The study clearly states these findings: "The signs did not help recent quitters to stay quit or stop smokers from purchasing cigarettes at the current visit to the store."But the study concludes:
Talk about hiding in plain view. They know the graphic posters don't have the intended effect but are prepared to commission further studies to justify producing and using the posters."A policy requiring tobacco retailers to display graphic health warning signs increased awareness of health risks of smoking and stimulated thoughts about quitting smoking. Additional research aimed at evaluating the effect of tobacco control measures in the retail environment is necessary to provide further rationale for implementing these changes and countering legal challenges from the tobacco industry." [emphasis]
Siegel concludes, 'This is another example of how the anti-smoking movement has recently lost its science base in favor of a pre-ordained agenda'. Recently?
This is not unique. One of my favourite pages is from Cancer Research UK's Tobacco Advisory Group. It details research priorities and I have referred to it many times:
Research that will advance policies to reduce environmental exposure to the toxic effects of tobacco smoke, tobacco smoke residue, cigarette butts, and other tobacco products.Regulatory science:
Research that will expand the scientific basis to inform the regulation of nicotine and tobacco products at the local, state and national levels
Research that will advance the ability of communities throughout California to assess and limit the influence of the tobacco industry
As part of its regular 2010 funding cycle, The Scientific Advisory Committee recommended, and TRDRP awarded $12.7 million in 46 new grants at California non-profit research institutions.