Tobacco products and packaging are strategically designed to attract new users, particularly adolescents and young adults. Flavourings such as menthol and fruit capsules, and carefully engineered pack design and pack size offerings, have all played a significant role in encouraging smoking uptake. Research shows these features increase product appeal, mask the harshness of smoke, and reduce perceptions of harm. Packaging has been consistently shown to influence young people's attitudes and behaviours, even in the absence of traditional marketing. In response, Australia has implemented world-leading legislation to restrict these tactics, with the most notable example being the implementation of plain packaging in 2012. From 1 July 2025, all retailers must comply with new national laws that prohibit flavoured tobacco products, including menthol, and flavoured accessories, standardise pack and pouch sizes, and strengthen plain packaging requirements, further limiting tobacco industry avenues for promotion.
5.13.1 Flavoured cigarettes
The proliferation of flavoured brands has been attributed to the tobacco industry’s need to attract and retain young people who smoke within increasingly restrictive regulatory environments.1,2
Analysis of internal tobacco industry documents reveals that companies have deliberately used flavourings to mask the harshness of tobacco smoke and improve palatability of tobacco products. This strategy is particularly important for new tobacco users.3 Studies on the popularity of mainstream flavoured brands in the US (such as those produced by the major tobacco companies RJ Reynolds and Brown & Williamson) have shown that flavoured cigarettes are primarily used by younger people.1 Research has also shown that young people, regardless of smoking status, are more likely to have positive expectations of flavoured cigarettes compared with non-flavoured cigarettes.4 These findings suggest that flavoured products may play a significant role in smoking uptake, particularly by attracting young people who are experimenting with smoking.2
5.13.1.1 Flavour capsules
Flavour capsule cigarettes were reported in 2018 as the fastest growing segment of the combustible cigarette market.5,6 First introduced as water capsules in the mid-1960s by American Tobacco Company,7 and later reappearing on the Japanese market in 2007 as flavoured capsules, these cigarettes feature a crushable capsule embedded in or near the filter which, when squeezed, releases a concentrated flavouring.8
Menthol remains the most common flavour, providing appeal via a cooling, smoothing and anaesthetic effect, that helps to masking the irritating effects of cigarette smoke.8 Other popular flavours include fruit, mint variations and beverage inspired flavours such as green tea and mojito.5 Flavour capsule cigarettes appeal particularly to young people, as they reduce the initial harshness of smoking and may imply reduced health risk.9
In Australia, a 2017 survey of Victorian secondary students (aged 12–17 years) found that 5% of all students, and 29% of students who had ever smoked, reported having used flavour capsule cigarettes.10 Among students who had ever smoked, those who had used flavour capsule cigarettes multiple times were more likely to have smoked in the past month or week, and had stronger intentions to continue smoking in the future compared to those that had never used flavour capsule cigarettes. These students were also more likely to agree that ‘some brands of cigarettes are easier to smoke than others’.10
Research from New Zealand similarly found that flavour capsule cigarettes appealed more strongly to people who do not smoke, or smoke less than daily, compared with people who smoke daily, highlighting their potential to recruit new users.9 A 2021 systematic review examining global data on capsule cigarettes concluded that they were consistently perceived as tasting better, being smoother on the throat, more fun to use, and more attractive than non-capsule alternatives—particularly among non-smokers, susceptible young people, and non-daily users.11
5.13.1.2 Menthol
Menthol flavoured tobacco products are popular among young people. In 2014, more than half (51.7%) of Australian students aged 12 to 17 years old who smoked in the past-month reported smoking a menthol hybrid or dual flavoured cigarette.12
The National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS) 2022–2023 included data on menthol cigarette use for the first time, finding that 31% of people who smoke had used menthol cigarettes in the previous 12 months.13 Use was much more common among young adults, with more than 2 in 5 (45.5%) 18–29-year-olds who currently smoked reporting current use of menthol, compared with 29.1% of 30–59-year-olds and 21.6% of those aged 60 or over.14
The International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC) Youth Tobacco and Vaping Survey examined the use of tobacco and vaping products among young people aged 16-19 in four countries with differing policy environments. The first wave included Canada, England, and the US (2017), with subsequent annual and semi-annual surveys; New Zealand was added in 2023. In 2023, the majority (59%) of young people aged 16-19 who smoked in the US reported usually smoking a menthol brand, much greater than the proportions in other countries—see Figure 5.13.1. Menthol cigarettes are prohibited in Canada and England, although they are allowed in New Zealand.15 In the US, menthol remains legal at the federal level. However, some US states (California and Massachusetts) have enacted their own state-level bans on the sale of menthol cigarettes, and many counties and cities have local laws that ban menthol from retail shelves.16,17
Young people aged 16-19 who smoked were also asked if any of the cigarettes they had smoked in the past 30 days were flavoured to taste like menthol or mint, or had a filter with a flavour capsule. In 2023, more than two-thirds (68%) of young people who smoked in the past 30 days in the US reported having smoked menthol or flavour capsule cigarettes, compared to less than half in each of the other countries—NZ (46%), Canada (45%) and England (45%)—see Figure 5.13.2.15
Internal tobacco industry documents confirm that menthol has played a central role in recruitment and retention strategies targeting young people.18 While adult menthol users prefer stronger levels of menthol sensation, brands with milder levels of menthol appear to be more attractive to adolescent and young adults who smoke,19 and evidence suggests that the industry deliberately adjusted menthol concentrations and introduced new menthol sub-brands to expand market share among younger consumers.19
Flavoured tobacco products, including menthol and flavour capsule cigarettes, are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 10, Section 10.6.4, and Chapter 12, Section 12.6 and 12.7.
