Australia Wins Approval for World’s First Plain-Pack Tobacco

slimvictor

slimvictor

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
6,477
Location
"Darkness cannot be dissipated with more darkness.
A world-first Australian law requiring tobacco companies to sell cigarettes in uniform packaging was upheld by the nation’s top court, a ruling that may set a precedent for other countries to follow.

The High Court dismissed today claims by Japan Tobacco Inc., British American Tobacco Plc, Philip Morris International Inc. and Imperial Tobacco Group Plc that the Australian government illegally seized their intellectual property by prohibiting the display of trademarks on packs. The judges gave no reasons for the majority decision and said they would be published later.

The ruling is a victory for a government faced with A$31.5 billion ($33 billion) in annual health costs from smoking, a habit it estimates killed 900,000 Australians over six decades. The decision means the nation will become the first country to introduce plain cigarette packs when the law takes effect Dec. 1, with governments in Europe, Canada and New Zealand indicating interest in implementing similar legislation.

“The tobacco industry has battled furiously to prevent Australia from becoming the first country in the world to implement plain packaging,” Rob Cunningham, a senior policy analyst at the Canadian Cancer Society in Ottawa, said by e-mail today. “The industry knows that plain packaging is a massive threat and that if Australia implements plain packaging then other countries are sure to follow.”

The Australian law requires cigarettes to be sold with no company logos and with the same font for all brands on a dark brown background. Graphic health warnings will cover 90 percent of the back of the package and 70 percent of the front.

cont at
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloo...a-Wins-Approval-for-World-s-First-3788777.php
 
Reminds me of Thank You For Smoking. Why even bother with all this? Everybody already knows that cigarettes = death. Adding a few new "this shit is awful for you" stickers isn't going to change anybody's mind about smoking.
 
Tobacco companies seem to think it will, or they wouldn't bother fighting it.
 
funny though, the tobacco companies, by fighting this so hard, are essentially admitting that their products are essentially indistinguishable from their competitors. any legitimate competition, imo, would simply improve the product. packaging and marketing aren't the actual product.
 
Someone's gonna be making a fair amount of money off of selling tin cigarette holders with no graphic health warning, but instead the actual logo of various popular brands (most likely used without permission) and some random girl with a nice rack on the back.
 
I thought they meant cigarettes must be plain tobacco only no additives. That would be a great step.
 
Philip Pattemore: No more Mr Nice Guy, now it's war

Have you noticed how the tobacco industry's public relations tactics have recently changed?

Traditionally they have supported what seem to be community-promoting initiatives, such as Keep New Zealand Beautiful and the Life Education Trust's, I've Got the Power (a school programme teaching responsible decision-making).

In these, there's an emphasis on "personal responsibility" and choice, aimed at subtly undermining interpersonal responsibility, in particular the public health implications of second- and third-hand smoking.

Recent events in Australia show, however, that Big Tobacco has given up trying to persuade us how much it cares, and is quite willing instead to use undisguised strong-arm tactics to dissuade governments from passing smokefree legislation. The message now is: "No more Mr Nice Guy. We are bigger than you and we'll rough you up if you continue to threaten our interests."

There have been three legal challenges to the Australian legislation brought by, or with legal support from, the tobacco industry.


The impression is that such processes are intended to frighten other countries from proceeding with strong smokefree legislation. In the first action, four tobacco companies challenged the plain-packaging law on the basis that it was unconstitutional. This is the action that has just been rejected by the Australian High Court.

The second action, that plain packaging breaches intellectual property rights and poses a technical barrier to trade, has been brought by Ukraine, Honduras, the Dominican Republic and others, through the World Trade Organisation, with legal support from tobacco companies.

The third action is potentially more worrisome. Philip Morris has sued the Australian government for the damage it says plain packaging will do to its branding and intellectual property rights.

It has used its Asian office, and a trade agreement between Hong Kong and Australia to challenge the legislation under international law.

In this latter case, three people (one nominated by the government, one by Philip Morris and one appointed by the domestic courts), will decide, in secret, whether the Australian government's democratic power to legislate to protect the health of its citizens is subordinate to its obligations under the trade agreement.

The Australian government has strong legal arguments in its favour, but defending against this challenge is likely to cost it significantly - perhaps more than its tobacco control budget.

Not only does this process erode the democratic powers of governments, but the behind-doors arbitration flies in the face of the natural-justice principles enshrined in Western law - justice must be seen to be done. Powerful industries like Big Tobacco can and will attempt to use these secret negotiations to frighten governments from key tobacco-control legislation.

Could this happen in New Zealand? Until now, our trade agreements have not included provisions for suing the government for discrimination against intellectual property rights. But that might be about to change, under pressure from the United States.

Negotiations between the US, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru and Vietnam are under way to forge the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA).

Outside Cabinet, this is known about only through leaked documents because the negotiations are secret. Only a select few know whether the TPPA will include strong protections for intellectual property rights, or whether there will be exemptions for public health legislation.

Many may be sighing in relief at the recent Australian High Court decision, but the battle is far from over. Philip Morris says legal questions have not been fully explored and has vowed it will ultimately prevail over plain-packaging restrictions.

We can expect more legal action and strong-arm tactics, and even governments can struggle to take on the financial might of Big Tobacco in the courts.

Our government has made a very strong commitment to a smokefree Aotearoa by 2025 with a laid-out plan of progressive smokefree legislation. Already, smoking rates have fallen below 20 per cent and are continuing to fall in all age groups. The tobacco industry's newfound aggression indicates this legislation is and will be effective at reducing smoking and its health effects.

