Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

That is agreed. I fully support efforts by the Minister in particular to stamp out smoking. Unlike others, I accept the evidence that smoking really does kill and before it kills one, it makes one very unhealthy and it greatly reduces one's quality of life. I also accept that advertising works and that few are more skilled at advertising than the cigarette manufacturers and wholesalers. I support all measures that have been taken to date to deter smoking but I must confess I have a problem with accepting how changing packaging will affect either the number of those already smoking or how it will reduce smoking among young people, which is the target of the legislation. It is hoped by making the packet less appealing that somehow it will make smoking less appealing. We are talking about a packet that already contains a death threat and it is difficult to see how it could become more threatening or less attractive than is the case already.

I am concerned about minimalist packaging in the sense that it might be considered more attractive. My evidence for that is when one looks at the more expensive shops, they always have more minimalist and plainer packaging and bags for their products. My main concern is that since packaging can no longer be seen, given that cigarettes are no longer on display – I do not know when I last saw a cigarette packet – the only people who come into contact with cigarette packets are people who smoke already. While the legislation is aimed at young people, the reality is that one does not come into contact with a cigarette packet until one is already a smoker.

Research has shown mixed results on the outcomes of plain packaging. I have spoken to a number of smokers who scoffed at the notion that they would be in any way deterred from smoking by a change in the packet in which cigarettes come. As most people probably know, I am a former very heavy smoker. No smoker will be deterred by the sort of packaging in which cigarettes come. If they were wrapped in a dirty rag, not alone would a smoker smoke them but the tragedy is that he or she would grow to love the dirty rag, such is the nature of addiction. That is what it means to be addicted. I am not an expert in behavioural analysis and it is long time since I smoked but from experience I can say that the smoking of the cigarette is far more likely to influence one’s perception of the packet it came in than the packet is to influence one’s attitude towards the cigarette itself. That is really why heroin addicts use dirty needles and employ desperate measures in order to get their fix. That is also why methadone users turn up every day to get methadone. It does not matter a hoot to them whether it is in a bottle or a packet. They will still turn up because of their addiction. Packaging just does not figure when it comes to addiction.

If, as I suggest, young people do not come into contact with a packet until they are smokers, it begs the question of what does trigger the decision to start smoking, given that we have zero advertising of cigarettes and very few examples of people smoking on television or in movies. The only visual enticement to smoking comes from observing either family members or their peers. In the case of girls, the desire to control their weight is a major factor in starting to smoke and in continuing to smoke. Much research has been done to identify the causes of addiction in general. In spite of the efforts made to investigate why people take heroin or to examine drug addiction generally, the truth is that it is still an unsolved mystery. I do not know any smoker who does not want to give up smoking. Every single smoker wants to give up smoking. No person acting rationally wants to indulge in a habit which they know will probably kill them and it will certainly do damage to the people around them whom they love, yet in many cases they find it almost impossible to give up smoking. The desire to give up smoking is seldom as great as the urge to have a cigarette.

Much research has taken place on how to break addiction. We must put more resources into the area because we have made so little progress with all the measures we have taken. Worldwide, significant amounts of money are raised in on taxes on cigarettes yet it seems to be treated more as a handy way of raising revenue rather than a source of funding for research. There has been talk of increasing the price of cigarettes, even doubling the price of a packet of cigarettes. I would support that if I thought the revenue would go into research, helping addicts and funding diversion activities for young people to keep them away from cigarettes in the first place. However, it is folly if the belief is that increasing the price of cigarettes will somehow stop smokers smoking. One will never price an addict out of the market. It just does not happen as it is not a normal market. All one has to do is look at the market for illicit drugs and the extent to which criminals go, often resorting to violence. Addicts get themselves into appalling circumstances in order to get the money to support their habit.

In the past ten years we have seen a tenfold increase in the price of cigarettes but that has had a negligible effect on the number of people smoking. The inverse relationship between price and the quantity demanded that exists for a normal product simply does not exist when addiction is involved. However, if the price were to increase, as the Minister suggested, I would support that if I though the money went to help addicts and into diversion activities.

Deputy Finian McGrath referred to the debate on e-cigarettes. I do not often agree with him but based on the evidence available to date I would not rush to judgment on e-cigarettes, notwithstanding the fact that they are being promoted by cigarette companies of whom I would be fairly sceptical. To my knowledge they are being used by some people as a crutch on their way to giving up cigarettes. Even if that is not the case and those who use them do not give up cigarettes eventually, there is merit in exposing people only to the lesser substance of nicotine rather than to the toxic cocktail of the conventional cigarette.

3 o’clock

However, I realise more research and monitoring is needed on the components of e-cigarettes and their long-term effects. If they are found to be less harmful, we should follow the example of the methadone programme that is applied to drug addicts in terms of harm reduction. It is known that the methadone programme is not ideal and it would be better if people quit drugs altogether but it is infinitely preferable to heroin addiction. Perhaps we should consider this when comparing the use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes.

Cigarettes are expensive, there is a death threat on every packet and it is unattractive and uncomfortable to smoke in public. Cigarette smoking is a social no-no, users are regarded as social miscreants and nobody over the age of three is unaware of the fact that smoking kills. Despite all this, people continue to smoke. Many measures have been taken against smoking but they have had only a marginal impact on the number of smokers.

The Minister has made a priority of deterring young people from taking up smoking and he is right to do so because this approach has a greater likelihood of success than stopping existing smokers. Physical activity is spoken of as a useful tool in diverting people away from smoking but it must be made as accessible, attractive and beguiling as a cigarette. Physical activity can give a rush but much lip-service is paid to it and many schools around the country do not have the right facilities. Not enough attention is paid to young girls because many sports are on offer but they are competitive and require large teams to play. We must change our understanding of sport to include physical activities like yoga, dance and running to get young people involved. We cannot simply depend on the GAA to come into schools and set up teams as this will only work for some young people, though it is very important.

I am not optimistic about the deterrent effect of changing cigarette packaging but I support the Minister's efforts. Even if only a few people are persuaded to avoid smoking, his efforts will have been worthwhile. I know the Minister feels very strongly about this issue and is committed to limiting the damage and death toll caused by smoking.

See this speech in context