5.13.1.3 Banning flavoured tobacco products
As of 1 April 2024, new national legislation prohibits the use of any additives with flavouring properties in tobacco products.20 These changes mean that all flavoured tobacco products are now banned across Australia.
The scope of the ban includes:
- Flavoured capsule cigarettes
- Menthol-flavoured cigarettes
- Flavoured cigarette papers
- Flavoured accessories such as filter tips and flavour cards, which are designed to alter the flavour or aroma of tobacco products.21
These reforms represent a comprehensive national approach to eliminating flavoured tobacco products, which have been shown to increase the appeal of smoking—particularly among young people and those experimenting with tobacco use.
5.13.2 Packaging design that appeals to young people
Although the tobacco industry has repeatedly denied that packaging influences smoking uptake among young people, internal documents and marketing strategies suggest otherwise. Systematic and extensive research has been conducted by tobacco companies to ensure that cigarette packaging appeals to key target demographics, including women and young people.22-25
In the context of increasing restrictions on traditional forms of tobacco advertising and promotion, particularly in countries like Australia, packaging has become a critical communication tool for tobacco companies.25,26 Industry innovations in pack design include strategic use of colour, imagery, and logos; specific typefaces and product descriptors; and variations in pack shape, size, materials, and opening mechanisms.22,27
Evidence from internal tobacco industry documents show that certain pack shapes, such as slim, rounded, oval and booklet shaped packs, have been deliberately engineered to increase appeal among younger audiences.25 A 2009 study in the UK found that children as young as 11 years old were influences by pack design, with many reporting misperceptions about the relative health risks of different brands based on pack appearance and wording. Brands perceived as less harmful were also more likely to be selected as the preferred option if trying smoking.28
See Section 10.6 Trends in products and packaging for a detailed discussion about innovations in product and packaging design.
5.13.2.1 Policies to reduce the appeal of packaging
5.13.2.1.1 Plain packaging
In December 2012, Australia became the first country in the world to implement legislation requiring plain packaging for all tobacco products. The legislation prohibits the use of logos, images, colours, and promotional text on tobacco packaging, allowing only the brand and variant name in a standardised font. It also mandates specific packaging materials, colours, and shapes.29 From 1 April 2024, new Federal laws also restricts the use of appealing brand and variant names.
Plain packaging has been shown to have great effect on reducing the appeal of tobacco packaging for young people and discouraging smoking uptake.30-36
Australian research has assessed the long-term impact of plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings and its effect on adolescents’ tobacco-related perceptions. Tobacco packaging was found to be less appealing to Australian adolescents in 2017 (post plain packaging), than in 2011 (pre plain packaging). The initial positive effects of plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings on young people’s perceptions of cigarette packs was retained, if not enhanced, in the five years since its introduction. Young people were more uncertain about whether, and how, brands differed in harmfulness and addictiveness. The study also reported a significantly higher prevalence of committed non-smokers and a significantly lower prevalence of committed smokers.36
A 2019 systematic review into adolescents’ perceptions of plain packaging and graphic health warnings concluded that the combination of the two measures have successfully increased adolescent awareness of the dangers of tobacco use.35
Similar findings have been observed internationally. In France, a 2019 study was conducted prior to, and one year on from, the introduction of plain packaging examining changes in smoking-related perceptions and behaviours among French adolescents. Results showed an increase in perception of the harmfulness of smoking and a decrease in social acceptance of smoking among young people. The researchers concluded that plain packaging does contribute to changes in smoking norms through decreasing its attractiveness.34
For further detail, see InDepth 11A Packaging as promotion: Evidence for and effects of plain packaging.
