Yeah , put your speech in letter form and give it to GIL and the other two as well if you want . It gives you a chance to say exactly what you want without being interrupted or losing your nerve . <| sep |> I mean , I get why they do it . But I wish they did fire making because that ' s still the most honorable way to go out . <| sep |> AbstractBackground In December 2012 , Australia introduced worldfirst legislation mandating plain packaging for all tobacco products . To date , there is very little evidence on youth responses to the changed packs . Aim To assess attitudes towards , and responses to , tobacco plain packs preimplementation and postimplementation . Methods The Tobacco Promotion Impact Study TPIS was a yearly crosssectional telephone survey of adolescents and young adults 1224 years from the states of New South Wales NSW and Queensland , conducted at three time points preimplementation June 2010 June 2011 June 2012 and one time point postimplementation June 2013 total n 8820 . Results There were significant increases in support for plain packaging from preimplementation to postimplementation for never smokers 56 % in 2012 vs 63 % in 2013 OR 0 . 77 , 95 % CI 0 . 65 to 0 . 90 , p 0 . 001 , experimentersexsmokers 55 % in 2012 vs 72 % in 2013 OR 0 . 51 , 95 % CI 0 . 38 to 0 . 68 , p 0 . 001 and current smokers 35 % in 2012 vs 55 % in 2013 OR 0 . 49 , 95 % CI 0 . 32 to 0 . 75 , p 0 . 001 . At postimplementation , 16 % of never smokers reported that plain packaging made them less likely to try smoking and 18 % of experimentersexsmokers reported that plain packaging made them less likely to smoke again . Youth were significantly less likely to have anticipated these responses preimplementation never smokers 8 % in 2011 OR 0 . 43 , 95 % CI 0 . 28 to 0 . 65 , p 0 . 00 experimentersexsmokers 11 % OR 0 . 65 , 95 % CI 0 . 52 to 0 . 82 , p 0 . 001 . At postimplementation , 34 % of smokers reported a quittingrelated response to plain packaging tried to quit or thought about quitting the proportion who anticipated such a response preimplementation was significantly less 14 % in 2011 OR 0 . 33 , 95 % CI 0 . 20 to 0 . 53 , p 0 . 001 . 28 % of smokers reported a social denormalisation response at postimplementation hid their pack from view , used a case to cover their pack , felt embarrassed the proportion who anticipated such a response preimplementation was significantly less 9 % in 2011 OR 0 . 24 , 95 % CI 0 . 14 to 0 . 42 , p 0 . 001 . Conclusions The actual response of youth to plain packaging was greater than anticipated prior to their introduction , and support for plain packaging increased from preimplementation to postimplementation among all groups of youth . Jurisdictions planning to implement plain tobacco packaging should be encouraged by these findings . IntroductionThe world ' s first legislation mandating plain packaging of tobacco products was implemented in Australia on 1 December 2012 . The resulting packs are dark olive green cardboard packages with brand name and number of cigarettes written in a standardised font and location . At the same time as the introduction of the plain packaging , the onpack graphic health warnings were updated and enlarged , so that coloured graphic health warnings now cover 90 % of the back and 75 % of the front of packs . These packaging changes were intended to work in concert to improve public health by discouraging people from taking up smoking , encouraging quitting , discouraging relapse and reducing people ' s exposure to tobacco smoke . 1 This employed three specific mechanisms reducing the appeal of tobacco products , increasing the effectiveness of health warnings and reducing the ability of the packaging to mislead consumers about the harmful effects of using tobacco products . 1 To date , a number of studies have assessed the impact of the packaging changes . Large populationlevel studies conducted with adult smokers over the implementation period demonstrated a substantial decrease in the appeal of tobacco packaging , 2 , 3 an increase in the noticeability of the onpack graphic health warnings and increased emotional , cognitive and behavioural responses to the warnings . 24 Given young people ' s responsiveness to the packaging and branding of tobacco products , 57 it has been proposed that plain packaging might have its greatest impact among youth . 8 , 9 Two studies have used the Australian Secondary Students ' Alcohol and Drug ASSAD survey data to assess the impact of the packaging changes among school students aged 1217 years in relation to the specific objectives of the legislation . They first found that , 712 months after the plain packaging implementation , the appeal of cigarette packs and brands had decreased . 10 The second study suggested that the introduction of the new packs did not induce adolescents to attend to or process the onpack warnings to a greater extent than the previous packs . 11 Some behaviours of smokersavoiding smoking in front of other people , hiding or covering cigarette packs from others or feeling uncomfortable smoking in publichave been identified as markers of social denormalisation . 12 , 13 Following the introduction of the new tobacco plain packs , increases in pack concealing behaviours have been reported by adult smokers , 3 , 4 , 14 and observed in studies of smoking behaviours in outdoor hospitality settings . 15 , 16 To date , there have been no studies investigating markers of social denormalisation as a result of the new packs among Australian youth , though experimental evidence 1719 and qualitative data 20 , 21 collected from youth in other jurisdictions suggested that feelings of social disapproval and pack concealment behaviours would emerge . There has also been some evidence of an impact of the packaging changes on quittingrelated behaviours among adult smokers . 14 Compared with smokers smoking cigarettes from branded packs , smokers smoking from the new packs during the transition period were more likely to be thinking about quitting , 22 and the implementation of the new packs was associated with an increase in calls to the Quitline . 23 While no studies to date have explored the impact of the new Australian tobacco packs on cessationrelated behaviours among young smokers , experimental research conducted with young smokers in other jurisdictions has suggested that reducing branding and increasing warning size could result in cessationrelated behaviours and cognitions . 18 , 24 As international momentum for tobacco plain packaging increases , 25 , 26 and the tobacco industry continues to argue that ' there is no evidence to suggest that the plain packaging of tobacco products will be effective in discouraging young people to smoke ', 27 understanding the impact of plain packaging on youth is critical . In Australia , the age of tobacco use initiation is increasing from early adolescence into young adulthood , 28 a phenomenon also observed in New Zealand . 29 It is therefore prudent to monitor the impact of plain packaging on young adults as well as adolescents . Extending research conducted to date on the impact of the new packs on youth in relation to the expected mechanisms of change , 10 , 11 the current study aimed to assess , among adolescents and young adults 1 attitudes towards plain packaging , 2 the impact of plain packaging on never and former smokers ' likelihood of smoking in the future , 3 smokers ' quittingrelated responses to plain packaging and 4 social denormalisation responses among young smokers . Though there have been documented increases in support for plain packaging among adult smokers using plain packs , 22 , 30 changes in adolescents ' and young adults ' attitudes or responses towards plain packaging from preimplementation to postimplementation are , as yet , unexplored . In this study , we compare responses assessed 8 months after the full implementation of the packaging changes with anticipated responses measured in the years prior to implementation .