Screen Shot 2012-12-19 at 10.57.58 AM

Screen Shot 2012-12-19 at 10.57.58 AM


  1. Mihaly
    20 Dec 12
    8:25 am

  2. Wgat bugs me, as a smoker, is that they promised and indeed actually promoted on the packets that the plain packaging would NOT change the product, but everyone I know who is a smoker is complaining that the “taste” or the effect of the product is different, leaning towards the “I’m less satisfied” edge.

    So which is true? Either the (lying) tobacco companies are telling us that this change will make no difference, and that the taste/flavour of your chosen brand of cigarette will NOT be different as a result of the legislation, OR that they have surreptitiously altered the flavour/taste of the product in order to encourage the user base to start
    complaining, because to them, it actually DOES taste different.

    Which I percieve as a bad tactic.

    Suppose it’s B. Smokers complain about the packaging, because suddenly the taste of their cigarette has changed, and they are angry. FAIR ENOUGH. Wait a little while, they won’t be around to complain anyway.

    Suppose it’s A.
    Which implies that smokers actually can’t tell their chosen product from the smell of another, similar product. That works as a business methodology (who cares where the chicken comes from, it roasts and tastes much the same) but cannot work as a defining brand example.

    What’s the difference between Marlboro and Benson & Hedges?

    There is one, but if both come in the same box, why buy one over the other?

    Because sometimes a B&H smoker WILL SMOKE a Marlboro, from time to time.

    As a long term prisoner of this stupid death-defying habit, I welcome this change.
    What – as a philosopher – the difference this legislation will make I await with some scepticism,


Have your say