5.13.2.1.1 Graphic health warnings
Graphic health warnings (GHWs) were introduced in Australia in 2006, covering 30% of the front and 90% of the back of cigarette packs. They were expanded in 2012 in conjunction with plain packaging reforms, and a new suite of GHWs were implemented in 2025.
There is a growing body of research showing the effectiveness of GHWs for reducing the appeal of tobacco packaging and discouraging the uptake of smoking, especially among young people.37-45 Australian research examining the long-term (2005-2011) response of adolescents to GHWs on cigarette packs has shown that, when novel, there is increased cognitive processing of GHWs among adolescents regardless of smoking status. However, this effect diminished after five years. Frequent refreshment of messages and images is needed to maintain novelty.40
A 2019 systematic review of experimental studies examining the impact of GHWs on tobacco packaging for young people found GHWs on tobacco products to be effective across a wide range of outcomes, including eliciting greater attention, stronger cognitive reactions (thinking about harms) and negative affective reactions (e.g. fear, disgust), more negative pack attitudes and smoking attitudes, and increased intentions to not use tobacco products. These results suggest that GHWs are vital in communicating health risks of tobacco use and potentially moving young people away from initiating tobacco use, or towards quitting.45
Additional research has shown that GHWs can increase inhibitory control in adolescents—that is, the ability to regulate and suppress behavioural impulses. Larger GHWs (e.g., 60% coverage compared to 30%) have been found to elicit stronger inhibitory responses.46
For a detailed discussion on GHWs and young people, see InDepth 12A.3.7 Effects of health warnings on young people.
5.13.3 The role of pack sizes in promoting uptake
Packaging has also been altered to accommodate different quantities of cigarettes, with smaller packs being particularly appealing to young people. The tobacco industry has been shown to target new users and younger users through small pack size offerings, in both factory made packs and roll-your-own (RYO) pouch sizes. These smaller packs cater to lower consumption rates among young or novice users, align with a preference for lower per-pack costs, and are easier to conceal.47,48
In 1985 and early 1986, Philip Morris launched its popular brands Alpine and Peter Jackson in packs of 15. Dubbed ‘kiddie packs’ by health advocates, the cost of small packs was about half the price of other larger pack sizes at the time. South Australian research conducted soon after their introduction showed that the smaller packets were especially popular among young teenagers who smoked.49
International research further confirmed these findings with a systematic review concluding that teenagers who smoked were more likely to buy kiddie packs than adults who smoked, and that such packaging may increase impulse purchasing among both young people and adults.50
Although cigarette packs smaller than 20 sticks were later prohibited in Australia, tobacco companies continued to explore ways to present cigarettes in appealing formats. In 2006, British American Tobacco Australia (BATA) released a ‘splittable’ pack consisting of 20 cigarettes packaged in a format that could be separated into two smaller packets along a perforated line, with dimensions comparable to an iPod.51 Following complaints from health advocacy groups, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) initiated legal action, and later that year, the Federal Court of Australia upheld an injunction requiring BATA to cease sales of the packs.51
A 2019 study revealed that the tobacco industry strategically adapted its marketing of roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco products in Australia during the 2010s to maintain appeal and drive uptake, particularly among new and younger users. By introducing progressively smaller pouch sizes—some as small as 12.5g, vs. the typical 30g or 50g—the industry was able to mitigate the impact of tax increases in Australia during this time by ensuring at least one product remained available at a low upfront cost, thereby sustaining affordability for price-sensitive consumers. These smaller packs were able to serve as low-commitment entry points into smoking, particularly for young people.47
See also, Section 10.6.1.1 Conveying value for money through the pack.
5.13.3.1 Mandating pack and pouch sizes
From 1 April 2024, new Federal laws require cigarettes to be sold in packs of 20 only.52 Similarly, loose tobacco must be sold only in 30 gram packs.52 These new laws also narrow the allowable dimensions of cigarette packs,53 and standardise the dimensions of cigarettes,54 in order to further limit the use of pack size as a promotional tool.
For information on regulation of packaging and labelling see Section 12.9.
For regulatory information on tobacco design and features see InDepth 12B.
