Plain packaging is an appalling intrusion into consumer choice and the operation of the free market.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the daySamizdata Illuminatus (Arkham, Massachusetts) · Civil liberty, Law & Regulation · Self ownership · Slogans & Quotations · UK affairs January 22nd, 2015 |
 17 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Yes it is.
Will Jackart be along soon to defend the Tories on this one?
And you know those snidists who deride bloggers who use the phrase ‘LibLabCon’? I always found that phrase a bit naff myself, but it can’t really be argued any more, can it?
I am convinced Jackart is actually a secret false flag UKIP recruiting agent, playing the stereotypical “Insulting Tory Wanker” role right out of central casting.
It may be “an appalling intrusion into consumer choice and the operation of the free market” but that is just the way the commies would like it to be framed.
Much more on topic to the media’s gnat like attention span, it’s a direct assault on free speech. It seems all that “Je suis Charlie” stuff was just a pile of crap. Here there’s no fogginess or confusion about insults aimed at unwilling listeners. Cigarette advertising is speech aimed by a willing speaker at willing listeners. And it must be stopped !
Farage is certainly right, but he is saying the wrong things. The public don’t give a flying one for consumer choice or the free market. To chime with the people as “Mr Common Sense” he should have said that the plain packaging farago is nonsense on stilts, will be an absolute gift for smugglers and counterfeiters, will make cigarettes more dangerous than they are already because you will not know what is in them, and will lose the Government shedloads in tax.
Yes and no RAB, he should has said the things you suggest AS WELL, not instead of. It is only by endlessly making such issues part of any debate that the debate gets reframed.
RAB 2.39pm
But all that wouldn’t quite fit into a soundbite
I am not totally up on British politics, but I guess this is in reference to “plain packaging laws” rather than specific choices made independently by producers. It reminded me of when I was a kid. There was this big thing where supermarkets started selling canned goods under a brand name like “Basics” or something like that. The labels were all plain white with black simple text. The idea being to convey that they were the absolute basics. Of course adding a colored label would have added no significant cost, it was all a marketing ploy, it is almost like a self flagellation thing. “I am poor therefore I don’t get the fancy cans with pictures and color.” Or perhaps it is just a marketing signalling device saying “low cost goods here.”
This being apropos because I wonder about the abuse smokers take. After all, in the UK they consist of about 20% of the population. That is a HUGE voting block. I wonder why the parties don’t court them? Smoking is important to the people who smoke, so surely that is a subject that would move them? Or is it perhaps that smokers are also subject to that self flagellation thing, where they don’t want things to be better for smokers like them because they think themselves so naughty that they don’t deserve any better.
they think themselves so naughty that they don’t deserve any better.
I’m afraid that is very true. I was in a hotel round the corner from Euston station about this time last year and went outside for a smoke. There was this bloke already standing there smoking what I thought was a pipe, but was one of those sonic screwdriver efags. We got talking, as you do, and I said… why are you out here, it’s freezing. You can use one of those inside. Oh says he, I have been going outside for a smoke for so long now, I just do it automatically.
At this stage of the game Farage is seen as not just another typical cynical politician, but a Bloke. So as such he should not be thinking in soundbites. The Media hang on his every word desperate to find something to bash him over the head with, so they will report whatever he says verbatim.
This will open up a nice little market in “Pack for life” cigarette cases, probably sold by the most popular brands et al.
Actually, ‘plain packaging’ for politicians might not be a bad idea. Perhaps someone could put the idea up to them?
@PersonFromPorlock
> Actually, ‘plain packaging’ for politicians might not be a bad idea. Perhaps someone could put the idea up to them?
Is that because politicians are extremely bad for your health?
Needless to say, the impact of second hand politics is extremely damaging. If you think the initial damage is bad you should see the second order consequences.
There was this big thing where supermarkets started selling canned goods under a brand name like “Basics” or something like that.
I think here in the States, the supermarket chains make more money off the store-brand stuff than they do off of name-brand stuff, even though the retail price is lower.
No, it’s because they’re indistinguishable.
A while ago I bought for a friend a pack of stickers, written in the same style, that go over the top of the government health warnings. The said such things as , “Smoking is Cool”. Now I can’t find them on sale anywhere. Instead I found these: http://www.stickerette.com.au/
Rob, I enjoyed looking at those stickers. I suspect that they might become something of a hit if “plain packaging” of cigarettes should become the law. People are endlessly creative, and many of us like twisting and evading stupid, pointless and offensive laws for the sheer joy of it.
This reminds me of the early 20th century prohibitions (in the US, anyway) on the coloring of oleomargarine. The powerful dairy industry was losing sales to margarine, so they used political pressure to force margarine to appear as unappetizing as possible (uncolored it looks like lard). But while the margarine manufacturers couldn’t dye their product nothing prevented their customers from doing so. So the manufacturers began packaging the margarine with dye which the customers themselves mixed into the product (ultimately culminating in a small “color pak” which was kneaded into it before opening the bag). My mother remembers doing so. (Incidentally, the federal ban on coloring margarine was repealed in 1955, but some state bans lingered on as late as 1967!)
Whilst one can agree with the statement quoted, it might be precisely the very reason why plain packing will eventually be driven through in some shape or form – i.e., it is arguably clearly NOT a free market and never has been, and “consumer choice” is arguably a cynical marketing cliché to give the impression and false security of feeling that one actually DOES have choice.
One only needs to look at the ubiquity of adulteration with things such as (say) added water, sugar, palm oil, or “pink slime” in food products to appreciate the likely validity of that argument. It’s a race to the bottom in product marginal costs, standardisation and quality.
Sure, there may be some exceptions, but experience indicates that the rule is likely down. And it won’t matter to the children, who will have grown up on a diet of adulterated pap – which is all many of them will have ever known – and they will be tomorrow’s consumers with the propensity to spend, and guess what they will spend on? Whatever they have been conditioned to spend on.
To such consumers, things such as (say) extracting pure de-mineralised water or synthesizing carbohydrates or protein, or even maybe some form of tobacco substitute from human waste could actually mean that things may get to taste a little less bland than what they were used to. Nom, nom, nom.