tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post2825468003769400675..comments2024-03-28T04:29:22.717+00:00Comments on mainly macro: Advertising, Paternalism, Information and Plain Packaging of CigarettesMainly Macrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-59507092390569472662016-03-09T07:28:04.678+00:002016-03-09T07:28:04.678+00:00sasaRichard C. Lamberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14766504022599651016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-57936045399670355492015-04-21T06:11:03.985+00:002015-04-21T06:11:03.985+00:00no doubt it inspiring article i have read it 3 tim...no doubt it inspiring article i have read it 3 time so a great article i found after long time thanks <br /><a href="http://www.onetoz.com/" rel="nofollow">online classifieds in India</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11887816814483528501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-87040097991855750062015-04-20T11:45:41.571+00:002015-04-20T11:45:41.571+00:00It is imperative that we read blog post very caref...It is imperative that we read blog post very carefully. I am already done it and find that this post is really amazing.<br /> <a href="http://www.onetoz.pk" rel="nofollow">free classifieds ads Pakistan post free classifieds Pakistan</a><br />swaggyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01783156947281847959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-66024175268791835552013-12-07T11:11:00.176+00:002013-12-07T11:11:00.176+00:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06381326607775120236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-37494114903095507402013-09-03T17:42:39.251+00:002013-09-03T17:42:39.251+00:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11805059262641706631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-20867263268152394992013-07-30T15:18:53.706+00:002013-07-30T15:18:53.706+00:00By obliging companies to sell 50% of their product...By obliging companies to sell 50% of their product as normal and 50% in plain packaging, you could do a revealed preferences study as to which form of packaging the smoker finds more informative and useful based on which version sells more. You could then see whether your argument is correct.SLAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02750653266156249490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-18177616286426088622013-07-29T13:58:32.850+00:002013-07-29T13:58:32.850+00:00I think an acceptable alternative would be to tell...I think an acceptable alternative would be to tell tobacco companies that, in exchange for the freedom to advertise, they have to keep their cigarettes 100% full of tobacco and nothing else; none of those extra addictive additions...<br /><br />We would see who comes on top...<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040350/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02635749385748660522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-39089888511386336322013-07-29T13:20:15.930+00:002013-07-29T13:20:15.930+00:00usual economist missing the forest for the trees
t...usual economist missing the forest for the trees<br />talk about advertising, and no mention of for profit companies doing what they want, regardless of how it affects you ?<br />just sort of a bland, well, I get adverts I don't want.<br />Sort of a perfect illustration of Orwell's admonition on not draining the juice from "the race goes not to the swift..."<br /><br />I think that every economist, to get a phd, should be required to live for six months on minimum wage , or whatever the non us equuivalent isAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-10449570938282271452013-07-29T13:14:06.884+00:002013-07-29T13:14:06.884+00:00The only two donors of the IEA I know of comes fro...The only two donors of the IEA I know of comes from Professor Harold Perkin’s 2002 autobiography ‘The Making of a Social Historian’, in which he wrote on page 225 that: <br /><br />“to my surprise and the Guardian’s, the IEA [Institute of Economic Affairs] issued a writ of libel against us…they had deep pockets, funded by 160 great corporations (including, incidentally, nationalised industries like British Steel and the BBC!) and determined to teach us a lesson: abjectly apologise or suffer immense legal defence costs.” <br /><br />This was the early 1970s, and the IEA eventually dropped the case in which they had said that Perkin had questioned their charitable status by linking them to the Tory Party.<br /><br />The BBC, when I asked them recently to explain why they were on a donor list only seen because Perkin sent in the lawyers to defend himself, said they don't respond to FOI requests which question their 'journalism'. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-18670345422886809422013-07-29T10:35:59.925+00:002013-07-29T10:35:59.925+00:00It would be extremely unsurprising if the IEA were...It would be extremely unsurprising if the IEA were so funded, since many of its American counterparts are, as this paper describes: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/07/tobaccocontrol-2012-050815.abstract<br /><br />It's worth adding that there is a decent body of research that shows how smokers' experience of smoking is conditioned by the colour and style of the packaging - cigarettes from white boxes taste 'smoother' and 'lighter', while those from red boxes are 'rougher', and so on.<br /><br />Also, one of the aims of plain packaging (and also of requiring shops to put cigarettes in cabinets, rather than having them on open view) is to make it harder for the sight of cigarettes on sale to trigger relapse among those trying to rid themselves of their addiction, another respect in which these regulations are aimed at fostering autonomy.Leohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04288883839684928616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-69173636745130576522013-07-29T02:45:16.805+00:002013-07-29T02:45:16.805+00:00Simon,