5.13.4 Toys and confectionery that resemble tobacco
5.13.4.1 Confectionery imitation cigarettes
Chocolate, sugar and bubblegum sticks made to look like cigarettes and cigars have been sold for many decades, often in packaging closely resembling that of real tobacco products.55 Probably the most widely recognised Australian confectionery cigarettes were ‘Fags’: white sugar sticks with one tip dyed red to simulate a lit cigarette. The cigarette-shaped lollies sold as Fags in Australia are still available for purchase, however the confectionary product was rebranded from ‘Fags’ to ‘Fads’. The red tip which previously appeared on the sugar sticks was also removed.
Research has shown that having young children playing with the cigarette-like lollies in facsimile brand packaging is beneficial for tobacco manufacturers as it promotes smoking uptake.55-57 Although the tobacco companies publicly distanced themselves from confectionery cigarettes from the 1960s, they failed to pursue trademark infringements by confectionery companies.55
Research from the US in the 1990s found that children who bought confectionery cigarettes were almost four times more likely to have tried real cigarettes. This effect remained significant after parental smoking status was taken into consideration. Children liked confectionery cigarettes and tended to see them as illicit or mature pleasures, and to use them as props to imitate smoking behaviour.57 Research from the US has shown that adults who used confectionery cigarettes in childhood were about twice as likely to take up smoking than adults who did not consume the lollies.56
Confectionery cigarettes are no longer legally sold in Australia, however they remain available in some parts of the world,58 and are widely available for purchase online across the US.59 In a number of states and territories in Australia, specific laws prohibit the sale of products that are designed to resemble tobacco products.i In addition, under Federal advertising laws that commenced 1 April 2024, the sale or display of confectionery cigarettes amounts to a ‘tobacco advertisement’, and is therefore prohibited across Australia.60
5.13.4.2 Toys and other non-edible children’s products that resemble tobacco
Toys (and other products) designed to resemble tobacco products, similar to confectionery tobacco, appears to be prohibited under Federal advertising laws, whereby the sale or display of such products amounts to a ‘tobacco advertisement’.60
Under Commonwealth tobacco control law, novelty cigarette lighters that appeal to children are banned, as are novelty cigarettes that include hydrated magnesium silicate—an ingredient deemed as posing health risks to the users including poisoning or internal injuries.61,62
There is a lack of research on toy tobacco products and the effects on smoking uptake, however, some studies have shown children’s willingness to mimic smoking behaviour when given toy cigarettes, especially when they have role models who smoke at home. In a 2005 qualitative observational study,63 children aged 2–6 years old were invited to shop in a miniature grocery store stocked with play items (including imitation toy cigarette packs) and then role-play at home with dolls. Strikingly, about one-quarter of the children ‘bought’ toy cigarettes for their play. The tendency was far higher among children with parents who smoked—kids with at least one parent who smoked were four times more likely to select cigarettes than those with parents who did not smoke.63 A similar study from the Netherlands in 201064 had children aged 4–8 years old engage in a pretend dinner party with toys including a pack of imitation toy cigarettes laid out on the table. Over one-third (37%) of the children spontaneously imitated smoking (pretending to take at least one ‘puff’ during play). Importantly, the children’s explicit attitudes—i.e. whether they said smoking is ‘bad’ or ‘good’—did not correlate with pretend smoking. This indicated, the authors argued, that even children who know smoking is unhealthy may still mimic it in play if it is part of their observed environment. In a follow up study,65 the same researchers examined how children’s smoking play could affect peers. In that experiment, children were paired in a play setting. Results showed children of parents who smoked were more likely not only to pretend smoke themselves but also to offer a ‘cigarette’ to a peer during play, as reflected in the title ‘One cigarette for you and one for me’.65
While there is no research showing an association between early imaginative play using toy cigarettes and later smoking uptake, it could be theorised that access to toy tobacco products plays a part in the normalisation of smoking, making tobacco use seem like a harmless or even desirable adult activity.
5.13.5 Other products that appeal to young people
E-cigarettes
For information on the use and appeal of electronic cigarettes for young people see Chapter 18 E-cigarettes and other alternative nicotine products.
Waterpipes
Alternative tobacco product use, such as waterpipes, otherwise known as hookah or shisha, is popular among adolescents in Western countries.66 Waterpipe smoking is particularly appealing to young people as they are used in social gatherings, come in various flavours, and can be used to perform smoke tricks.67 Use of waterpipe has been shown to be a novel risk factor for people who have never smoked to initiate combustible cigarette smoking as well as a predictor of subsequent initiation of other tobacco products and e-cigarettes among young people.68,69 Research has found adolescents and young adults underestimate and discount the long-term risks associated with waterpipe use.67
For information on waterpipe tobacco see Chapter 12, Section 12.2.5, and for information on the health effects of waterpipe smoking see Chapter 3, Section 3.27.5.
