Sometimes I wonder about governments and their mad ideas. Something proposed by the last lot, and carried out by the current lot is a double-whammy of not just saying you can’t look at cigarettes when in a shop, but if you do buy a packet, then it must be handed over in plain packaging.
The idea, allegedly is that plain packaging will be less desirable to the next generation of smokers, and help reduce the uptake of the habit.
Of course, the ill-fated computer company Apple tried that approach and we all recall how the company famously went bust and Steve Jobs was derided for his minimalist vision.
Oh.
With apologies to the Apple marketing dept.
You could try looking at the evidence from other countries that have introduced plain packaging requirements and display bans to see how their smoking rates went down but I guess that’s too much effort for you.
I think we can see empiric evidence of the effect of the ban on packaging on how many people still drink from liquor bottles in public in the USA – by virtue of simply putting the container in a brown bag.
No, I’m talking about countries that have already introduced packaging laws for cigarettes specifically and have seen a decline in smoking rates after doing so. Just because you don’t like the idea doesn’t mean it won’t work, that’s what this crazy concept of “evidence” is all about.
Also your example is nonsense because the brown paper bag stuff in America stemmed from bans on open containers of alcohol, not on displaying or packaging of alcohol. It’s an entirely different scenario and therefore a huge logical fallacy.