I expect you are aware of the Productivity...Simon,<br /><br />I expect you are aware of the Productivity Commission in Australia which is a statutory authority pumping out economic reform recommendations. When I sat on it in the mid 1990s I brought this issue before it and got it's imprimatur on the kind of action that Australia led the world on. <br /><br />Here's a brief writeup of it. <br /><br />http://clubtroppo.com.au/2010/04/30/productivity-commission-backs-world%E2%80%99s-most-draconian-cigarette-packaging-regulation/ Nicholas Gruenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08979019731787830666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-18477404574813141692013-07-28T21:17:14.729+00:002013-07-28T21:17:14.729+00:00All these human weaknesses: smoking, drinking, dru...All these human weaknesses: smoking, drinking, drugs, gambling, prostitution. Government clearly has a role in managing the consumption thereof. And often does that appallingly bad.<br /><br />From a slightly other angle it is being a serious danger or a serious nuisance to others what is imho the relevant issue. With smoking mainly secondary smoke and financially doing dangerous etc things but still rely on the government to pick up the bill when things go wrong.<br />Ideally people should manage their smoking in a way that other people are not bothered with it. In practice this only works partially at best.<br />Seen the massive health issues concerned even only with secondary smoking the government imho has the right (may be even the duty) to interfere if necessary. Secondary smoking is probably more dangerous (causalty wise) than participating in traffic. And we demand all sort of safety stuff there. Something a bit over the top imho, but that is another issue.<br /><br />Smoking for the smoker seen the fact that people in general demand effectively healthcare there is clearly an issue there as well. However ideally I would personally rather have this solved by making people simply responsible for their own behavious. However here comes the youth issue around the corner. Has to be assured that people nobody before the legal age starts with smoking. Which is of course a huge problem. Most likely therefor only overall policies will be effective and therefor necessary.<br /><br />In this respect a lot of the arguments of the free drugs movement seem very naive as it goes largely along the same ways as smoking only in the other direction. With iso secondary smoking often strongly increased unacceptable and legally forbidden behaviour. While it targets the whole population as well including the youth and effectively dumps the healthcare costs with the taxpayer.<br /><br />However on the health lobby he probably has an issue. So called unhealthy food is basically only unhealthy when consumed too much. There is also not really a secondary effect. It is simply mainly an unhealthy livingstyle. And no big cokes like in NY seems simply a lot over the top.<br /><br />Another issue is that governments are pretty bad at managing human vices. Take smoking: shops are closed but still in a lot of places via machines sigarettes can (could in other countries) be bought. Scientific evidence was completely ignored for decades. <br />3/4 of the prisonpopulation in some countries are there for relatively minor drug offences. Etc. <br />It is an issue of managing it, but it often gets combined with all sorts of moral stuff and not for the better. Imho it also means that the way things are best managed are different from country to country (and could change over time simply because other social behaviour in this respect), something most people and governments still donot grasp. <br /><br /> Riknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-12675684017397643512013-07-28T19:04:42.668+00:002013-07-28T19:04:42.668+00:00Quite right! We are not free at all, on or off the...Quite right! We are not free at all, on or off the internet we are subject to relentless manipulation over which we have no choice, no control. We can only choose to live in an environment without these various forms of unrelenting manipulation through collective choice, that is, by passing laws to ban at least some of the assault. But those championing the cause of 'freedom' (and big tobacco) want to rob us of that choice simply because it can only be exercised collectively. Some choices can only be exercised collectively and one cannot be free without access to those choices. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-35224191660121024772013-07-28T15:02:50.722+00:002013-07-28T15:02:50.722+00:00Precisely. The 'paternalism' argument rel...Precisely. The 'paternalism' argument relies on the idea of people as perfectly rational, individual decision makers (neoliberal Man, once again). In truth it's completely impossible to escape the influences imposed on us by all kinds of things - fashion, morality, advertising, etc. We make our choices in a state of dependency on that milieux; we are not and can never be independent from it.<br /><br />And it's precisely the role of government to legislate on what that milieux of influence should not include, what influences people should not be subject to - seductive advertising and packaging for cigarettes, for instance.Philiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07389851669048668357noreply@blogger.com