But is it “Evidence”?
An interesting post that would be correct if real evidence existed!
Whilst the title is right, it appears that the content uses a slightly distorted version of the English language. The word “evidence” seems to be being used in a way that I don’t understand, instead of being used as “proven fact”, it is being used as “ideological theories”.
To date there is no data at all as to whether plain packs will have any effect at all on the rate of take up by youth. Only Australia has this at the moment and no figures have yet come to light. To call the theories that led to the Australian experiment “evidence” is misleading to say the least. The studies that suggest this policy are, to date, only theoretical ones, and remain invalid as evidence that the policy will work. To be sure, they suggest that it might work, but I would suspect that a minimum pack size of 25, and a price bump, would work better and end up a lot cheaper to implement.
To be honest, when I was smoking, I didn’t look at the packs at all, just the prices.
I have no objection in principle to plain packs for tobacco or minimum pricing for alcohol, I do object to the waste of resources that may be incurred by either imposing these theories before they have been proven by testing, or by legal costs from challenges by IP owners.