Comments not about plain packaging

The bulk of the comments (1187 or 65.3%) were not considered as they contained no content about or reference to the proposed plain packaging reforms. This was mostly attributable to the government having simultaneously announced a 25% tax increase on tobacco products at the same time as the plain packaging announcement. Many comments included remarks specifically about the tax increase. For example:

(Prime Minister) Kevin Rudd's no better than a drug dealer, reaping the benifits of a tax hike while claiming its for your health. What a joke! People are addicted to smoking and putting the price up will do nothing. If he was really serious they would spend the money from the tax on subsidising patches or chapax to help people quit. This is just a joke. Ill be doing my best to vote you out this year Kevin so good luck.18

The other common frames of these irrelevant comments were generalised tirades against government or politicians, tobacco control supporters and smokers, the nanny state or abuse targeted at other posters. While many of these comments were overwhelmingly negative, they were not coded as opposed to plain packaging as they lacked specificity and would be a common frame in virtually any media content analysis of a tobacco control policy.19

The remaining 646 comments were classified as 25% (454) not in support which included 18.2% (331) opposed and 5.9% (108) opposed but in favour of other tobacco control measures, 9.7% (177) in favour and the remaining 0.8% (15) as mixed.

Comments in favour

A total of 177 (9.7%) comments were in favour of plain packaging; 34 (19.2%) of these 177 supportive comments were concentrated in response to one news story on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) online news website.20 These comments were primarily disputing the article's headline that packaging would result in the government paying the tobacco industry compensation for loss of intellectual property. For example, this poster suggested that ‘nobody is stripping intellectual property from anybody, the new law would just ban it from packaging. They can keep their logo for their letterheads and signage on their properties’.20 Others pointed out the compensation claim was being made by the Institute of Public Affairs, an organisation described by one as being ‘influenced by the fact that they are funded by those drug pushers, the tobacco industry’.20

Opposed, but in support of other tobacco control measures

Of the 454 comments not in favour, nearly a quarter (n=108) were opposed to plain packaging, but offered alternative tobacco control policy suggestions which they supported. These included: removing all chemicals from cigarettes, subsidising quitting aids and e-cigarettes, educating young people about harms, criminalising possession of tobacco for underage smokers, issuing ‘addict's cards’ to current smokers and making cigarettes available on prescription only. The most common proposal (31.5%; n=34) was that smoking and/or tobacco products should be banned completely. Posters reasoned that anything less than a ban was either a futile or a hypocritical measure. Others argued that a ban would happen if the government ‘was serious’21 about or ‘really wanted’18 successful tobacco control. It was also contended that while any regulation was overly intrusive, an outright ban was acceptable.

When will they realise this is a legal product that generates a lot of money for our useless governments? If it's legal, leave it alone—or simply ban it.18

Framing of arguments opposed to plain packaging

The comments were more than 2.5 times more likely to be opposed to than in favour of plain packaging. A total of 761 opposing arguments were coded from 454 comments not in support and 15 mixed comments (table 1).

Plain packaging will not work

The most dominant frame with nearly twice the prevalence as the next most common frame, with 27.1% (206), was that plain packaging ‘would not work’. This included comments that such a measure would not stop the poster from smoking, that there are other measures, including making tobacco illegal that should be taken instead and that any attempt to reduce smoking was futile.

Are people really that stupid???? Does the government really think that by changing the packet to a plain box would make people stop? Pull your head in!21

Well, that's it, this will definately fix things, after all I know I and everyone else that I know that smokes found ourselves looking at the glorious packaging one day on the way out of the supermarket and decided we just-had-to have this simply sublime artwork in our pockets and handbags for all time. Isn't it time we got real, people aren't just going to up and quit no matter how much it bleeds them dry or how much of a pariah it makes them.22

I may be going out on a limb here, but I am not alone in having purchased the odd illicit bag of narcotic for the odd office party. Its not very frequent in my circle of friends, but it happens every week in almost any industry you could care to name. Do I ask for Dunhill? Do I ask for Winfields? No, I ask for a plain bag, nothing more nothing less… Not having a brand on the bag doesn't seem to have helped the war on drugs at all—why would these twits think cigarettes would be any different.????22

An additional 5.9% (45) doubted that plain packaging would prevent youth from taking up smoking and that policymakers were out of touch with young smokers.

