Skip to main content

Plain cover

I have just heard what struck me as an extraordinary claim by a lady from Ash about cigarette smokers.  She told the television news that people buy the cigarette brand that says something about them.


I only smoke socially, which means whenever somebody offers me one.  But, the smokers I know all fall into two camps.  There are those who buy their favourite brand because they like the taste/feeling that brand gives them when they smoke.  The other group are those who buy whatever is cheapest - in my experience that generally means Lambert & Butler for women and loose tobacco for men.

The only person I have ever come across who could be described as making a statement about herself through her tobacco choice was a lady who smoked only pastel coloured cigarettes.  They all came in a simply plain little box but each cigarette was a different, very attractive, colour.  Even she didn't flash her fags about and when asked claimed that those cigarettes were the nicest to smoke.

Will putting cigarettes into plain packets stop smoking?  I doubt it.  My iPod was plain white, my iPhone is plain black as is my iPad yet they seem to sell pretty well.  The beer I plan to drink tonight will actually come in an unbranded see-through container and yet I am still going to drink the stuff.


  1. ASH will say anything they think may get tobacco made illegal. (If they actually wanted people to stop smoking, they wouldn't have promoted the ban on snus, which many people use as a route off cigarettes.) I have no idea why any more airtime is given to these professional liars than to the BNP, who have similarly single-issue politics.

  2. Which goes to show, if the brand/packaging isn't important, you might as well put in plain packaging. Would think the fag companies would like this idea, will save them money on design their packets :)

  3. Wow, I really should not type comments on my phone, all kinds of grammar errors!

  4. Roger, what are snus?

    Ian, I didn't notice any errors - maybe that says more about me than your phone typing skills ;)

    1. Snus is a wet snuff, something like a hybrid between snuff and chewing tobacco. Remember a while ago the moral panic over "Skoal Bandits" in the UK, the evil tobacco product that would turn Our Children into smokers overnight?

      Turns out (a) most users don't go on to anything else, (b) many more people in Scandinavia transition from cigarettes to snus to nothing than stop using tobacco by other routes, (c) actually there's very little harm from it anyway, even among regular users. But no, it's EVIL and must be kept completely illegal throughout the EU (except Norway and Sweden)!

  5. I smoke, and have since 11...the social circles i found myself mixing in immediately (by age 12 - 13) put me with older folk who smoked weed, which i have smoked every day since. I am 30 now, have several degrees, several HND's and various other qualifications all of which are science based. As a result of these qualifications and the knowledge i gathered while smoking weed, i now have two businesses to boot. I have seen people make the transition from one drug to another, all starting with tobacco - my own personal choice to smoke (made despite being informed, of good intellect and ability to govern my own life) had nothing to do with advertising or packaging, and as somebody who doesnt watch tv, read magazines or listen to the radio i fail to see how these things could possibly influence my choice (not that tobacco is really advertised these days...but in the 80's as a child it was). If tobacco is made illegal, it will become another commodity exclusively controlled by gangsters and mafioso types, leading to other issues. If this eventually occurs, i doubt very much if the number of smokers will drop - everyone i know takes drugs in one form or another!

  6. To be honest, I even could not imagine how hard it is to find decent piece of info on the above topic. Afghan Incense


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…