Later On

Australia has passed a simple law: cigarette packages must look alike except for the brand name (in a standard font) and the cigarettes themselves made of all the same diameter (no extra-slender cigarettes) and with plain paper.

The cigarette companies are, of course, fighting this tooth and nail, though through front groups that the companies establish, finance, and direct. (They can’t come out against the measure directly because their credibility has been destroyed by a release of internal company memos, which reveal exactly what the companies are like.)

And these front groups—total spending to date around $10 million—are pushing this notion: “it won’t work.” Why then are the companies squandering so much of their money to defeat a scheme that will fail in any case? Well, of course the companies are lying—they’ve lied for decades, why stop now? The simple change in package will significantly reduce smoking, in all probability (thus the $10-million fight), and then there will be a strong, clear example, available to the entire world, on how to fight tobacco addiction—and, doubtless, lower the price of cigarettes: if all brands look alike, and most advertising venues are banned, the companies must willy-nilly compete on price.

Now is this fair? What if the same approach were taken for spirits, wine, beer, and (to up the stakes) legalized (but taxed and regulated) marijuana. Would that be acceptable?

I would say, “Yes, in a New York minute.” Indeed, spirits and wine and marijuana have long been sold in drab packaging: simple, informative labels attached to the bottle, for example. Those products could easily survive such restrictions. But I don’t think tobacco will.

Here’s the full story in New Scientist.