Kids take up smoking, or any other drug, because of peer pressure and wanting to be “macho”. Advertising only causes brand switching.23

Smoking for young people is purely an image. They think it looks cool. There are currently cigarette brands on the market with minimalist white packaging already and they are very popular among young smokers (even considered the highest quality). To reduce rates of smoking in young people you need to make it seem abnormal or “uncool”.20

Anti-Prime Minister Rudd and anti-Labor

The next most common theme with 15.4% (117) of the comments was statements criticising the then prime minister, Kevin Rudd, or the Australian Labor Party. These arguments framed plain packaging as ‘policy on the run’20 by a government that was resorting to ‘populist ideas to cover their tracks and divert attention from their constant failures.’18 Other posters used the opportunity to lampoon the Labor government:

A picture of Comrade Rudd on the packet should be enough to deter people.18

Distraction from tobacco tax increase

A total of 77 (10.1%) arguments stated that plain packaging was merely a distraction, and that in reality the government was ‘addicted’ to the revenue it derives from tobacco tax. These arguments doubted government's sincerity to actually reduce smoking and accused the government of knowingly implementing measures that would fail in order to maximise tobacco tax revenue. The fact that tobacco remains a legal product was cited as further evidence that the government relied on smokers to pay high levels of tax.

This is just another con and a great big dash for cash to take the heat off all their other failed policies. If they had any conviction they would ban tobacco, but they won't because it generates way too much revenue, way and above what the smokers cost our health system.18

Nanny state

‘Nanny state’ type arguments24 comprised 66 (8.7%) of the opposing statements. These included arguments that plain packaging trampled on business rights, personal freedoms and ignored the fact that tobacco was a legal product used by consenting adults.

By what right does the government dictate cigarette packaging? It's the individual's choice whether they smoke or not, and none of the government's business.25

I think whether or not this will work is irrelevant—the nanny state strikes again. How much longer will the government and the do-gooders continue to attack a legal product?26

Other health issues are more important and the slippery slope

Sixty-three (8.3%) opposing arguments suggested that there were more pressing health issues that needed addressing over tobacco use. Unhealthy foods and alcohol were singled out as allegedly bigger threats to health. Obesity was described as ‘costing the country just as much as smoking now’22 and one poster provided a link to recent news coverage27 that obesity had overtaken smoking as the leading cause of preventable death in Australia.

When is the govt. going to require mars bars etc. to be sold in plain wrapping? Obesity now causes more premature deaths than smoking after all.22

Just under 3% (22) claimed that plain packaging was the start of a ‘slippery slope’ policy that would lead to unwarranted restrictions on other potentially harmful products, including unhealthy food and alcohol.

Great—why not stop there, lets have all sugary drinks in plain packaging too, and beer, and burgers, and lock up people who don't do enough exercise, and then what about cars, lets have them all the same and make them all have great fuel economy and low emissions, and why not then make everyone have the same salary and wear the same (safe and discrete) clothing.25

Tobacco industry compensation

Immediately following the plain packaging announcement, the free market lobby group the Institute of Public Affairs asserted that plain packaging was a violation of international trade mark law and would result in the government paying $3.4 billion in compensation to the tobacco industry for loss of intellectual property. No data were provided to support this claim. Fifty-two (6.8%) arguments reiterated these legal claims and expressed anger that governments would spend, ‘millions of taxpayers dollars to fight off legal challenges from cashed up tobacco companies.’18

Smoking is only about addiction

Addiction was viewed as an intractable barrier to the success of plain packaging by 5.9% (45) of posters. ‘Are they joking! This is an addiction people. It wouldn't matter if they wrapped them in cow dung, people would still buy them because they are addicted!’25 Included within this frame were comments that the contents of the package matter far more and that smokers ‘couldn't give a continental what the package looks like it's the addictive substances contained within that will always be the draw card.’28

Smokers and the industry will find loopholes

Forty-five posters (5.9%) felt that policy would fail as smokers would use attractive cigarette cases or purchase counterfeit or smuggled branded packs. These arguments framed plain packaging as pointless legislation as there would always be loopholes for the tobacco industry or smokers to exploit.

The plain labelling will do absolutely nothing except create a market for old-fashioned cigarette cases.29

Plain smoke packets will send in the dodgy smoke makers an easy path to copy fake brands an then end up in milk bars and small shops which in turn will kill and harm people because the ingredients are not properly regulated or processed. I can see lots of sales of glitzy pack holders for the younger generation.18

Plain packs will benefit the tobacco industry

A small number of people (23 (3%)) were opposed to the plain packaging policy as they believed that the tobacco industry would benefit in some way. That plain packaging would lead to ‘less cost for simpler packaging’18 or that it would enable the ‘tobacco companies to “unify” their market into a single high-tar, high-nicotine product—doing even more damage to the average smoker.’20

Poll results

Nine articles22 25 29–35 included one of four different online polls regarding support for plain packaging policy. Polls on controversial topics are a common and low cost tool to increase web traffic and promote user interactivity on news websites.36 While those who complete these polls are self-selected and the results, therefore, may not reflect community attitudes, they do serve as an indicator of reader engagement and opinion. Based on the three polls that supplied the total number of voters (30 726), there was a nearly even split with 49% (15 171) in favour of and 51% (15 555) opposed to plain packaging (table 2).