Now I don’t claim to be an advocate of smoking, nor do I condone it in any circumstance, but I do believe in the freedom of choice and for individuals to make their own personal decisions. This applies to everything that is perceived or proven bad for your health, from sugar to alcohol to smoking, and also to brands and their ability to freely advertise their wares. No brand should mislead or deceive any demographic, since they have a global sense of responsibility that extends to how their products are advertised. Now, to control packaging and brand visibility at the point of purchase is a given, but to strip a brand of its identity, is this a step too far?

The coalition government is pushing for parliament to approve a law introducing standardised cigarette packaging in England. If approved by Parliament by May of this year, before the general election, a new law could be in force by 2016, so begins the brand debate: no more will we see iconic brands like Frank Gianninoto’s Marlboro chevrons or the Raymond Loewy designed Lucky Strike logo created in the 1940s, which incidentally changed from a green background to a white one specifically to appeal to female smokers. Who controls a brand and has the right to say that they may no longer have an identity and a place alongside other brands in today’s society?

SEE ALSO: The Semiotics of Brand Building

Ministers and health groups say the change will save thousands of lives, but on what evidence? A similar scheme introduced in Australia in December 2012 has created fierce debate as it still remains too early to identify if it has reduced numbers of smokers. However, in my view any reduction in underage smoking is good, but rather than standardised packaging surely it’s about tougher regulation on legal age, health education, controlled points of purchase, and media restriction in film and TV of smokers, especially role models, not controlling packaging and removing a product’s branding? Not only does a generic system open up the risk of counterfeit goods and its knock-on effect to organised crime, but also, as with many radical legislative laws, they set a precedent for the future.

I don’t believe stripping a brand of its identity will deter those who wish to smoke–young or old, they will find a way–whereas statistics have proved that over the past four decades changing attitudes can. Just like brands of old they will disappear naturally into history, through choice, not through legislation.

Image: Alosh Bennett