[ngoel36]

Is there evidence that this packaging works?

I don't smoke, and the warnings certainly scare me, but I always find myself in a foreign duty-free shop shoving myself through throngs of people carrying a tower of Malboro boxes - lung cancer seems to be the last thing on their mind.

[adrusi]

It's just one part of a larger educational campaign. The goal is to not let there be a time when people "forget", or more accurately choose to ignore, the health risks.

The warnings on the packaging are mostly targeted at non-smokers who might become smokers. If they decide to buy some cigarettes, they can't avoid being reminded of the long-term effects. If they buy them regardless, every time they pull out a cigarette they're reminded of what might happen should they develop a full addiction.

After a decade or two of lowered rates of new smokers, the population achieves a sort of critical mass of non-smokers that change the public attitude toward smoking. At this point banning smoking in public places, or increasing tobacco taxes, become politically tolerable.

[hyperbovine]

There is evidence: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-19/australias-plain-packa.... Also, people who carry armloads of cigarettes out of duty free do not represent the marginal cases this law is targeting.

[zorked]

Brazil has reduced smoking by 35% since 2000 using mandatory scary pictures in the packaging, restrictions on advertisement, restrictions on public smoking and mandatory minimal prices.

Whether packaging alone works, who knows. The combination of those policies is highly effective.

[leojg]

Uruguayan here. Personally, I think it works, most of people that I know dont smoke, and most of those who smoke are trying to quit it.

BTW: We are 3.3 not 2.7 :S

[InclinedPlane]

How would you, anecdotally, notice a 25% decrease or increase in the prevalence of smoking in a country? I bet most people would have trouble noticing, even if they tried paying attention really well, and that's probably true even at a 50% change level. But that amount of change can be transformative from a business perspective.

What kills smoking as a cultural norm and destroys the tobacco business isn't everyone stopping smoking overnight due to ugly packaging. That's an overly simplistic and unrealistic scenario. But if packaging changes can result in a persistent decline in the prevalence of smoking that sort of change is still enormous. Being able to cut the prevalence of smoking in half over, say, 50 years? Still a pretty big deal. But it looks like these programs are actually far more effective.

[yodsanklai]

Once people are addicted, it's very hard for them to quit. Even after they saw relatives or friends dying from cancer. So I don't think the warnings work for them. Hopefully they prevent people (usually teenagers) from starting to smoke.

[elevensies]

It can devalue the brand with or without having an effect on overall consumption, it will make their boxes look more similar to cheaper brands.

[nnethercote]

The cigarette companies are fighting the plain-packaging laws tooth and nail, much harder than they have some of the other restrictions. They know that these laws have a real effect.