5.13.6 Further policy options to reduce product appeal for new users
Reducing nicotine content
One policy option for reducing the appeal of tobacco products is to modify them to be less or non-addictive, for example, by reducing or eliminating nicotine. The idea of regulating the maximum allowable nicotine content in cigarettes was first proposed in the mid-1990s as a means of preventing the transition from experimental smoking to dependence.70,71 While interest in this strategy declined in subsequent years, largely due to concerns about compensatory smoking, there has been renewed attention from researchers since 2010. Concerns that reduced nicotine content cigarettes may lead to compensatory smoking has not been supported by the research to date.72 A major review found that, among an array of benefits to public health of reducing nicotine, the main benefit would be decreasing uptake of regular smoking.73
See InDepth 12C: Reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes for more information.
Banning filter modifications and/or filters
Another potential policy option is to reduce the palatability of tobacco products by modifying or removing filter features—such as banning filters or filter ventilation. The 2012 US Surgeon General’s report74 identified product design as a factor that may contribute to smoking initiation among young people, with features like ventilation making smoke feel less harsh and therefore more appealing to novice users. These design elements align with longstanding tobacco industry strategies to increase the appeal of smoking among young people.
“People want mildness… We also should win more young smokers with mildness.”
— Market research analysis by Philip Morris, 195974
In the Australian context, certain filter variants, such as recessed and firm filters, became more prevalent following the implementation of plain packaging laws, which placed tight restrictions on external branding. Research published in 2020 argued that these filter innovations may undermine the effectiveness of plain packaging legislation in reducing product appeal. The study found that smokers perceived both recessed and firm filter cigarettes as potentially less harmful and more appealing. These variants were seen as filtering out harmful substances, and making the smoking experience cleaner and smoother than standard filters.75
See Section 10.6.7 Filter innovation for more information.
i See, for example, section 106 of the Tobacco Products Control Act 2006 (WA). See also section 163 of the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998 (QLD), and section 36 of the Tobacco and E-cigarette Products Act 1997 (SA).
Related reading
Relevant news and research
A comprehensive compilation of news items and research published on this topic (Last updated April 2025)
Read more on this topic
Test your knowledge
References
1. Lewis MJ and Wackowski O. Dealing with an innovative industry: a look at flavored cigarettes promoted by mainstream brands. American Journal of Public Health, 2006; 96(2):244-51. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16380563
2. Carpenter C, Wayne G, Pauly J, Koh H, and Connolly G. New cigarette brands with flavors that appeal to youth: tobacco marketing strategies. Health Affairs, 2005; 24:1601–10. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16284034
3. FCTC/COP4(10). Partial guidelines for implementation of Articles 9 and 10 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (Regulation of the contents of tobacco products and Regulation of tobacco product disclosures). Geneva: World Health Organization, 2010. Available from: https://fctc.who.int/resources/publications/m/item/regulation-of-the-contents-of-tobacco-products-and-regulation-of-tobacco-product-disclosures.
4. Ashare R, Hawk LJ, Cummings K, O'Connor R, Fix B, et al. Smoking expectancies for flavored and non-flavored cigarettes among college students. Addictive Behaviors, 2007; 32:1252–61. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17030447
5. Moodie C, Thrasher JF, Cho YJ, Barnoya J, and Chaloupka FJ. Flavour capsule cigarettes continue to experience strong global growth. Tobacco Control, 2019; 28(5):595-6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30368482
6. Haggart K, Hoek J, and Blank ML. Flavour Capsule Variants' Performance in a "Dark Market": Implications for Standardised Packaging. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 2018. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30060215
7. Thrasher JF, Abad-Vivero EN, Moodie C, O'Connor RJ, Hammond D, et al. Cigarette brands with flavour capsules in the filter: trends in use and brand perceptions among smokers in the USA, Mexico and Australia, 2012–2014. Tobacco Control, 2016; 25(3):275–83. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/25/3/275.abstract
8. Emond JA, Soneji S, Brunette MF, and Sargent JD. Flavour capsule cigarette use among US adult cigarette smokers. Tobacco Control, 2018; 27(6):650-5. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29363609
9. Hoek J, Gendall P, Eckert C, Louviere J, Blank ML, et al. Young adult susceptible non-smokers' and smokers' responses to capsule cigarettes. Tobacco Control, 2019; 28(5):498-505. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30282774
10. Scully M, Wakefield M, Scollo M, Durkin S, and White V. Prevalence and correlates of flavour capsule cigarette use among Australian adolescents. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 2022; 33(3):920-5. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34957625
11. Kyriakos CN, Zatoński MZ, and Filippidis FT. Flavour capsule cigarette use and perceptions: a systematic review. Tobacco Control, 2021; 32(e1):e83-e94. Available from: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/32/e1/e83.full.pdf
12. White V and Williams T. Australian secondary school students’ use of tobacco, alcohol, and over-the-counter and illicit substances in 2014. Canberra: Australian Department of Health, Tobacco Control Taskforce, 2016. Available from: https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/secondary-school-students-use-of-tobacco-alcohol-and-other-drugs-in-2014.pdf.
13. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2022–2023. Canberra: AIHW, 2024. Available from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/illicit-use-of-drugs/national-drug-strategy-household-survey.
14. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. National Drug Strategy Household Survey, 2022-2023. ADA Dataverse. Canberra: AIHW, 2024. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26193/U6LY7H.
15. Hammond D, Reid JL, Burkhalter R, and D’mello K. Trends in smoking and vaping among young people: findings from the ITC Youth & Young Adult Tobacco and Vaping Survey, 2017-2023. University of Waterloo, 2024. Available from: https://davidhammond.ca/projects/tobacco-vaping/itc-youth-tobacco-ecig/.
16. Bach L. States & localities that have restricted the sale of flavored tobacco products. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 2023. Last update: Viewed Available from: https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/assets/factsheets/0398.pdf.
17. Crosby K. White House Delay in Issuing Final Menthol and Flavored Cigar Rules Represents Huge Loss for Public Health, Social Justice, 2024, Truth Initiative. Available from: https://truthinitiative.org/press/press-release/white-house-delay-issuing-final-menthol-and-flavored-cigar-rules-represents.
18. van der Eijk Y, Lee JK, and P ML. How Menthol Is Key to the Tobacco Industry's Strategy of Recruiting and Retaining Young Smokers in Singapore. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2019; 64(3):347-54. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30392860
19. Kreslake JM, Wayne GF, Alpert HR, Koh HK, and Connolly GN. Tobacco industry control of menthol in cigarettes and targeting of adolescents and young adults. American Journal of Public Health, 2008; 98(9):1685-92. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18633084
20. Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023 (Cth), section 87. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2023A00118/asmade/text.
21. Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023 (Cth), section 88. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2023A00118/asmade/text.
22. Wakefield M, Morley C, and Horan J. The cigarette pack as image: new evidence from tobacco industry documents. Tobacco Control, 2002; 11:i73–80. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/11/suppl_1/i73.pdf
23. Hammond D, Doxey J, Daniel S, and Bansal-Travers M. Impact of female-oriented cigarette packaging in the United States. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 2011; 13(7):579-88. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21486994
24. Doxey J and Hammond D. Deadly in pink: the impact of cigarette packaging among young women. Tobacco Control, 2011; 20(5):353–60. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/5/353.short
25. Kotnowski K and Hammond D. The impact of cigarette pack shape, size and opening: evidence from tobacco company documents. Addiction, 2013; 108(9):1658-68. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23600674
26. Moodie C and Hastings GB. Making the pack the hero, tobacco industry response to marketing restrictions in the UK: findings from a long-term audit. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 2011; 9(1):24–38. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11469-009-9247-8
27. Hammond D. "Plain packaging" regulations for tobacco products: the impact of standardizing the color and design of cigarette packs. Salud Publica de Mexico, 2010; 52 Suppl 2(suppl. 2):S226-32. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21243193
28. Hammond D and Parkinson C. The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk. Joural of Public Health (Oxf), 2009; 31(3):345-53. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19636066
29. World Health Organization. Plain packaging: Evidence, design and implementation. WHO, 2016. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565226.