Should you be concerned that the government might be negotiating away its democratically appointed powers behind closed doors and putting public health policy at risk? You should be very concerned. Your health should not be for sale.

Philip Pattemore BHB, MB, ChB, MD, FRACP is associate professor of paediatrics at the University of Otago's Christchurch campus.

With reader comments -

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10828228
 
ro4eva said:
Someone's gonna be making a fair amount of money off of selling tin cigarette holders with no graphic health warning, but instead the actual logo of various popular brands (most likely used without permission) and some random girl with a nice rack on the back.
Click to expand...

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised to see the 'cigarette case' make a comeback when these laws go through. Which is fine with me, they can actually look pretty cool and a metal case means I won't crush my smokes on a messy night out like always :|

I'm only an occasional smoker but I support the new law, people have the right to choose to smoke, but if this means less people are going to make that choice (and I'm fairly sure studies have shown that it does make a difference in how many people pick up smoking) then that's overall a better move for the health of the country. I mean if they legalized say, heroin (which imo they should), or ecstasy, we wouldn't want brand names and advertising for those either.

The whole point of branding is to encourage use, and I think the government is right to prevent that.
 
Who in the entire fucking world does not know by now that ciggs are sort of bad for you? Really if you think smoking is good for you ya may have bigger problems then being addicted to cigarettes.
 
paranoid android said:
Who in the entire fucking world does not know by now that ciggs are sort of bad for you? Really if you think smoking is good for you ya may have bigger problems then being addicted to cigarettes.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything? Obviously everyone knows smoking is bad for you at this stage (although, like all addictions, nobody takes it up thinking they'll suffer the consequences).
 
Crankinit said:
Yeah I wouldn't be surprised to see the 'cigarette case' make a comeback when these laws go through. Which is fine with me, they can actually look pretty cool and a metal case means I won't crush my smokes on a messy night out like always :|
Click to expand...

I know that feel bro.

I mean, its more useless legislation. They should address other more important issues. It seems like the only thing anyone can agree on these days politically, that "drugs are bad, m'kay"
 
In response to Android's post (I'm not trying to be a smartass, I know this is one of them rather odd dumbass parents scenario, I just felt like I should tell everyone cuz I like to gossip about random YT videos).

I saw this 2 year old obese Chinese kid on YouTube chain-smoking. The translation wasn't that great but apparently his parents say that he won't stop crying bloody murder if they don't give him any tobacco, so they caved in and now he's up to 2 packs a day.

I gotta find that video again. I didn't know whether to laugh or try to ram my fist through my monitor in hopes that I sock the dad for having his child's best interests at heart.
 
@^ its plain block olive green i think, with plain font of the brand and then theres still cancer ads on the pack

i think this is a step in the right direction, even though you might say marketing doesnt effect your decisions it does on a subconscious level, to me all taylor cigs taste like chemical ass
 
I think this is kinda cool because I think the Tobacco corporations are full of scumbags, but I don't necessarily agree with it. I think tobacco education has done a pretty decent job of keeping kids off of cigarettes and informing the public of the terrible health risks (despite Big Tobacco's best efforts) that I don't see why something like this would be necessary. It just kinda seems like a "Fuck you" to cigarette companies (which, like I said, is pretty cool) more than a health initiative.
 
I think its great, it just shows that us smokers keep smoking no matter what they do in any country. Many people are smoking less but if i dont want to see this bullshit i can just buy one of those little things where you put the ciggaretes inside....who gives a fuck? we know the dangers, we will smoke if we want to and countrys like this are just wasting tax payers money and theyre time.
 
ro4eva said:
In response to Android's post (I'm not trying to be a smartass, I know this is one of them rather odd dumbass parents scenario, I just felt like I should tell everyone cuz I like to gossip about random YT videos).

I saw this 2 year old obese Chinese kid on YouTube chain-smoking. The translation wasn't that great but apparently his parents say that he won't stop crying bloody murder if they don't give him any tobacco, so they caved in and now he's up to 2 packs a day.

I gotta find that video again. I didn't know whether to laugh or try to ram my fist through my monitor in hopes that I sock the dad for having his child's best interests at heart.
Click to expand...



SHAZAM!

....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2lzvoGGXBc

That video disgusted me when I first saw it several years ago, and still continues to do so. Ugh...




On topic, though, I like this idea (and that's coming from a cigarette smoker). I'm curious to see if there's any noticeable difference in Australia's smokers several years down the road compared to before this "Plain Pack" law is/was put into effect (mainly, the amount of smokers and how loyal they are to name-brands when they can no longer visually tell the difference between different manufacturers' products).

It might be a complete waste of time, effort and money, but you never know....
 
Last edited:
It's probably going to make a difference, it has been going in stages already, with massive price increases (tax) and we have had those graphic ads on each pack for what seems like years now too (a new thread about US possibly being made to have them just got posted), bans upon bans about where you are allowed to smoke, most public places are becoming illegal to smoke in, although as far as I can tell hardly anyone follows these rules and alot of the time there is no one around to enforce such rules anyway.

Seems weird they dont just ban tobacco products outright really, im sure there'd be a massive black market pop up quickly tho if it was fully banned.

Even tho tobacco raises so much in tax for the governments here, the health bill complications seem to be even larger, so i'm not sure what's going to happen. Those huge tobacco companies will fight tooth and nail to keep their products available tho i guess.

It seems odd to me that alcohol isn't getting such a work over as tobacco, i mean they dont have to put graphic ads on their products here I dont think, and it seems as tho drinking alcohol is much more accepted, even tho it causes heaps of health issues also, there's alot of alcohol related violence and it is very addictive also. A bit two faced i rekon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top