Debate: Plain Packaging on Tobacco Products

Hari Srinivasan

Prof David Presti / GSI Carson McNeil

Psych C19 Drugs and the Brain

First Debate at Cal for Prof David Presti's  Drugs and the Brain class

My task - Opening Statement 

Debate Topic: A plain-packaging requirement for tobacco products should NOT be implemented in the USA.

Our group supports the negative motion, that plain packaging for tobacco products should not be implemented.

It is ironic that in an age where more states are legalizing marijuana, which to a large extent is smoked, there is yet another move to suppress tobacco smoking through plain packaging. Tobacco has been around from ancient times. As we learnt in our last lecture, it was the primary shamanic plant of the Americas. It was used to bind friendships and seal covenants by Native Americans. The Hookah of the east has been around since the era of Akbar the Great in India. Why should Tobacco alone be demonized, targeted and penalized? After all it is but one of the many poison plants that we are surrounded by.

We argue that plain packaging is not evidence based, infringes on our intellectual property rights, curtails freedom of speech and  increases illicit trade.

Fundamentally, legislation should be evidence-based, and currently there is no real evidence that plain packaging has indeed reduced smoking, even in countries where it has been introduced like Australia. Australia’s claim  is based on indirect evidence where they quote studies that suggest a sense of shame in displaying plain packaged cigarettes instead of the previously colorful branded ones. In fact, if Steve Jobs has taught us anything, it is that plain packaging can be a powerful marketing technique. He made the previously rather plain color white super attractive to consumers. Who is to say that tobacco companies cannot do the same in the future? Then the whole point of plain packaging is lost. That is to say, while it may seem that plain packaging appears to decrease smoking in the short run, in the long run it may have no impact whatsoever. Tobacco is addictive, and it is unlikely that existing smokers will quit, simply because the colors of the case changed. The color of the package itself is not what leads to smoking in the first place especially amongst the youth. It is often a combination of socio-economic issues like peer pressure, poverty, truancy etc.

Furthermore, plain packaging boils down to an infringement of intellectual property rights. Taking away company images and branding on packaging is as good as taking away trademarks, the backbone of our capitalist democracy.

It is also a violation of our right to free speech. We’ve all seen the continuing drama on Cal Campus. Our Chancellor Carol Christ herself advocates that both sides get a voice no matter what they have to say. Our democracy  is built on the principle of freedom of expression. Plain packaging would take away this freedom from tobacco companies. The constitutional implications of plain packaging is a slippery slope at the end of the day for not just companies but for individuals as well. We eat many things that can be considered unhealthy. In fact new findings often contradict themselves on what is considered healthy.  By today’s norm, most tasty foods are unhealthy. We may yet be on the road to the government regulating everything we eat or drink or inhale like Big Brother no matter if it’s part of our history or tradition.

Economically, plain packaging will only serve to encourage smuggling and illicit trade. There would also be no way to differentiate the now branded  and better quality cigarette products from cheap quality rip-offs. The only distinguishing factor would be the price on the pack and existing smokers would gravitate towards cheaper priced packs and end up smoking a potentially lower quality and more harmful product.  Let us also not forget that  cigarettes have become a big tax source for the government and tax revenue would be adversely affected due to increased smuggling.

The issue at stake in this debate is not whether tobacco is good or bad per se. Rather, the issue seems to be yet another attack on fundamental freedoms through the guise of plain packaging. In essence, we argue that plain packaging is not evidence based, and instead infringes on our intellectual property rights, curtails freedom of speech and  increases illicit trade.