30. Scheffels J and Lund I. The impact of cigarette branding and plain packaging on perceptions of product appeal and risk among young adults in Norway: A between-subjects experimental survey. BMJ Open, 2013; 3(12):e003732. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24309171
31. Moodie C, Bauld L, Ford A, and Mackintosh AM. Young women smokers' response to using plain cigarette packaging: qualitative findings from a naturalistic study. BMC Public Health, 2014; 14:812. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25100245
32. White V, Williams T, and Wakefield M. Has the introduction of plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings changed adolescents' perceptions of cigarette packs and brands? Tobacco Control, 2015; 24(Suppl 2):ii42-ii9. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28407611
33. Dunlop S, Perez D, Dessaix A, and Currow D. Australia's plain tobacco packs: anticipated and actual responses among adolescents and young adults 2010-2013. Tobacco Control, 2016. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27852891
34. El-Khoury Lesueur F, Bolze C, Gomajee R, White V, Melchior M, et al. Plain tobacco packaging, increased graphic health warnings and adolescents' perceptions and initiation of smoking: DePICT, a French nationwide study. Tobacco Control, 2019; 28(e1):e31–e6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30409812
35. Drovandi A, Teague PA, Glass B, and Malau-Aduli B. A systematic review of the perceptions of adolescents on graphic health warnings and plain packaging of cigarettes. Systematic Reviews, 2019; 8(1):25. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30654833
36. White VM, Guerin N, Williams T, and Wakefield MA. Long-term impact of plain packaging of cigarettes with larger graphic health warnings: findings from cross-sectional surveys of Australian adolescents between 2011 and 2017. 2019; 28(e1):e77–e84. Available from: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/28/e1/e77.full.pdf
37. White V, Webster B, and Wakefield M. Do graphic health warning labels have an impact on adolescents' smoking-related beliefs and behaviours? Addiction, 2008; 103(9):1562–71. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18783508
38. Shanahan P and Elliott D. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the graphic health warnings on tobacco product packaging 2008. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 2009. Available from: http://webarchive.nla.gov.au/gov/20140801094931/http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/phd-tobacco-eval-graphic-health-warnings-exec-sum.
39. Blanton H, Snyder LB, Strauts E, and Larson JG. Effect of graphic cigarette warnings on smoking intentions in young adults. PLoS ONE, 2014; 9(5):e96315. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24806481
40. White V, Bariola E, Faulkner A, Coomber K, and Wakefield M. Graphic health warnings on cigarette packs: How long before the effects on adolescents wear out? Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 2015; 17(7):776-83. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25239958
41. Noar SM, Hall MG, Francis DB, Ribisl KM, Pepper JK, et al. Pictorial cigarette pack warnings: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Tobacco Control, 2016; 25(3):341-54. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25948713
42. Drovandi A, Teague PA, Glass B, and Malau-Aduli B. Australian School Student Perceptions of Effective Anti-tobacco Health Warnings. Front Public Health, 2018; 6:297. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30386764
43. Essence Communications. Evaluation of effectiveness of graphic health warnings on tobacco product packaging: An Evaluation Report. Prepared for the Department of Health, 2018. Available from: https://beta.health.gov.au/resources/publications/evaluation-of-effectiveness-of-graphic-health-warnings-on-tobacco-product-packaging.
44. Niederdeppe J, Kemp D, Jesch E, Scolere L, Greiner Safi A, et al. Using graphic warning labels to counter effects of social cues and brand imagery in cigarette advertising. Health Education Research, 2019; 34(1):38-49. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30358853
45. Francis DB, Mason N, Ross JC, and Noar SM. Impact of tobacco-pack pictorial warnings on youth and young adults: A systematic review of experimental studies. Tobacco Induced Diseases, 2019; 17:41. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31516484
46. Gantiva C, Sotaquira M, Hernandez-Mateus V, Restrepo-Garcia A, and Camacho K. Stop! Graphic Health Warnings Enhance Inhibitory Control in Adolescents: An ERP Study. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 2020. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33289037
47. Bayly M, Scollo MM, and Wakefield MA. Who uses rollies? Trends in product offerings, price and use of roll-your-own tobacco in Australia. Tobacco Control, 2019; 28(3):317-24. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30030409
48. Persoskie A, Donaldson EA, and Ryant C. How tobacco companies have used package quantity for consumer targeting. Tobacco Control, 2018. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29853560
49. Wilson DH, Wakefield MA, Esterman A, and Baker CC. 15's: they fit in everywhere--especially the school bag: a survey of purchases of packets of 15 cigarettes by 14 and 15 year olds in South Australia. Community Health Studies, 1987; 11(suppl.1):i16–20. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3495401
50. Mat Rifin H, Jane Ling MY, Robert Lourdes TG, Saminathan TA, Rodzlan Hasani WS, et al. Small/Kiddie Cigarette Packaging Size and Its Impact on Smoking: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2022; 19(19). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36231349/
51. Chapman S. Australia: British American Tobacco 'addresses' youth smoking. Tobacco Control, 2007; 16(1):2–3. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/16/1/2-a
52. Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023 (Cth), section 76. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2023A00118/asmade/text.
53. Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023 (Cth), section 74. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2023A00118/asmade/text.
54. Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023 (Cth), section 86. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2023A00118/asmade/text
55. Klein JD and Clair SS. Do candy cigarettes encourage young people to smoke? BMJ, 2000; 321(7257):362-5. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10926600
56. Klein J, Thomas R, and Sutter E. History of childhood candy cigarette use is associated with tobacco smoking by adults. Preventive Medicine, 2007; 45(1):26–30. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17532370
57. Klein J, Forehand B, Oliveri J, Patterson C, Kupersmidt J, et al. Candy cigarettes: do they encourage children's smoking? Pediatrics, 1992; 88:27–31. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1728016
58. Ferriman A. Chocolate cigarettes "recruit" children to smoking. BMJ, 2003; 326(7384):302. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12574033
59. Bearman DS, Sheeran TJ, Kowitt SD, Clark SA, Klein JD, et al. Analysis of Candy Tobacco Imitation Products Available Online in the United States. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 2024. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38584415
60. Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023 (Cth), sections 19 and 20. . Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2023A00118/asmade/text.
61. Rooney T, Okninski M, Morphett K, Richards B, and Gartner C. Protecting children from tobacco products in retail environments: A review of Australian tobacco control laws. Drug and Alcohol Review, 2025. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40057945
62. No authors listed. Novelty cigarettes ban. ACCC Product Safety, 2025. Available from: https://www.productsafety.gov.au/business/find-banned-products/novelty-cigarettes-ban
63. Dalton M, Bernhardt A, Gibson J, JD S, Beach M, et al. Use of cigarettes and alcohol by preschoolers while role-playing as adults. 'Honey, have some smokes'. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 2005; 159:854–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16143745
64. de Leeuw R, Engels RC, and Scholte RH. Parental smoking and pretend smoking in young children. Tobacco Control, 2010; 19(3):201–5. Available from: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/19/3/201.full.pdf
65. de Leeuw R, Verhagen M, de Wit C, Scholte R, and Engels R. 'One cigarette for you and one for me': children of smoking and non-smoking parents during pretend play. Tobacco Control, 2011; 20(5):344–8. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2011/02/18/tc.2010.039909.full
66. Penzes M, Foley KL, Balazs P, and Urban R. Patterns of alternative tobacco product experimentation among ever smoker adolescents. Central European Journal of Public Health, 2019; 27(1):3-9. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30927390
67. Cornacchione J, Wagoner KG, Wiseman KD, Kelley D, Noar SM, et al. Adolescent and Young Adult Perceptions of Hookah and Little Cigars/Cigarillos: Implications for Risk Messages. Journal of Health Communication, 2016; 21(7):818-25. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27337629
68. Case KR, Creamer MR, Cooper MR, Loukas A, and Perry CL. Hookah use as a predictor of other tobacco product use: A longitudinal analysis of Texas college students. Addictive Behaviors, 2018; 87:131-7. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30016762
69. Veeranki SP, Alzyoud S, Kheirallah KA, and Pbert L. Waterpipe Use and Susceptibility to Cigarette Smoking Among Never-Smoking Youth. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2015; 49(4):502-11. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26143951
70. Douglas C. Taking aim at the bull’s-eye: the nicotine in tobacco products. Tobacco Control, 1998; 7(3):215-8. Available from: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/7/3/215.full.pdf
71. Kessler D, Natanblut S, Wilkenfeld J, Lorraine C, Mayl S, et al. Nicotine addiction: a pediatric disease. Journal of Pediatrics, 1997; 130(4):518–24. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9108846
72. Colby SM, Cassidy RN, Denlinger-Apte R, Smith TT, Pacek LR, et al. Anticipated Effects of Nicotine Reduction on Youth Smoking Initiation and Maintenance. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 2019; 21(Suppl 1):S46–S8. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31867638
73. Donny EC and White CM. A review of the evidence on cigarettes with reduced addictiveness potential. International Journal of Drug Policy, 2022; 99:103436. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34535366
74. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2012. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK99237/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK99237.pdf.
75. Wakefield MA, Dunstone K, Brennan E, Vittiglia A, Scollo M, et al. Australian smokers' experiences and perceptions of recessed and firm filter cigarettes. Tobacco Control, 2021; 30(6):660-7. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33115960