought it made them look big. No other reason than that. I’m not aware of any kid who took up smoking primarily in order to relieve stress. Neither am I aware of anyone who started smoking at some time later in life, at least not of anyone of my age or younger. I am also aware of huge numbers of people who want to give up smoking but can’t, it seems to be a very addictive thing, once you are into it, it’s hard to get out.
From this, it seems to me to be entirely rational to conclude that anyone who is smoking is a big kid, someone who took it up to “look big” and having started that way is forced to continue because of its addictive nature. If I am wrong in this, please tell me why. If you could point to me substantial numbers of people who took up smoking primarily because they felt it would help them relieve stress, then fine. As I said, I’m aware that in earlier years, yes this was done, troops in WW2 were encouraged to smoke for that reason. But I’m in my 50s, and that would not apply to me or people younger than me. I recall when cigarette adverts were still around, they would try and put across some sort of glamorous image. But I don’t ever recall an advert with the theme “Take up smoking these, if you feel stressed, they will make you feel better”. Well, actually, of course the famous advert campaign “You’re never alone with a Strand” perhaps tried this approach, and notoriously failed with it. That was a bit before my time, however.
I am Brain from Milan Italy, During my search on the internet for help to get my lover back i came across this wonderful man called Dr.zzona who did a nice job by helping me to get my lover back within 48hours.. I never believe that such things like this can be possible but now i am a living testimony to it because Dr.zzona actually brought my lover back, If you are still doubting why not contact Dr.Zzona on [email protected] or call him on +2348100960996, Then i promise you that after 48hours you will have reasons to celebrate like me..Brain