Calling Chris Snowden


“Similarly, cigarettes have gone from being socially acceptable to quite unacceptable after warning labels were implemented.

“The effectiveness of tobacco warnings and plain packaging is now accepted by almost everyone not linked to the industry.”

This is in the Lancet for fuck’s sake. Isn’t that supposed to be a scientific journal or summat?

There is no evidence at all that plain packs have done anything.

7 comments on “Calling Chris Snowden

  1. I feel less antipathy towards cigarettes than towards the tobacco companies, who knowingly lied for years about the health effects of smoking. By making the branding less clear, plain packaging would make smoking more attractive to me, not less.

    I don’t judge tobacco. It’s just a plant, and like other plants, I can make use of it if I wish to. Plain packaging puts tobacco more on a par with, say, broccoli.

  2. Evidence, what the fuck do want evidence for. Evidence is what they require of dissenters to their world view. For them, a determined enough belief is all that is required.

  3. “The effectiveness of tobacco warnings and plain packaging is now accepted by almost everyone not linked to the industry.”

    Because everyone in the industry, and that includes packaging which is media/manufacturing and not just tobacco industry, knows that plain packaging doesn’t work. The facts say it doesn’t work. The only thing that makes it work is the hype and spin from the nannying fussbuckets who keep pushing the falsehood that it works.

    They have to keep up the media pressure because the evidence shows they are flat out liars.

  4. “He said there was public support for warnings about added sugar as the food stuff was being “progressively demonised”. ”

    Uhuh. So witch hunts are OK as long as they are successful? Can’t see that one going wrong.

    ” While many overestimated the amount in fizzy drinks, they “significantly misjudged” the levels in milkshakes, smoothies and some fruit juices.”

    But we need more warnings about fizzy drinks. Rrrrright…

  5. @SadButMadLad

    True, but I suspect he’s using the phrase to pre-emptively label any critics as industry shills.

  6. The Lancet is a medical journal, not a scientific one. Though it must be admitted that the Royal Society and like-minded buffoons are doing a good deal to ensure that a medical journal will in future have a higher status that a scientific one.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.