Plain tobacco packaging an important role in encouraging young people to try cigarettes. First impressions in Australia indicated that smokers feel that cigarettes taste worse in plain packaging – an unexpected side effect. In addition, evidence from quantitative studies, qualitative research and the internal documents of the tobacco industry consistently identify packaging as an important part of tobacco promotion. Plain packaging can change people's attitudes towards smoking and may help reduce the prevalence of smoking, including among minors, and increase attempts to quit. Studies comparing existing branded cigarette packs with plain cardboard packs bearing the name and number of cigarettes in small standard
Tobacco packaging warning messages anti-smoking campaigns by placing the new warnings on packaging violates the companies' free speech rights. Additionally, R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard, Commonwealth Brands Inc., Liggett Group LLC and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc. claimed that the graphic labels are an unconstitutional way of forcing tobacco companies to engage in anti-smoking advocacy on the government's behalf. A First Amendment lawyer, Floyd Abrams, represented the tobacco companies in the case, contending that requiring graphic warning labels on a lawful product cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. The Association of National Advertisers and the American Advertising Federation also filed a brief in the suit, arguing that